[glen]

Here's the top 10 of the Open Final (17 rounds of 20bds each) - yes, some pairs have nn9 boards played:

1) +.83/299bds Brogeland-Lindqvist: 1NT (14)15-17, 1M=5+, 1♦=4+, 1♣=2+ (suspect 3+ or 4-4-3-2 exactly), 2♣=strong (22-23 if bal), 2♦=2-7 6M (5M possible fav) or 24+ Bal, 2M=8-11 6M, 2NT=20-21

2) +.64/260bds Armstrong-Holland: 1NT 12-14, 1X= 4+ (open lowest 4 except in 3rd can open 4cM), 2♣=23-24 Bal or GF, 2♦/♥/♠=sound except 1 or 3 NV 5+suit 5-9, 2NT=20-22

3) +.55/220bds Khokhlov-Matushko: 1NT 15-17 V or NV3-4, 10-12 NV1-2. 1♣= Either 12-14 Bal OR 11-16 4-4-1-4 OR 17+ Unbal OR 18+ Bal or NV1-2 15-17 Bal, 1♦=4+ 9-16, 1M=5+ 9-16. 2♣=10-16 6♣ OR 5♣+4M, 2♦=6M 3-9, 2M=M+m (3-8 5-4+ NV, 5-9 5-5+ V), 2NT=19-20 NV1-2, Rest 6-10 5-5+ minors

4) +.50/300bds Brink-Drijver: 1NT 15-17 or 1st fav 9-12. 1M=5+, 1♦=5 or 4-4-4-1 exactly, 1♣=natural or balanced 12-14 or 18-20, 2X=std (2NT=21-23)

5) +.43/180bds Gromoller-Kirmse: 1NT 11-13, 1♠=5+, 1♥=4+, 1♦=4+, 1♣=3+, 2♣=19-20 Bal OR 25-26 Bal OR any near GF OR GF ♥s OR solid 8-9 tricks, 2♦=weak two in ♥s or any GF not ♥s, 2♥=4-4+ majors 6-11V 5-9NV, 2♠=5+♠s weak, 2NT=21-22 Bal

6) +.42/239bds Wladow-Elinescu: 1NT 15-17 (16-17 3/4), 1♣=15/16+ , 1♦=11-15 1+♦ (cc not clear on Bal range but must be 11/12-14 1-2, 12-15 3-4). 1M=5+ 11-15. 2♣=9-14 6♣ OR 5♣+4X, 2♦=18-19 BAL or 6m 14/15-18 or 6M 15-20, 2M=Fav 5M+4m 7-10 Rest 6M 10-14, 2NT=10-14 6♦ OR 5♦+4♣

7) +.41/220bds Karakolev-Danailov: 1NT 14-16, 1♣=16+ (or playing value 14+), 1♦=11-13 BAL OR 10-15 w/o 5cM and not 2♣ opening. 1M=5+ 10-15. 2♣=10-15 6♣ OR 5♣+4cM, 2♦=4-9 6(5)M OR 24+ Bal, 2M=5M+4m 4-9, 2NT=20-21

8) +.39/220bds Isporski-Kovachev: 1NT (13)14-16, (9)10-12 1-2 vs Vul (not clear). 1♣=16+, 1♦=other bal range<16 (11-13 or 13-15), or 10-15 not 1M or 2♣ opening. 1M=5+. 2♣=10-15 6♣ OR 5♣+4cM, 2♦=4-9 6(5)M, 2M=5M+4m 4-9, 2NT=(21)22-23

9) +.35/240bds Kurka-Mraz: 1NT (11)12-14, 1♠=5+, 1♥/♦/♣=4+ (open lowest 4 card) except 1♣=4+ or 4-3-3-3 exactly, 2♣=22+, 2♦=(4)6-10 6M OR 22-23 Bal, 2♥=5♥s + 5any (4)6-10,2♠=5♠+5m (4)6-10, 2NT=5-5+ minors 6-10

10) +.35/240bds Bertheau-Nystrom: 1NT 14-16, 4th 15-16, 1st-3rd fav 10-12. 1♣=16+, 1♦=other bal range<16, or 11-15 4M+5+m or a 4-4-4-1. 1M=5+. 2m=11-15, 6+m or 5m+4om 2M=weak, 2NT=12-15 5-5+ minors

Using the counts approach that effervesce was nice to provide last post (thanks!):

Primary NT range: Four 15-17, Three 14-16, Two 12-14, One 11-13 1NT opening ranges
Use of 9-12 or 10-12 NT sometime: Four
Four big club pairs (none of top Five)
Two weak/strong 1♣ openers
All Six non-big club pairs play 1♦ as promising 4+
All Four big club pairs playing 1♦ as supernebulous (in particular they don't have a short ♦ opening as in Precision or Meckwell)
Four full-time + Two part-time play Muideberg 2M (5-4/5-5 showing opening)
Five play multi-2♦ - Three of these with a strong hand type possible
Six and One part-time play 2NT as strong balanced
Seven play 5 card majors, and Two play 1♠=5+/1♥=4+, and One plays 4 card majors

[csdenmark]

Certainly everything and anything are not working equally well. Unfortunately you fail not to draw the attention to what is important.

You list a lot of openings, looks rather confusing to me without the needed info of how well they managed opposite other kind of systems. I haven't looked much of the stuff but I happened to notice that 2 Precision versions seemed to play rather poor against each other(Baldursson/Jonsson versus Upmark/Cullin).

Glen your list will be improved trying to group according to: 1) Limit openings or not 2) Interference handle 3) Defense incl. leads.

[han]

csdenmark, on Jun 28 2008, 12:10 PM, said:

Unfortunately you fail not to draw the attention to what is important.

That's good then, right?

[glen]

csdenmark, on Jun 28 2008, 01:10 PM, said:

You list a lot of openings, looks rather confusing to me without the needed info of how well they managed opposite other kind of systems. I haven't looked much of the stuff but I happened to notice that 2 Precision versions seemed to play rather poor against each other(Baldursson/Jonsson versus Upmark/Cullin).

Glen your list will be improved trying to group according to: 1) Limit openings or not 2) Interference handle 3) Defense incl. leads.

I'm sorry it was confusing to you - please just focus on the counts at the bottom. If additional counts or groupings would be useful, please post them to this thread once you've worked them up. As to how x plays against y, I would need the detailed data for this in a raw data format such as .txt or .xls - I would then generate the corresponding database and get the result sets necessary.

[Walddk]

csdenmark, on Jun 28 2008, 07:10 PM, said:

Certainly everything and anything are not working equally well. Unfortunately you fail not to draw the attention to what is important.

Claus, you are basically saying that Glen is a fool and that you know better. Show us!

Roland

[csdenmark]

Walddk, on Jun 29 2008, 02:00 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Jun 28 2008, 07:10 PM, said:

Certainly everything and anything are not working equally well. Unfortunately you fail not to draw the attention to what is important.

Claus, you are basically saying that Glen is a fool and that you know better. Show us!

Roland

No I dont do so. It is not my business.

What I say is that both pairs here(Baldursson/Jonsson versus Upmark/Cullin) ought to be in a good position with their systems to cope with interference playing limit openings. Instead it looked to me they were confused and unable to come back on track. To me it looked like they had some kind of special defensive both different to what is used by standard classic players and that caused problems for them. In that respect the disturbance worked well but it ought not to be so.

In uncontested auctions I dont think it matters very much which definitions you have. They will all be able to lead you to your preferenced harbour.

What I therefore think might be helpful would be to compare systems in competition with other kind of systems. This is of course more complex to do statistically - but that is what matters for a successful outcome and therefore what matters for predictions as well.

[glen]

csdenmark, on Jun 29 2008, 05:14 AM, said:

Instead it looked to me they were confused and unable to come back on track. To me it looked like they had some kind of special defensive both different to what is used by standard classic players and that caused problems for them. In that respect the disturbance worked well but it ought not to be so.

This " looked to me" and "to me it looked like" is pretty vague - could you post or refer some hands here at least?

I do think you missed the point of showing the systems of the top ten Butler, but that does not surprise me based on your posts in this thread and before. Although it is annoying in this case, I do appreciate your unique views on subjects, and in this case, the idea of sys vs sys comparison. Now if you just figure out some way to get me the raw data.

[csdenmark]

glen, on Jun 29 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Jun 29 2008, 05:14 AM, said:

Instead it looked to me they were confused and unable to come back on track. To me it looked like they had some kind of special defensive both different to what is used by standard classic players and that caused problems for them. In that respect the disturbance worked well but it ought not to be so.

This " looked to me" and "to me it looked like" is pretty vague - could you post or refer some hands here at least?

I do think you missed the point of showing the systems of the top ten Butler, but that does not surprise me based on your posts in this thread and before. Although it is annoying in this case, I do appreciate your unique views on subjects, and in this case, the idea of sys vs sys comparison. Now if you just figure out some way to get me the raw data.

Sorry Glen I am not sure what you are asking for. I would gladly help if I am able to. I think the iterative discussions about opening structures, and when it becomes hot, then also which is best, have not much for it.

I think systems must be judged on their ability to help players to stay on their intended track. And if they are derailed to help them to find back. I think thats in fact the secret of Meckwell, Hamway and Bocchi-Duboin.

But certainly I am not sure of that. I doubt a quantitative analyze will be able to produce some kind of proof but might be worth to give a try.

[glen]

csdenmark, on Jun 29 2008, 08:49 AM, said:

Sorry Glen I am not sure what you are asking for. I would gladly help if I am able to. ...

Here's the link to the Ice-Swe match:

Iceland-Sweden Open Final match

Also see Friday's bulletin starting on page 7:
Final Friday bulletin

Now point out the boards where "To me it looked like they had some kind of special defensive both different to what is used by standard classic players and that caused problems for them" applies, and tell us what to consider.

--- ---

csdenmark, on Jun 29 2008, 05:14 AM, said:

This is of course more complex to do statistically - but that is what matters for a successful outcome and therefore what matters for predictions as well.

csdenmark, on Jun 29 2008, 08:49 AM, said:

I doubt a quantitative analyze will be able to produce some kind of proof but might be worth to give a try.

First you suggest a complex statistical analysis, but now you doubt it will be able to produce some kind of proof - cancel my request for the raw data.

[effervesce]

csdenmark, on Jun 29 2008, 07:49 AM, said:

I think systems must be judged on their ability to help players to stay on their intended track. And if they are derailed to help them to find back. I think thats in fact the secret of Meckwell, Hamway and Bocchi-Duboin.

But certainly I am not sure of that. I doubt a quantitative analyze will be able to produce some kind of proof but might be worth to give a try.

How do you propose to measure how well a pair 'stays on their intended track', without first evaluating how well they stay on their intended track from constructive bidding without interference? A simple comparison of IMPs/board vs opening bid structure gives at least a starting point for answering this latter question.

The point of Glen's posting of the opening structures is to give an indication of what current top players currently believe the opening structure should be. If the top players all believe that a supernebulous 1D is best within a precision context as opposed to meckwell openings, then that suggests that perhaps such an opening structure is more efficient/effective for such a system.

If all non-big club system players play 1D as 4+, then that also is an indicator that top players believe that such an opening structure is more effective than better minor/convenient minor.

Looking for other things is all very well and good, but without the information we can't look for these other things. With the information Glen has kindly provided, it gives some insight into what current top players believe work and don't work.

[csdenmark]

effervesce, on Jun 29 2008, 03:04 PM, said:

How do you propose to measure how well a pair 'stays on their intended track', without first evaluating how well they stay on their intended track from constructive bidding without interference? A simple comparison of IMPs/board vs opening bid structure gives at least a starting point for answering this latter question.

I assume that everybody participating in such kind of contests always are able to reach their preferred harbour indisturbed. Therefore it makes little sense to investigate whether that in fact is the case.

Yes a simple comparrison certainly gives a starting point. But discussions very rarely comes deeper than that - comes to what matters. If needed to go deeper I think you need to make some human interpretations, replacing lack of real knowledge of others methods, on which basis I think it will be possible to test right/false with quantitative analyze.

I think it might be interesting to test Bocchi-Duboin which pair scratched their preferred methods in 2005. They also switched some of their opening/response structure - but I think it could be interesting to see if something would be possible to extract in fx. minor openings.

[glen]

csdenmark, on Jun 29 2008, 05:14 AM, said:

What I say is that both pairs here(Baldursson/Jonsson versus Upmark/Cullin) ought to be in a good position with their systems to cope with interference playing limit openings. Instead it looked to me they were confused and unable to come back on track. To me it looked like they had some kind of special defensive both different to what is used by standard classic players and that caused problems for them. In that respect the disturbance worked well but it ought not to be so.

Did the links work for you? Did you get the pairs wrong?

[csdenmark]

The links worked well thank you. It is the right match. I have BBO Vugraph files for those matches I attended.

[glen]

csdenmark, on Jun 29 2008, 10:53 AM, said:

The links worked well thank you. It is the right match. I have BBO Vugraph files for those matches I attended.

Great! So, moving along to the next step, which boards were you talking about?

Remember that you were taking shots at:
BALDURSSON Jon JONSSON Thorlakur 0.32 89 280 Iceland
CULLIN Per-Ola UPMARK Johan 0.12 26 220 Sweden

So make your shots count (or take your shots back)!

[csdenmark]

glen, on Jun 29 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Jun 29 2008, 10:53 AM, said:

The links worked well thank you. It is the right match. I have BBO Vugraph files for those matches I attended.

Great! So, moving along to the next step, which boards were you talking about?

Remember that you were taking shots at:
BALDURSSON Jon JONSSON Thorlakur 0.32 89 280 Iceland
CULLIN Per-Ola UPMARK Johan 0.12 26 220 Sweden

So make your shots count (or take your shots back)!

Here the file is: http://bridgefiles.net/R9T02-Eur%20champ%2...%2006-25-08.lin

[glen]

I see you are unable to provide the board numbers to back up your shots. I accept your implicit retraction.

Edit: attempt to PM about "shots" to C did not work - he has that shut down

Shots = critical, insulting comments

You said, about two world class pairs:
- they were confused
- unable to come back on track

You need to provide the board numbers that you feel show that - the various attempts to avoid this just confirms the implicit retraction

[csdenmark]

glen, on Jun 29 2008, 05:42 PM, said:

I see you are unable to provide the board numbers to back up your shots.  I accept your implicit retraction.

Sorry Glen - I dont understand the word 'shots'.

Further discussions must wait until tomorrow. Very soon EURO2008 - football.

[dake50]

To compare systems, note game-on distribution has a mean and deviation. Systems are bound to find games at mean plus some less, plus up to slam on. This is invariant. I would be surprised to see game-on stats differ by 1.5%. Slam-on similar.

So partial/obstruct is the only source of 2+% possible.

Anything works because each systems invariant (must bids) dominate AND agree.

Further a superior system would seldom win above random if it's ONLY 2-3% better.

[glen]

dake50, on Jun 29 2008, 11:57 AM, said:

To compare systems, note game-on distribution has a mean and deviation. Systems are bound to find games at mean plus some less, plus up to slam on.  This is invariant. I would be surprised to see game-on stats differ by 1.5%.  Slam-on similar.

So partial/obstruct is the only source of 2+% possible.
...

Say one makes a system that maximizes (somehow) partial/obstruct since these might be considered the critical success factors - couldn't this system be hurt in the game/slam area, beyond the 1.5+-%?

[kenrexford]

I seem to recall listening to a Star Trek book on tape while driving somewhere, one that I picked up at a Cracker Barrell. In that book, some kind of creature spoke with a language that was so foreign that it ended up translating as concepts rather than words. For example, a "tree" might be translated as "vertical maximize legion star-spawn gather."

I just remembered that while reading the recent posts in this thread.