All this system talk...

[fred]

To me at least it sounds like you are saying this:

 

Because your system is expressive (in terms of # of hands that can be described) and concise (in terms of # of pages of system notes), that it is necessarily more effective (in terms of non-competitive bidding) than "natural".

 

If that is what you are saying, I disagree. If that is not what you saying, what are you saying? :)

Hi Fred

 

I am firmly convinced that one could design a system that is

 

1. Expressive

2. Concise

3. Absolutely dreadful

 

I also believe that being expressive and concise are both hallmarks of well designed systems

Thanks for trying Richard, but I thought you made a claim re effectiveness (or maybe I just don't understand what you mean by "well-designed" - is that the same as "effective"?).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Edited February 21, 2008 by fred

[hrothgar]

To me at least it sounds like you are saying this:

 

Because your system is expressive (in terms of # of hands that can be described) and concise (in terms of # of pages of system notes), that it is necessarily more effective (in terms of non-competitive bidding) than "natural".

 

If that is what you are saying, I disagree. If that is not what you saying, what are you saying? :)

Hi Fred

 

I am firmly convinced that one could design a system that is

 

1. Expressive

2. Concise

3. Absolutely dreadful

 

I also believe that being expressive and concise are both hallmarks of well designed systems

Thanks for trying Richard, but I thought you made a claim re effectiveness (or maybe I just don't understand what you mean by "well-designed" - is that the same as "effective"?).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Hi Fred:

 

Take a look at my original comments to Phil: I made some very specific claims that artificial systems are typically more concise and have more expressive power. I don't believe that I made any explicit claims about the "effectiveness" of the resulting system.

 

With this said and done, I do believe that expressive power and concision both impact how effective a system will be. They certainly aren't the end all and be all, but they are important design criteria.

 

Moreover, these criteria can be measured in a fairly objective manner... We can characterize the length or a rule set. We can measure the number of distinct hands that a rule set is able to describe

[awm]

There are perhaps several different things being said. Some of them:

 

(1) "Artificial" systems are not necessarily more complicated than "natural" systems. If you actually discuss many sequences, "natural" methods often end up having a lot of "hacks" added to fix various annoying problems. For example, 2/1 as usually played includes a forcing major suit raise and followups, a forcing minor suit raise and followups, some artificial methods like BART over opener's 2♣ rebid, some gadgets like reverse flannery and 2-way NMF, and so forth and so on. This is actually quite a lot to remember and makes for many pages of notes. In comparison, many relay systems have a lot of highly artificial sequences that stem from the same principles (i.e. always make the first step with the highest shortage and the second step with the next lower shortage, etc). Despite the fact that most bids are "not natural" there is really not that much to write down or remember.

 

(2) While playing a particular system probably won't help your results much (at least in a strong field), having agreements about a lot of sequences can be helpful as long as you don't mess these agreements up.

 

(3) It is easier to avoid "messing up" your agreed sequences if there are fewer of them, or if they all stem from a few common principles rather than being somewhat arbitrary "hacks" added to your notes to fix occasional problem hands.

 

(4) While there is some work involved in remembering your agreements (and it's more work if your agreements are more complex) it's not clear that this taxes the brain in the same way as trying to work things out at the table. And there is also some work involved in working out what partner has and/or what your bids will tell partner in the situation where you don't have agreements, which forces you to waste some mental energy at the table that could better be spent on other things.

[kenrexford]

OK.

 

You sit down to play a round with a top-notch player. You are dealt the following:

 

♠Axx ♥x ♦Kxx ♣KQxxxx

 

A nice collection.

 

LHO opens the bidding 1♠. Partner overcalls 2♦. RHO doubles.

 

Your call?

 

Some thoughts come to mind. You think about the option of bidding 3♣, but that seems to be way too weak an option, and certainly not forcing, so you discard that outright.

 

You consider a jump to 4♣. That should be a fit-jump, but will partner recognize this properly as such? Plus, does this accurate set forth the assets of your hand as you want? Will the predicted follow-up auction tell you what you need to know or allow you to tell partner what he needs to know?

 

How about 3♥? This sounds like a splinter, but will partner spot this? Might partner consider this a natural call in this sequence? One meaning or the other must be more useful, and perhaps one is more frequent, but one could easily imagine a natural meaning, perhaps fit-jump.

 

How about 4♥? Or, is this a void-showing bid? Does this, or 3♥ for that matter, imply a lack of any spade control?

 

You could just bid 2♠, maybe. But, that does little to establish parameters. Maybe 2♠ has difficult follow-up sequences, depending upon what happens next.

 

Maybe 2♥? That seems strange, but perhaps partner would actually expect flags here. No -- that's too bizarre to whip out.

 

Maybe a simple XX. Whether partner takes this as snapdragon or an honor redouble, I have either. But, since I'm not sure what I mean by a XX, I'm not sure what partner expects from a XX, let alone what any of our next calls will mean.

 

This type of problem is one that you cannot easily handle, IMO, by simply relying upon judgment. Sure, there might be one set of assumptions, general rules, and principles that might argue for one action or another, but I bet a well-reasoned individual could argue persuasively for many of the options provided. Complicated system notes will nopt quickly (probably not even in three years) get to the point where the unknowns are negligible. These unknowns pop up routinely for even the most refined partnerships. And, I doubt that anyone has developed a "symmetric relay" or "precision" approach to contested-sequence minor-oriented advancer sequences. But, the more detailed you are, the more predictable the pattern will be and the more reliable the assumptions in those uncharted waters, IMO.

 

I find it humorous, as an aside, how frequently folks talk about system notes from the perspective of greatly refined opening bid sequences. The greatest number of judgment calls seem to come in two areas for me -- advancer decisions and overcaller's second decisions.

[blackshoe]

"Well designed" is not quite the same thing as "effective". Close, though.

 

A Barrett .50 is a very well designed weapon. In the hands of an expert marksman, it is extremely effective. In the hands of someone who doesn't know which end the bullet goes in, it's not effective at all.

[glen]

1) disclosing useful information to the opponents on the way to normal contracts

Some gadgets are specifically designed to prevent this. I.e., better structures over 1NT, encrypted bidding sequences, etc.

 

And transfer oriented relay auctions often leave you completely nearly completely in the dark about declarer and with complete knowledge of the dummy as compared to standard where both hands disclose a fair amount.

Yes, but the starting post did not mention "transfer oriented relay auctions" - I was just answering the question, assuming the "highly artificial, very gadget filled, uber-discussed cuebidding" would communicate information not necessary at pairs.

 

Also note that my answer applies to pairs events only, as the "highly artificial, very gadget filled, uber-discussed cuebidding" system at IMPs would mean:

1) Disclosure of information, but when it costs, it is often just a trick, and not a contract

2) The ability to reach game and slam contracts not found in straight-forward methods is far more important at IMPs. At pairs if you reach a slam and it makes, its a good board, and then, after you drop a trick on the next board, you lost the advantage. At IMPs, the slam is big when it makes, and losing the trick on the next board doesn't cost much.

[Yogeshdg]

I think it comes down to preparation and concentration. The pair that has prepared more will do better. Preparation includes everything from bidding to carding agreements. Luck factor cannot be ignored in any field. Sometimes you overbid and still make because of the layout. or you bid a "sure" game or slam and get a bad split.

[glen]

I think it comes down to preparation and concentration. The pair that has prepared more will do better.

No, this is wrong for pairs - you often see first-time partnerships win at pairs - if you have 300 pages of "prepared" notes for a pairs event, you are over-prepared, or, put another way, you are preparing for the wrong success factors.

[Yogeshdg]

I think it comes down to preparation and concentration. The pair that has prepared more will do better.

No, this is wrong for pairs - you often see first-time partnerships win at pairs - if you have 300 pages of "prepared" notes for a pairs event, you are over-prepared, or, put another way, you are preparing for the wrong success factors.

Oh sorry i was talking of teams. Yes pairs is completely different.

[csdenmark]

There are perhaps several different things being said. Some of them:

 

(1) "Artificial" systems are not necessarily more complicated than "natural" systems. If you actually discuss many sequences, "natural" methods often end up having a lot of "hacks" added to fix various annoying problems. For example, 2/1 as usually played includes a forcing major suit raise and followups, a forcing minor suit raise and followups, some artificial methods like BART over opener's 2♣ rebid, some gadgets like reverse flannery and 2-way NMF, and so forth and so on. This is actually quite a lot to remember and makes for many pages of notes. In comparison, many relay systems have a lot of highly artificial sequences that stem from the same principles (i.e. always make the first step with the highest shortage and the second step with the next lower shortage, etc). Despite the fact that most bids are "not natural" there is really not that much to write down or remember.

Correct and what does the word 'natural' mean?

 

The word natural means that if you have no knowledge you tend to do the right thing if acting natural. But in bridge it was not so for many years - and it is at least 70 years since the first convention was invented. From then bridge was all natural/artificial/conventional according to your preference for words.

 

But using the words as we mostly use them I think it is so:

• Natural systems uses natural openings and artificial continuations
  
• Artificial systems uses artificial openings and natural continuations
  

To compare 2 solid books:

• Max Hardy: Two over one game force - 322 pages
  
• Belladonna/Garozzo: Precision and super precision - 237 pages
  

Try compare 2 very different but still counted as natural systems: Gitelmann/Moss versus Rosenberg/Mahmood.

[Gerben42]

I am one of those "system nuts" I guess, but the main reason for most of the system notes I have with regular partners is that I don't want to have misunderstandings that can be avoided.

 

Simply writing down what things mean doesn't hurt anyone who wants to have a serious partnership. Most of this will be these common situations where you have to be on the same page.

 

Most of the 34 pages with my league partner is things like this. Is that forcing or not? Take-out or penalty? Strong or weak? Does that promise extras? Does it guarantee a fit? The list is endless.

 

The way to approach this is not hand someone 34 pages, but to ask "How would you understand this auction" and then write THAT down.

[helene_t]

I think Noble is spot on! Systemic agreements, however obscure they are, are like a poem, like your social security number. It just sinks in if you learn it properly.

Maybe I misunderstood Noble. That one I certainly agree with. I think it's as simple as: root learning is something you do before the event, you don't have to spend time on it during the event.

 

A quote (maybe slightly distorted) from Larry Cohen from the MSC: "I once used judgment when deciding whether to take p's 1NT out with a weak balanced hand with a 5-card major. I realized I got it wrong half of the time anyway, so I changed to the policy of just always taking it out. Saves a lot of mental energy".

[fred]

To me at least it sounds like you are saying this:

 

Because your system is expressive (in terms of # of hands that can be described) and concise (in terms of # of pages of system notes), that it is necessarily more effective (in terms of non-competitive bidding) than "natural".

 

If that is what you are saying, I disagree. If that is not what you saying, what are you saying? :P

Hi Fred

 

I am firmly convinced that one could design a system that is

 

1. Expressive

2. Concise

3. Absolutely dreadful

 

I also believe that being expressive and concise are both hallmarks of well designed systems

Thanks for trying Richard, but I thought you made a claim re effectiveness (or maybe I just don't understand what you mean by "well-designed" - is that the same as "effective"?).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Hi Fred:

 

Take a look at my original comments to Phil: I made some very specific claims that artificial systems are typically more concise and have more expressive power. I don't believe that I made any explicit claims about the "effectiveness" of the resulting system.

 

With this said and done, I do believe that expressive power and concision both impact how effective a system will be. They certainly aren't the end all and be all, but they are important design criteria.

 

Moreover, these criteria can be measured in a fairly objective manner... We can characterize the length or a rule set. We can measure the number of distinct hands that a rule set is able to describe

OK thanks Richard. I misunderstood what it was you were trying to say. Sorry about the confusion.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[the hog]

I am one of those "system nuts" I guess, but the main reason for most of the system notes I have with regular partners is that I don't want to have misunderstandings that can be avoided.

 

Simply writing down what things mean doesn't hurt anyone who wants to have a serious partnership. Most of this will be these common situations where you have to be on the same page.

 

Most of the 34 pages with my league partner is things like this. Is that forcing or not? Take-out or penalty? Strong or weak? Does that promise extras? Does it guarantee a fit? The list is endless.

 

The way to approach this is not hand someone 34 pages, but to ask "How would you understand this auction" and then write THAT down.

34 Pages!!!! Gerben, I thought you were a system nut. My Moscito notes run to well over 130 pages. The Power notes ran to close to 200.

 

I wan't going to enter this debate as it is clear what I think. Phil, I disagree strongly with your point of view. Even playing Power, we had very few memory problems, and this in the SWPT where you play 80 boards a day. Power is a killer as the relay structure is not intuitive.

 

One of the major reasons to have so many agreements is that it acts like a crutch. The confidence you have of knowing that if an obscure sequence comes up your partner WILL understand it, gives both of you a boost at the start of the tournament. You may not make the right decision, but it won't be because you misunderstood the meaning of partner's bid. This confidence carries through into your card play as well. I strongly dispute the notion that remembering complex agreements saps your card playing abilities; I would say the opposite is the truth. I would also dispute the notion that it takes away from your "plastic evaluation". This argument is a furphy used by some who dislike complex methods.

[Codo]

34 Pages!!!! Gerben, I thought you were a system nut. My Moscito notes run to well over 130 pages. The Power notes ran to close to 200.

Gerben is so young, he writes

very small.

 

You are so old (overr 40), you need big letters to read.

 

So his 34 pages are as much stuff as your power and mosquito together.

 

 

My experience is that I play strongest if I have a good working system, but weakest if I have a new system.

Noble may be right, that it takes lesser mental power to use memory then judgement, but my own experiences are totally different.

[the hog]

34 Pages!!!! Gerben, I thought you were a system nut. My Moscito notes run to well over 130 pages. The Power notes ran to close to 200.

Gerben is so young, he writes

very small.

 

You are so old (overr 40), you need big letters to read.

 

So his 34 pages are as much stuff as your power and mosquito together.

 

 

My experience is that I play strongest if I have a good working system, but weakest if I have a new system.

Noble may be right, that it takes lesser mental power to use memory then judgement, but my own experiences are totally different.

Rofl. How true!

[Gerben42]

I guess so, but I'm a believer in "interesting stuff on the first round, natural stuff after that". Reason: On the first round after the opening bid, aggressive optimized stuff puts pressure on the opponents. After that, it just hurts partner's head.

[bill1157]

IMHO system is far less important than partnership chemisty. By that i mean, are we both trying to communicate, not mastermind and not test partner too much?

I recall a sectional swiss teams i played in years ago with a good player i had never played with or against. I overslept and only arrived 15 minutes after game time. we had no time to discuss anything, but went on to win.

After that event we played a few times, after getting our system straight and never again achieved anything.

I credit our win to communication and planning, definitely not to system

[jchiu]

I recall a sectional swiss teams i played in years ago with a good player i had never played with or against.  I overslept and only arrived 15 minutes after game time. we had no time to discuss anything, but went on to win.

I certainly have this experience with partners with whom I have little discussion. We do wonderfully the first time, then after a couple weeks off, discuss more system and lose all chemistry. I think it's primarily due to making sensible middle-of-the-road calls when there is no system, and relying too much on the makeshift agreements during the second time together.

 

I have not had a regular partner, whether it be Tom, Warren, or Matt with whom I scored better during our third tournament than our first. With Tom, since we were playing frequently during the spring of 2003, it took only three months to regain that first-time magic. With Warren, I achieved regular success in top-bracket regional knockouts in Atlanta and Denver (2005). Since he lived in Omaha, the second-session slump burned our sessions Gatlinburg and Chicago (2006). I was particularly glad that we became comfortable with the system during the Saint Louis nationals last year. With Matt, we played a strong club system competenly on BBO during the summer and fall of 2006. Then, Reno was a bloody disaster bridgewise, although being drank under the table by a petite gnome doesn't help my abilities one bit :unsure: . We reverted to playing vanilla 2/1 before the San Francisco nationals last fall, since we had a sponsor and accountability for our results. Only very recently have we started playing the strong club system again.

We have not had to test it in a formal (top bracket regional or higher) setting yet.

 

Then I know that Dick Morgen of Havertown (Phila.) Pa. won two open regional events in Wilmington with two different first-time partners. After winning the Wednesday (maybe Thursday) open pairs with Mike Shuster, we were on the winning knockout team in the weekend knockout.

[zasanya]

Reading some of these posts it almost seems as if 'playing with a new partner preferably without discussion is a reasonable strategy for good results'. :P