[plaur]

Hi,

Did they change the rules for allowed bidding systems? I thougt every team had to play their bidding card http://www.buffettcu...t.aspx?tabid=70

Peter

[bid_em_up]

Not sure what you are asking. Is there some reason to believe that what the website says isnt the case?

(I havent been able to see any of the vugraph today, so dont know if there are any variances from this).

[plaur]

bid_em_up, on Sep 18 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

Not sure what you are asking.  Is there some reason to believe that what the website says isnt the case?

(I havent been able to see any of the vugraph today, so dont know if there are any variances from this).

I only saw the last match. I think I saw opening bids alerted different from the european card and the vugraph operator said something about Auken - von Arnim's opps asking about allowed defense against a strong club system? So I just wondered if pairs were allowed to play their own system?

[Gerben42]

Yes, luckily pairs can play their own system. Not allowing that would be outrageous to say the least. For the next time I also hope the scoring will be more transparent.

[ArcLight]

>Yes, luckily pairs can play their own system. Not allowing that would be outrageous to say the least.

Why? I thought the whole point of the Buffet Cup was to have simpler and fewer systems. Hence the American card and European card. I didn't know pairs could deviate from that.

[cherdano]

Gerben42, on Sep 18 2006, 10:13 PM, said:

Yes, luckily pairs can play their own system. Not allowing that would be outrageous to say the least. For the next time I also hope the scoring will be more transparent.

Wow, outrageous. Not even that, outrageous to say the least.

Why would it be so horrible to have ONE bridge tournament with very simple bidding systems?

Anyway, I suppose the simple bidding systems given on the convention cards will come into play for the individual part (where it makes a lot of sense IMO).

Arend

[bid_em_up]

Gerben42, on Sep 18 2006, 03:13 PM, said:

Yes, luckily pairs can play their own system. Not allowing that would be outrageous to say the least. For the next time I also hope the scoring will be more transparent.

From the website:

Convention cards

Both teams have agreed ther convention cards. You can study them by clicking on the links below. The cards are in pdf format, for which you may need to download Adobe Reader.


Now since it says teams.....and the schedule for today is pairs, I will assume that this only applies either for the individuals or for team play.

[PeterGill]

The teams' Bidding Systems will be used only in the Individual games. The non-regular partnerships in the Individual need to have a common system to play, hence the website's systems. The website could explain this better.

In the Pairs and the Teams, the regular partnerships play their usual bidding systems. Strong club systems, gadgets galore, whatever. This allows one to compare trans-atlantic differences in bidding.

For example, there was one hand where partner opened 1H in 3rd seat, and you held Qx, void, Qxxxx, AJxxxx. Jason Hackett for Europe was able to bid 2C, and play in clubs, to win the board. The Americans play 2C as Drury, so they had to respond 1NT, which was passed out, partner holding Axxx, AQ109x, xx, xx having opened a bit light in 3rd seat. 1NT went down several tricks, vulnerable. The Europeans, who use natural bidding in this situation, had a systemic advantage on this particular hand (but perhaps not on other hands) over the Americans.

It wasn't always the case that natural was better than artificial.

Peter Gill
Sydney Australia

[mrdct]

cherdano, on Sep 18 2006, 04:25 PM, said:

Why would it be so horrible to have ONE bridge tournament with very simple bidding systems?

Because one of the most interesting things about bridge is different bidding methods. Events where all the players are obliged to play SAYC are fine for beginners and restricted players, but these guys have dozens of world championships between them and I want to see them play bridge in all its glory - including interesting system stuff.

[PeterGill]

[QUOTE]Why would it be so horrible to have ONE bridge tournament with very simple bidding systems?

There used to be such a tournament - the Generali Individual.
I don't think that event is held any more. I don't know why.

Peter Gill.

[joker_gib]

mrdct, on Sep 19 2006, 05:13 AM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 18 2006, 04:25 PM, said:

Why would it be so horrible to have ONE bridge tournament with very simple bidding systems?

Because one of the most interesting things about bridge is different bidding methods. Events where all the players are obliged to play SAYC are fine for beginners and restricted players, but these guys have dozens of world championships between them and I want to see them play bridge in all its glory - including interesting system stuff.

I agree totally with Dave here !

Systems are (a great and wonderful) part of the game and those people have worked hundreds of hours to have something very efficient.

It is obvious to agree on a system for individual events but also obvious to let them play their own systems in pairs and teams events imho !

Alain

[plaur]

I think there might have been some confusion about the rules. Fred Gitelman wrote http://forums.bridge...showtopic=14780 Juli 8

"I am pretty sure strong club is not allowed, because I usually play a version of Precision with my partner in this tournament (Geoff Hampson) and we have been told we will not be allowed to do this."

Anyway great bridge. Too bad its all happning when Im at work. Hmm, should call in sick and watch vugraph all day :-)

[brianshark]

I for one am slightly disappointed that they are using their own bidding systems instead of the standard one each team captain came up with, for the pairs and teams events. I'd have liked to see a competition where the random element of having the right bidding system for the right situation, and the skill element of having and remembering one comprehensive enough, are removed. Instead, it would have been a competition based almost exclusively on judgement.

Not that there's anything wrong with complicated, innovative or even radical bidding systems in general, but the change would be nice. Just to focus on the at-the-table judgement aspect to see how these world class players compare.

"In the open room, the US struggled to describe their hands and ended up in the inferior heart slam, whereas the Italians had just the convention to describe south's hand..."

...has it's entertainment value, but I sometimes prefer to see...

"The auction in both rooms was identical up the point where xxxxx for the US judged his hand worthy of an invite, whereas yyyyy for the Italians decided to be more conservative."

[ArcLight]

>Because one of the most interesting things about bridge is different bidding methods.

One of the worst things about bridge is the plethora of systems and gadgets. It detracts from the game, the card play, and the deductive reasoning. You can't draw as many inferences from an unfamiliar system, thus giving those players using it an unfair advantage.
I don't care about the pros, I am talking about Bridge in general.

I don't find it "fun" to have to study and learn about lots of systems and gadgets, and have the users of those systems not tell me the inferences from the bids. In my experience, if I ask DETAILED questiosn about what types of hands a bid denies, the opponents get annoyed. Neither of us has fun.


>Events where all the players are obliged to play SAYC are fine for beginners and restricted players,

I find it amusing when people think they are good because they use many systems and gadgets. Are all you "good" players really experts? Is your Defense, and card play technique really THAT good?


> but these guys have dozens of world championships between them and I want to see them play bridge in all its glory - including interesting system stuff.

You should have the opportunity to watch what you want to see. No one should prevent you. I for one don't enjoy it. It was my impression thats what the Buffet Cup was about, using simples, less varied systems.

There are PLENTY of high level competitions where all systems are used, whats wrong with ONE that is restricted?


Some of the most interesting bidding decisions I've seen are in Terence Reeses out datyed books on bidding, that are entirely natural. Thos edecisions don't come up as much now with all the gadgets. It doesn't mean our judgment is better though.

I think Bridge would be just as interesting if players used one generic bidding system. I wouldn't care which one. Then I would learn it, and concentrate of the card play and bidding judgment. For those who don't like this, there are many other venues to play "open" bridge.

But pelase don't think that just because you use many systems you are a good player. Maybe some of your "success" is playing against players who are unfamiliar with your systems. It might not be YOU who is good, just the advantage you are getting form an unfamiliar system.

[hrothgar]

ArcLight, on Sep 19 2006, 03:57 PM, said:

There are PLENTY of high level competitions where all systems are used, whats wrong with ONE that is restricted?

Bridge is not a spectator sport.

In the past, we've seen a few attempts to convince large companies to sponsor bridge tournaments in the hopes of generating sufficient good will and free advertising to recoup their costs. Macallan Distilleries ran an event for a number of years. Cap Gemini insurance was another prominent sponsor. Simply put, these efforts failed. There are better ways for companies to spend their advertising dollars.

Accordingly, most bridge events are run for the benefit of the players. One of two - the Cavendish comes to mind - also appeal to gamblers. However, this event is very much an outlier.

For better or worse, enough of the players like being able to tinker with their bidding systems that restricted system events are few and far between. Every few years, some prominent bridge organization launches some initiative to create an exciting new restricted systems event. Every few years, the effort dies a quick yet painful death.

Sorry to break the news to you, but the demand just isn't there... Personally, I loved "Arrested Development" and "Firefly". I thought that they were some of the best shows on TV. But people didn't watch and now all I have are my DVDs.

On the bright side, maybe the Buffet Cup will break the mold. The rise of BBO has enormously increased the potential spectator pool. Its even possible that the restricted systems portion of the event will be enormously more popular than the open systems part of the match. Personally, I'd find this an interesting datapoint. (Note, it might also mean that folks prefer watching individuals to team matches). With luck, Uday would be willing to provide us with the necessary data. .I'd be happy to spend a couple hours crunching the numbers.

[joker_gib]

Bridge is bidding AND cards play and that's why it is so fun to play this great game !

If all those fantastic players were playing the same system I'm pretty sure that the show would not be so great.

Most of the decisions would be reproduced at each table.

By the way, I don't think that the systems in use are very difficult to understand. They all play "normal" conventions and when you see Soloway opening 2♦ with
♠/4 ♥/5 ... everyone knows this is the F thing !

Alain

[paulg]

The only real audience for this event is the BBO audience, who is well accustomed to watching a variety of different systems. The non-live audience, that is those reading newspapers or TV coverage, will get a sanitised version of anything that happens and the systems will not be relevant.

So I see nothing wrong with pairs playing their usual methods.

What I would find disconcerting is seeing regular partnerships have misunderstandings because the meaning of 'standard' is poorly defined. We shall see plenty of this in the individual but to insist on it promoting it through the rest of the event seems wrong.

Paul

[barmar]

bid_em_up, on Sep 18 2006, 05:34 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Sep 18 2006, 03:13 PM, said:

Yes, luckily pairs can play their own system. Not allowing that would be outrageous to say the least. For the next time I also hope the scoring will be more transparent.

From the website:

Convention cards

Both teams have agreed ther convention cards. You can study them by clicking on the links below. The cards are in pdf format, for which you may need to download Adobe Reader.


Now since it says teams.....and the schedule for today is pairs, I will assume that this only applies either for the individuals or for team play.

I thought that in the context of the Buffett Cup, "team" means the entire American or European teams of 12.

[Flame]

Its not about systems, or conventions, its about agrements. You cant put a top pair agrements into 2/3 games. Now if a regular pair have an agrement that after
a sequence of bidding Double show something, and this sequence arraise what do you expect them to do ? say we have no agrement or use their agrement ?

[the hog]

"One of the worst things about bridge is the plethora of systems and gadgets. It detracts from the game, the card play, and the deductive reasoning. You can't draw as many inferences from an unfamiliar system, thus giving those players using it an unfair advantage."

As Bridge is a game of bidding and card play, this is a very odd comment. It is equivalent to me saying that all card play should be the same level. Ban all complex end plays as those that know them and can execute them have an unfair advantage.