Sigi_BC84

Hi folks, I'm playing a standard 5-card major system and Walsh-♦ (i.e. bypass ♦ in favor of major on first response unless GF+ values are there). We have some sophisticated agreements to handle the 1NT rebid after both a 1♦ and 1M response to the opening (relay/puppet structures). The memory load is quite high already, especially since some sequences are quite rare. So at the moment I'm toying with the idea of playing Keri or (preferably) Heeman over the 1NT rebid (and of course over the 1NT opener ;-). At first sight this looks workable to me (and I know that the idea isn't new). That would lower the mnemonic load as one would have to learn only one (tried-and-true) structure. Now for my question: Is anybody here playing something like this and how well does it work? In case it didn't work that well, what were the issues? Any comments appreciated. --Sigi

I agree with that. Although it is really tempting to have a supposedly unbiased third party select some interesting hands for the event (that would not have been played before in any well-known tournament), that would leave a bitter note on it. In any case I'm voting for playing at least 26 boards in the event (if time permits), as to keep the bias towards one method low. BTW it would be great to have Fred playing, is there any chance this might happen? --Sigi

Double, then cuebid, then bid NT... --Sigi

I disagree. I agree. Let's agree to disagree, OK? (SCNR)

That would be totally and completely awesome! Please make sure that Europeans can watch it, too (now I wanna see how you cope with three totally different time zones :-). --Sigi

These are some really nice writeups (that guy has got writeups about other systems/conventions as well, all quite readable and typeset well). --Sigi

I'm not going to suppose hindsightedness, but would you explain why you would not balance with this hand? IMO the hand comes quite close to a textbook example for balancing (could be a tad stronger maybe). --Sigi

What are the respective BBO names of these people (esp. interested in Marston's)? Thanks, Sigi

Suffering from acute simulationitis at the moment, I'm making a serious attempt to answer this question: This time I'm assuming that first hand opens SAYC-style with 15-17 NT, again according to the Rule of 20 with 19+HCP hands excluded. The Raptor point range is assumed to be 10-15 strictly, with no further contraints regarding suit quality or distribution of honours. This is what I get: (1x)-1NT*: 0.010394 Generated 1000000 hands Time needed 3.238 sec Quite interestingly, a Raptor overcall of that kind is quite exactly as common as a natural Notrump overcall: about 1 in 100 boards. This makes both conventions "moderately common" in my eyes :-). If one adds additional contraints regarding suit quality, this number will be slightly lower, but since the choice of contraints would be somewhat arbitrary I've left it out (one could, for example, require at least 50% of the honours to be in the two long suits or something else along this line). Something similar applies to the natural overcall, where one would probably add stopper requirements (this is really tedious to specify, so make your own guesses about how that would influence the percentages). Again, here is the Dealer file used to make the calculations (lengthy); you need the Dealer preprocessor for this one: # 1 mio hands generate 1000000 hw = hcp(west) spw = spades(west) hew = hearts(west) diw = diamonds(west) clw = clubs(west) rule_20_opener = ( hw <= 19 and ( hw + spw + hew >= 20 or hw + spw + diw >= 20 or hw + spw + clw >= 20 or hw + hew + diw >= 20 or hw + hew + clw >= 20 or hw + diw + clw >= 20 ) ) balanced = shape(west, any 4333 + any 5332 + any 4432) open_1nt = ( hw >= 15 and hw <= 17 and balanced ) open_one_suit = rule_20_opener and not open_1nt open_one_spade = ( open_one_suit and shape{west, 5+xxx} and spw >= hew and spw >= diw and spw >= clw ) open_one_heart = ( open_one_suit and shape{west, x5+xx} and hew > spw and hew >= diw and hew >= clw ) open_one_diamond = ( open_one_suit and shape{west, 4-4-4+x:d>=c + 4432 + 5+M6+d(xx):d>s,d>h} ) open_one_club = ( open_one_suit and shape{west, 4-4-xx:c>d + 4333 + 3433 + 5+M6+c(xx):c>s,c>h} ) overcall_1nt = ( shape( north, any 4333 + any 5332 + any 4432 ) and hcp(north) >= 15 and hcp(north) <= 18 and open_one_suit ) five_plus_minor = ( diamonds(north) > 4 or clubs(north) > 4 ) majors_length = ( spades(north) + hearts(north) ) four_major = ( spades(north) == 4 or hearts(north) == 4 ) raptor_range = ( hcp(north) > 9 and hcp(north) < 16 ) overcall_raptor = ( raptor_range and majors_length < 8 and ( ( open_one_club and four_major and diamonds(north) > 4 ) or ( open_one_diamond and four_major and clubs(north) > 4 ) or ( open_one_heart and spades(north) == 4 and five_plus_minor ) or ( open_one_spade and hearts(north) == 4 and five_plus_minor ) ) ) action average "(1x)-1NT*" overcall_raptor

I have done a simulation, yielding the following: (1x)-1NT: 0.010568 (1x): 0.339665 Generated 1000000 hands Produced 1000000 hands Initial random seed 1139575354 Time needed 2.813 sec I've assumed a rule-of-20 opener that is not balanced 15-17 and weaker than 20 HCP. For the overcall I've ignored any stopper requirements and assumed a range of 15-18 HCP. The figures say that the natural NT overcall occurs in about 1% of the boards (with 1st hand opening and 2nd hand overcalling). 1st hand opens in about 34% of the boards. I may have made a mistake in my specifications, so if anyone cares, here is the dealer script I've used (without loss of generality I've chosen west to be dealer and hence north to be overcaller): # 1 mio hands generate 1000000 hw = hcp(west) spw = spades(west) hew = hearts(west) diw = diamonds(west) clw = clubs(west) rule_20_opener = ( hw <= 19 and ( hw + spw + hew >= 20 or hw + spw + diw >= 20 or hw + spw + clw >= 20 or hw + hew + diw >= 20 or hw + hew + clw >= 20 or hw + diw + clw >= 20 ) ) balanced = shape(west, any 4333 + any 5332 + any 4432) open_1nt = ( hw >= 15 and hw <= 17 and balanced ) first_seat_opens_1suit = rule_20_opener and not open_1nt overcall_1nt = ( shape( north, any 4333 + any 5332 + any 4432 ) and hcp(north) >= 15 and hcp(north) <= 18 and first_seat_opens_1suit ) action average "(1x)-1NT" overcall_1nt, average "(1x)" first_seat_opens_1suit

Thanks, Free. Can you maybe summarize what you have changed compared to the published Heeman? Otherwise we would have to work this out by comparing the FD version and the published version. --Sigi

You lurked for one entire year before starting to play yourself?? You must be a really shy person :-). I encourage all beginners to just sit at a table with a free seat and come forward with the info that you are a total n00b and need some assistance. Don't do it with an "experts only" table though :-). At normal social tables this will be okay, or people will tell you that they don't have the nerve, in which case you'll simply go to another table. For that matter you will find out soon enough that quite a few people don't care a lot about proper manners (there is a lot of bailing in middle of hands, rudeness etc.), so one absolutely should not bar oneself from playing because others might be offended from ignorance about how the software works. There are worse sins than that on BBO. For that matter, you will have understood how everything works after about 30 minutes and 3-5 questions to opps anyway. --Sigi

You and Frances are both correctly hinting at the complexity of this problem. Let me say though that I was not suggesting that you will find a "42 is the answer"-like result to the Raptor vs Natural question by using a deal generator and double dummy analysis. I was thinking about solving some of the problems related to the subject, e.g. how dangerous is a natural NT overcall with regard to penalties, and how often do you find a playable partscore using Raptor that you would not have found otherwise (because of supposedly hidden major suit fits that come to light). Maybe I'm being too naive about the problem and the complexities and inferences involved are too many so that answering questions like the above won't be of much value anyway. Hopefully I've brought my idea across at this point ;-). --Sigi

No they won't; apparently you took my remark regarding DD accuracy the wrong way. I'm not saying that you can easily (or at all) setup a simulation that will yield a quality hypothesis regarding the value of the Raptor convention. I'm only saying that given you find a good simulator setup, DD accuracy will not be in your way when it comes to determining the actual trick value of a hand -- regarding real world play of that hand. --Sigi

Of course you can only DD analyze deals (with a given contract), and not auctions. What I'm having in mind is to construct typical deals where Raptor and natural notrump overcalls would apply, and see which one loses or gains more and if it will average out in the end. This will require some work in specifying the hands but it should be possible. There are tools which allow you to generate deals based on complex specifications (probably you know this but I'm mentioning it anyway just in case). Alternately one could analyze hands from real world play, looking for cases where Raptor and natural notrump had been used and see which one loses out. I don't have access to BridgeBrowser but maybe somebody will bother to actually do it. Filtering out the Raptor hands shouldn't be too hard... --Sigi

OK, so what is actually the case in your opinion? If there is no playing with the field because the field is diverse enough, then, by definition, there are no field-methods and hence no anti-field-methods as well. Also you're talking about being "handicapped by strange methods" as if it can be assumed that the methods are as strange to the pair who is applying them as to anybody else. I don't think this would be the case at all (probably the pair playing the methods will know them well enough, or no?). If the methods are a handicap, that makes them bad methods by any means. Just being "strange" in the eyes of the majority doesn't impose a handicap in a general sense (except maybe for badly prepared opposition). Following the discussion I get a stronger and stronger impression that this is more about beliefs, preferences and feelings than about actual performance of this-or-that method (this doesn't have to apply to Raptor, but see my posting about double dummy analysis above). While top-experts won't be prone to use inferior methods, this does not mean that most unknown or rarely-used methods are inferior. Richard makes a strong point when he says that geographical location and local regulations play a big role here. So why not use tried-and-true methods if you can be reasonably sure that you will outplay most of the opposition after the contract has been declared? Those methods will be the ones predominant in your country/area, that's why american top pairs do not play Polish Club and almost all Poles do. Now take a method like Keri, which many people here are raving about. So far I haven't met a pair in real life who are playing Keri. Same applies to Scanian NT and Heeman -- they all play Staymanic systems, which are proven to be less effective than the abovementioned methods. So just because a method is unknown and the field prefers something else doesn't mean it's necessarily better. Something else is nagging me as well: the possibilities for bidding systems are endless, but only a tiny proportion of these is actually in use (most of them being natural even, now why should this be optimal after all?). This is not a constructive argument but hints strongly towards the fact that there must be countless methods out there which are better than the "Standard(s)" (and still playable). OK, some of these are outlawed, but that opens an entirely new can of worms. This will conclude my ramblings, maybe somebody here has a comment on this or that... --Sigi

I've just read in a different topic that double dummy analysis is indeed very close to the real world performance (RL declarers take 0.1 tricks more on average than DD declarers). So why not do a double dummy analysis of Raptor versus natural notrump? At first thought this looks pretty realistic to me, or does anybody see a reason why it might not work (not every convention can be DD analysed in a meaningful way). --Sigi

Have you considered mobile (cell) phone access to the internet so far? I don't know what the situation in England is, but they might have decent UMTS coverage in the area of the hotel, which would solve the problem. You'd only have to find a person with UMTS access or somebody will have to subscribe to a cell phone plan (which would still be way less expensive than 2000 GBP). Maybe even standard mobile connectivity will be enough to run the Vugraph. You would be using GPRS with pre-paid traffic, dirt cheap (should be << 50 GPB). I'm sure there are cell phone plans being offered in UK which will make this very affordable. --Sigi

Talking about SCREAM (and the likes) carries us straight toward the next issue: Systems that alter the relay structure dynamically based on which suits have already been bid in the current auction. This cannot be specified within Bridge2Symmetric, so one would need some kind of programmability. Along the same lines are things like interference handling and denial cue bidding which are only (or easier) to be specified using some kind of description language than using tables or trees. Using Ruby, it is in fact quite possible to create a special purpose language, but it is definitely advanced Ruby wizardry. However, it would be intriguing to have these possibilities -- it would also nicely apply to the general concept of a bidding system editor. I'm not entirely sure how well the static nature of the FD files is suited towards such complexity. After all, you will have to be able to enumerate all possible bidding sequences. --Sigi

I was planning to write this in Ruby, actually, since this is the most fun language I know (and highly effective as well, a lot more than Java, C++ or even Perl). The main problem about this project is reading in the Bridge2Symmetric system files. I'm at the moment trying to work out the file format -- this is only a matter of time, and made quite easy by the fact that the original b2sym can be decompiled to readable source code. A quick solution would be to simply use the original classes from b2sym to read in the files and generate the FD sequences. However, this would make redistribution of the tool illegal (one might argue that this is not that much of a problem since b2sym is more or less abandonware anyway). Also, one would then have to understand the complete object structure of b2sym, which is not much easier than understanding how to read in the files. As soon as you have a means to read the system descriptions it's fairly straightforward to generate FD files from these (more or less a matter of traversing the bidding tree and generating all possible bidding sequences along the way). Also this could make for a nice basis for an alternative to the original Full Disclosure editor (which I'm not really fond of, although it's working). Contact me by mail if you want to assist: frank at luithle dot net --Sigi

Playing in the main club (and enjoying it at the same time) is not so much a question of "being ready" but of luck and opportunity; i.e. if you are lucky enough to find a table that doesn't fall apart after 2 boards. This certainly does happen from time to time, but I have found it a lot rarer in the main club than e.g. in the WP refugees bridge club. A good way to meet new people is joining tournaments and picking up partners from the partnership registration desk. These are often serious players and you are guranteed to play with them at least over the length of the tournament, so you get to know them a bit in terms of playing strength, attitude and general reliability. If the tourney went well, it is not a problem to meet up with them again => 1 new BBO partner! Apart from that I have found it quite easy to make BBO friends if you are friendly and communicate with opps and partner (more than just saying "glp", "typ", and "wdp"). --Sigi

I understand that non-forcing artificial bids put more pressure on the precision pair, since responder does not get a guaranteed second opportunity to make a call. However, your argument cited would also work against popular (and working) anti-NT conventions (e.g. 2♣ = Ms or 2♦ = Multi). If they work against a strong NT, why shouldn't they (quite) equally apply against a strong club (which is quite often a strong NT opener anyway)? E.g. if the bidding goes (1NT)-2♦*-(X), opener also knows that it's their hand, but we have got them out of their NT and disturbed their methods. Likewise against a strong club (we have disturbed their methods while odds were on that it was their hand anyway). Curious, Sigi

Wow this seems like very wierd criteria to base level of tourneys on. Very wierd. Location determines level? Who has time determines level of tourney? What he is talking about is that tournaments in central locations or metropolitan areas in Germany draw a better competition than events in sparsely populated areas (location). Also, if some of the experts don't have time to play, you will have not as good a competition -- this is essential since there simply ARE not many experts. Similar reasoning applies to prizes (good money attracts better players). Know that unfortunately there are not that many high class bridge tournaments being offered in Germany, especially if you are not willing to drive long distances. Also we certainly do NOT have a market for professionals like in the US (the few existing professionals in Germany teach LOLs on bridge vacation trips). --Sigi

LOL, this is great, my two thumbs up for this one! --Sigi

"Common Law", anyone? Certainly does exist and is taken for granted by legal systems (it might make those systems problematic in areas where common law applies, but you made it sound to me like the concept is totally out of the question). If this applies to Bridge (which is a closed system with already existing fairly precise rules) is a different matter. EDIT: On second reading I'm not sure if my "common law" anology holds at all. Maybe it holds to the degree that one might assume a common law which says that there always are certain agreements between players (see below). I agree with awm when he says that it would be very hard to believe a pair who claim that they have "no agreements at all". Only total beginners to the game, who know hardly more than the Laws of Bridge could credibly make such a claim. In all other cases there are implicit agreements (of varying complexity). --Sigi