chudecek

This is similar to what I am trying to accomplish with my "System Card", except my proposal provides an explanation of each call as it is made; and further provides that methods used be approved, because the meaning of bids after the opening currently constitutes FAR MORE UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION AND UNAPPROVED METHODS THAN DOES A BASIC COMPLEX SYSTEM. And I further think that PRESENT use of complex unapproved systems and methods is primarily for the purpose of gaining advantage through the opponents' unfamiliarity with the method's details and nuances. Playing Championships with everybody using a common "1930's format" would certainly determine who the best team or pair was - and nothing anyone says here can convince me otherwise.

Any player averaging 3 minutes per board is not a GOOD bridge player. Who is the better crossword puzzle solver? Solver A who solves ten puzzles in 20 minutes with 99.5% accuracy, or Solver B, who takes four days to solve the ten puzzles perfectly, using his Thesaurus and Google? Awarding bonus points to a player using less time than the limit, and penalizing the slowpoke would have the benefit of the faster player getting on the case of the slowpoke: "Look, Homer: Speed up- you are killing us!" and the slowpoke would then learn to be a BRIDGE PLAYER or he would be replaced in the partnership. Players are excused to go pee when they are dummy. If that doesn't work, Depends will do. Applying time constraints is not for the benefit of kibitzers. They are applied to benefit THE GAME. And I am equally sure that speeding up the game would be favored by the majority.

The fines should be in IMPS for IMP tournaments and MP for MP tournaments. I proposed 48 minutes per player for a 32-board match (54 minutes if some insist), with a 1-IMP fine for each minute over that. That amount of time is fair and reasonable. And I see no reason to change that.

No SPECIAL agreement. That means we have NOT discussed this, and must use common bridge sense to come up with a meaning. That activity is the ESSENCE of bridge, not the development of complex special agreements and methods. That activity should stay within the System Development area until developed and approved and should not be introduced during championship competitions.

Remember that the default for a complex situation is to Alert and use the stylus on the touch screen. And please also remember my initial statement: "the meaning of bids after the opening currently constitute FAR MORE UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION AND UNAPPROVED METHODS THAN DOES A BASIC COMPLEX SYSTEM". So make sure you alert and explain, if it was beyond the scope of a modified System Card. And my proposal has nothing to do with kibitzers. I feel that high level championship bridge is better served without a whole lot of home-made and unapproved gadgets; and It is also better served by playing with a reasonable time consumption - 48 to 54 minutes per player for 32 boards.

No, they should follow the Host's (or WBF's) Tournament rules.

Then they could stay home. I don't make the house rules when I visit someone's house.

The Standard Template for Poland would cover the calls and signals related to that system. The explanation of the calls would appear on the screen, along with an Alert! flag if they were not natural.

2C "no special agreements" in the auction 1C-1S-1NT-2C means a good raise in spades at the given vulnerability conditions. Usually it means an unwillingness to defend 1NT doubled or undoubled at the given vulnerability. An example hand vul vs non would be QJ9x KTx AJTx xx.

The suggestions I've made are for North American major tournaments. The EBU or Timbuktu Bridge Union can define "standard" based on what it popular in THEIR playing regions, and set a Standard Template accordingly. If somebody wants to play a "Universal One Club Machete System", he can spend the time modifying the region's Standard Template to fit. Then he can play it in practice matches for a year and in specified Test Matches for another year, playing against those of his ilk who like to use complexity regardless of its effect on others, or on the game. And then he can get it approved. But most likely have it thrown out on its a$$ by the Systems Committee, without so much as a second glance.

Where did I sat THAT? If there is "no special agreement" on a call there is NO SPECIAL AGREEMENT. The partner must use his best judgment, just like the opponents.

Thanks for the well-thought-out reply, and I apologize for snipping some (for MY convenience) My proposal amplifies, not limits, what is disclosed. And I guess one could "disrupt" by opening all non-vulnerable hands with 3S. Might not win on balance, but sure would disrupt. And I would describe TODAY'S standard system (in the USA) as "Simple 2/1, 5CM, Jacoby 2NT, splin, 15-17NT, Jacoby XFER (Sys ON over dble or 2C), neg X thru 3S, 1430RKC, 2C Strong (2D resp neg), 2D-H-S weak but sound - RONF, 4th best leads, K from AK+, standard carding" Now THAT wasn't so lengthy or complicated, was it? I play it. And my pickup partner AND the System Committee "gets it" right away. And I play BETTER by keeping it simple, because my mind is not cluttered with "system".

Since I don't know what the present "Full Disclosure" software is, I respectfully decline. But if you provide me with a Standard Template and the associated "pick a dot" menu revision software as I have described, I would be more than happy to comply. It shouldn't take me more than an hour or so, because 98% plus of the call definitions in the Standard Template I would leave at their DEFAULT "No special agreement". And players can "innovate" to their heart's desire, by going thru the two-year trial, test and approval phases. Only their innovations can't be used in major events such as the Reisinger until they are approved. Why should the field wrestle random "pigs in a poke" in a major contest?

To minimize the “luck factor” of unusual methods, and to emphasize skill in bidding judgment, play, and defense, I propose that major bridge tournaments have “standard systems” for various levels and types of events. The ACBL and EBU do this now to some extent, (eg ACBL Superchart), but I propose taking it a step further by using computer technology (Tablets or Laptops). This has the added benefit of monitoring playing time of each contestant and presenting the auction and played cards in a way that nearly eliminates tempo issues (while preventing revokes, instantly displaying the meaning of calls, and providing convenient means for additional Alert and call / play explanations using a stylus for handwriting on touch screens), Additionally, the time of recording scores, etc. is saved. I submit that today, partnership understandings of the meaning of bids after the opening currently constitute FAR MORE UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION AND UNAPPROVED METHODS THAN DOES A BASIC COMPLEX SYSTEM. A key element of “standardization” is use of flash memory cards to specify or modify explanations of calls during the auction, similar to the rudimentary explanations provided in BBO robot games. The computer contains “standard” templates (revised annually by the Systems Committee) that gives the "standard” meaning of calls, and APPROVED variations for various contests. At the beginning of a session, a pair inserts THEIR memory card into the computer to override the “standard” template. A pairs’ template can be modified over time (but not during an event) by using a menu of APPROVED meanings. For example over a standard 15-17 1NT opening, for a call of 2C, the modification menu would consist of approved “pick a dot” meanings. You could pick a dot that specifies Astro or Landy or Transfer or any other approved method. (e.g. if you pick “transfer”, submenus would come up “pick a dot” - Next higher suit (point range) plus, if applicable “All suit bids thru zz are transfers to next higher suit”. Suggested defenses would also be “pick a dot”, eg “Double is Stayman” or “Double shows bid suit” or “Double start of Penalty sequence”. The Alert and /or explanation would appear on both opponents’ computers. Alerted opponents would be “given” say 5 seconds free time to read any non-standard method and proposed defense(s). This procedure would be used in final rounds of National championships and team trials, and perhaps in some major Regional events and money tournaments. As computer costs become minimal and the world’s youngsters mature, it could be nearly universal for Duplicate bridge - or even rubber. The “Approved Systems Committee” might be three people appointed for staggered 3-year terms with the duty of (once a year) adding or removing call meanings from the standard templates. New agreements or proposals would go through a one-year preliminary trial phase in “System Development” events (live or on-line), and thru a second year of Testing phase, prior to approval or rejection by the Approved Systems Committee. It is past time to move Tournament Bridge into the computer age. This proposal maybe is a start.

Tournament Duplicate Bridge. (A game of skill).

As I have said several times, THIS thread is about time constraints tracked by computer. A subsequent post will comment on "allowed systems", and don't jump to conclusions until you see that proposal, which WILL allow considerable "variety" and will permit "issue fixes".

The players in the later rounds of these big events use laptop computers or touch-screen tablets to enter their bids, plays and alerts. The auction and tricks are displayed on each person's screen, along with supplementary information such as alert explanations, session results, and time consumed. This system SAVES money by preventing revokes, "tempo" issues; and director calls. The sponsoring organization also saves money on cards, bidding boxes, private scores, pencils, committees, and directors. The computer cost is amortized over a couple of years and dozens of uses.

The computer program would take care of delivering the TWO bids in a timely fashion at each turn. Say after a 5 second minimum wait, as you suggest. If there are huddles longer than that, the calls would be delivered when they are made.

I think 3 1/4 hours for a 32 board session is MORE than enough, but if someone wants to increase the allocated time to 105 seconds average (adding 32 minutes to a session), I would not quibble. Remember- these pairs are SITTING at the same table for 16 to 32 boards, so time is not lost in moving (or reviewing systems).

You misinterpreted my proposed time rule. The "90 seconds per hand" is an AVERAGE. One could take 30 minutes for a single bid or play, as long as he consumed less than 18 minutes on ALL of his other bids and plays in 32 boards. A total time of 48x4 = 192 minutes is 3 hours and 12 minutes for a 32-board set. Far more than adequate for most players. I have seen 28 boards played in Cayne matches in less than 90 minutes (HALF of the time limit I have proposed). To have some of the players dawdle, to the detriment and irritation of others is not right and is not fair. Ninety percent of the best players currently and historically would find my time restriction more than adequate, and the 10% would learn to speed up, or play well enough to accept a penalty of a few IMPS. Awarding a trifling bonus for beating the time limit would have "educational" benefit for the slowpokes. After all, some alacrity is part of the game, and is indicative of what bridge tournaments are supposed to measure - bridge skill. Slow play is the reason chess clocks were invented, and why we have time limits on most competitive sports such as football, basketball, boxing and even golf.

As I said, this post is to address the issue of slow play in Trials. The issue of what systems to be allowed at various levels of competition is to be addressed LATER, in a separate topic.

I have spent the last several days watching (painfully) what is described as expert IMP bridge, but is actually a contest involving unusual methods, furious overbidding to minus scores, phantom saves ad infinitum, director calls, system inquiries, and worst of all, interminably slow play by some contestants, to the detriment of the spectators, most contestants, and the game itself. I propose two fixes to remedy nearly all of this: 1. Computerized timing of bidding and play, with any contestant limited to an AVERAGE time of 90 seconds bidding and play per board. Over his 48 minutes allowed in a typical 32-board session, he is punished one IMP per minute overtime, and rewarded 0.2 IMPS for every minute under his allocated time. More on the mechanics of this later in this post. 2. All contestants play exactly the same system and playing conventions. More on the mechanics of this in a FUTURE post. Sixteen years ago (on OK Bridge) I proposed a method for computerized tracking of time consumed by each player. Basically, the computer records time in tenths of a second for each bid and play. Furthermore, the previous TWO bids and plays are delivered simultaneously to the next player to act, making it more difficult for a player to know which player was slow. To do this, each player has a device (networked laptop computers will do) to enter his bids and plays, just like online bridge. The device also displays the consumed time over or under allocation for that player.An X-shaped screen prevents any player from watching another during bidding and play. And please don’t bring up “what about system explanations?” because that’s where Item 2 above comes in (and there are other ways to handle that). With computers where they are today, with Bill Gates involved with BBO, and with scads of players into computer programming, this is a snap. It has the added advantage of preventing revokes or insufficient bids. And perhaps provoking some heated discussion! Carl Hudecek