[pilowsky]

Bidding contests seem to be quite popular on forums and in newsletters.
They typically generate a great deal of excitement and questions about "the right bid".
A notable feature is that the answers from the experts are almost always non-uniform.

The non-uniformity of expert responses suggests that it is possible to construct an interesting (as in the solution is not obvious and may be a matter of opinion) game.

I suggest a duplicate version of Bridge where each team uses their bidding system in an effort to achieve a contract that is as close as possible to "best" double-dummy result.

Such a game can easily be implemented on BBO since the infrastructure is already in place.

[ThomasRush]

pilowsky, on 2021-December-21, 20:37, said:

Bidding contests seem to be quite popular on forums and in newsletters.
They typically generate a great deal of excitement and questions about "the right bid".
A notable feature is that the answers from the experts are almost always non-uniform.

The non-uniformity of expert responses suggests that it is possible to construct an interesting (as in the solution is not obvious and may be a matter of opinion) game.

I suggest a duplicate version of Bridge where each team uses their bidding system in an effort to achieve a contract that is as close as possible to "best" double-dummy result.

Such a game can easily be implemented on BBO since the infrastructure is already in place.

There used to be such contests, referred to as "par" contests. Carefully selected hands where getting to
the best contract was rewarded. You might find some reference to them on bridgewinners.com .

[mycroft]

And we still have bidding contests that are scored by impartial observers (see "The Bidding Box" in the ACBL Bulletin, and others). Which deals with the fact that "par" is on many hands "not possible without assistance".

We get to the slam that makes double-dummy, but will always go down in practise unless the hand with all the trumps doubles to tell declarer what to do? This is not a good score, but it is par.

It's pretty hard, however, to truly handle all the weird kinds of competition you would get at the table in a bidding contest, no matter how it is held. Best they can do is "East bids spades at first opportunity, up to the 3 level. West bids 3♠ if possible."

[pilowsky]

mycroft, on 2021-December-29, 10:35, said:

And we still have bidding contests that are scored by impartial observers (see "The Bidding Box" in the ACBL Bulletin, and others). Which deals with the fact that "par" is on many hands "not possible without assistance".

We get to the slam that makes double-dummy, but will always go down in practise unless the hand with all the trumps doubles to tell declarer what to do? This is not a good score, but it is par.

It's pretty hard, however, to truly handle all the weird kinds of competition you would get at the table in a bidding contest, no matter how it is held. Best they can do is "East bids spades at first opportunity, up to the 3 level. West bids 3♠ if possible."

I don't think that your objections are really objections since they seem to boil down to: "people sometimes make mistakes and/or do silly things resulting in a bad score".
This is exactly the point I'm making.
A "game" of the form I'm describing is basically the flip side of the popular (with some people) "Just Declare" format that BBO has already monetised (hate that word).
A "Just Bid" tournament would work the same way but be scored in deviations from par.

An important advantage of such a game is that it is standardised against a completely objective goal and is therefore fairer.

Sure, people might randomly make bad calls skewing the results, but the same problem happens in "regular bridge."

A major benefit (if played as a robot tourney) is that it might help to train people like me out of our naturally over-optimistic outlook.


If played as a pair vs pair format it may help to expose advantages/disadvantages in bidding systems without being blurred by the Declarer/defence play.


Come to think of it there is no reason why it could not be scored alongside the current system if one of our crafty software developers were up to the task.

[pescetom]

pilowsky, on 2021-December-29, 23:48, said:

If played as a pair vs pair format it may help to expose advantages/disadvantages in bidding systems without being blurred by the Declarer/defence play.


Come to think of it there is no reason why it could not be scored alongside the current system if one of our crafty software developers were up to the task.

There is no reason why bidding could not be scored alongside the current system, indeed why declarer play, defence and choice of leads could not be scored either. All could be scored by combining PAR analysis and ELO like ranking and also be differentiated suit vs NT.
The fly in the ointment is the first point of mycroft, that double-dummy PAR for a hand is sometimes wholly unrealistic when compared to real world bidding and play of the same deal. But that could be mitigated in many ways, for example "downgrading" to a pseudo-PAR based upon highest contracts actually bid by a significant proportion of well ranked players when the double dummy PAR scores badly compared to the field.

[pilowsky]

I agree with what you (and M.) are saying.
Double-dummy scoring is clearly unrealistic in some ways.
OTOH DD scoring is not the only unrealistic or hard to understand element of Bridge (laws and rulings comes to mind).
In this modern era of comprehensive analytics it seems odd to me that we don't take advantage of all the available information.

When computers became better than players at chess it didn't spell the end of Chess (witness the current world championship) what it did was to introduce a new dimension into the analysis and thinking about the game.

My point is that it possible and feasible to generate a separate game from the bidding element of Bridge that some players may find entertaining and which doesn't exist atm.
It may also help people that are starting out in the game and want to polish their bidding skills - as mentioned in another recent post.

[mycroft]

pilowsky, on 2021-December-29, 23:48, said:

I don't think that your objections are really objections since they seem to boil down to: "people sometimes make mistakes and/or do silly things resulting in a bad score".

No, exactly the opposite. I don't want to reward people for getting to contracts that they would have to "make mistakes and/or do silly things" to avoid a bad score, or where they have already "made mistakes and/or did silly things" in the auction.

• Yes, 6♠ makes on this hand. If you finesse against KQ97 versus void in opening leader's hand trick 2. Which is a 6% play, and will go down the 80% of the time that is an "easy" pickup of the suit for one loser (if it's 3-1 or 2-2 (but not 1-3)). Should you be rewarded for finding a slam that you won't make?
  
• Yes, par here is 3♠, because the opponents have a great crossruff (or because LHO can underlead AKJ85 and get a ruff if he does it trick 1.) But 95% of the time, you're going to make an easy 4 (even in the parenthetical, given that nobody will find that underlead). You should not be rewarded for missing this game.
  
• How do you deal with competition? What if the competition that is "obvious" leads to beating par just by itself (LHO has a "everybody will bid it" 5m sacrifice, but it goes for 800 (or is phantom) on this layout)?
  
• Similarly, par frequently is 3♣x-1 (-100 into -110). Par is never something going down undoubled. Doubling all final contracts by the opponents is just a bad strategy, but you'll miss par if you don't (of course, if you guess wrong this time and it makes, doubling is even worse against par - whether it's just -110 is the best score, or "your contract, doubled").
  
• Based on the previous two points, what about the (many) hands where par is 7♦x-5? Especially when that is because the opponents have a magic-make or a "double-dummy only" make of the slam, and literally nobody will be there (or make it if they get there)? Scoring "par" will be a zero in a real field. Do we reward this? Do we reward 5♦x-3, -800 into -680, still effectively a zero in a real field, because it "beats par"?

This is why the Bidding Box has a hand-created score chart based on expert opinion of what a "12-top" would give for each contract.
That is why the "par" contests mentioned by ThomasRush used "carefully selected" hands (the other "careful selection" was "they should be difficult").

Quote

A "game" of the form I'm describing is basically the flip side of the popular (with some people) "Just Declare" format that BBO has already monetised (hate that word).
A "Just Bid" tournament would work the same way but be scored in deviations from par.

I agree that this would be a fun game. But "deviations from par" is a poor reflection of actual bridge skill.

Quote

An important advantage of such a game is that it is standardised against a completely objective goal

Sure, no questions there.

Quote

and is therefore fairer.

Well, fairer than comparing every hand against +800, I guess (another completely objective goal). Might even be fairer than that game where you are compared against a fixed score based on your side's HCP (can't find the table right now) - also a completely objective goal. But if you are trying to evaluate *bridge skill* with "just bid" tournaments, it's not much more *accurate* a goal than those two.

Quote

A major benefit (if played as a robot tourney) is that it might help to train people like me out of our naturally over-optimistic outlook.

It's likely to do exactly the opposite - train you to be more optimistic than your play skills will support. Or even Rodwell's play skills (but maybe not a self-kibitzer's).

Quote

If played as a pair vs pair format it may help to expose advantages/disadvantages in bidding systems without being blurred by the Declarer/defence play.

Help, sure. As long as you review every hand afterward to determine whether par bears any relationship with what would happen at the table. Something that we frequently warn weaker players looking at hand records now about, and many, not just the weaker, players are unable to do competently.

It would, if it took off, certainly get bidding systems that bid to par better than current ones. The chance that they are better systems at the bridge table, even in the hands of expert players, is low. It's another case of "you get what you measure". And "par" approximates "average" on only about 70-75% of hands, and can be wildly off.

Quote

Come to think of it there is no reason why it could not be scored alongside the current system if one of our crafty software developers were up to the task.

Now that might be fun. If only to get actual data to compare to my (and the better players I learn from) feelings and suspicions.

But my guess is that it would be about as accurate as the bridgemates' end-of-session matchpoint percentage in an IMP pairs game. Usually pretty close, but sometimes the winner will get 49%.

As a game, it could be very fun. But like robot individuals, it's Not Bridge in very clear ways. As long as it's treated as Not Bridge, sure, let's have fun. Just don't advertise it as anything to do with improving your actual Bridge skills (like robot indys and blitz chess, it's likely to hurt at least some people's Real results).

[pilowsky]

All good points.
I don't know what the ratio is between people bidding to an unobtainable level on a hand and then the ratio of them making it or not making it vs the opposite problem of people not bidding to the right level and then making or not making overtricks.
The situations noted above are major contributors to the variance in results in what is termed "Bridge".


I agree that comparison to "par" on an individual hand may not be the best metric to determine the best way to bid a pair of hands.
There are other ways of doing it to make it more objective but then the idea is still to compare your result to others as in duplicate Bridge.


Speaking of Blitz Chess, the new world champion (as of a few hours ago) is GM Maxime Vachier-Lagrave.

[pilowsky]

Coincidentally, I note that a similar - but somewhat better formed - proposal was posted on the same day in another place. https://bridgewinner...s-the-contract/