[hrothgar]

A few quick comments.

I agree with Fred. I don't think that pairs playing against unusual systems should be forced to devise defenses against these methods. Instead, I think that pairs using unusual methods should provide appropriate suggested defenses.

My web page describing MOSCITO attempts to provide a set of appropriate defenses to the more "unusual" openings. Whenever possible, I try to sugest methods that are relatively simple and still reasonably effective. In many cases, these methods are quite close to what Fred suggests.

For example, over a 1D opening (promising 4+ Hearts) I recommend:

X = "Standard" 1 level overcall in Diamonds
1H = Takeout Double of Hearts
1S+ = Precisely what you would have played if we had opened 1H showing 4+ Hearts.

Its probably possible to devise a more efficient structure, however, I believe that there is a real benefit to the simplicity of this structure. [Fred prefers to immediately show 13-15 balanced, I prfer to be able to show Diamonds, however, the two structures are pretty close]

The defense to the 2D/2H opening bids are necessarily a bit more complex. However, I believe that frequency of these openings suggests adopting slightly more complex methods. On the bright side, you there is no reason that you can't have the notes available in front of you.

In any case, if people want more information about any of the methods in question prior to the match, please let me know.

Looking forward to the game.

[Rado]

Hi all friends,
Congratulations for the great idea. Please find herebelow some suggestions:

1.  Please post the methods of all 4 pairs involved (or maybe 6 if 128 boards match)
2.  Let Fred invite experienced master TD (I’m sure he knows many of them personally
3.  Match segments might be arranged at different times of the day/night in order bridge fans from all over the world to have the possibility to watch some of them. Please post match schedule some days before the commencement.

Best regards
Rado

[eyhung]

Great idea, but Richard brought up a good point that should be resolved. What is the purpose of the match? What makes the "scientists" different from the "naturalists"/"traditionalists"?


In my mind there are several possible areas that could be resolved:

1) Natural vs. artificial
2) Initial action: sound vs. light
3) Focus: constructive vs. preemptive
4) System: MOSCITO vs. 2/1

I think #4 is best, not #2, because it is unambiguous and encapsulates many of the other issues. (If #2, and one of the pairs wants to play a flavor of Precision, how do we judge whether their initial actions are sound or light? And then it's arguable whether the naturalist overcalls are sound or light -- I think many 2/1 players would overcall a hand discussed elsewhere on this forum that was categorized as "light".)


As for Fred's can of worms, I am not opposed to having a greater variety of unusual and preemptive systems in top-level events. While I am in full agreement with Fred that playing against systems designed to confuse opponents (destructive systems) is no fun at all, I don't really agree with the "homework" argument. All good bridge is based on "homework" to some degree. After all, if becoming a top player involved no work at all, then where is the fun of achievement? If fun through achievement without effort is the goal, then one might as well be good at snakes-and-ladders, tic-tac-toe, or other games with little-to-zero skill component.

Maybe to players like Fred, who have mastered the game to a degree where everything but dealing with unusual systems is second-nature to them, the "homework" of dealing with unusual systems is an unwelcome intrusion. However, for the vast majority of bridge players, good bridge is all about "homework". We have to "work" on counting, remembering system bids/agreements, principles of good judgement, counting, drawing the right inferences, entry management, trump management, counting, mandatory falsecards, squeeze/endplay technique, and counting. Adding in defense to unusual systems is just one more item on the list. If average American bridge players must work to learn how to defend against uncommon conventions such as weak notrumps and strong clubs, why can't the top American players work on formulating general defenses to highly unusual yet not destructive systems? (example of a general defense is like what Fred posted earlier in this thread.) How can people truly claim to be the best in the world without being able to adapt to what the world has to throw at them?

Even if unusual systems were banned, homework would not be eliminated. Fred, you are a professional bridge player in a top partnership. You must have spent many hours of your life working on your agreements, and even more hours on general agreements to cover obscure, unusual situations that are undiscussed by most partnerships. How is this different from the homework caused by unusual systems? (Yes, perhaps the game would be ruined if you needed specific, undiscussed defenses to optimally defend against an unusual system, but if that is the case, I would argue that it is better to force the opponents to provide written, detailed, specific, and optimal defenses, rather than bar such systems completely.)

In case I didn't make it clear, I'm not advocating an anything-goes policy; systems that are primarly focused on confusing the opponents and randomizing the game are a completely different matter and that may be Fred's primary objection, to which I would agree. But I'm not surprised to hear that in Australia/New Zealand, where "unusual" systems are common, that people have learned to "work" on defending against all of these systems along with "working" on other aspects of their bridge. Personally, as a idealistic young bridge player, I would prefer a more open system in our top events to a closed one -- it makes me feel like I am playing a deeper game. Even though I personally prefer a constructive/simple approach to a preemptive/scientific approach, how can I tell if I am right if I don't have a chance to learn, evaluate, and counter these approaches on a regular basis?

Maybe, after more years of experience, I will come around to Fred's point of view that the current game is deep enough to be fun. But it seems a shame to me to dismiss a more open game prematurely, especially if it is working elsewhere.

Eugene Hung

P.S. Good luck in the USBC, Fred!

[hrothgar]

Good news folks, Paul Marston has generously agreed to participate in the festivities.

Looks like the Scientist team will consist of

Paul Marston / Sartaj Hans
The_Hog / Hrothgar

I'll suggest that we match Paul and Sartaj against Fred and his partner.
This will ensure that the spectators will have one table where they are ensured some quality bridge.

Paul and Sartaj will be available starting on June 10th.
This will give Ron and I the chance to practice some.

We'll worry about the fine details when Fred gets back from the Team Trials.

[luis]

Well,

What a nice match. After starting the theread I expected to play :-)) Can I?
I can play Moscito with my mother (Ana Alonso) or Garland Foster. Maybe we can have 3 pairs in our team.
The 2nd week of June is ok to me too.

The version of Moscito that I can play is legal under most ACBL and WBF regulations (what do you think Fred):

1c: 15+ 1ny
1d: 10-14 4+h
1h: 10-14 4+s
1s: 10-14 no 4M unbal
1N: 10-14 no 4M bal
2c: Wildcard opening (depending on partnership/tournament, etc)
2d: 10-14 three suited hand with 4+ clubs
2h: Weak 2 in hearts or three suited hand with short clubs (always 4+h)
2s: Weak 2
2n: 8-11 at least 5/4 in the minors.

Luis

[tangent]

I've always been wondering about the legality (under WBF) of the 1S bid showing an unbalanced hand without a 4 card major (I've played that before and have seen that being played). It's definitely not brown sticker since that doesn't apply to 1 level openings. It's not really listed under the definition of a yellow (HUM) system, but point #5 (section 2.2 http://www.bridge.gr...tems/policy.htm ) mentions " By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another." Now this 1S opening does say something like "6+ either minor or at least 5/4 in the minors" so I'm not sure whether that qualifies.

Of course, we know that anyone who likes to use this 1S bid intends to use the 2C opening for some particular nastiness...

[hrothgar]

Quote

I've always been wondering about the legality (under WBF) of the 1S bid showing an unbalanced hand without a 4 card major (I've played that before and have seen that being played). It's definitely not brown sticker since that doesn't apply to 1 level openings. It's not really listed under the definition of a yellow (HUM) system, but point #5 (section 2.2 http://www.bridge.gr...tems/policy.htm ) mentions " By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another." Now this 1S opening does say something like "6+ either minor or at least 5/4 in the minors" so I'm not sure whether that qualifies.

Of course, we know that anyone who likes to use this 1S bid intends to use the 2C opening for some particular nastiness...

Actually, in the MOSCITO variant that I normally play,

1S =Unbalanced constructive hands with 4+ Diamonds
2C = Unbalanced constructive hands with 6+ clubs

Really not all that nasty

[uday]

I think we ought to be able to have some form of team matches in a couple of days - as long as we're willing to setup the match on the web.

Cetainly by the 10th, i'd think, assuming nothing overly exciting happens elsewhere between now and then.

uday

[inquiry]

Quote

I think we ought to be able to have some form of team matches in a couple of days - as long as we're willing to setup the match on the web.

Cetainly by the 10th, i'd think, assuming nothing overly exciting happens elsewhere between now and then.

uday

GREAT!!

Team events on line will be a wonderful addition!

[kleek]

A few comments regarding the pending match:

1. It appears that nobody from the Scientist team has had the courtesy to respond (at least, not publicly) to luis, the originator of this thread. Isn't it a shame, in an overtly heavy-handed attempt to assemble who they think will be the "best" representatives for the Scientist team, and having already gone through a few line-up permutations in that effort, that they not only have taken over control of the team, but have also excluded luis (and his partner) in the process?

2. I want to associate myself with the comments previously made by Fred regarding playing, and/or playing against, highly unusual, non-natural methods. In my (not-necessary-to-be-diplomatic) opinion, such methods have little (if any) intrinsic, constructive value. Their perceived value stems mainly from the confusion and difficulty caused for opponents unfamiliar with the methods, from the random results that may be generated, and from what I'd call the "personal entertainment factor", i.e., the thrill the users get when one of these little gambits pays off (in successfully disrupting the opponents). Why not simply permit controlled, systemmic psychs as part of the game, too? Then, there would be no need to devise (legal) systems and conventions which are tantamount to the same thing. Psych away, tell (or not tell) the opponents when your partner is likely to be psyching, see what unusual results this can generate...and see what this does overall for the game of bridge.

3. What is the purpose of this match? When it was originally proposed, it purportedly set out to demonstrate the differences and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of a (primarily) natural system vs. some non-natural, or "scientific", system. This has since been determined best to be 2/1 vs. MOSCITO. I'm sure that many would take issue with the premise that a well-developed 2/1 partnership is non-scientific and that a MOSCITO partnership is, although the natural vs. non-natural distinction may hold. On the other hand, some may feel that MOSCITO is not the best representative of the non-natural, scientific side. I have recently been informed that no established 2/1 partnerships will be used on the Naturalist team, but rather unfamiliar partnerships, playing some version of BBO standard. Have any similar restrictions been placed on the Scientist team? Is this fair?

4. So, what is all of this going to mean/demonstrate, in the end, to those viewing the match? Basically, absolutely nothing. Which methods are "better"? I think not. Which players are "better"? Not really. To me, this whole thing has all the aura of the inane analysis and build-up to some meaningless sporting event. Those most eager to watch are probably doing so mainly to get some cheap laughs out of the potential screw-ups, not because they are interested in the presumed "reason" for the competition.

In conclusion, I request (of those with the "power" on the Naturalist team) that I be replaced with another player more interested in promoting this spectacle. I have no doubt that some BBO "star" can be enlisted as my replacement, thereby enhancing the potential of the Naturalists.

[inquiry]

I second Kurt's comment about Luis's challenge to me, my partner, and a pair I find to play the match. The lack of a response to Luis's comment in this thread is disappointing.

I will poll the remaining team members to see who might be imported. But here is my initial thoughts about the match. The Bridge Base Forum community has a number of people who are very willing to share their views with others. So I assumed the best thing was to follow Luis's original challenge and make a team up composed of people who ACTIVELY participate here in the forum, or who I know are approachable.

The point being, to have people play who would be willing to share with others after the event in this forum or in open discussion in the BBO. So I composed the naturalist team not with my regular partner, who never post here, not even once, but with frequent posters here... I have 500+ post, yzerman 81 and fred 99. And Kurt falls into this group of sharer's as well.

Orginally the other team was similarly constructed... The_hog 186 post, hrothgar 179, Luis 99. What better way to spur the discussion here than have people who will be willing to discuss the outcome and merits of the auctions in this forum.

Assume kurt doesn't reconsider, the naturalist will find a replacement, and the event will go on. But remember, this is suppose to be fun!!!

Ben

[hrothgar]

I’d like to make a few comments here:

First: I readily admit that I have been rather quiet about this match over the course of the last couple week. In part, this is because I just started a new job which is eating up an enormous amount of my time. However, the main reason is that I wanted to make sure that we had agreement about the dates and format before any general postings. We just able to get final agreement that Paul and Fred would both be available on Friday, July 11th at 8:00 PM (Las Vegas time). I was planning to send out a general announcement to this effect early next week.

Second: I think that it’s important that people recognize what this match is (and is not). I was never interested in promoting this match as a “Naturalists versus Scientists”. Many people have noted that MOSCITO is but one of many scientific bidding systems. It is equally true that 2/1 game forcing is not particularly natural. My main motivation in helping to organize this event was to provide the BBO community with the opportunity to observe two very different bidding systems being applied by strong pairs. In particular, I thought that it would be extremely interesting to contrast a “light initial action” system like MOSCITO with a sound initial action style like 2/1. It is interesting to note that we decided that it would be more appropriate to rename the match from Naturalists versus Scientists to “Swatting the MOSCITOs”.

As to what the match is not: I never felt that this event would provide any objective “proof” that natural methods are superior to artificial or vice-versa. We aren’t going to play nearly enough boards for a controlled test. As you note, differences in the skill of the different participants will also have a significant impact on the results.

Third: I felt that that it would be best to ensure that the MOSCITO team fielded pairs that are experienced playing with one another. My primary goal was to avoid “stupid” boards where some kind of bidding misunderstanding ruined everyone’s enjoyment. Furthermore, I felt that the Vugraph would be improved enormously if the event featured some marquee participants. Watching me mangle a defense may be titillating, however, it has very little educational value. In contrast, a table where Fred and partner were playing against Paul Marston and Sartaj Hans would probably be of widespread interest. In particular, by supporting this table with some skilled commentators we could really produce something of value.

I will note that I would prefer if the 2/1 team fielded experienced partnerships for much the same reason, however, I didn't think that it was appropriate to lecture the other team regarding how they were composing themselves. Rather, I was simply happy that everyone seemed excited to participate.

Fourth, Luis was never cut out of this event. Luis and one of his regular partners will be one of our anchor pairs.

Finally, The_Hog and I are working to establish a working partnership. [I am hoping that I will be able to travel to Australia for the ANOTs in January] We are planning to be practicing next weekend, and would welcome opponents, so long as they are willing to tolerate the occasional bidding SNAFU.

[csdenmark]

This idea of a match was created before we had the option playing team-tournaments here on BBO. Today we have several team tournaments every evening - and this proposed one will not be an exceptional event - it will simply be one of many.

Like Kurt I also think it is not right to exclude Luis who started this. It is not right in any situation in life I think that some powerful persons try to take over from others.

I see Luis proposed Moscito as the system to be used. Fair enough - but if you had the intensions to test something I think it would have been wise to choose one of the most widespread used non-natural systems. I think of course of Precision and Polish Club.

I see from last contribution by Richard the match is to be played at 8pm(Las Vegas) ~ 6am(Rome). I think most BBO members today are europeans and we will be sleeping while you play - good luck to all of you!

A last comment to Kurt about confusion caused by art. systems. In general I disagree with you but I think I can see some features where the ability to confuse opps. is the real asset. I think of transfer openings like those in Moscito and I think of weak/strong Multi's like Wilkosz convention. In contrast to that I think limit/strong openings like Precision with the only real aim to benefit from narrow bid-limits are as well fair as sound. In most art. systems continuations after art. opening bids(and perhaps a single control response) are very natural.

Yours Claus - csdenmark

[the hog]

There is only one of Kurt's comments that I intend to address in a public forum, as it is one at which I personally take great umbrage.

In my (not-necessary-to-be-diplomatic) opinion, such methods have little (if any) intrinsic, constructive value. Their perceived value stems mainly from the confusion and difficulty caused for opponents unfamiliar with the methods, from the random results that may be generated, and from what I'd call the "personal entertainment factor", i.e., the thrill the users get when one of these little gambits pays off (in successfully disrupting the opponents).

You need to be aware that the world does not revolve around US bridge players and your federation. People play what their peers play. If you lived in Poland for example, you would be playing Polish Club and "funny two bids" would be a way of life; Ekrens is common in Scandinavia; 2 suited openings are played by at least 50% of the tournament players in Australia. Why? Because their peers play them and because they are fun.

Kurt's comment above is tantamount to an accusation of playing methods purely to befuddle and confuse the opponents. I take great offense at that comment. It is a borderline accusation of cheating. One of the reasons I find this comment so offensive is that when I play complex methods with my regular partner, you get a full explanation of everything. We even tell you inferences from the bidding to which technically you are NOT entitled. This is a far cry form the usual "Whats that mean please?" "Weak 2" response that you get without explanation of style etc etc.

I have literally not played against anyone using Flannery for at least 5 years, so if someone were to sit down against me and open a Flannery 2D or 2H and get a good result due to my unfamiliarity with that convention could I argue that this method has "little if any intrinsic value" and was designed only to confuse? What an absurd comment that would be. Be aware that not everybody in the world has exactly the same opinions and beliefs as you; that does not make them wrong and you right; and do not impugn motives onto other people.

[luis]

I think I need to post a clarification.
First of all this is a match to have fun and to promote bridge ,usually this matches doesn't prove anything but they do create very good material to analize and comment about methods and play.
Second I consider Richard and Ron friends, and it's an honor to me to play with Paul Marston in my team if they consider we don't have to play then no problem if they think we have a chance to play then even better.
We'll have three pairs for our "Moscito-team" and Richard is our captain. We'll be practicing because as maniac-scientists it's in our nature.
I really hope to play against a very strong naturalist team.
We study a lot and practice a lot to play a system we love and we enjoy playing, please respect that.
And my most important wish is please don't fight, this is a game and I proposed the match as a way to promote bridge, promote BBO and create some interest in modern systems like Moscito.
Naturalists and Scientists is a bridge classic, like Zia vrs the Computers, Roma vrs Lazio, Packers vrs Bears.....
I really believe 2/1 and gadgets is natural today and Moscito and relay systems are "scientific", let's play let's have fun and enjoy !!

[kleek]

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to all who were offended by my previous remarks. It was not my intention to offend anyone, but rather to explain why I no longer felt comfortable participating in this match. In addition, I categorically state that I do NOT believe, and deeply regret if it was implied, that those playing the MOSCITO system are somehow cheating. I am also gratified to learn that I was misinformed regarding luis and that he and his partner will be playing on the Scientist team after all.

Obviously, the main thrust of my prior comments was widely misinterpreted. I do not wish to belabor the argument further, since I will not be playing on the Naturalist team anyway, but I do want to take one more stab at making what I think is a valid point (and the one that I was trying to make from the beginning).

The Naturalist team, from the inception of this match, was to have been (perhaps, still is to be) comprised of 2 unestablished, unfamiliar partnerships, playing an unfamiliar (to some team members) version of standard. Apart from having to work out all of those little "standard" details, which everyone knows are standard for some and not standard for others, the Naturalist team members must also come to agreement on how to defend against the Scientists' unusual bids. Would it be safe to say that one, or more, of the team members might forget what has been agreed to as the "standard" bid, or treatment, in an unusual or undiscussed situation, or might misunderstand, or misuse, whatever the agreed-to defense to a MOSCITO bid is, which might lead to a ridiculously "stupid", unfortunate, or even disastrous result? What should the Naturalists' reaction then be?

I quote from hrothgar's response:

"I felt that that it would be best to ensure that the MOSCITO team fielded pairs that are experienced playing with one another. My primary goal was to avoid “stupid” boards where some kind of bidding misunderstanding ruined everyone’s enjoyment."

I rest my case.

[the hog]

Ok. Lets forget this nonsense. Maybe I over reacted with my response and if so, I apologise to Kurt. Fwiw, Kurt, we want you to play. Also as far as anyone is concerned why can't the Naturalists play 2/1?. Who said it had to be bbo standard?

Ron