developing a new bidding convention

[polly200400]

Hi all - my regular p and I decided to try and come up with a new bidding system - we used probablities of various hands, etc and after many months and a lot of failures, have come up with a system that works pretty well. We used the robots on MSN as our opps since they bid a little. We have started playing back on BBO. We alert our bids which are artificial for the first 2 rounds and then natural. Some one told us that we had to suggest a defense against our bidding (???)or that we had to use one of the regular systems. How much of this is true? why do we have to suggest a defense? Heck, p and I want to publish and become famous -

polly

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

depends where you are living, ... if you want to become famous,

you will need to play face to face bridge, and if you are playing

in the US, ... I think the rules require, that you suggest a defence

against your conventional openings.

 

This implicitly assumes, that your conventions are legal, for the

tournaments you are playing, i.e. it is probably not a good idea,

to play a brown sticker method.

 

Marlowe

[david_c]

Some one told us that we had to suggest a defense against our bidding (???)or that we had to use one of the regular systems.  How much of this is true?

None of it, unless you are playing in a tournament which has its own rules. Some competitions (online or in "real life") do have rules like this, but it is not normal.

 

However it may be worth having a suggested defence prepared anyway, as some opponents may find it helpful. If you're playing against opponents who don't know how to defend against your system then you're not going to get a very good idea of how well your system works.

[mink]

As far as the BBO Main Bridge Club is concerned, I am quite sure that there are no system regulations in effect. And I am very sure that nobody requires you to supply a suggested defense against your system when playing there. The same is true for tourneys unless stated otherwise in the tourney description or in websites the tourney description is referring to.

 

Karl

[hrothgar]

the easiest thing is to simply post a description of the new convention or (alternatively) the new bidding system. Its entirely possible that suggested defenses have already been developed.

 

Different organizations have different rules requiring suggested defenses. (Personally, I think that the idea that players should be responsible for developing defenses to their own methods is conceptually flawed). YMMV

[cherdano]

If I were you, I would just offer opponents to discuss their defense whenever s.th. comes up (and suggest s.th. mostly natural if they want to). You don't want them to have misunderstanding when you are trying find out how well your system works.

 

Arend

[luke warm]

if a pair sits and says 'leghorn diamond' complete with FD, do they have to give defenses to it? i don't know

[Free]

If I want to put my energy in designing a great system, that's fine. But if I never play against my own methods, why should I have to put energy in designing a good defense against it??? B) If my opponents don't want to do their homework, that's their problem imo, not mine... And if time is a problem, bad luck.

 

There's only 1 exception for me, and even then it's not clear: in big pairs events where you play 2 boards at each table, it might be better to be able to give a suggested defense. But don't expect it to be perfect!

 

 

For online bridge in the main lobby there are system regulations. If you won't want to play against strong pass, don't sit at foobar and drtodd's table. If you decide you want to sit there anyway, don't start whining about all sorts of stuff, just try to enjoy yourself. If you're so friendly to let opps discuss their defenses during the bidding and they don't want to do that, well, you've offered them a hand and they refused... Suggested defenses is something invented somewhere with ridiculous regulations, here in Belgium (and probably lots of other European countries) you can play lots of systems and don't have to offer a defense to it. However you have to inform your opps what you play way before you play (in competition that is) so opps have time enough to find something against it.

[awm]

I hold with the general principle that no one should gain a substantial advantage simply because of playing unusual methods. Now, if these methods work better (for certain hands at least) than more standard methods, that's fine. What I mean is that you shouldn't get a big advantage simply because opponents are unfamiliar with what you're doing or don't know how to defend against it. Alerting during the play isn't really sufficient, because opponents need to be on the same page about what their bids mean over your stuff.

 

For a long, serious team match with some lead-in time, it's perfectly reasonable to let opponents come up with their own defenses. But the vast majority of bridge matches that most of us play aren't like this.

 

In a pairs event, where you play two boards a round against many people, it may be necessary to limit what conventions people can play, and/or require a reasonable suggested defense. Without one of these two things, people who play "weird stuff" will be at a huge advantage because no one can prepare an effective defense (or really even fully understand the method) in the course of a two board round.

 

Online, in the main bridge club the easiest thing is to let opponents discuss their defense as each conventional bid comes up. After all, you're playing online to test your method and improve your memory, not just "to win" and certainly not "to win because opponents (who are often a pick-up pair) aren't on the same page."

 

Playing online a tourney, a reasonable suggested defense seems like a must. Some tourneys get around this by disallowing some methods (for example ACBL disallows multi and transfer openings).

[hrothgar]

In a pairs event, where you play two boards a round against many people, it may be necessary to limit what conventions people can play, and/or require a reasonable suggested defense. Without one of these two things, people who play "weird stuff" will be at a huge advantage because no one can prepare an effective defense (or really even fully understand the method) in the course of a two board round.

Comment 1: The Full Disclosure application could be used to address many of these issues. In an ideal world, BBO (or some interested third party) could maintain a web site containing a variety of suggested defenses. For example, assume that a pair sits down against you and they're playing a multi-2♦ opening. Your FD application would automatically load a suggested defense that had been developed and vetted by an interested party.

 

Comment 2: In the real world, I doubt whether this type of technologicial wizardry will help typical club players that much. As many people have noted in the past, its not too difficult to develop generic defenses that provide adequate (if not perfect) protection against most anything that folks are going to throw at you. Most players are too lazy to put in the effort required to apply these methods. In a similar fashion, I doubt that this same group players will be able to make use of these suggested defenses.

 

Comment 3: I for one don't care. My "job" as a bridge player is to achieve a good score. Accomodating my opponents is the least of my concerns.

[han]

For what it is worth, I agree with everything that Adam said here, and spefically that one shouldn't do well just because the opponents are unfamiliar with your system.

[Echognome]

Perhaps I'm just being overly concerned with semantics on the wording here, but pairs are inevitably going to do well because opponents are unfamiliar with their system if you play anything different to them. I can be playing a weak NT and 4 card majors and some opponents will not know how to deal with it. What if I play EHAA, which is a very natural system? Opponents might not know how to deal with my 2-level openings. Is that unfair? If I provide them with a cursory defense, is that going to tell them how to deal with it now?

 

What about conventional bids in competition? Suppose I play raptor 1NT or 1NT for takeout? Italian jump overcalls? Comic NT? Should I provide a defense to my defense? If not, why should we treat it differently than unusual constructive bidding?

 

Suppose I play a strong club. I provide a defense to my opponents (such as X = majors, 1NT = minors). But my opponents have a much more clever defense. They play Truscott or Panama or Suction or whatever. Should they provide me with a defense to their defense? If not, why not? My opponents may gain when I have a bidding misunderstanding with partner. Clearly that is unfair.

 

Ok. I grant for two board matches you aren't going to be able to have agreements for everything an opponent might throw at you, especially not immediately. However, you learn how to generate meta-agreements. I will glance over an opponents convention card and say to partner "let's treat this as a multi" or "let's treat their 1♣ opening like a Precision 1♦" and adjust our defenses accordingly. As Richard said, they might not be perfect, but you learn to adapt. They are certainly as good as any of the defenses that are provided by the defense database.

[awm]

It's reasonable to expect a pair to have defenses to things which are fairly common. For example, suit bids that show a reasonable hand with four (or five) plus cards in the suit, or notrump bids that show a balanced hand in some range. This is not the same as saying you must have a defense to anything opponents might throw at you.

 

Yes, I think defenses should in some cases require defenses as well. I've never understood why methods like NT for takeout don't require a pre-alert, and it's quite reasonable for them to require suggested defense as well.

 

On the other hand, one can imagine that this could go on ad infinitum. We play a weird method, you need a suggested defense, we then need a suggested defense to the suggested defense, and so on and so forth. I think the resolution to this, is that the side that first made the "unusual" bid is under substantial requirements to provide defense, whereas the other side is not. So if I play a 1♦ opening which shows either 8-11 hcp with 4+♥ or 12+ hcp with 5+♠, then it's up to me to provide a defense. In general the opposing side (regardless of what defense they actually select to use) is not responsible for giving me a suggested defense to their defense to my weird 1♦ opening, because I started the nonsense to begin with. This seems fairly reasonable to me.

 

As to "meta-agreements" this works well enough when the weird stuff looks like stuff you've seen before. If you have a defense to transfer openings, you can adapt it to "two-under" transfer openings. If you have a defense to strong club, you can usually use it against strong diamond. But requiring people to compose and use these meta-defeses just creates an arms race where whoever devises the most bizarre methods that no one's ever seen before retains the advantage. For example, what does your meta-defense tell you to do against:

 

2♥ opening showing an intermediate two-bid in hearts, or weak with 4♠ and a 6+ minor?

1♦ opening showing 8-11 hcp with 4+♥, or 12-15 with 5+♠ (not forcing)?

2♦ opening showing a desire to play 2♦ undoubled opposite a partner with less than 15 hcp (always passed unless partner has 15+ hcp, says nothing about any suit)?

1♠ opening showing either 4+♠ with 5-8 hcp or 5+♠ with 16+ hcp, and a 2NT response thereto which shows either a weak spade raise or 15-17 balanced without 4♠ (always passed by the weak option)?

 

If your meta-defenses immediately encompass all of these, they are better than mine...

[Free]

awm, in most events that we all play (as you mentioned defenses should be available there), these methods simply aren't allowed (guess why). So forgive me for saying, but the previous post is absolute rubish. In long team matches where you're allowed to play these methods, you'll have to give your CC to your opps way before you have to play against them, so they can come up with their own stuff they like. If they don't want to do their homework then that's their problem, not ours. In tourneys with 2 boards a table you won't be allowed these methods, so no need to make up some suggested defense as well...

[Blofeld]

Free, you're being inconsistent.

 

There may be a case that people should have defences to everything that's legal, but that wasn't really the question under consideration.

 

I tend to agree with Adam ; incidentally, I'm now tempted to try using some of those odd meanings for bids that I hadn't met before. :P

[Free]

Free, you're being inconsistent.

 

There may be a case that people should have defences to everything that's legal, but that wasn't really the question under consideration.

 

I tend to agree with Adam ; incidentally, I'm now tempted to try using some of those odd meanings for bids that I hadn't met before. :)

why am I being inconsistent??? :P Because I can understand the argument for tourneys with very few boards against each opponent, but not for long team matches?

[Blofeld]

Actually I think 'inconsistent' was probably wrong. Sorry.

 

But providing suggested defences is an alternative to banning methods. It seems to be missing the point to claim that we don't need to consider providing suggested defences because the methods are illegal: the question is whether making people provide suggested defences is a better solution than banning the methods in the first place.

 

Or perhaps that isn't the question and I'm missing the point completely. I'm a little sleepy right now.

[hrothgar]

2♥ opening showing an intermediate two-bid in hearts, or weak with 4♠ and a 6+ minor?

1♦ opening showing 8-11 hcp with 4+♥, or 12-15 with 5+♠ (not forcing)?

2♦ opening showing a desire to play 2♦ undoubled opposite a partner with less than 15 hcp (always passed unless partner has 15+ hcp, says nothing about any suit)?

1♠ opening showing either 4+♠ with 5-8 hcp or 5+♠ with 16+ hcp, and a 2NT response thereto which shows either a weak spade raise or 15-17 balanced without 4♠ (always passed by the weak option)?

 

If your meta-defenses immediately encompass all of these, they are better than mine...

Most meta defense systems are based on lumping bids into a number of difference classes: As I've noted before, this is often based on some kind of standardized heirarchy...

 

1. Bid that show shape

 

1.A. Bids that show balanced hands

 

1.B. Bids that promise length

1.B.i. Single suited hands

1.B.i.a. Bids that show a known anhor suit

1.B.1.b. Bids that don't show a known anchor suit

1.B.ii. Two suited hands

 

1.C. Bids that promise shortness

 

2. Bids that clarify strength

 

3. Chimeras

 

For example:

 

You're first bid is a Chimera: It could be either a single suit hand or a two suited hand. However, the important this about the opening is that the bid does not promise a known anchor suit and the suit which was opened is one of the possible suits shown.

 

The second opening is a bid that shows length in one of two posisble suits. The suit opened is NOT one of the suits shown.

 

The third opening is a good example of piss poor disclosure. I suspect that that the rest of the opening bidding structure provides a LOT of definition regarding what hands do/do not make use of this 2♦ opening.

 

The fourth opening promises 4+ cards in the suit opened. (I'll note in passing that this bid is natural and could be trotted out in a GCC event)

[helene_t]

But providing suggested defences is an alternative to banning methods. It seems to be missing the point to claim that we don't need to consider providing suggested defences because the methods are illegal: the question is whether making people provide suggested defences is a better solution than banning the methods in the first place.

But if "we" are ordinary bridge players who just want to use our tools and don't get involved with politics, there is no point in discussing illegal methods. We don't discuss how we would play if we were dealt 14 cards either.

[Gerben42]

We don't discuss how we would play if we were dealt 14 cards either.

 

If you check rec.games.bridge you will find that many do although 2-card hands are more common.

 

I can be playing a weak NT and 4 card majors and some opponents will not know how to deal with it.

 

Try playing that Poland. You will have to alert every 1-bid except 1♦ then. And people will ask twice about your 1♣ opening bid. And try to sell you Polish Club instead :)

 

About unusual method, it seems that in Europe one is used to more than in the US. In most countries the standard rule is something like "no HUM and no Brown Stickers" (including the WBF exception for Multi)

[P_Marlowe]

If I want to put my energy in designing a great system, that's fine. But if I never play against my own methods, why should I have to put energy in designing a good defense against it??? :rolleyes: If my opponents don't want to do their homework, that's their problem imo, not mine... And if time is a problem, bad luck.

Hi,

 

if you really put your energy in designing a great system,

you should channel some of your efforts in the task of

finding out, what are the weaknesses of your system.

 

Because only then, will you have a chance to build a great

system.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hrothgar]

if you really put your energy in designing a great system,

you should channel some of your efforts in the task of

finding out, what are the weaknesses of your system.

 

Because only then, will you have a chance to build a great

system.

Funny that... As I see it things, its the players using "standard" methods who are constantly resorting to legal manuevers to protect their own systems from any thing that might challenge their hegemony. You don't see players using REGRES or Suspensor screaming that Acol needs to be banned.

 

I agree with Free that a system based on having players develop defenses to their own methods is badly flawed. The incentives are all wrong: If I am playing a multi 2D, why would I want to give the provide the opponents with an effective counter measure. I'm not saying any particular player would necessarily submit defenses which are flawed, but the incentive is there.

 

Equally significant, people often have blind spots about their own creations. I'm much better at a proofreading other people's prose than my own creations. Extending this analogy to bridge, players who design a system that they believe is great probably don't have the right perspective to be developing effective counter measures.

[P_Marlowe]

Equally significant, people often have blind spots about their own creations.  I'm much better at a proofreading other people's prose than my own creations.

True, but you should at least try, to find out,

what maybe is flawed, e.g. ask someone else

to have a look at it.

 

Marlowe

[awm]

The point I'm trying to make is this:

 

1. If we had absolutely no limits on methods, and no requirement to provide any defense, it would create a situation where playing weird methods is a huge inherent advantage. Perhaps this situation would be okay if matches were always lined up several days in advance with detailed system notes available for study, but that's not how most of us play most of our matches. Especially in the context of a pairs event, legalizing "everything" would create an arms race of people trying to devise methods so weird that no one has prepared generic defenses that can handle them. This is not really what bridge is about.

 

2. Now that we've decided some limits on methods are needed (except in the aforementioned long KO matches with advanced notice), what should we do? It seems like there are three options available for any convention or treatment: we can rule that it's "just bridge" and people are expected to be able to deal with it, we can rule that it's "disallowed" and prevent people from playing it, or we can rule that "it's okay, but some previously vetted defense should be provided." The first category applies to standard stuff, like bids that show four-plus (or five-plus) cards in the suit bid and a reasonable hand. It has also been applied to some "nonstandard" methods that are extremely popular, such as precision 1♣, or the multi 2♦ opening in Europe. Now, we could eliminate the third category altogether, putting some of it into each of the first two classes. But there's a constant push from players of "weird methods" to allow more stuff, while at the same time players of more standard methods don't want to allow things like transfer openings into the first category (because they're more interested in card play, say, and don't want to spend their time devising defenses to everything under the sun and worrying about whether those defenses are good). The third category provides a nice compromise choice.

 

3. In the BBO main club, a lot of pairs are pickup partnerships. People often don't have convention cards posted to "pre-disclose" their methods (although most people playing weird methods do a good job alerting as the bidding proceeds). Some of the methods in use (i.e. forcing pass) actually fall into category two (disallowed) for most regions. While strictly speaking no regulations are in place in the main room (so "anything goes") it seems reasonable to provide suggested defenses to anything that isn't obviously in the first category ("just bridge") or else to allow opponents to devise their own defense when the bid comes up.

 

As for the 2♦ opening, perhaps more disclosure would be: "any hand with 0-6 hcp (this acts as the "fert" in a forcing pass system) or a hand with 7-9 hcp including four good diamonds or five mediocre diamonds." Clearly this makes it easier to defend against? It's a bit suicidal at vulnerable, and I think it is "unsound" at nonvulnerable too, but it's potentially very difficult to avoid being robbed blind and simultaneously avoid going for numbers. It seems like bids like this more or less make the game into "poker:" while the opening side could easily go for a number opposite nothing, the other side is also under a huge amount of pressure (passing could easily miss a game, whereas bidding fairly aggressively could get you too high and possibly doubled by opener's partner). Of course, maybe someone out there has a good defense to this nonsense? I agree that this is banned in most places (although a recent editorial in the bridge bulletin would seem to suggest that it should not only be allowed universally but should be treated as a natural bid because it suggests playing 2♦ and doesn't provide any information about any other suit). My point was that some restrictions on methods make bridge a better game than it would be with no restrictions. Of course we can argue about which bids should fall into which categories.

[hrothgar]

>1. If we had absolutely no limits on methods, and no requirement to provide

>any defense, it would create a situation where playing weird methods is a huge

>inherent advantage. Perhaps this situation would be okay if matches were always

>lined up several days in advance with detailed system notes available for study,

>but that's not how most of us play most of our matches. Especially in the context

>of a pairs event, legalizing "everything" would create an arms race of people trying

>to devise methods so weird that no one has prepared generic defenses that can

>handle them. This is not really what bridge is about.

 

>2. Now that we've decided some limits on methods are needed (except in the

>aforementioned long KO matches with advanced notice), what should we do?

 

We haven't decided any such thing.

 

I agree that creating an "anything goes" playing environment would change the game for many players. More specifically, successful players would require a good meta agreements and the ability to think and apply these successfully during play. Players whose skill set was limited to a rule book specifying what do do in situation XYZ would be at a disadvantage. Where we disagree is whether or not this constitutes "bridge". I think it does (As do a bunch of Australians and a lot of people elsewhere in the world)

 

>It seems like there are three options available for any convention or treatment:

>we can rule that it's "just bridge" and people are expected to be able to deal

>with it, we can rule that it's "disallowed" and prevent people from playing it,

>or we can rule that "it's okay, but some previously vetted defense should be

>provided."

 

Sadly, you are ignoring the actual system which is used in the ACBL: Methods are sanctioned based on the financial interests of governing officials: Players like Meckwell and Hamman are permitted to play methods that are far removed from the mainstream. After all they write the rules...(There is somethign almost comical watching Hamman and Wolff playing their canape based strong club systems while bitching about the strange methods other people employ). Players who donate large amounts of money to the ACBL also get unique loopsholes in the rules for their pet methods... Its no coincidence that CC. Wei was the one to get Precision legalized within the US. The number of exceptions to the rules for George Rosenkrantz's pet methods are equally understandable. But god forbid that anyone without the necessary greenbacks want to play something out of the ordinary.

 

>My point was that some restrictions on methods make bridge a better game

>than it would be with no restrictions. Of course we can argue about which bids

>should fall into which categories.

 

I disagree. There is no reasonable objective mechanism to determine where this limit should be. The absence of such a limit turns the whole convention regulation process into a farce. Personally, I'd prefer to abolish convention regulations althogether. I recognize that this battle has been lost in North American, but I'll be damned before i see the same mindless policies that destroyed the game in North America bleed onto the Internet....

 

Bridge in North America is a walking corpse. The patient doesn't realize that its dead and rotting. The face to face game will be dead in a few more years. With luck, something better will rise from the ashes...