[blackshoe]

There was a board at this afternoon's club game where slam was cold. The board was played 12 times - and only one pair bid the slam. So they got a top, and everyone else got an average. On another board, 7NT was cold - one pair (not the same one) bid it. Another pair were in 6NT making seven. A third pair were in 6C. Most of the rest were in game, but several played in a part score - and some of the game and part score pairs didn't make twelve tricks.

The conclusion I draw from all this is that there aren't very many good players around here.

[keylime]

I think system matters to a degree, but I think the style of the partnership is much more critical.

Case in point:

During my time in Canada, my pard was an aggressive player that got after it. So I was naturally the rev limiter of sorts, because when I played aggressively, the scores dropped. The system, as good as it was in the game and slam bidding zone, was being distorted into a mess in the competitive bidding area. That, and my cardplay blew chunks.

With Larry, there is a far more measured approach to the partnership; I firmly believe there is an acute awareness of the limits of style and how to work within those boundaries. I never thought that I'd be playing 4 card majors with canape. However, I'm much happier that I am now. He doesn't go overboard, and allows me to be somewhat creative. There is the willingness to say no to something.

System wise it's important to find what the boundary is, but style wise, it's far more important to determine the intent of your pard. I'd rate it 20/80.

[kenrexford]

I generally distrust any "educated guess" as to how important any general or specific partnership agreement might be, because I have found my own assumptions to be off-kilter when I have tested them. If you are curious as to the relative importance of system, and if you can be objective and honest, then I suggest doing what I have often done and spend the time going through hand records, hand generators, vugraphs, and the like to see whether a system gadget or a general approach seems to actually gain or not, and how frequently.

For instance, I was of the opinion at one point, from experience, that a 2♦ opening to show at least nine cards in the minors and about 13-16 HCP was a huge and unexpected gainer. I had used this for years and seemed to be having incredible success. I had done an early vugraph review and found what appeared to be large numbers of IMP swings from this tool. However, upon changing the parameters to add a different tweak to a different alternative auction, the advantage disappeared entirely. Kind of like, perhaps, Falnnery being "solved" a different way. So, I abandoned that idea.

The entire idea of quantifying any possible impact is somewhat misleading. Suppose, for instance, that a specific idea to change the system has a mere 1% impact on the system. That sounds remote, right? That means that the tweak only gains about once every four sessions, if by "1%" we mean on 1% of the hands. Well, if we assume that a one-level opening, a 1NT opening, a 2♣ opening, or a weak two opening is each a fairly common opening, then we have a fairly likely possibility of one of 9 openings occurring on any given hand. That makes a 1♠ opening, for instance (I know that the math is wrong, but hear me out) occurs maybe 11% of the time. However, if you add in the first, second, or third seat usually sarts the bidding, then I need a 1♠ opening only about once every 4% of the time, or once per session. I suppose I probably could manage fairly well without a 1♠ opening. I might not even lose that board when it came up.

Bridge is a game where partnerships gather as many tools as they can handle to better be able to handle varying situations. Choosing effective tools is good; choosing more effective tools is better. You want to reach a point where return on investment is positive, even if 0.0000001%. If you lose X amount of concentration from the "X Convention" but gain Y amount of advantage from the "X Convention, then use the "X Convention" if Y-X is a positive number, however slight.

Now, no one I know has a calculator capable of quantifying the net gain from the "X Convention" and of also calculating the net concentration loss. In fact, I'd suspect that many folks have experienced burnouts, where a partnership seems to be thriving but suddenly collapses because one partner can no longer hold that concentration, or maybe neither. You may also find that you can handle X+Y+Z after about two days of solid play until about 5 days of solid play, but that you suck early and collapse late. Maybe the range is the second day to the ninth. My experience is a total hopelessness during the first session, a quick recovery, and then a solidly increasing game until about 27 sessions out (I've done this and know). As I age, this will probably change.

So, you guess, with experience. Ultimately, no one should ever question whether X, or X+Y, or X+Y+Z is "best" from a partnership standpoint. From a standpoint of "sypothetically best" or "most promising if can handle it," there may or may not be an answer.

As to MP or IMP's, I think that MP is like politics and IMP's like a singles bar. In politics, you want to find the argument that appeals to the most people, whether it makes sense or not. You will fail if you are pure in theory. In a bar, however, when you are trying to score that hook-up, you need the exact right argument from start to finish, and any slight error will ruin the entire thing.

[Gerben42]

System can be a way to increase variance while at the same time not reducing the expectation value. By not playing what the field plays you will thus have a higher percentage of top 3 finishes and wins, unless you were winning "all the time" anyway (expected result > 65%). Yes I've done simulations about this.

So unless you are Meckwell playing in a regular club game or something, don't play what the field plays.

[paulg]

ClaceyJ, on Feb 8 2008, 01:05 AM, said:

Quote

That's just cos you haven't seen how good my systems are yet. Or how bad "Benji Acol" is...

Hey... some people make Benji work... sort of...

Innocence of youth?

[helene_t]

MickyB, on Feb 8 2008, 02:00 AM, said:

I'd expect the difference between

- a good system (relatively simple, but well-designed)

- and a poor system (not hideously poor...e.g. Capp or DONT over 1NT)

to be about 1%.

1% is huge. I doubt I would lose that much by trading my favorite system for Vienna or Culbertson.

[Gerben42]

1% of what?

Much of "system" is basically making agreements to avoid misunderstandings. Writing it down is a must for me. This way I'd end up with extensive notes even playing "standard" (whatever that is).

There doesn't seem to be much of a standard in the Netherlands where I learned bridge, nor in Germany. Locally, maybe.

[Gerben42]

Quote

If I were going to play mainly or exclusively MPs, I would play some form of EHAA or Fantunes variety, because I feel it puts a lot more pressure on the opponents board after board.

Whereas if I were going to mainly play IMPs, I would play strong club + relays, because I think the slam bidding methods are superior.

Strangely with my most regular partners these are the two styles we play. Would switch the strong club for a strong pass if not for the regulations, though.

What I found BTW is that Fantunes is very tough for the opps at teams too, but only in waves... Some 16-board segments we don't get much the do, others you can see opps thinking "why doesn't the bidding EVER start quietly".

[helene_t]

Gerben42, on Feb 8 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

1% of what?

1% percentage point MP, I suppose. Of course if my average MP score is 25% it amounts to 4%

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Feb 8 2008, 10:39 AM, said:

System can be a way to increase variance while at the same time not reducing the expectation value. By not playing what the field plays you will thus have a higher percentage of top 3 finishes and wins, unless you were winning "all the time" anyway (expected result > 65%). Yes I've done simulations about this.

So unless you are Meckwell playing in a regular club game or something, don't play what the field plays.

First and foremost, I agree completely with Gerben's comment. The notion of variance is incredible important.

Second: I echo earlier comments that players should trying to find a bidding system nature matches one's humors.

[Tcyk]

The discussion answers the question. If a system was superior to other systems everyone would want to play that system. It just doesn't happen that way. Everyone would play Revision when playing IMPs or Match Point Precision when playing MPs.

It appears to me that you must play a system that matches your personality. Some players would go nuts playing Roth-Stone and others would find EHAA (light initial action) absolutely impossible. There are chess players who like positional play and others that prefer more active play. The same is true in bridge.

Going against the field is an interesting concept. If going against the field conveyed an advantage, more people would play canape systems. Dennis Dawson told me that when he played canape, hands were often played from the opposite side of the board played by the field and he often picked off the opponents suit. With one partner, I played canape transfers over NT. Transfers were always either weak or invitational, never forcing. With an invitational hand, we transferred to a 4-card suit and then bid our 5+ card suit. It was great fun and resulted in tops and bottoms. Oh yes, we were playintg 12-14 1NT too.

I've had partners that just die when they discover you have put them in a 4-3 fit. They don't have any idea how to play the hand. With these partners you never raise their response with less than four cards in the suit even if you have a useful singleton or void. You score low when the Moysian fit is the right spot but overall you gain by making your partner happy.

[FrancesHinden]

Tcyk, on Feb 8 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

Going against the field is an interesting concept. If going against the field conveyed an advantage, more people would play canape systems.

Depends what you mean by 'advantage'. Going against the field increases your volatility but may or may not increase your expectation. As 75% of bridge players think they are well above average in their field, they don't see the need to try and increase their volatility.

Playing in the European open pairs it was noticeable how much more variability there was in the results on the competitive deals due to the wide range of systems being played. (the world mixed less so, not sure why, perhaps because the partnerships were generally less experienced)

[cherdano]

Gerben42, on Feb 8 2008, 01:39 AM, said:

System can be a way to increase variance while at the same time not reducing the expectation value. By not playing what the field plays you will thus have a higher percentage of top 3 finishes and wins, unless you were winning "all the time" anyway (expected result > 65%). Yes I've done simulations about this.

However, if you have an advantage in play or defense, then increasing the variance by using a non-standard system will reduce your expectation value (unless your non-standard system is superior). Did your simulations take this into account?

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on Feb 8 2008, 07:03 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Feb 8 2008, 01:39 AM, said:

System can be a way to increase variance while at the same time not reducing the expectation value. By not playing what the field plays you will thus have a higher percentage of top 3 finishes and wins, unless you were winning "all the time" anyway (expected result > 65%). Yes I've done simulations about this.

However, if you have an advantage in play or defense, then increasing the variance by using a non-standard system will reduce your expectation value (unless your non-standard system is superior). Did your simulations take this into account?

As I recall, Gerben's sims were examining the trade off between the expected value of a bidding system and its variance.

Lets assume that I am designing a bidding system. To what extent would I be willing to sacrifice overall performance (the expected value on a hand) in order to increase the variance.

The structure could be modified pretty easily to consider the example of a player (or partnership) with a high expected value.

I have claimed for years that the only logicial way to interprete the ACBL's system regulations is that the are trying to suppress high variance systems in an attempt to protect the top tier of players.

[han]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2008, 11:10 AM, said:

I have claimed for years that the only logicial way to interprete the ACBL's system regulations is that the are trying to suppress high variance systems in an attempt to protect the top tier of players.

If we were living in a logical world then people might take you seriously when you say things like this.

[fred]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2008, 04:10 PM, said:

I have claimed for years that the only logicial way to interprete the ACBL's system regulations is that the are trying to suppress high variance systems in an attempt to protect the top tier of players.

How about this logical alternative:

ACBL policy decisions in this area are designed to give average ACBL members what they think that average ACBL members want.

While it is true that top players are among those involved in making these decisions (along with teachers, directors, club managers, and politician types), it really bothers me when people suggest that such decisions are motivated by self-interest of the leading players. Recent editorial comments on this subject in Australian Bridge (a generally excellent magazine IMO) have been especially disgusting in their tone and implications (and especially hard to take seriously when you consider the self-interest of the person who writes these editorials).

For a couple of years I was on an ACBL committee that was responsible for recommending policy changes in this area. I can promise you that there is only one reason that I was willing to serve on this committees (a thankless task that tends to have a negative impact on my ability to perform well at the important tournaments in which these committees meet):

To try to make ACBL tournaments more enjoyable for the people who play in them.

I cannot promise that all other members of the same committee are in it for the same reasons of course, but I believe that those who served at the same time as me (Hamman, Bramley, Beatty, Martel and various Weinsteins) are not only people of integrity but also the sort of bridge players who are not afraid to play against unusual methods.

Your post, like the Australian Bridge editorials, denegrates these fine people and fine players who donate their time, energy, and thoughts in an honest effort to make bridge better for everyone. Even if you disagree with their judgment, to suggest that their motives are unpure is not fair, not appropriate, and definitely not classy in my view.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

This post has been edited by fred: 2008-February-08, 10:45

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2008, 11:10 AM, said:

I have claimed for years that the only logical way to interpret the ACBL's system regulations is that the are trying to suppress high variance systems in an attempt to protect the top tier of players.

Couldn't you say the same about many efforts to prevent change? Those who are expert (happy, rich, successful, whatever) in the status quo environment will benefit by keeping the status quo. But, isn't it possible that sometimes the status quo is actually good and maintaining it a worthy endeavor?

Maybe the ACBL's system regulation policies are aimed at protecting the game of bridge and this just happens to simultaneously protect top tier players...as well as protecting middle and lower tier players.

[awm]

I'm afraid I have to take hrothgar's side on the conventions issue.

While I think it's admirable that Fred presumes the best of people, I simply can't imagine who benefits from the situation when no one can figure out what is or isn't allowed. For example, prior to a recent NABC I was trying to figure out whether we are allowed to play a 3NT opening showing a sound 4M preempt (in national open events!). Looking at the convention charts I could not figure this out. I sent email to Rick Beye at ACBL and he could not figure it out either. He suggested it might be mid-chart (with no reasoning behind this) and that I needed a suggested defense, then informed me that no defense could be approved in the two months before nationals (regardless of the fact that this convention is probably 40 years old and not particularly harder to defend than 3NT showing a "solid major suit" which is on the general chart). Phil Clayton asked a director and was told this convention is general chart and proceeded to play it in general chart events...

I asked ACBL whether 2M showing five cards in the bid suit and a four-plus card minor was allowed on the general chart. I got conflicting answers from two "authorities." I asked ACBL whether I could play 2NT showing 5+ diamonds and a second 5+ suit on the mid-chart and was told that "no defense will ever be approved for this" even though it appears to be mid-chart.

Obviously one can debate endlessly about what "should be allowed" and what "would make the bridge playing population happiest." On most of these issues I have no idea -- my gut feeling is that the majority of bridge players really don't care about these things one way or another. But who could possibly benefit from a situation where the rules are muddled and unclear? The EBU has a very clear set of guidelines with lots of examples. ACBL even took the definition of "relay system" off the convention chart in their latest changes (thus making things more ambiguous).

My view is, the only people who could possibly benefit from vague and fuzzy rules are the people with widely known reputations who have served on a lot of laws committees and such. They can convince the director to rule in their favor (and I have seen this many times) if only because the director can't understand the regulations either and just takes the expert's word. So a fuzzy set of regulations basically means different rules for different people.

[mikestar]

System regulation is always a trade off and will always generate controversy. In the ACBL particularly, the aging membership presents challenges: while the better senior players are quite willing to play/play against modern methods, many of the rank and file are quite conservative. Some time ago, my regular partner and I were playing simple Precision at the club level and were often accused of cheating--not because our results were so good, but the perception was that the use of the system was cheating in itself.

So which policy does the ACBL pursue? Restrict systems so the old guard isn't driven away, or adopt a more free-wheeling style that will attract more younger players? The current General Convention Chart is a compromise, and has all the virtues and all the vices of compromise.

In theory, each club could choose its own system regulations--a senior center could be even more restrictive than the GCC, a university club could be more permissive than the Super Chart, etc. In practice every club I'm familiar with either adheres to the GCC as written or removes the limits on NT defenses.

By the way, transfer advances are now GCC legal though they have zero following among average players. They have very clear technical advantages and are being increasingly adopted among stronger pairs. Does this suggest that reducing variance is the big goal here?

IMHO, looking for a logical explanation for the business of governing over 100,000 diverse members is not particularly logical.