[mpefritz]

I know the declarer is allowed full disclosure of meanings from calls and non-calls. However, it must be difficult for a declarer to fully grasp all that information.

Do pairs that have a highly detailed bidding system then have an advantage because their positive and negative inferences on defense are greater?

fritz

[luis]

Quote

I know the declarer is allowed full disclosure of meanings from calls and non-calls. However, it must be difficult for a declarer to fully grasp all that information.

Do pairs that have a highly detailed bidding system then have an advantage because their positive and negative inferences on defense are greater?

fritz

Yes indeed and pairs playing some complex 2 level openings and other gadgets have an advantage over other pairs because they are "used" to situations arising from that openings or special bids while their opponents are not. Opener knows what his pd is expected to do with different holdings and thats an advantage since their opponents don't know that.
While I love complex systems I recon that this is unfair advantage and the laws should do something about it. You can use relays, asking bids and all the tools you want in your constructive bidding for your own profit, but methods designed just to disrrupt your opponent's bidding are a different thing.

[luke warm]

whether the game is bridge, chess, or even tiddly winks, there is a *huge* difference between the expert and even the advanced player (real experts, not those who mark themselves as such at BBO and elsewhere)... i'm not talking about systemic differences (though those obviously exist), i'm talking about skill differences..

in chess, the openings and defenses to openings have been around for eons.. sure, occasionally there will be a new wrinkle added, but generally it isn't the "system" (ie, opening) one uses that wins, it's how one plays the game

to hint that the true expert makes anywhere near the number of errors the average "advanced" player makes is to greatly simplify what's going on, and is frankly an affront to talent and skill (imho)

technique can be learned... systems can be learned.. once learned, however, the differences between players is called talent.. the true expert is simply more talented, period

as slim says, them's my 10 cents, my 2 cents is free

[hrothgar]

Quote

Do pairs that have a highly detailed bidding system then have an advantage because their positive and negative inferences on defense are greater?

fritz

Pairs that devote extra effort to the game are rewarded for their efforts.
This is normally considered to be a "good" thing.

[hrothgar]

Yes indeed and pairs playing some complex 2 level openings and other gadgets have an advantage over other pairs because they are "used" to situations arising from that openings or special bids while their opponents are not. Opener knows what his pd is expected to do with different holdings and thats an advantage since their opponents don't know that.
While I love complex systems I recon that this is unfair advantage and the laws should do something about it. You can use relays, asking bids and all the tools you want in your constructive bidding for your own profit, but methods designed just to disrrupt your opponent's bidding are a different thing.


There are two major problems with Luis's post.

As Luis notes, players who are using non-standard methods will have an advantage during auction branches where they have more familiarity than the opponents. However, this will occur any time that players are adopting methods that deviate from the the norm.

Weak NTs versus Strong NT's
4 card majors versus 5 card majors
Precision 1D Openings
"Polish" Club openings

Adopting any of these methods has enormous repercussions on the positive and negative inferences available during the auction. If we really want to adopt Luis's argument about "unfair methods" then we are saying that Acol Pairs should be allowed to mix with players who Prefer Standard American since their is no way that the two groups can compete fairly with one another.

In turn, this brings up a second significant problem. Luis is all for allowing methods that he deems "constructive", but wants to restrict methods that give individuals an unfair advantage. I know from a series of other posts that Luis is running into significant problems with the regulatory authorities in Argentina due to the fact that the Luis constructive methods include a series of non-standard openings. [See Luis's comments on MOSCITO for a complete description of the opening structure in question] At the core, the arguments of all the regulators boils down to "Permit the methods that I like to use, ban the rest of it"

Bridge is a complex game that requires many skills to suceed. Some players are enormously gifted at defense, other are declarer player, and still others are blessed with an innate ability to apply bidding systems effectively. I would argue that adaptability is one, often overlooked skill. Players needs to be able adjust their strategies in the face of imperfect information.

This really isn't all that difficult; Pairs that develop some reasonable "meta-agreements" won't have perfect defenses, but they'll be 90% of the way there. More over, I doubt whether these pairs have anything approaching "optimal" defenses to any of the standard stuff that they encounter.

[luke warm]

what hrothgar says is correct, i just think that the preponderence of artificial methods has had the effect of keeping some from taking up bridge, especially duplicate... even at the average club game, the newcomer can be bewildered by the different systems...

[hrothgar]

Quote

what hrothgar says is correct, i just think that the preponderence of artificial methods has had the effect of keeping some from taking up bridge, especially duplicate... even at the average club game, the newcomer can be bewildered by the different systems...

I don't think that the "artificiality" of methods means all that much to a novice. These people are starting from a completely blank slate and would just as happily learn a system based on two under transfers, canape, or whatever. The "problem" cases are those individuals who have been raises on the one true path to bidding and don't want to be bother by anything that deviates from what they have been taught.

For what its worth, I have always thought that the different Zones need to implement a scheme similar to the following:

Step 1: Select a "standard" bidding system. The bidding system that is selected needs to be a happy compromise between ease of use and effeciency.

Step 2: Rigourously document said bidding. Make sure that there is a well defined description regarding what constitutes standard.

Step 3: Base your education system arround this standard system. Anyone learning bridge from certified teacher will learn the exact same system.

Step 4: Base your alert chart arround the standard system. Bids that correspond to the standard meaning are no alertable. Bids that deviate from the standard meaning are alertable.

Step 5. Stratify your events based on the standard system. Events have two sections. In section A, the only thing that people get to play is standard. In section B, anything goes. Section A should be further sub-divided to include a section for novices.

This is a deliberately "extreme" solution, however, I think that it is the most workable. Players who want a protected playing environment have a protected playing environment. Players who want the freedom to deviate from standard have lots freedom.

What this eliminates is the ridiculous politics surrounding whose methods should be approved and whose should be banned.

[inquiry]

Quote

Step 1: Select a "standard" bidding system. [SNIP] ...

Step 5. Stratify your events based on the standard system.

GACK. Deja Vu all over again....

Been there, done that. It was called Standard American Yellow Card, and they ran SAYC tournments. Got its name because the convention card that you had to use was YELLOW (background) as opposed to white.
The idea was that an "ACBL Standard Yellow Card" game is one where all partnerships agreed to play the system exactly as described by the ACBL. In theory, everyone knew both theirs and their opponents bidding conventions and alerts and director calls during the auction would be a thing of the pass.

I played in a few of these, awful events. Not only was the goal of not having director calls, the number went up as people started complaining about agreements not "legal", about different views of what is on the sayc card, and of course the standard of play was less because good players either refused to play in the events, or they played without their favorite tools with an unfamilar lowest common denominator system. I would rather quit playing bridge than be forced to play serious bridge with SAYC as my "system". I do play it on line and individual events, however. Something to be said for being able to sit down and play with anyone.

The SAYC only events didn't last too long.

[hrothgar]

Hi Ben

I am well versed in the ACBL's history with SAYC, Classic Bridge, and any one of a wide number of other failed attempts to implement these types of systems.

From my perspective, these attempts were badly concieved and poorly implemented. First and foremost, the SAYC events were an attempt at patch a problem that needs to be addressed through comprehensive structural change. As you note, SAYC events and Classic bridge failed. Top players were unwilling to compromise the integrity of their systems. Intermediate players were unwilling to give up their pet gadgets. From my perspective, however, the primary purpose of iplementing this type of system is to provide a safe playing environment for novices.

Furthermore, from what I recall, the SAYC card actually provides a number of different bidding options to player [to be more precise, the SAYC documentation failed to describe a wide number of fairly basic aucitons]. Couple this with the fact that SAYC is a remarkably poorly designed system and you have a recipe for disaster.

As I mentioned earlier, I think that the critical success factor is linking this type of regulatory structure to a well designed educational system.

[luis]

Quote

Hi Ben

I am well versed in the ACBL's history with SAYC, Classic Bridge, and any one of a wide number of other failed attempts to implement these types of systems.

From my perspective, these attempts were badly concieved and poorly implemented. First and foremost, the SAYC events were an attempt at patch a problem that needs to be addressed through comprehensive structural change. As you note, SAYC events and Classic bridge failed. Top players were unwilling to compromise the integrity of their systems. Intermediate players were unwilling to give up their pet gadgets. From my perspective, however, the primary purpose of iplementing this type of system is to provide a safe playing environment for novices.

Furthermore, from what I recall, the SAYC card actually provides a number of different bidding options to player [to be more precise, the SAYC documentation failed to describe a wide number of fairly basic aucitons]. Couple this with the fact that SAYC is a remarkably poorly designed system and you have a recipe for disaster.

As I mentioned earlier, I think that the critical success factor is linking this type of regulatory structure to a well designed educational system.

Maybe the root of all problems is the education of bridge players. 99% of the players learn that there is a "natural" system called (insert your zone flavour here) and then the other systems are "unnatural", "satanic", "evil", "to win", "etc".... If players were told that bidding theory is indeed a part of the game the situation would be completely different.

[fred]

Quote

Quote

what hrothgar says is correct, i just think that the preponderence of artificial methods has had the effect of keeping some from taking up bridge, especially duplicate... even at the average club game, the newcomer can be bewildered by the different systems...

I don't think that the "artificiality" of methods means all that much to a novice. These people are starting from a completely blank slate and would just as happily learn a system based on two under transfers, canape, or whatever.

Have you ever tried teaching someone how to play bridge?

I mean someone other than a fellow-genius at MIT?

Their minds are quickly filled with a lot of confusing and seemingly
arbitrary rules "you need 10 points for that bid", "you need 5
hearts for that bid"... Even teaching new players a "simple"
artificial bid (like Stayman) can be a daunting task.

In my opinion bridge already loses a lot of new players because
the learning curve (at least the way the game is traditionally taught)
is too steep.

Teaching new players an artificial bidding system to start
with would GREATLY worsen these problems in my opinion.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[JRG]

Quote

[...snip...]
Maybe the root of all problems is the education of bridge players. 99% of the players learn that there is a "natural" system called (insert your zone flavour here) and then the other systems are "unnatural", "satanic", "evil", "to win", "etc".... If players were told that bidding theory is indeed a part of the game the situation would be completely different.

Maybe. I'm not sure I agree with your "then the other systems are..." bit though.

I do think education is probably the best answer.

For what it is worth, many years ago, before I had even learnt "Standard American" properly (hmmm - maybe I never did), I learnt a very simple strong club system called "Schenken" (after the famous American player who devised it). It seemed to me and a couple of friends that played it, that it was easier and simpler than "Standard American". Of course, dealing with interference was hard.

Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that I played at one of the largest bridge clubs in North America and the atmosphere at the time was very tolerant of other systems (we eventually moved on to Roman Club and Neapolitan Club somewhat later).

It's strange to think back to that time. A few years ago, my Toronto partner and I started to play a minor variation in our 2/1 system (switching the meanings of 1S & 1NT over a 1H opening) -- turns out we were not allowed to play that at the club level (only in tournament events of some level or other). So we dropped it as it wasn't worth our while to play two different systems (I have enough trouble remembering the one we do play!).

[DrTodd13]

I tried to teach a couple people how to play by starting with
principles and then letting them derive HCP requirements
from that. IMHO, that approach didn't work any better than
the classic "you need 13 points to open" mantra. The situation
may not have a good answer. I don't know how or why anybody
takes the time to get over the learning curve other than hearing
that the game is very cool once you learn it. Maybe the ACBL
can pay some superstars to mention that they play bridge in
interviews. As a culture, we need to deemphasize physical
sports and emphasize mental sports. Would be cool to see a rule
like you had to have at least as many mental sports participants
in each school as you had physical sport participants.

[hrothgar]

I have a fair amount of teaching experience actually. I started out life intending to become an economics professor and spent three years teaching college level Economics and Statistics to unsuspecting undergraduates at Indiana University. While my experience teaching bridge is far more limited, I have introduced a few people to the game. I never taught bridge using an artifical bidding system, however, I will stand by my original statement. I have always felt that real learning requires understanding. Memorizing an enormous number of random/unconnected facts requires real effort. However, if individuals have a logical framework that they can use to structure the information its actually possible to successfully introduce relatively complex topics.

In any case, regarding actually teaching bridge, you might find this surprising but I actually don't bother introducing bidding initially. We always started with a version of "party" bridge that pretty much ignored bidding.

We would deal 13 cards to each player.

Each player would announce how many HCP's he held.
The player with the greatest number of points would declare the hand.
His partner table his hand as dummy.

Declarer would inspect dummy and decide set the contract, chosing between:

A part score contract (1NT, 2M, 3m)
A game contract (3N, 4M, 5m)
A slam

If people enjoyed this verison of the game, we'd then worry about introducing more formal version after a couple months. I "normally" used 5 Weeks to Winning Bridge by Sheinwold as the basis for instruction, though I also experimented with Acol. For whatever reason, I always found it easier to explain the logic behind these systems rather than SAYC. In either case, we'd simply describe the bidding system as a tool to try the same type of evaluations that folks were used to making when partner tabled the dummy.

[irdoz]

Here's my observations on the VUgraph, systems and the never ending argument about complex systems.

I keenly watched the Vugraph for numerous hours and found it a very rewarding experience. I tabulated a lot of the swing boards (gains/losses of more than 6imps) because I was interested to try to make my own judgement about what caused the differences.

My observations would be:

1. Luck plays a big role. A large number of auctions are highly competitive - particularly where both sides have distributional hands. There were at least 15 slam hands I found in highly competitive auctions (bid but not makeable or not bid when cold) that produced large swings where the decision to bid slam can only be made on a guess - and these decisions are (almost) totally independent from any system method.

2. Aggressive preempting at the 3 and 4 level often paid...and again its judgement, evaluation and luck rather than system that seems to be more important in bidding over preempts than system. I didn't see positive swings produced by brown sticker preemptive type 2 level bids - there may have been some but of the 20 matches I reviewed I saw not a one. I did see five swings caused by the method getting the opening side into trouble.

3. In general bidding systems made little difference to the final contract in non-competitive auctions and natural systems did as well as highly artificial ones.

4. There were numbers of swings caused by arrival in different contracts - particularly in competitve auctions. I think two factors operate to produce this difference - one is mainly judgement and guessing and state of the match factors and mostly independent from bidding systems - and the other is indeed system dependent - artificial systems or different methods can induce large differences in competitive auctions that are totally system dependent - and it may be the case that an artificial bid lets the opponents "in" rather than being an aid in finding the right contract.

5. There were three slams I found in non-competitive auctions in the early rounds where only one or two pairs bid them and the system methods were very helpful in finding an otherwise hard to bid slam - but these boards are very rare. Most systems seem to do well at finding the same contracts in non-competitive auctions.

6. Many differences in score were due to difference in card play - the majority of the small swings are definitely due to this (and these do add up)... Again some luck on opening lead plays a large part - I saw numbers of game and slam swings caused by opening leads (although here one might argue that these are skill and judgement -Im not competent enough to judge).


Finally a comment on the interminable argument about complex versus simple systems.

I am one of the few 20-something players at my local bridge club. Of those I know around my age, many of whom are relatively new to the game, a consistent part of their keen interest in the game is an interest in systems and methods.

I love the 'cleverness' of complex relay systems. At the same time I don't like playing against methods I am totally unfamiliar with. I also have taught bridge online (for free!) to retired folk who are returning to the game and who have no interest in grappling with a range of complex system methods. It does not mean they don't love the game.

I mention these two groups because of how different they are and what motivates their interest. There are and always will be a range of newcomers, with a range of skills and a range of interests.

The argument about 'complex methods' versus 'restricted approved methods' often becomes a silly binary opposite with emotionally charged arguments that ends up - like all binary opposities do - obscuring real understanding - and producing solutions which ultimately please nobody.

Whatever solutions are proposed need to both cater for those people who want to play and play against the most complex systems, and those people who are new to the game for whom this would be inappropriate or those who have no desire to play against complex methods - and those who want to sometimes and not other times.

There isn't a one size fits all solution. There needs to be a number of creative 'solutions'. And no one side of this argument is 'right'.

[luke warm]

Quote

~~snip~~
There isn't a one size fits all solution. There needs to be a number of creative 'solutions'. And no one side of this argument is 'right'.

irdoz's entire post is worth reading, and i don't have a lot to add to the rest of it... as for this particular paragraph, i don't think the debate centers on right vs. wrong, but on how to get more people involved in duplicate bridge...

all i meant to say about this in my previous post was: it is and will continue to be very difficult gaining adherents to this great game as long as the systems played by those talented enough to play them are put forth as the norm

bridge has to be fun and easy to learn... if (as usually happens) a person finds he enjoys the game, THEN he will search for and find all the systemic devices he needs to further that enjoyment

[the hog]

all i meant to say about this in my previous post was: it is and will continue to be very difficult gaining adherents to this great game as long as the systems played by those talented enough to play them are put forth as the norm.


I wouldn't say they are put forward as the norm. Most here play Acol for example, how many of the world's top pairs play Acol? I am finding it hard to think of one.

Interestingly enough the US experiment was tried here too, where we have what are called "No Fear" events, based on Acol or Standard. Hardly any good players play. It does seem to me that the average player wants to play against good players, but does not want them to play complicated systems. This is a conundrum to which I do not have an answer.

[pbleighton]

Ron writes:
"Hardly any good players play. It does seem to me that the average player wants to play against good players, but does not want them to play complicated systems. This is a conundrum to which I do not have an answer."

I would restate this. In the U.S., the typical "average player" plays 2/1, with a whole slew of conventions, mostly the same ones as everyone else, because "everyone knows you need them to bid accurately". I play this with one pd. It is IMO a good system, but it is neither natural not simple. In fact, it is rather complicated and most people playing it (including myself) don't play it very well because of that. Big hands are hard to describe without Ben-like partnership agreements, and there are numerous convention fiascos ("I thought your bid was Michaels" "No, not in this situation" "Another bottom").

With another pd I play a somewhat simplified version of The Science (4 card majors and canape openings 10-13 hcp, 5 card majors 14+, 2/1 GF, 1M-1NT semi-forcing), with some conventions, though susbstantially fewer than with my 2/1 pd, as this pd still has an aversion to memorizing seldom used conventions. It is not "simple", but it is not as complicated as 2/1. Because it is different, however, it is perceived as "complicated".

People don't like to play against anything different than what they are used to, regardless of complexity. Even playing plain vanilla SA with weak NT, and very light and short weak 2s and 3s created some consternation.

I like Richard's suggested 2 tiered approach. It could work very well. However, the chances that the ACBL would do it are zero, IMO.

Peter

[csdenmark]

Why did Soloway choose S4 as lead for trick 7 instead of H10?

Discard for trick 6 was SJ and according to auction heart-suit was supported by Hamman. As signals during play odd was signalled for hearts.

Because of this?
Signals to declarers lead:
vs suits:
1.Hi/Lo=even
2.S/P
vs NT:
1.Low=Even
2.S/P
3.Hi/Lo=Even

Discards:
1.High=Encourage
2.S/P
3.Hi/Lo=even

[jrcn50]

Only a remark: I have seen that B.Wolff / D.Morse (USA2) was playing a simple SAYC (with very few conventions ! see their C.Card).
Then, it seems possible to play at a high level with a 'so poor system', isn'it ?

Jean