HUM and BSC - are they worth it?

[NickRW]

First off, Wayne, I bow to your greater experience.

 

Should BSC/HUMs be restricted in general? We have discussed this topic in the forums many times before. It is probably not interesting to hear the same opinions stated by the same people yet again.

 

I dare say it may be uninteresting for some. Personally, I am in favour, in principle at least (though the detail often leaves a lot to be desired), of whatever restrictions the authorities think appropriate for the lower levels of competition. However, for world class events, I cannot see the justification for restrictions. You can argue as eloquently as you like about why restrictions at that level are a good idea - to my mind such arguments are completely irrelevant - I just dont see how anyone can say "we won the world championship of bridge" with any pride at all when what you actually won was a neutered version. So it is time consuming to prepare defences - tough luck.

 

Nick

[mycroft]

I wouldn't necessarily say that a well-designed HUM is going to be automatically down against well-prepared opponents over a non-HUM system - I can't really see where a well-designed "Precision" system that inverts the meaning of pass and 1C could be much worse than normal, for instance.

 

I do agree that a well-designed HUM could very easily be system-neutral (at least within standard system-choice error) against well-prepared opponents over a non-HUM system. Of course, that's one of the things playing against well-prepared opponents over long games should be able to test.

 

Also, of course, if the pair learning the Anti-HUM defence is better player than their opponents, system-neutral means that they're still likely to win - and that's what we want.

 

I feel uncomfortable about this "loss of seating rights, even when the HUM pair isn't in" - I'd prefer "if you're playing a HUM, the non-HUM-playing opposition may designate a pair to play against the HUM whenever that pair plays. Other than that, normal seeding rights applies". I see every reason why the HUM team shouldn't get to cherry-pick their system against the most-bamboozlable opponent, and some reason why everybody should have to go to the trouble of learning the anti-HUM defence, but why penalize the rest of the team?

[Gerben42]

In general, I don't think seating rights are a big deal - I've seen the same two pairs play back to back sessions where one pair dominates the first session and the other pair the second (this is assuming the pairs are pretty even).

 

Perhaps not on the international level. But where I'm playing, I am pretty sure I've won some matches because of the seating rights in the 2nd half.

[dake50]

Are they worth it? I assumed you would have a rant/ blog about the winning-ness of HUM. Surely a cost/ payoff balance sheet can/ should be developed for any treatment. SOMETHING more than Expert1, 2, etc. play this as justification (that's a logical non-sequitor: ad populum). I hunger for those types of presentation.

[kenrexford]

Random thoughts, but whatever:

 

1. I find it wonderful that we love a game where the top players in the world can be frazzled by methods that are designed by competitors and plausible enough to enable the innovators to earn the right to frazzle. That speaks volumes about the intrinsic wonder of this game.

 

2. I find it rather humorous for people who spend their every waking hour playing, discussing, practicing, writing, etc., about bridge as a profession to be protected by rules like these. I understand the rules for the rest of us. But,. come on, a lot of this is dealing with WBF competitions, right? I can just imagine a football team (American) complaining that a hurry-up offense is too difficult for them to handle with their own defense and that they would like, therefore, to tell the other team which receivers to put on which side of the field.

 

3. It also seems to me that with very long matches, a "filing deadline" for conventional treatments makes a lot of sense and should protect the opposition. I cannot imagine sufficient prior notice being insufficient.

 

4. That said, I can see how high variance approaches might be a very bad idea. It does make some sense, IMO, to somehow eliminate the use of what could reasonably be ascertained to be highly variant systems. Sure, that would be fuzzy. Fuzzy leads to some unsound decisions and some biased decisions that are unfair, in some ways. But, ultimate fairness is somewhat achieved if the playing field is equally unfair.

[paulg]

 

2.  I find it rather humorous for people who spend their every waking hour playing, discussing, practicing, writing, etc., about bridge as a profession to be protected by rules like these.  I understand the rules for the rest of us.  But,. come on, a lot of this is dealing with WBF competitions, right?  I can just imagine a football team (American) complaining that a hurry-up offense is too difficult for them to handle with their own defense and that they would like, therefore, to tell the other team which receivers to put on which side of the field.

 

3.  It also seems to me that with very long matches, a "filing deadline" for conventional treatments makes a lot of sense and should protect the opposition.  I cannot imagine sufficient prior notice being insufficient.

At the European Championships the Women played a complete round robin, 24 matches of 20 boards. All systems had to be filed one month before the tournament. Most teams had three system cards but a handful had four, so quite a lot of work to do.

 

It was worse in the Open. There were 38 teams of whom you would play 19 in a round robin, but the draw for the groups happened just two weeks before the event. The top 9 from each group qualified for the 'final', another round robin. So, essentially, you had to analyse all of the teams.

 

This may be okay for the professional teams but it's a lot of work for the smaller countries.

 

I'm very happy to see HUM/BSC at this level but it makes the preparation more difficult.

 

But, as I've said previously, there were no HUMs and BSCs are declining. I believe that this is because there is nowhere to practise playing them, given that most countries have banned them in their local competitions.

[the hog]

This may be okay for the professional teams but it's a lot of work for the smaller countries.

 

I'm very happy to see HUM/BSC at this level but it makes the preparation more difficult.

 

But, as I've said previously, there were no HUMs and BSCs are declining. I believe that this is because there is nowhere to practise playing them, given that most countries have banned them in their local competitions.

A couple of points: if you play in a major competition then you should o your preparation. I agree with Ken that there should be no protection at thias level.

 

I certainly agree that the reason you give is why HUMs and BSC are declining. We used to play a strong pass system but got jacked off when we could only play it a couple of times a year. BSCs otoh are frequent in Oz.

[Trinidad]

Random thoughts, but whatever:

4.  That said, I can see how high variance approaches might be a very bad idea.  It does make some sense, IMO, to somehow eliminate the use of what could reasonably be ascertained to be highly variant systems.  Sure, that would be fuzzy.  Fuzzy leads to some unsound decisions and some biased decisions that are unfair, in some ways.  But, ultimate fairness is somewhat achieved if the playing field is equally unfair.

The problem with banning a 'high variance' approach (if you are really talking about high variance and not about HUMs) is that the variance is determined by the difference between the high variance system and the rest of the field.

 

Say that I have a pair tournament where everyone is playing Regress (or Magic Diamond for that matter) except for one pair that is playing middle of the road 2/1 GF. Then there is no doubt about it that the 2/1 GF pair is causing the high variance. Supporting the ban of a high variance approach is nothing else but supporting the banning of 'minority methods that are rather different from the majority'.

 

Now, let's get back to the teams format. We have the match between Poland and the USA. The Poles have a team that only plays Polish club. The Americans play 2/1 GF. Which method causes the high variance? If you think about it, you will realize that this is a complete nonsense question. After all, the difference between (Polish club and 2/1 GF) is equal to the difference between (2/1 GF and Polish club).

 

In short: There is basically no such thing as a 'high variance method' *. There are methods that lead to a high variance, against other, specified methods. Carotti is a high variance method against 2/1 GF. However, it is a small variance method against Magic Diamond (and an even smaller variance method against Carotti).

 

* The only methods that are inherently high variance are methods with a lot of inherent randomness. That means that the 'system' uses a lot of random bids, e.g. psyches or situations where the system is ill defined. (That is the reason why I put 'system' in quotation marks. We are talking about methods that basically have a lack of system.) Seen in that light, Acol is probably one of the highest variance methods in the world. The variance in a match with four Acol pairs will be much higher than the variance in a match with four pairs playing Regres. But I doubt that most people will think of Acol (or SAYC) when they are referring to high variance methods.

 

Rik

[NickRW]

Seen in that light, Acol is probably one of the highest variance methods in the world. The variance in a match with four Acol pairs will be much higher than the variance in a match with four pairs playing Regres.

You were doing so well. You are obviously correct.

 

I do take slight exception to this bit about Acol. Acol as played in clubs certainly is high variance - largely because there are so many versions of it that pass under that name*. However a pair playing essentially Acol style who have thoroughly discussed their common sequences are certainly not random. And, if they were in a field of similar players with similar ideas, then there would be no more variance in that field than any other homogenous field.

 

Nick

 

* People think "Acol" means 4 card majors and weak NT. In reality it mainly means limit style responses and rebids with a lot of non forcing sequences. People play what they call "Acol" with 5 card majors (both the 5533 and 5542 type) - also with just 5 card spades. I've even seen 5 card majors with 5 card diamonds. And of those who use 4 card majors some open 4 card suits up the line and some don't. Some play strong NT, or 14-16NT or variable NT and, of course, mini NT too 1st/2nd NV. The opening 2 bids are also quite variable - strong twos, Benji style, SA style, Multi and other variations sometimes seen. These all get called "Acol".

[awm]

There's a difference between "methods which go against the field" and "methods which are high variance."

 

I'd define "high variance methods" as methods which often lead to a big penalty being obtained (one way or another) -- i.e. methods which would have high variance results if the other table always played at "absolute par."

 

Examples are things like very aggressive preempts, FERT bids above the level of 1m, non-forcing preempts that may or may not show the suit named, and so forth. While it's true that if everyone plays a forcing pass with all 2-level bids showing 0-7 with 4+ in the suit you will see a lot of push results, there will also be a lot of boards where some ridiculous contract is played and you will see a huge number of swings when compared to "par" results (hands where either side missed game because of a crazy preempt, hands where the crazy preempt just went down a bunch doubled or undoubled, hands where people had to overcall at the two-level and went for a number, etc).

 

EHAA is a high-variance method (no forcing bid, very wide ranging preempts mean a lot of "mistakes" on both sides). Most forcing pass systems are actually not particularly high-variance methods (although if you want to play a 2♣ FERT, it's probably high variance).

[hrothgar]

The problem with banning a 'high variance' approach (if you are really talking about high variance and not about HUMs) is that the variance is determined by the difference between the high variance system and the rest of the field.

Hi Rik

 

For the most part, I agree with your assessment, however, I don't think that thigns are quite as cut-and-dried as you might think:

 

Let's consider the following:

 

2♦ opening #1 = a single suited hand with 6-7 Diamonds, no four card major, ~ 5-9 HCP and two of the top four Diamonds.

 

2♦ opening #2 = 4+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major, denies 4441 or 5440 shape, ~ 5-9 HCPs, promises either Qxxx or xxxxx in a major.

 

I'm going by gut feel here, but my guess is that the variance in scores after someone opens 2♦ bid #2 is significantly higher than after 2♦ opening #1. Some of this (undoubtedly) is a function of the relative familiarity of the two methods. However, I also think that some of this is a function of the nature of the opening bids.

 

(Or, more simply, there's more than one way to consider variance)

[Free]

You can also compare variance with the same system when opening in another seat and/or vulnerability. For example, opening 2♦ with 4+♦ and 4+M will not always get you to the same contract as like partner opened (probably more 1NT instead of 2♦/M). However, with a classic weak two in ♠ you'll probably end up in the same contract, whoever opens.

[Echognome]

2. I find it rather humorous for people who spend their every waking hour playing, discussing, practicing, writing, etc., about bridge as a profession to be protected by rules like these. I understand the rules for the rest of us. But,. come on, a lot of this is dealing with WBF competitions, right? I can just imagine a football team (American) complaining that a hurry-up offense is too difficult for them to handle with their own defense and that they would like, therefore, to tell the other team which receivers to put on which side of the field.

I don't think this is a fair analogy.

 

Suppose one NFL team decided to try a play where they made two forward passes or made a forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage and said "why can't you be prepared for this? this is the NFL."

 

I mean everything is down to the set up of the rules and the rules may change as is the whim of powers that be. (e.g. the forward pass was only made legal in football in 1906) What should really matter is what is best for the sport overall and in my view that means what is best for the masses.

[cherdano]

2.  I find it rather humorous for people who spend their every waking hour playing, discussing, practicing, writing, etc., about bridge as a profession to be protected by rules like these.  I understand the rules for the rest of us.  But,. come on, a lot of this is dealing with WBF competitions, right?  I can just imagine a football team (American) complaining that a hurry-up offense is too difficult for them to handle with their own defense and that they would like, therefore, to tell the other team which receivers to put on which side of the field.

I don't think this is a fair analogy.

 

Suppose one NFL team decided to try a play where they made two forward passes or made a forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage and said "why can't you be prepared for this? this is the NFL."

 

I mean everything is down to the set up of the rules and the rules may change as is the whim of powers that be. (e.g. the forward pass was only made legal in football in 1906) What should really matter is what is best for the sport overall and in my view that means what is best for the masses.

The other problem with Ken's argument is that the premise is wrong.

Last time I checked Bob Hamman did not "spend their every waking hour playing, discussing, practicing, writing, etc., about bridge". Yeah, Bob Hamman is an amateur...

 

Unlike the other two big mind games (go and chess), bridge has created many world class players for whom bridge is not their only profession, or even their main profession.

[csdenmark]

What should really matter is what is best for the sport overall and in my view that means what is best for the masses.

Then you dont need to worry at all.

 

The masses are playing social bridge bridge in small clubs. Most of them never heard of tournaments with curious names like Bermuda, Spingold, Vanderbilt, White House etc. And they are not interested in systems.

 

They dont even know the name of what they are doing themselves and never heard the word 'convention card'.

 

The masses plays WHIST.

[the hog]

I don't normally agree with Claus, but he is spot on this time!

[NickRW]

They dont even know the name of what they are doing themselves and never heard the word 'convention card'.

 

The masses plays WHIST.

I think that is a little over the top.

 

Sure there are quite a few who regularly lead out of turn and all sorts of other absent minded mistakes. There are those who are past their sell by date and there are those who were never any good in the first place even by club standards. But you make it sound like the average club is riddled with people who deserve no respect whatsoever at the table. Of the 100 or so different people who have played at my local club this year, 8 are on the EBU's gold point list, 5 of them appear regularly and 2 more who are semi frequent visitors - ok they might not be a Fred or a Zia - but they aren't giving you freebie overtricks every time you stumble into a dodgy contract. And there are about another dozen who aren't too bad.

 

Nick

[Echognome]

What should really matter is what is best for the sport overall and in my view that means what is best for the masses.

Then you dont need to worry at all.

 

The masses are playing social bridge bridge in small clubs. Most of them never heard of tournaments with curious names like Bermuda, Spingold, Vanderbilt, White House etc. And they are not interested in systems.

 

They dont even know the name of what they are doing themselves and never heard the word 'convention card'.

 

The masses plays WHIST.

Explain why you believe that the game should be fundamentally different for the world class players than the rank and file.

 

It seems like your argument is "they wouldn't understand anyway, so who cares if we alienate them?"

 

My argument is as follows:

 

1. If we make the understanding of the game at the highest levels accessible to the masses, they will find more interest in following the game. Of course, what is the norm may vary by country, but I think there is a strong case for making it understandable to the largest group of people. So, allowing Precision for say the large group of players in Asia seems sensible. Allowing a forcing pass does not.

 

2. Suppose we take your route of having broad allowance of systems. Where do we stop? Do we simply allow anything under the sun? If not, who should decide? Haven't they already decided? If so, would if be any fun to have a race to the most unusual randomizing conventions?

 

3. The "right" way to regulate is a tautology. It has come about through a long process of discussion and trial-and-error by a lot of smart people. So here you are saying you have a "better way". Who are you to say it's better? Don't you think a more lax system has been tried before? Why did they change it to the current system?

 

4. The rank and file should get enjoyment out of watching the world championships. Look at all the armchair sports fan that get enjoyment out of watching the same game that they play on the football pitch, the cricket pitch, the baseball field, etc.

[the hog]

"Suppose we take your route of having broad allowance of systems. Where do we stop? Do we simply allow anything under the sun?"

 

Absolutely! Do you want to play bridge or tiddleywinks? You are after all talking about serious competition here. Bad methods will weed themselves out in the long term.

[matmat]

Absolutely! Do you want to play bridge or tiddleywinks? You are after all talking about serious competition here. Bad methods will weed themselves out in the long term.

I don't fully agree with the Darwinian approach here. It might actually make sense to allow anything under the sun in long-ish imp matches where system notes can be exchanged ahead of time (though there is a danger here too, as someone might throw 1000 pages of notes at you the night before) , but at 2 boards/round MP games, this is sort of ridiculous. This would have an incredibly randomizing effect on the field, likely driving players away from MP (which may or may not be a good idea, depending on your POV).

 

It is unreasonable for you to assume that even an established partnership has discussed every possible kitchen sink of a system that opps might throw at them. I think there is a boundary that needs to be (CLEARLY) drawn, and I think it should encompass a lot more in terms of systems than it currently has, but allowing a free-for-all is not the way to go.

[Echognome]

"Suppose we take your route of having broad allowance of systems. Where do we stop? Do we simply allow anything under the sun?"

 

Absolutely! Do you want to play bridge or tiddleywinks? You are after all talking about serious competition here. Bad methods will weed themselves out in the long term.

Well, my answer to that is that they tried it and discarded it. Once upon a time psychs were made a lot more often and forcing pass systems were allowed (e.g. Walpurgis Club). They decided that wasn't for the best. You think it is. Maybe that's because it's more enjoyable for you and is less enjoyable for others. Whoever gets to decide what's right, decided. So you are unhappy. Not much I can say to help you, other than try to consider that there are plenty of other people that play the game. Maybe you can take home the satisfaction that you are willing to play "all out bridge" and feel others are protected. Maybe other people actually care that some people should be able to follow the game at the highest levels.

 

Who knows?

[cherdano]

"Suppose we take your route of having broad allowance of systems. Where do we stop? Do we simply allow anything under the sun?"

 

Absolutely! Do you want to play bridge or tiddleywinks? You are after all talking about serious competition here. Bad methods will weed themselves out in the long term.

Scandal! Some want to play American football instead of rugby!

[matmat]

Scandal! Some want to play American football instead of rugby!

are you saying he should establish some other governing body, something like

American Contract Overpass League (ACOL) and allow all conventions in the games sanctioned by it?

[the hog]

Look Mat, I agree that at MPs it is a trifle unfair, but certainly in Team matches I think it should be anything goes.

Obviously throwing 1000 pages at someone the night before is crazy, but given reasonable time and warning. (what is reasonable?), I think you can come up with generic defences.

 

Gnome, I disagree that "that they tried it and discarded it. Once upon a time psychs were made a lot more often and forcing pass systems were allowed (e.g. Walpurgis Club). They decided that wasn't for the best." The reason these systems are played rarely now is that you don't have the opportunity to practice them anywhere. Paul Marston has stated he would much rather play a strong pass system than Moscito, but it has virtually been legislated out of existence. Further why on earth do you think people can't "follow the game at the highest levels" if HUMS are used? I don't get that logic at all. Personally I think it is a huge lot of fun to watch a HUM pair in action.

[csdenmark]

What should really matter is what is best for the sport overall and in my view that means what is best for the masses.

Then you dont need to worry at all.

 

The masses are playing social bridge bridge in small clubs. Most of them never heard of tournaments with curious names like Bermuda, Spingold, Vanderbilt, White House etc. And they are not interested in systems.

 

They dont even know the name of what they are doing themselves and never heard the word 'convention card'.

 

The masses plays WHIST.

Explain why you believe that the game should be fundamentally different for the world class players than the rank and file.

 

It seems like your argument is "they wouldn't understand anyway, so who cares if we alienate them?"

 

My argument is as follows:

 

1. If we make the understanding of the game at the highest levels accessible to the masses, they will find more interest in following the game. Of course, what is the norm may vary by country, but I think there is a strong case for making it understandable to the largest group of people. So, allowing Precision for say the large group of players in Asia seems sensible. Allowing a forcing pass does not.

 

2. Suppose we take your route of having broad allowance of systems. Where do we stop? Do we simply allow anything under the sun? If not, who should decide? Haven't they already decided? If so, would if be any fun to have a race to the most unusual randomizing conventions?

 

3. The "right" way to regulate is a tautology. It has come about through a long process of discussion and trial-and-error by a lot of smart people. So here you are saying you have a "better way". Who are you to say it's better? Don't you think a more lax system has been tried before? Why did they change it to the current system?

 

4. The rank and file should get enjoyment out of watching the world championships. Look at all the armchair sports fan that get enjoyment out of watching the same game that they play on the football pitch, the cricket pitch, the baseball field, etc.

 

Explain why you believe that the game should be fundamentally different for the world class players than the rank and file.

I think I havent said anything like that. To me repeated discussions in this Forum about different ACBL-tournament set-ups looks silly. Stop it and elect people with knowledge and interest in perspectives to the rule-setting bodies.

 

1. If we make the understanding of the game at the highest levels accessible to the masses, they will find more interest in following the game. Of course, what is the norm may vary by country, but I think there is a strong case for making it understandable to the largest group of people. So, allowing Precision for say the large group of players in Asia seems sensible. Allowing a forcing pass does not.

For 98% - the masses - it will change nothing at all. Take a look into Vugraph and you will see each time a strong system is coming up the commentators awakes. Often they know they dont have the qualifications to commentate - but they certainly try to do their best. They are all handicapped by the crap allowed these days.

 

2. Suppose we take your route of having broad allowance of systems. Where do we stop? Do we simply allow anything under the sun? If not, who should decide? Haven't they already decided? If so, would if be any fun to have a race to the most unusual randomizing conventions?

Taking my position we stop nowhere. Modern technology will help all interested to catch up. The BBO flash component is an important tool here.