2/1 and light openers

[EricK]

Does random really have that many different meanings?  Chance, luck?

Bridge can have several types of games with different laws/rules.

If you prefer a game that is more random, then pay your money.

If you prefer a game that has less random, then pay your money.

Allowing some style of bids, conventions or systems allow more random or less?\

Does a bid, convention, system, or style allow more random?  We humans are rather poor at knowing this so we just vote with our dollars. We may vote wrong.

I repeat humans are rather poor at telling you if something adds more random or less, we just vote.

You decide and you pay.

 

edit:

 

I would add that we humans have a bias towards voting towards perceived less random. Note the word perceived.

Consider the case of Cohen and Bergen. I really have only heard about their exploits in tales, but as I understand it they introduced (or at least made use of) a lot of these so-called "randomizing" pre-empts and they consistently did very well! Now if this is true then "random" is being used in an unusual sense when it comes to describing bidding methods.

ok so where is your proof they bid random and won based on random. Luck or chance? year after year? I am sceptical. :blink: But if you have proof they won on random chance and luck for years, cool please show me your paper. :lol:

 

I also note even if they did they stopped playing in fact Bergen stopped playing tourney bridge 100%. You seem to present strong evidence against random bidding?

I wasn't the person who originally used the word "random". I was commenting on the fact that pre-empts which are made on weaker hands or weaker suits than is traditional are often accused of randomising the game (as in the post from ArcLight which I responded to). I was just asking what was meant by "random". I mentioned Bergen and Cohen precisely because they kept on winning despite using these so-called randomising methods. It is not that I think these pre-empts are randomising - far from it, in fact. I think that they emphasise a different set of skills than traditional methods.

[ArcLight]

I'm not saying its "losing bridge" to use a method like a very weak preempt. Just that it changes the nature of the game. Some may say "winning the game it the main thing". To me, the game has to be interesting, and I find it less so with the super weak preempts (or other destructive bids)

 

Also, I'm not saying that those who enjoy this stuff should stop using it. They have every right to enoy the game as they like to play it. It does lessen my enjoyment, so I would like to have a venue to play with those who have similar views.

 

This post was orginally in response to hrothgars complain about restrictions on systems/methods.

 

 

>In december I played against the "Säffle spade" for the first time, a system where 1♣=8+hcp, 4+♥'s | pass=8+hcp, 4+♠'s | 1♦=0-7. We used just a minute to decide defence.

 

Doesn't sound like fun to me :blink:

 

 

I'd rather play against experts, using 2/1, so I could attempt to draw inferences, rather than against weaker players using some system that I'd be unfamiliar with. I just find taht less enjoyable.

[skjaeran]

>In december I played against the "Säffle spade" for the first time, a system where 1♣=8+hcp, 4+♥'s | pass=8+hcp, 4+♠'s | 1♦=0-7. We used just a minute to decide defence.

 

Doesn't sound like fun to me :blink:

 

 

I'd rather play against experts, using 2/1, so I could attempt to draw inferences, rather than against weaker players using some system that I'd be unfamiliar with. I just find taht less enjoyable.

What on earth make you think the pair were weak players?

Don't jump to conclusions.

 

You can still draw interferences when playing against unfamiliar methods. But it's more work than when playing against familiar methods. And still fun.

[mike777]

Kehela and Murray, Canada's best players, quit bridge when the weak opening bids among other bidding styles seemed to require a coach to win at the top levels. This was over 20 years ago when they were quite young in bridge years.

Does placing limits on bids drive away more paying players than it keeps? Endless debate for over 25 years.

 

There does seem to be a consensus in the articles I have read over the decades that many weaker players seek to gain advantage by playing unfamiliar methods in short pair or teammatches. This does seem to contribute to a decline in paying customers. In any case the debate continues and should.

 

I do think the paying customers should have the final vote but I do think those that favor a more mathmatical allowed approach to bidding continue to press their case for change.

 

From what I read in the magazines I get the impression Open pairs is dying out at the tourney level. I note how many players seem to be going to Nashville to play in KO's but do not even bother to mention open pair games.

 

Arclight seems to say he does not and will not pay for f2f bridge given certain items. Richard has given up f2f brige for years for not being allowed to play moscito type styles. I have not played f2f bridge for other reasons.

 

I do think that those that continue to pay for f2f bridge should get a vote and a stronger voice.

[the hog]

I'm not saying its "losing bridge" to use a method like a very weak preempt. Just that it changes the nature of the game. Some may say "winning the game it the main thing". To me, the game has to be interesting, and I find it less so with the super weak preempts (or other destructive bids)

 

Also, I'm not saying that those who enjoy this stuff should stop using it. They have every right to enoy the game as they like to play it. It does lessen my enjoyment, so I would like to have a venue to play with those who have similar views.

 

This post was orginally in response to hrothgars complain about restrictions on systems/methods.

 

 

>In december I played against the "Säffle spade" for the first time, a system where 1♣=8+hcp, 4+♥'s | pass=8+hcp, 4+♠'s | 1♦=0-7. We used just a minute to decide defence.

 

Doesn't sound like fun to me :D

 

 

I'd rather play against experts, using 2/1, so I could attempt to draw inferences, rather than against weaker players using some system that I'd be unfamiliar with. I just find taht less enjoyable.

Just a few points here: Why on earth does it have to be 2/1. You know that there are other natural systems in the Bridge World eg Acol. Your view seems to be very parochial.

 

Secondly you are actually not that far away from Richard, me and others in your opinions. We have always argued that there should be restricted events for those who want to play natural only, (but how do you define "natural?), and for those who enjoy the intellectual challenge of artificial systems. Naturally bridge at the top level should be "anything goes."

 

Thirdly you have not answered my comment that plays can be "random" as well. You can't trust a weker player to always make the right plays so that "you can draw inferences."

 

Finally as Harald has already pointed out, don't amke presumptions that those who play artificialiaties are weaker players. I can name a number of world class players who played these methods before they were legislated out of existence.

 

One last query - have you ever played against these methods? You might surprise yourself and enjoy having your intellect tested.

[the hog]

Quote from Mike777:

 

"There does seem to be a consensus in the articles I have read over the decades that many weaker players seek to gain advantage by playing unfamiliar methods in short pair or teammatches. "

 

Can you please verify this by citing the articles you have read, because I don't believe that this is true.

[mike777]

Quote from Mike777:

 

"There does seem to be a consensus in the articles I have read over the decades that many weaker players seek to gain advantage by playing unfamiliar methods in short pair or teammatches. "

 

Can you please verify this by citing the articles you have read, because I don't believe that this is true.

That is my strong opinion but no I do not have the articles from past decades in front of me but if you can cite articles saying the opposite, weaker players do not try to gain an advantage by playing unfamiliar methods, fine.

[pbleighton]

"There does seem to be a consensus in the articles I have read over the decades that many weaker players seek to gain advantage by playing unfamiliar methods in short pair or teammatches. "

 

Not so.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

That is my strong opinion but no I do not have the articles from past decades in front of me but if you can cite articles saying the opposite, weaker players do not try to gain an advantage by playing unfamiliar methods, fine.

If you are claiming that this represents a consensus, then it shouldn't be too difficult to find several articles backing this conjecture up.

 

I know that Kit Woolsey has advanced a similar argument: He states that weaker teams should seek opportunities to randomize their results playing against strong teams. Moreover, he provides specific examples of how they might do so. However, its important to note that Woolsey chooses very specific examples in which the different methods have (approximately) the same expected value. He doesn't recommend that players adopt inferior methods.

 

BTW: The easiest counter example to your claim is the fact that there aren't large numbers of weak players using Acol in ACBL events. Its not necessary to adopt completely unfamiliar methods to gain an advantage by increasing your variance. Acol or, for that matter, Roth-Stone would work just as well as MOSCITO or a forcing pass.

 

In my mind, the intellectually lazy play whatever the rest of the herd does. In general, those players who go to the time and effort to adopt something "weird" tend to be more serious about the game and more willing to experiment.

[the hog]

I haven't any articles saying the opposite Mike, but I didn't say I had.

 

Fwiw I can vaguely remember one of the top US players, (Larry Cohen??), posting something like this on rgb, but I totally disagree with the assertion and would in fact say that the opposite is true. Players of unusual methods generally go out of their way to disclose their methods.

[pbleighton]

That is my strong opinion but no I do not have the articles from past decades in front of me but if you can cite articles saying the opposite, weaker players do not try to gain an advantage by playing unfamiliar methods, fine.

 

1. An accuser of unethical behavior bears the burden of proof.

2. In my personal experience, the large majority of pairs who play non-field methods (in the U.S., anything but 2/1 or SA) are good players, well above the average club player.

 

They also disclose well.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

I haven't any articles saying the opposite Mike, but I didn't say I had.

 

Fwiw I can vaguely remember one of the top US players, (Larry Cohen??), posting something like this on rgb, but I totally disagree with the assertion and would in fact say that the opposite is true. Players of unusual methods generally go out of their way to disclose their methods.

Cohen's argument was slightly different:

 

Cohen wrote a Bridge World article in which he claimed that his team was (in part) knocked out of the Bermuda Bowl because of a "System Familiarity Gap".

 

He felt that the US team was at a disadvantage competing against foreign methods like Polish Club.

 

There is a good thread available at http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...196b06e916d10e/

 

in which Cohen comments on the original article.

[mike777]

guys did you read my entire post, not just one or two lines. :)

 

I am not saying they are unethical or they do not disclose. Please do not put words in my mouth. I did say my recollection of the majority opinion over the decades in magazines is that weaker players try to gain an advantage by playing unusual methods. If your reading of the articles over the decades is different, fine.

 

I assume we are reading the same magazines, British, BW or Ausi. :)

If your magazine articles that you read give you the opposite viewpoint, ok, just cite them if you can find them. :)

[mike777]

Quote from Mike777:

 

"There does seem to be a consensus in the articles I have read over the decades that many weaker players seek to gain advantage by playing unfamiliar methods in short pair or teammatches. "

 

Can you please verify this by citing the articles you have read, because I don't believe that this is true.

IF you do not think this is true, fine, what do you think is true of the articles you do read and why?

[mike777]

"There does seem to be a consensus in the articles I have read over the decades that many weaker players seek to gain advantage by playing unfamiliar methods in short pair or teammatches. "

 

Not so.

 

Peter

Peter if not so, fine. What do you think is true based on the articles you do read?

 

Please note I make no claims of unethical play or nondisclosure. Please note what I did say, thanks.

[the hog]

Without being pedantic about it Mike, you did say "the articles I have read". However you can't cite them. We'd like to know what articles these were, because I can't recall reading any that support your claim .

 

As Peter says, the onus of proof is on the person who makes the assertion. Btw no one is having a "go" at you. Its just that there have been a =lot= of posts recently where unsubstantiated claims are made.

[mike777]

Thumbing through Hamman's book At the Table, I see he focuses on issues to keep the game competitive and interesting. He brings up several points and I will let the reader draw their own opinions.

 

I encourage the reader to pick up a copy of the book to read Mr. Hamman's thoughts more fully. Here are a few short quotes.

 

"My objection in the high-tech area concerns the advantage gained because a system or method is completely foreign to the opposition. Full disclosure....is impossible in many cases."

 

"Pair games are an incredible mine field."

 

"Now I'm not opposed to innovation and/or improvement..."

 

"...you may not be trying to concel what you're doing, but your methods are so difficult to explain that you don't have time during a round to meet your responsibiilities fully..."

 

---------------------------------------

 

Again speaking for myself it is comments such as these that lead my to make my comment. You may form a different one.

[mike777]

Without being pedantic about it Mike, you did say "the articles I have read". However you can't cite them. We'd like to know what articles these were, because I can't recall reading any that support your claim .

 

As Peter says, the onus of proof is on the person who makes the assertion. Btw no one is having a "go" at you. Its just that there have been a =lot= of posts recently where unsubstantiated claims are made.

You guys made a statement...Not true...or not so....fine, that is a claim....just back it up. Geez.. guys.....

 

Asking me to cite articles does not prove your claims of untruth. You are making claims too. :)

 

Just to back up a moment, to asking me to cite is one thing.....but you go further and make a claim yourself....."not so"....:) Read what you wrote :)

 

Hog you go further and seem to claim you have never read an article claiming anything on this subject one way or the other. You have really never read an article on this subject supporting one position or another?

 

If you have fine, just say what you do believe and why?

[mike777]

OTOH if Hog and Peter are not making any claims of what is truth, fine.

[hrothgar]

Thumbing through Hamman's book At the Table, I see he focuses on issues to keep the game competitive and interesting.  He brings up several points and I will let the reader draw their own opinions.

 

I encourage the reader to pick up a copy of the book to read Mr. Hamman's thoughts more fully. Here are a few short quotes.

Many people, myself included, consider Hamman's book a joke. Its been widely ridiculed on rec.games.bridge for years.

 

Personally, I find the sheer hypocrisy mind blowing. Hamman plays a strong club, 4 card majors / majors bidding style that's extremely foreign to most of his North American opponents. But god forbid that anyone play a method that he doesn't want to use.

[ArcLight]

>In december I played against the "Säffle spade" for the first time, a system where 1♣=8+hcp, 4+♥'s | pass=8+hcp, 4+♠'s | 1♦=0-7. We used just a minute to decide defence.

 

Doesn't sound like fun to me  :)

 

 

I'd rather play against experts, using 2/1, so I could attempt to draw inferences, rather than against weaker players using some system that I'd be unfamiliar with.  I just find taht less enjoyable.

What on earth make you think the pair were weak players?

Don't jump to conclusions.

 

You can still draw interferences when playing against unfamiliar methods. But it's more work than when playing against familiar methods. And still fun.

>What on earth make you think the pair were weak players?

Don't jump to conclusions.

 

 

I never said anmything of the sort.

 

The second paragraph was a general statement, not directed at you or your opponents. Thats why I put it in its own paragraph, rather than in the same paragraph.

 

>I'd rather play against experts, using 2/1, so I can attempt to draw inferences, rather than against weaker players using some system that I'd be unfamiliar with. I just find that less enjoyable.

 

 

If my post was unclear, and you thought I was insulting your opponents, I didn't mean it that way. In general, I try not to deliberately offend/insult in posts, so if it looks that way, I may not have written the post clearly.

 

(How would you have written my post to make it more clear?)

[Stephen Tu]

I've never met anyone playing strange systems who claimed to do so because they thought that unfamiliarity would give them an advantage. It's always because they think the strange system might be better than standard, or are experimenting to evaluate whether it's better than standard. Unfamiliarity advantage might be an acknowledged byproduct (even though most users of strange systems make good efforts at full disclosure when asked), but it's not the real reason behind their choice.

 

It's the people who are against strange systems who make the statements that "they are doing so for the unfamiliarity advantage".

[Guest Jlall]

Many people, myself included, consider Hamman's book a joke. Its been widely ridiculed on rec.games.bridge for years.

Many people, myself included, consider rec.games.bridge a joke and would put more weight into what Hamman has to say than what the people on rec.games.bridge have to say.

[the hog]

Mike, like I said in another post, I find these arguments tiresome and so this is my last post on the matter.

 

1) None of Peter, Richard or I claimed that you said players of unusual methods didn't disclose.

 

2) You did make a claim and both Peter and I asked you to substantiate it.

 

3) I have read Hamman's book, and while he makes comments about unusual methods, I don't draw the same conclusion as you. If memory serves me correctly he never claims that weaker players use these methods to deliberately obfuscate.

 

4) To answer your question. "No", I have never read an article that makes the above claim. I have read some posts here and on rgb - Arclight made one a couple of days ago, but seems to refuse to qualify or answer any queries put to him/her. I can recall that Fred posted something along these lines about a year(??) or so ago; but an article? No, I haven't read one so I am interested to know what you have read.

 

5) To repeat, no one is having a "go" at you, but please if you make a statement back it up with some evidence. (Iow don't post like Voldemort, - he who must not be named.)

[TimG]

There does seem to be a consensus in the articles I have read over the decades that many weaker players seek to gain advantage by playing unfamiliar methods in short pair or teammatches. This does seem to contribute to a decline in paying customers. In any case the debate continues and should.

If you can't beat them at their game, change the game? But, I don't think the idea is so much to prey on opponents who are unfamiliar as it is to do things a bit differently. If I'm playing in a field that is much better than I am, I'd be happy to play a system that is anti-field: weak NT when they're playing strong, 5-card majors when they're playing four-card majors, etc.

 

Along similar reasoning, stronger players would usually want to play the same methods as the field, thus leaving less to chance (method selection) and more to superior use of the common system.