Help
The key question as far as I am concerned is not "Will the correct system allow a weak pair to beat a strong pair?" but "Will the correct system allow a weak pair to beat another weak pair?" and "Will the correct system allow a strong pair to beat another strong pair?"
Certainly a lot of weak pairs would improve their results if they simply had more agreements, especially in competitive auctions.
Another point is that matches are generally too short to determine if one system is better than another - the victory is overwhelmingly likely to be due to the short term distribution of errors between the two teams. I know that when Matt Ginsberg was changing the bidding database on his GIB software he would run very long matches between the new version and the old version. This demonstrates that given equal playing skill, bidding will make the difference in the long run (just as given equal bidding skill, play and defense will make the difference!).
Eric
Bob Hamman's assertion
#41
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,303
- Joined: 2003-February-14
- Location:England
Posted 2005-May-30, 01:37
#42
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,908
- Joined: 2003-December-02
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rimini-Bologna (Italy)
- Interests:Chess, Bridge, Jazz, European Cinema, Motorbiking, Tango dancing
Posted 2005-May-30, 01:42
Hamman was provoking, as he does- quite unpleasantly, IMO - throughout the entire book.
"Bridge is like dance: technique's important but what really matters is not to step on partner's feet !"
#43
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,315
- Joined: 2005-February-09
- Gender:Male
- Location:Zurich, Switzerland
Posted 2005-May-30, 01:59
Some points others may have missed:
(1) Sometimes, playing a nonstandard system can help to develop judgement. As an example, many American players (even at fairly high levels of competition) do poorly against weak notrump. They simply have not played enough hands against the weak notrump to be able to properly judge what to do, in part because it's not popular in the US. Outside of moving to Great Britain, the best way to become experienced in defending weak notrump is by playing it yourself. This is also true of other treatments and conventions, like four card majors, precision 2♣, or the multi 2♦. Of course, it doesn't apply to more "weird" homegrown treatments, but it's useful to experiment with popular conventions that you are likely to see in top flight competition. Playing a system based around losing trick count rather than high card points (for example) can help develop bidding judgement.
(2) It's very important to have good agreements. Being on the same page with partner is more valuable than playing some theoretically best methods. Because of this, it's important to have discussed a lot of auctions, and what bids mean in various sequences. This is true regardless of what the basic system structure is. Pretty much every top pair has spent a great deal of time on this (including Fred and Brad I'm sure, even though they play a relatively "standard" system). There is some strange benefit to playing a nonstandard system, because such a structure FORCES you to discuss a lot of auctions, whereas it is easy to fall into the trap of assuming that just because you play "standard american" or "two-over-one" you can get away with not talking about a lot of things. Agreements about treatments like raising major suit responses on three cards, and whether reverses in game-forcing auctions show extras, can swing a lot of IMPs and are important to discuss.
(3) Memory load is an important constraint in bidding. I know people like the "scientists" Fred describes. In fact, I've played with some of them... it's not enough to be playing a relay system, they want to have a different relay structure after each opening bid, flipping things around to optimize their structures in very minute ways, with the net effect of making things almost impossible to remember. If you have agreements that come up less than once every couple weeks, they're going to be pretty tough to remember (note that this means pairs who play all the time like Meckstroth-Rodwell are probably better able to play complex agreements than those of us who have other full time jobs). On the other hand, it can be easier to remember methods over a precision 1♣ (which comes up a couple times a session), than it is to remember methods over a strong 2♣ (which comes up a couple times a week at most).
(4) Comfort level is really the most important thing. Better bidding can certainly swing a few imps, but playing the cards (and especially defending!) tend to be more valuable. Even at the highest levels, a quite surprising number of boards are misdefended. Of course, some people have an easier time than others remembering complex agreements, and for those people it may be worth the edge they get.
I suspect that Fred's teammates (Rubin + Ekeblad) would tend not to agree with his statements about the relative value of methods. But then again, they too can play the cards.
(1) Sometimes, playing a nonstandard system can help to develop judgement. As an example, many American players (even at fairly high levels of competition) do poorly against weak notrump. They simply have not played enough hands against the weak notrump to be able to properly judge what to do, in part because it's not popular in the US. Outside of moving to Great Britain, the best way to become experienced in defending weak notrump is by playing it yourself. This is also true of other treatments and conventions, like four card majors, precision 2♣, or the multi 2♦. Of course, it doesn't apply to more "weird" homegrown treatments, but it's useful to experiment with popular conventions that you are likely to see in top flight competition. Playing a system based around losing trick count rather than high card points (for example) can help develop bidding judgement.
(2) It's very important to have good agreements. Being on the same page with partner is more valuable than playing some theoretically best methods. Because of this, it's important to have discussed a lot of auctions, and what bids mean in various sequences. This is true regardless of what the basic system structure is. Pretty much every top pair has spent a great deal of time on this (including Fred and Brad I'm sure, even though they play a relatively "standard" system). There is some strange benefit to playing a nonstandard system, because such a structure FORCES you to discuss a lot of auctions, whereas it is easy to fall into the trap of assuming that just because you play "standard american" or "two-over-one" you can get away with not talking about a lot of things. Agreements about treatments like raising major suit responses on three cards, and whether reverses in game-forcing auctions show extras, can swing a lot of IMPs and are important to discuss.
(3) Memory load is an important constraint in bidding. I know people like the "scientists" Fred describes. In fact, I've played with some of them... it's not enough to be playing a relay system, they want to have a different relay structure after each opening bid, flipping things around to optimize their structures in very minute ways, with the net effect of making things almost impossible to remember. If you have agreements that come up less than once every couple weeks, they're going to be pretty tough to remember (note that this means pairs who play all the time like Meckstroth-Rodwell are probably better able to play complex agreements than those of us who have other full time jobs). On the other hand, it can be easier to remember methods over a precision 1♣ (which comes up a couple times a session), than it is to remember methods over a strong 2♣ (which comes up a couple times a week at most).
(4) Comfort level is really the most important thing. Better bidding can certainly swing a few imps, but playing the cards (and especially defending!) tend to be more valuable. Even at the highest levels, a quite surprising number of boards are misdefended. Of course, some people have an easier time than others remembering complex agreements, and for those people it may be worth the edge they get.
I suspect that Fred's teammates (Rubin + Ekeblad) would tend not to agree with his statements about the relative value of methods. But then again, they too can play the cards.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#45
- World International Master without a clue
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,404
- Joined: 2003-November-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:madrid
Posted 2005-May-30, 06:34
luke warm, on May 29 2005, 08:50 PM, said:
absolutely true, a system can't teach anyone to count or teach judgment...
This is obviously true but...
A very good friend of mine played last european championship for Spain (very long competition), he was using a viking club system, wich is a highly artificial one full of relays everywhere.
He pointed to me that one of the best issues of the system was that the system was actually bidding for him, once he was familiar with all relays, he had to apply no judgement at all on uncontested biddings, wich meant they were a lot less tired than any other in the team after first week.
#47
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,396
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2005-May-30, 08:02
csdenmark, on May 30 2005, 04:05 PM, said:
Viking is to be assessed as a fairly poor tool. Very many and deep relays difficult to remember. After any simple interference the system is off. Then you no longer have a Precision system as Glen has completely refrained any kind of interference handle. The remain is a simple standard system with limit openings and a strong duspin. Thats all!
It looks to me on Vugraph that Aa/Groetheim don't apply their system themselves.
It looks to me on Vugraph that Aa/Groetheim don't apply their system themselves.
To quote another Dane, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
Bridge Systems evolve over time. Even if your System Files are perfectly accurate today is no guaruntee that they will be so tomorrow. In this case, Viking Club is Groetheim and Aa's system, I think that they get to determine what is and is not systemic.
Equally significant, Groetheim and Aa have a damn good track record with Viking Club... The Norweigan's have a great record in both international play and in bidding contests like Challenge the Champs. Many of the best results are with part-scre hands. Hard to understand how such a poor tool performs so well for them...
Alderaan delenda est
#48
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,190
- Joined: 2003-September-30
- Location:London, England
- Interests:Cricket
Posted 2005-May-30, 08:14
hrothgar, on May 30 2005, 09:02 AM, said:
To quote another Dane, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
Quote from "Hamlet" (Shakespeare), where philosophy in this context means "science". Although Hamlet may have been a viking, I don't think he played Viking Club.
But I do know that he and Ophelia were in contention in all mixed events at the time. Maybe they played a simple system?
Roland
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice
#49
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,303
- Joined: 2003-February-14
- Location:England
Posted 2005-May-30, 08:24
Walddk, on May 30 2005, 02:14 PM, said:
hrothgar, on May 30 2005, 09:02 AM, said:
To quote another Dane, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
Quote from "Hamlet" (Shakespeare), where philosophy in this context means "science". Although Hamlet may have been a viking, I don't think he played Viking Club.
But I do know that he and Ophelia were in contention in all mixed events at the time. Maybe they played a simple system?
They played a very complicated system but used rosemary (that's for remembrance) Act IV Scene 5
Eric
#50
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,143
- Joined: 2003-May-02
- Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posted 2005-May-30, 08:42
Well
I'm in the middle of both sides. I think that from a theoretical point of view there're systems that are better than others. Which ones are better and how better they are is one of the unsolved misteries of bridge. I don't know the answer. I'm based in the simple fact that systems are different so if you put identical "clones" to play all the bridge hands in the world using two different systems in a team match one of them will win. That's why I like naturalist vs scientists matches and similar, because I'm intrigued by the question.
Having said that I also think that bridge judgement is the #1 factor to become a good player and that how confortable the partnership is with the system is more important than the system itself. I play different systems with different pds and I'm quite happy with all of them, for one of my partnerships we switched from precision to an ad-hoc strong club then to 2/1 and now we play fantunes style, we failed with strong club systems, we failed with 2/1 and now we are doing fine with fantunes. A story that I think should be similar to what Greco and Hampson experienced.
When I was 19 or 20 I was very excited about the system now maybe I'm getting older but I care less and less about the system and more and more about bridge things, like style, competitive agreements and carding.
Luis.
I'm in the middle of both sides. I think that from a theoretical point of view there're systems that are better than others. Which ones are better and how better they are is one of the unsolved misteries of bridge. I don't know the answer. I'm based in the simple fact that systems are different so if you put identical "clones" to play all the bridge hands in the world using two different systems in a team match one of them will win. That's why I like naturalist vs scientists matches and similar, because I'm intrigued by the question.
Having said that I also think that bridge judgement is the #1 factor to become a good player and that how confortable the partnership is with the system is more important than the system itself. I play different systems with different pds and I'm quite happy with all of them, for one of my partnerships we switched from precision to an ad-hoc strong club then to 2/1 and now we play fantunes style, we failed with strong club systems, we failed with 2/1 and now we are doing fine with fantunes. A story that I think should be similar to what Greco and Hampson experienced.
When I was 19 or 20 I was very excited about the system now maybe I'm getting older but I care less and less about the system and more and more about bridge things, like style, competitive agreements and carding.
Luis.
The legend of the black octogon.
#51
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,396
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2005-May-30, 09:02
Here are a few "serious" thoughts about bidding systems:
1. I doubt that it would EVER be possible to develop an kind of elegant analytic proof that demonstrates that system XYZ is the best. The problem is too complex to solve analytically using traditional appraoches like game theory. In particular, the feedback between the "bidding" game and the "declarer play/defense" game makes life extremely complicated.
2. With this said and done, I do believe that it is possible to make judgements about the relative performance of different bidding systems. Brute force and simulations would be our most powerful tools. Given sufficient resources, its certainly feasible to program one set of computers to play 2/1 Game Forcing, a second set to to play Precision, and see what happens. The most important output from such an experiment would include the expected IMP score per board along with the standard deviation. Its entirely possible for an "inferior" bidding system to outperform a superior systems over a short set of boards.
3. Its completely unclear whether bidding systems are "transitive". Assume that 2/1 Game Forcing > Precision. Futhermore assume Precision is > EHAA. If this relationship is transitive, than 2/1 GF > EHAA. My gut tells me that the rleationship is not transitive.
4. Playing a pair's match there are advantages to playing anti-field systems.
If you take all of these factors into consideration, I strongly believe that the "equilbirum" for this system is mixed. Bridge tournaments should consist of a mixture of different systems with some "optimal" ratio between systems X, Y, and Z.
Give me enough money and I could probably even prove this...
1. I doubt that it would EVER be possible to develop an kind of elegant analytic proof that demonstrates that system XYZ is the best. The problem is too complex to solve analytically using traditional appraoches like game theory. In particular, the feedback between the "bidding" game and the "declarer play/defense" game makes life extremely complicated.
2. With this said and done, I do believe that it is possible to make judgements about the relative performance of different bidding systems. Brute force and simulations would be our most powerful tools. Given sufficient resources, its certainly feasible to program one set of computers to play 2/1 Game Forcing, a second set to to play Precision, and see what happens. The most important output from such an experiment would include the expected IMP score per board along with the standard deviation. Its entirely possible for an "inferior" bidding system to outperform a superior systems over a short set of boards.
3. Its completely unclear whether bidding systems are "transitive". Assume that 2/1 Game Forcing > Precision. Futhermore assume Precision is > EHAA. If this relationship is transitive, than 2/1 GF > EHAA. My gut tells me that the rleationship is not transitive.
4. Playing a pair's match there are advantages to playing anti-field systems.
If you take all of these factors into consideration, I strongly believe that the "equilbirum" for this system is mixed. Bridge tournaments should consist of a mixture of different systems with some "optimal" ratio between systems X, Y, and Z.
Give me enough money and I could probably even prove this...
Alderaan delenda est
#53
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,597
- Joined: 2003-February-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, USA
Posted 2005-May-30, 09:14
hrothgar, on May 30 2005, 03:02 PM, said:
4. Playing a pair's match there are advantages to playing anti-field systems.
That's funny - I have always thought the opposite was true
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
#54
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,143
- Joined: 2003-May-02
- Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posted 2005-May-30, 09:22
fred, on May 30 2005, 03:14 PM, said:
hrothgar, on May 30 2005, 03:02 PM, said:
4. Playing a pair's match there are advantages to playing anti-field systems.
That's funny - I have always thought the opposite was true
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
Fred,
It depends if you are better or worst than the average field :-)
If you are worst then playing anti-field systems works in your advantage.
If you are better then you want to play the same contracts they play and hope your cardplay or defense will produce a result.
Maybe that's why you always thought the opposite. ;-)
The legend of the black octogon.
#55
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,396
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2005-May-30, 09:30
fred, on May 30 2005, 06:14 PM, said:
hrothgar, on May 30 2005, 03:02 PM, said:
4. Playing a pair's match there are advantages to playing anti-field systems.
That's funny - I have always thought the opposite was true
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
If I declared/defended like you, I might feel the same way...
Alderaan delenda est
#56
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 690
- Joined: 2003-October-14
Posted 2005-May-30, 09:44
Desperately stopping myself from replying to Rolands rather perennial allusion to Shakespeare and the fact that he seems to jingoistically believe that Hamlet is the only play the Bard ever produced..... 
....
One thing that seems to be omitted form these 'arguments' is the exclusion of the 'human factor'. I remember a similar discussion in a previous thread to which nobody really gave me a satisfactory reply to.
the human factor being: how does a system cope with a preemption? or a slightly freakish bid, or a bid knowing it exposed a chink in the system's armour? (the defenses to Precision being a notorious one ).
In a game where by definition one has 7 levels, if the opponents take away 3 of them the amount of available space left in proportion to what was available is severly reduced. IMO no system can really cope with this phenomenon. If there were 14 levels and an opp steals you 2 of them, there is still time to recoup, reposition your little tin men and change your battle strategy.
No computer can be encoded to simulate unpredictable human behavior and thus no quantitiative analysis can really be made as to which system outperforms any other. As 'the other Dane' said most unnatural systems are systems off after a high(er) level interference.
The best bridge players in this world, of which Bob Hamman is undoubtedly one of, have a bridge judgement that most of us would give the ace we have tucked up our sleeve for. They are able to retaliate to situations at the table that their system is not necessarily constructed to respond to , and make assumptions and inferences about hands that no number of variables in a C#** function can reproduce.
Alessio
PS ** sorry i meant a Java Class
....One thing that seems to be omitted form these 'arguments' is the exclusion of the 'human factor'. I remember a similar discussion in a previous thread to which nobody really gave me a satisfactory reply to.
the human factor being: how does a system cope with a preemption? or a slightly freakish bid, or a bid knowing it exposed a chink in the system's armour? (the defenses to Precision being a notorious one ).
In a game where by definition one has 7 levels, if the opponents take away 3 of them the amount of available space left in proportion to what was available is severly reduced. IMO no system can really cope with this phenomenon. If there were 14 levels and an opp steals you 2 of them, there is still time to recoup, reposition your little tin men and change your battle strategy.
No computer can be encoded to simulate unpredictable human behavior and thus no quantitiative analysis can really be made as to which system outperforms any other. As 'the other Dane' said
most unnatural systems are systems off after a high(er) level interference. The best bridge players in this world, of which Bob Hamman is undoubtedly one of, have a bridge judgement that most of us would give the ace we have tucked up our sleeve for. They are able to retaliate to situations at the table that their system is not necessarily constructed to respond to , and make assumptions and inferences about hands that no number of variables in a C#** function can reproduce.
Alessio
PS ** sorry i meant a Java Class
gaudium est miseris socios habuisse penarum - Misery loves company.
#57
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,396
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2005-May-30, 10:04
slothy, on May 30 2005, 06:44 PM, said:
The best bridge players in this world, of which Bob Hamman is undoubtedly one of, have a bridge judgement that most of us would give the ace we have tucked up our sleeve for. They are able to retaliate to situations at the table that their system is not necessarily constructed to respond to , and make assumptions and inferences about hands that no number of variables in a C#** function can reproduce.
I'm sure Kasparov supporters felt much the same...
Alderaan delenda est
#58
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 690
- Joined: 2003-October-14
Posted 2005-May-30, 10:15
hrothgar, on May 30 2005, 11:04 AM, said:
I'm sure Kasparov supporters felt much the same...
You are shamelessly smacking both of my cheeks with your white glove with that remark. I dont like 'pistols at dawn' as i am not that with it in the mornings...
There is a slight difference here and you know it.
gaudium est miseris socios habuisse penarum - Misery loves company.
#59
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,908
- Joined: 2003-December-02
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rimini-Bologna (Italy)
- Interests:Chess, Bridge, Jazz, European Cinema, Motorbiking, Tango dancing
Posted 2005-May-30, 10:42
hrothgar, on May 30 2005, 04:04 PM, said:
slothy, on May 30 2005, 06:44 PM, said:
The best bridge players in this world, of which Bob Hamman is undoubtedly one of, have a bridge judgement that most of us would give the ace we have tucked up our sleeve for. They are able to retaliate to situations at the table that their system is not necessarily constructed to respond to , and make assumptions and inferences about hands that no number of variables in a C#** function can reproduce.
I'm sure Kasparov supporters felt much the same...
At chess pro levels, the opening theory (e.g. the equivalent of bidding theory) extends right into the middlegame with mating attacks or into the endgame, so it is strictly connected to tactics and technique.
The vital need for opening preparaton arises in those complicated long variations (e.g. Dragon, Najdorf, Sveshnikov Sicilian or Marshall attack in the Spanish) where you can indeed find yourself in a losing position right after the opening.
In those openings, a 2450 ELO rating player can indeed defeat a 2600 player.
BUT, in openings where there is not such a strong theory (e.g. the game does not land into a forced mate sequence or a forced losing endgame), commonsense still prevails, and I could bet way more than a couple of cokes that if you pair Kasparov vs any 2650 GM in a "normal" position, Kasparov will win 75% of the time.
===============================
In Bridge, it's not the same: the bidding theory does not have the same strong, direct connection to card play technique (which is the equivalent of middlegame tactics and endgame technique).
"Bridge is like dance: technique's important but what really matters is not to step on partner's feet !"
#60
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 189
- Joined: 2005-February-05
Posted 2005-May-30, 10:44
Wow a little energy in this thread - caused me to think about a quote - either Jacoby or Goren when asked why he was so successful - he replied "That's simple - I just put a bushel basket under the table and catch everything that falls off."