Rebuilding the General Convention Chart

[Gerben42]

It may be a more in the spirit of the above as well as more effective disincentive to change "b" in my suggestion to

"Every time a pair uses such an opening and does not make their contract, the board is scored as if they played XX'd."

 

So in short you would like to not play bridge but some other game. How sad.

 

a= must play the opening strictly within it's stated shape and value range

(IOW, they may pass hands they consider poor in the stated range, but they may not use this opening with hands that have more or less HCP than the stated range; nor with hands that are off-shape for the stated description.)

 

In that case my range is 0 - 11. This way you force people to give an explanation that is not really full disclosure, it's like having to declare your 15-17 NT as 13 - 18 because there might exist one 13 HCP hand worth a 15-17 NT.

[hrothgar]

If so-called disruptive bidding was not part of the game then it would be easily fixed without artificial system regulations. Simply increase the penalties for failing in a contract.

 

Some methods at some levels are deemed too disruptive. So...

 

It may be a more in the spirit of the above as well as more effective disincentive to change "b" in my suggestion to

"Every time a pair uses such an opening and does not make their contract, the board is scored as if they played XX'd."

As I read things, Cascade was suggesting that the scores for doubled undertricks be adjusted.

 

Currently, doubled non-vulnerable undertricks are scored at

 

100

300

500

800

1100

...

 

In theory, there is no reason why they shouldn't be scored

 

200

500

800

1100

...

 

A similar adjustment could be put in place for doubled vulnerable undertricks. (BTW, I am not claiming that this schedule is, by an means, optimal. I am simply suggesting it as an illustration)

 

The powers that be adjusted the scoring once before a few years back to dissuade folks from taking sacrifices over small slams. If you really want to stop folks from preempting, the same tactics can be used once more.

 

Please note: Foo's suggestion is very different. Foo is suggesting that different rules sets be applied to different classes of bids.

[Gerben42]

How about each next undertrick costs 100 more than the previous one?

 

1. 100

2. 300

3. 600

4. 1000

5. 1500

6. 2100

7. 2800

8. 3600

9. 4500

10. 5400

 

Vulnerable:

 

1. 200

2. 500

3. 900

4. 1400

5. 2000

6. 2700

7. 3500

8. 4400

9. 5400

10. 6500

[hrothgar]

How about each next undertrick costs 100 more than the previous one?

 

1. 100

2. 300

 

Vulnerable:

 

1. 200

2. 500

I think that its a mistake to immediately focus on the precise shape of the scoring table. Rather, I think that you need to achieve (rough) consensus about whats wrong with the existing table.

 

For example, do we want to make marginal doubles more lucrative by significantly increasing the penalty for down one or down two doubled? Alternatively, do we want to dissuade folks from taking a three trick NV sac versus a vulnerable game?

 

For what its worth, I don't think that any changes are necessary. However, if you believes that we need to emphasize constructive bidding, then I would argue that adjusting the various scoring tables is the best way to achieve this end.

[helene_t]

if you believes that we need to emphasize constructive bidding, then I would argue that adjusting the various scoring tables is the best way to achieve this end.

Yes. Personally I'm ok with the curent downtrick penalties. I'd like to have the scoring simplified (the IMP and VP tables drive me nuts, and I don't care for vulnerability either) but that's another discussion.

[skjaeran]

There is something wrong when I play a system that according to WBF classification is GREEN - Natural - but would not be allowed on the GCC (as suggested in this thread). 

 

While the GCC allows conventional one-level openings (1C and 1D - any meaning but even a 'short as two' 1C in an otherwise natural system is conventional) are allowed. In fact strictly according to the WBF systems policy a short 1C opening in a standard system seems to meet the definition of HUM.

 

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit".  Length is defined as three or more card and Shortage as Two or fewer.

I play a 5cM system where the 1♣ opening is either natural or balanced 11-14/18-19. 1♦ shows an unbalanced hand (5+ or 4-4-4-1, normally a singleton, but 5422/6322 is possible).

 

Thus the 1♣ opening shows 2+♣'s - (only a doubleton with any (443)-2 or 3-3-5-2). But I disagree that the opening shows either shortness or lenght - that would be true for suspensorlike openings (where 1♠ = 0-1/2 or 5+ ♠'s). I'm classifying my system as red. Except for the 1♣ opeing it would be green.

 

Showing shortage means showing a length <3. Shortage in ♣'s include void and singleton.

 

The Vienna system (still used by a few in Norway) where you open 1♣ on a singleton on 4441 (other suit openings at 1-level show 5c) is explicitly defined as red by the NBFLC.

Often an exception is made for a short minor opening.

 

Shortage is defined as 2 or fewer. Exactly two certainly fits in that category. Or would you argue that a bid that showed exactly one club did not show shortage?

I know perfectly well that both a void, a singleton and a doubleton are all "shortage" by the definition. :D

 

However, having an opening containing a continuous interval of length of a suit, is not the same as showing shortage or length in the suit. By that definition all strong conventional openings at the 1-level and all 1NT openings allowing semibalanced shapes would make a system HUM. And we all know that's not true. In fact, the same goes for a natural 1♠ opening, which we all know can show any number of ♣'s from 0 to 6 (or even 7 for some).

 

I accept that you "might" read the definition to mean what you say (bad wording IMO), but I'm quite confident that's not what it's supposed to mean.

[TimG]

The powers that be adjusted the scoring once before a few years back to dissuade folks from taking sacrifices over small slams.

That wasn't the first time the scoring rules were changed. Somewhere I have an old book (I believe it describes the Vanderbilt Club) that includes a scoring table in which each trick at NT is worth 35 points.

 

There have been others, including the change in bonus for making a redoubled contract (I think that one came at the same time as the NV doubled undertrick change).

[skjaeran]

There have been others, including the change in bonus for making a redoubled contract (I think that one came at the same time as the NV doubled undertrick change).

Correct. Those scoring changes were made in the 1987 laws edition.

I remember scoring 1030 in 4♠xx one week and 1080 the next week in October 1987, when the Norwegian edition of those laws where enforced. :D

[foo]

It may be a more in the spirit of the above as well as more effective disincentive to change "b" in my suggestion to

"Every time a pair uses such an opening and does not make their contract, the board is scored as if they played XX'd."

 

So in short you would like to not play bridge but some other game. How sad.

 

a= must play the opening strictly within it's stated shape and value range

(IOW, they may pass hands they consider poor in the stated range, but they may not use this opening with hands that have more or less HCP than the stated range; nor with hands that are off-shape for the stated description.)

 

In that case my range is 0 - 11. This way you force people to give an explanation that is not really full disclosure, it's like having to declare your 15-17 NT as 13 - 18 because there might exist one 13 HCP hand worth a 15-17 NT.

1= It has been argued that those playing systemic methods that are basically designed to gain all or the vast majority of their good results from making it impossible for the opponents to use Bridge skills are not playing Bridge.

That's why the technical terms "Destructive" and "Dominant" have come into being.

This is the dominant meme within the Bridge community. It is never going away.

 

Unfortunately, the current way these situations is handled involves enough personal judgement, usually unexplained and undocumented personal judgement, on the part of regulating officials that many players attempting to be innovative with regards to bidding are crying "foul!"

 

There =will= always be regulations where some methods are deemed unacceptable at some levels of play. Therefore the best thing to do to protect those who want to innovate is to make rules that are as objective and as understandable as possible.

By using an objective mathematical basis based on what is now consider acceptable bidding, we get a objective "dial" that innovators can guarantee will not be set too stringently nor can be used to "single out" or prejudice against any specific method.

 

It's a heck of a lot better than the current situation.

 

 

2= Please note that the regulation I proposed explicitly states that it is only valid for bids that do not pass the mathematical test for being adequately Constructive.

Clearly =all= of the present 1N opening ranges, the Kamikaze included, pass that test. Therefore example based on a Strong NT is a red herring designed more to incite flames than to objectively evaluate the suggestion.

[hrothgar]

>1= It has been argued that those playing systemic methods that are basically

>designed to gain all or the vast majority of their good results from making it

>impossible for the opponents to use Bridge skills are not playing Bridge.

>

>That's why the technical terms "Destructive" and "Dominant" have come into being.

 

The expressions "Destructive" and "Dominant" were introduced for much the same reason that the "Estate Tax" was rebranded as the "Death Tax". This is a cynical attempt to cause people engage with the debate on an emotional level.

 

BTW, its been a fews days now. Still waiting for you to show where the expression "Destructive" was formally defined in the regulatory structure.

 

>Unfortunately, the current way these situations is handled involves enough

>personal judgement, usually unexplained and undocumented personal

>judgement, on the part of regulating officials that many players attempting to

>be innovative with regards to bidding are crying "foul!"

 

>There =will= always be regulations where some methods are deemed

>unacceptable at some levels of play. Therefore the best thing to do to protect

>those who want to innovate is to make rules that are as objective and

>as understandable as possible.

 

>By using an objective mathematical basis based on what is now consider

>acceptable bidding, we get a objective "dial" that innovators can guarantee

>will not be set too stringently nor can be used to "single out" or prejudice against

>any specific method.

 

The system that you suggest is ever bit as subjective as the other proposals. It simply hides under a veneer of techno-babble.

 

There is NOTHING in the laws of bridge that differentiates between a good score that is achieved by making a difficult 3NT contract and a good score that achieved by going down 7 tricks (Non vulnerable) in 3NT when the opponents have a cold game. You, however, are imposing an external set of aesthetics to label one of these results to be "good" and the other as "evil".

 

In a similar vein, there is no reason why a 2♦ opening showing 4+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major should be considered "Destructive" if its used an an opening, but it suddenly becomes constructive when it is used as an overcall of a strong NT or a strong club opening. Here, once again, you are imposing a highly subjective set of criteria.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not in favor of adjusting the scoring tables for undertricks. However, I think that its a much more obvious way to accomplish a similar end.

[TimG]

What makes a method Constructive or Destructive is how much it helps you get to the right spot rather than how much it is based on scoring well by making it difficult or impossible for the opponents to evaluate their own cards.

 

 

Sometimes the right spot results in a negative score, sometimes this negative score means going down in a contract.

 

But, even if it didn't, wouldn't making it difficult for the opponents to find their best spot be considered good? We already employ such methods -- a natural opening bid at the three level based upon a weak hand and a long suit is an example. When we open with such a preempt, we are hoping that the hand belongs to the opponents and that they will have difficulty reaching their best spot. (I don't have a citation, but this is not just my opinion, I have read, or heard, experts who expressed this idea.)

 

c= any [hitherto] unknown method can be tested by a TD on the spot at a tourney just by asking someone with the correct math background to do the calculation.

I'm sorry if I have missed it, but have you proposed what this calculation will be? I think you have spoken about destructive:constructive ratio, but I haven't seen how either of these can be quantified.

It has been argued that those playing systemic methods that are basically designed to gain all or the vast majority of their good results from making it impossible for the opponents to use Bridge skills are not playing Bridge.

It has also been argued that coping with methods which make the auction uncomfortable is a bridge skill. Sometimes preempts present us with impossible problems, that is they make us guess. We've all heard the bidding mantra "force the opponents make the last guess".

That's why the technical terms "Destructive" and "Dominant" have come into being.

You'd think such a technical term would have a very specific definition, wouldn't you? Yet, you'll get different definitions depending upon which official you ask. As you say: "the current way these situations [are] handled involves enough personal judgement, usually unexplained and undocumented personal judgement."

Therefore the best thing to do to protect those who want to innovate is to make rules that are as objective and as understandable as possible.

Seems a decent goal. But, doesn't appear easy to me. In part because:

we get a objective "dial" that innovators can guarantee will not be set too stringently

How can innovators guarantee the resulting regulations won't be "too stringent"? We can't agree on what is "too stringent" in the first place. You're not suggesting that the mathematically objective measurement of "destructiveness" will be agreed upon by all, are you?

By using an objective mathematical basis based on what is now consider acceptable bidding

Considered acceptable bidding by whom? I think you're running in circles here. What you propose to be a mathematically objective evaluation will come with a subjective determination of threshold between constructive and destructive.

[awm]

A few points here.

 

The set of regulations I proposed does allow short club or diamond. It's number 8 under openings or overcalls "an opening or overcall of 1♣ or 1♦ is allowed, with any agreed meaning" with the additional requirement (for opening bids only) that the call show an average hand or better (10+ points). This allows precision diamond, short club, etc. They are also allowed on the current general chart, with the same restriction that they guarantee at least 10 points. I believe jtfanclub's rules allow them as well.

 

As for Foo's suggestion, this seems rather silly to me. I don't understand how these computations are to be performed (who knows how often a bid leads to a making contract? does it have to be a making contract of the bid itself or is it enough that the bid leads you to later get to a making contract? what if, in general, the bid usually doesn't make, but partner only passes when he has a hand such that it will make? this just seems very arbitrary). In general bridge is not about making all your contracts, much as people would like it to be. Quite often the goal is to obtain your smallest possible negative score by taking a good sacrifice. Any time I bid something expecting down one or two opposite a making game or slam I have to play redoubled? This seems rather crazy to me.

 

A better idea might be to change the scoring table for undoubled failing contracts. One of the really annoying things (banned in most events) is chimera preempts where you bid a suit you may or may not hold, figuring that if you are passed out and play in some 2-2 fit it will still be a good score because opponents have game. One reasonable approach might be to keep things the same for down one or down two (after all you might have "thought" you were making when you bid it) and increase the penalty for down three or more. This wouldn't be a big change for most folks -- usually if you go down more than two or maybe three it's a bad result anyway, but it prevents the "undoubled down a zillion, good sacrifice" approach to the game.

[Echognome]

As I read things, Cascade was suggesting that the scores for doubled undertricks be adjusted.

The way I read it is that Wayne is saying that changing the scoring would have the effect, not suggesting one should implement it. But, I'll of course let Wayne speak for himself.

 

It was interesting reading about some hands before the last scoring change. Unfortunately, I can't cite any specific hands for you (without going home to search my bridge shelves), but I remember a hand where the opponents had an uncontested auction to slam and just about when it was going to pass out, John Collings decided it would be a good time to sacrifice. He had obviously been listening to the bidding and could impute some length from his partner. Under the old scoring rules, his sacrifice was profitable. I believe this is the type of situation the score changers were trying to avoid.

[foo]

I'm sorry if I have missed it, but have you proposed what this calculation will be?  I think you have spoken about destructive:constructive ratio, but I haven't seen how either of these can be quantified.

I have not suggested anything resembling a "destructive:constructive ratio". I'm not even sure what that term means.

 

The metric I presented was based on the chance that your opening bid has a "foo" % chance of resulting in a makable contract: 8+ trumps and appropriate values for the degree of trump fit and level to which one has bid.

 

My initial 75% number came from the mathematical calculations of a traditional 6 card long single suited Weak Two having a fit of at least 8 cards.

Clearly, that is not all there is to calculating the odds of a traditional Weak Two resulting in a reasonable contract.

That's why I suggest those more mathematically adept than I should do the calculation that goes into the actual proposed regulation.

 

The protection this gives bidding innovators is that, regardless of whatever a regulator's personal prejudices are, if a bid is as "sound" as other accepted methods by this metric, this regulation guarantees that whatever the new method is it will be accepted as equally valid Bridge.

 

On the "other side of the aisle", players are protected from methods that are too "outrageous" by the simple fact that if a pair plays unsound methods the scoring table will mete out appropriate justice regardless of the players involved.

[jtfanclub]

I like Adam's approach better.

I do too. I haven't looked at it closely enough yet to determine what specifically would be a problem, but generally I think it's easier to read and understand, and yet remains as consistent.

 

I'll take a closer look this weekend, should I have time.

[foo]

 

>1= It has been argued that those playing systemic methods that are basically

>designed to gain all or the vast majority of their good results from making it

>impossible for the opponents to use Bridge skills are not playing Bridge.

>

>That's why the technical terms "Destructive" and "Dominant" have come into being.

 

The expressions "Destructive" and "Dominant" were introduced for much the same reason that the "Estate Tax" was rebranded as the "Death Tax". This is a cynical attempt to cause people engage with the debate on an emotional level.

That's your POV. You are welcome to it. It is not supported by =any= TD or regulating official I've had discourse with.

 

What =has= been agreed is that there is evidence that the current process is too inexplicable, too undisclosed, and that there have been actions taken that could be construed as being based on personal bias rather than objective judgement.

 

Therefore I am trying to make suggestions that fix the problems that seem to be substantiated.

[Echognome]

The metric I presented was based on the chance that your opening bid has a "foo" % chance of resulting in a makable contract: 8+ trumps and appropriate values for the degree of trump fit and level to which one has bid.

 

My initial 75% number came from the mathematical calculations of a traditional 6 card long single suited Weak Two having a fit of at least 8 cards.

Clearly, that is not all there is to calculating the odds of a traditional Weak Two resulting in a reasonable contract.

That's why I suggest those more mathematically adept than I should do the calculation that goes into the actual proposed regulation.

 

The protection this gives bidding innovators is that, regardless of whatever a regulator's personal prejudices are, if a bid is as "sound" as other accepted methods, this regulation guarantees that whatever the new method is it will be accepted as equally valid Bridge.

 

On the "other side of the aisle", players are protected from methods that are too "outrageous" by the simple fact that if a pair plays unsound methods the scoring table will mete out appropriate justice regardless of the players involved.

Wow. How silly would that metric be? I would be much more restricted with methods after partner has passed.

[TimG]

The metric I presented was based on the chance that your opening bid has a "foo" % chance of resulting in a makable contract: 8+ trumps and appropriate values for the degree of trump fit and level to which one has bid.

Why must the contract be makable?

[awm]

So here's a concrete suggestion for changing the scoring table.

 

(1) Scores for doubled or redoubled undertricks remain the same.

(2) Scores for undoubled failing contracts remain the same if down one or two.

(3) If undoubled and down two or more, score as if we were doubled and failed one trick less.

 

So NV undoubled:

 

Down one -50

Down two -100

Down three -300

Down four -500

Down five -800

 

Vulnerable undoubled:

 

Down one -100

Down two -200

Down three -500

Down four -800

 

This makes it less appealing to use tactics like:

 

(1) Passing partner's 2♦ multi on a weak hand without many diamonds, figuring that it may confuse the opponents.

(2) Playing chimera preempts like 2♥ multi, where you will fairly often play in a non-fit and hope that it's a good sacrifice against opponents game.

(3) Psychs such as a raise of a kamikaze 1NT to 3NT on a zero-count hoping you buy it undoubled.

(4) Playing transfer openings, then passing them whenever you have a weak hand.

 

On the other hand, because the score for down two or less has not changed nor has the doubled undertrick table, legitimate attempts to "sacrifice" in the best strain for our side will not be penalized.

[DrTodd13]

I don't know if anyone else mentioned it but the regulation about a bid showing either length or shortness was meant to affect _disjoint_ length ranges, not something with a contiguous range that spanned from something considered short to something considered long. For example, a bid showing 2-4♣ should be ok but one showing "0-1♣ or 4+♣" would be included in the regulation. This is another example of poorly written regulations where they know what they mean but they completely fail to express it correctly and end up with some other possible interpretation.

 

So, Foo, when trying to determine the "soundness" of a system, are you going to look at every single sequence individually or are you going to look at the system as a whole? It is just my observation that your thinking is very fuzzy and naive. First off, computing soundness is not just a matter of mathematics. If there is a formula for calculating the likelihood of making a contract based on your cards and an average hand from pd then it is far beyond our abilities. All we have are heuristics and trying to define an official heuristic would be an exercise in futility. The best we can do now is take a bunch of random sample hands from partner and do a double dummy analysis but is this really fair? People make mistakes and poor players make more mistakes so wouldn't some bids be sound against bad players and unsound against good players? Why do I have to assume that my opponents are going to bid and defend perfectly? This whole notion of soundness is attractive but ultimately undefinable. Second, like it or not, a strong opening pass is certainly sound! So, you'll have to have more than soundness to define allowed versus not allowed. Even a 1♥ fert non-vul is probably sound so "soundness" is going to allow some pretty bizarre stuff.

[foo]

awm,

 

I think the problem with changing the scoring table for all methods is that there =is= a substantial and quantifiable difference in the approach to the game in the two different classes of bids.

 

Methods designed to make the most of your bridge skills to obtain a good score are inherently different from methods designed to obtain a good score by making it impossible for the opponents to use bridge skills.

 

I don't think a scoring system that overly punishes those that use perfectly reasonable methods but simply get unlucky on a board; or a scoring system that does not recognize the fundamental differences in the approach to the game epitimized by the two different classes of methods, has any chance of being fair.

 

IMHO any fair regulations should take this difference in approach into account.

[foo]

The metric I presented was based on the chance that your opening bid has a "foo" % chance of resulting in a makable contract: 8+ trumps and appropriate values for the degree of trump fit and level to which one has bid.

Why must the contract be makable?

I did not say it had to be makable. I did not even say it had to be makable in the specific circumstances that an instance of the opening was used.

 

I said the method had to have a reasonable chance of finding a contract that has play according to basic bridge logic.

 

We all know the rules of thumb here. Examples

a= it takes ~21 playing points to make 1N w/o a fit.

b= the LoTT (modified by the excellent work on shortness In _I Fought The Law_)

c= The modern Losing Trick count

etc

 

If you are knowingly using a method that =systemically= (not in a spcific case, overall systemically) has too poor a chance of reaching any reasonable contract, then you are essentially trying to get a good score by making it impossible for your opponents to use bridge skills, not by using your own.

 

That appears to be the core of the definition of "Destructive".

[DrTodd13]

Please name several "destructive" conventions that have limited chance of reaching a reasonable contract. There are tons of banned conventions that are constructive and almost always reach reasonable contracts. What would be your reason for banning a forcing pass system?

[TimG]

The metric I presented was based on the chance that your opening bid has a "foo" % chance of resulting in a makable contract: 8+ trumps and appropriate values for the degree of trump fit and level to which one has bid.

Why must the contract be makable?

I did not say it had to be makable. I did not even say it had to be makable in the specific circumstances that an instance of the opening was used.

 

I said the method had to have a reasonable chance of finding a contract that has play according to basic bridge logic.

Well, you said "foo% chance of resulting in a makable contract".

 

But, aiming for an unmakable contract should be OK as long as the contract is not down too much.

[DrTodd13]

Define "has play." Does that mean I have to think I have some chance of making every contract I bid. You don't mean to include intentional sacs do you? This seems to be turning into a let's ban psyches discussion rather than a system discussion. What system doesn't have the goal of reaching good contracts? Take the case of 2M-3N with support for the major and a 3 count. What system does this systemically? Isn't this always a psyche?