ACOL

[oldfogey]

Overwhelmed by SAYC and 2/1, I would like to find ACOL-talking partners - basic and Benjaminised.    

 

It's very easy and logical.   Basic ACOL is just 12-14 NT, the ability to open a good 4-card major (if that's the best bid), strong 2's (8 playing tricks - forcing for 1 round), and limit bids in suport of pds suit, or in NT (if that's the obvious bid).    Plus any conventions you agree on, including all the usual SAYC gadgets.    (How can a system be defined as a collection of conventions which MUST be used?).     Please don't talk to me about ACOL with 5-card majors, 15-17 NT, and weak 2's, lol!

 

Benji ACOL DOES use weak 2's in majors.    So a 2C opening shows a strong 2 in any suit, and 2D opening is GAME-FORCING with 2H negative response.   2D-2H-2NT shows 23-24 points, so is the only time bidding can stop short of game - if responder has almost nothing.    I prefer Benji, as the reason for weak NT is its greater frequency and pre-emptive value, so logically weak 2s shd be preferred to strong, for the same reason.

 

Apart from all that bidding and play are common sense as they shd be in any system.

 

Grrrr,

 

Old Fogey

[Laird]

As an ACOL player I too would like to support you in your quest for more acol players getting together and being visible on BBO.

SAYC,2/1 Precision etc I am sure must be good systems but for me the intuitve flexible nature of the ACOL system is great for learners to develop the basics of bidding and getting into good contracts.

 

What I wonder is at what level ACOL ceases to be the system of choice for Expert and World standard players .. do they in fact play systems far divorsed from what is taught at an elementary level and is this the same for other systems.

 

Wayne Burrows(Cascade) has classes on sunday morning and wednesday evening(GMT) and this is well attended and provides a grand introduction to reverse benji Acol or standard Acol. Whether or not reverse Benji offers an advantage over straight Benji is a moot point which I cannot comment on.

 

What I would like to see sometime in the future is a match between expert Acol, SAYC, 2/1 and other system players and this I am sure would generate some interest and fun.

 

Best wishes

 

Laird    B)

[oldfogey]

I would think that true expert (as distinct from some self-proclaimed experts) and world-standard players are guided more by logical reasoning and knowledge of their partner's bidding style, rather than by ANY rigid system.     Presumably an exception would be the Italian Blue Team with their very precise Blue Club.

 

oldfogey

[hrothgar]

I would think that true expert (as distinct from some self-proclaimed experts) and world-standard players are guided more by logical reasoning and knowledge of their partner's bidding style, rather than by ANY rigid system.     Presumably an exception would be the Italian Blue Team with their very precise Blue Club.

 

oldfogey

 

Differentiating between system and judgement seems counter productive.

 

Three comments:

 

First, I would ague that most "top" pairs use highly scientific systems.  The accuracy of the modern precision variants used by Meckwell,  modern Italian systems like Nightmare, or the multi-way club systems used by the Poles are at least as accurate as Blue Club.

 

Second:  Scientific systems imp-rove players ability to apply judgement.  They are not a substitute for judgement.

 

Third:  Given the highly competitive nature of modern bidding,  making any conclusions about a specific system would seem to be of limited utility.

[Laird]

Thanks hrothgar for your comments.

 

From what you say have I to understand that many systems such as ACOL, SAYC, 2/1 etc are in many ways redundant and only fit for limited competitive bridge.

Can you give an example of how the scientific system does indeed improve the quality of the judgement made?

Does it improve the decision making regarding the optimum level of contract reached,given the vulnerability etc, but also what type of card play is likely to be most successful in making the contract.

Is it not more time consuming as you ponder all these possibilities?

I guess these days you are either an analogue thinker or one whose decisions are made on the more accurate digitalised systems information.   ???

 

best wishes

 

John

[Codo]

Hi John,

 

I am not Richard, but I agree with him - this time.

Sayc, Acol and 2/1 are not at all build for competetive bidding. They are all very solid and natural systems.

 

But as we all grow up with this natural bidding, we can all compete against it.

 

It is much more difficult to compete against opps, who open 1 diamond to show 11-15 HCPS and 4+ hearts + another suit, or 2 Spade shows 3-4 HCPS with 5 banana flips and six packs of beer.

Or did you discuss your defence against mosquito, nightmare, forcing pass systems etc?

No, because you did not use it so often?

So there is one big advantage of these systems: The opps are less used to this bidding then you are.

 

A second: In many strong club systems, there is very early a captain of the bidding. He uses all the bidding space to ask his partner. So he did not show too much of his hand, but is sometimes able to ask for the complete structure of partners hand. That makes judgement very easy.

In a natural sytem, both players are "equals" for a long time. They both show their hands and after a while, one takes over. The disadvantage is: You need much space to show a  part of 26 cards. If you just ask for 13 cards, it is easier to get all needed informations at a lower level.

 

So, in theory, there are some advantages of non-natural systems.

 

Of course, you can tune sayc et all too to very competetive systems. You just add some gadgets and fancy asking bids et voila...

 

But then you adopt the big disadvatage of all non-natural systems: You need an awful lot of memory. And I got to know, that the increase in scientific is paid with a lot of misunderstandings and silly contracts, which we reached, because of lost of memory about the forcing bids.

But these problems are no problems for the world class. They invest more time and have a better memory.

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

Thanks hrothgar for your comments.

 

From what you say have I to understand that many systems such as ACOL, SAYC, 2/1 etc are in many ways redundant and only fit for limited competitive bridge.

Can you give an example of how the scientific system does indeed improve the quality of the judgement made?

Does it improve the decision making regarding the optimum level of contract reached,given the vulnerability etc, but also what type of card play is likely to be most successful in making the contract.

Is it not more time consuming as you ponder all these possibilities?

 

 

Hi John

 

You've raised a number of issues.  I'm going to try to deal with these in a relatively organized fashion, however no promises.

 

First, you stated that I feel that many basic systems like SAYC, 2/1 game force, and Acol are "redundant".  While I would never use this phrase [i prefer the term obsolete], I do agree with the basic sentiment.  I don't think that there is any such thing as a perfect bidding system, however, I think that each of the systems that you named suffers from very significant technical flaws.  This is not to say that people can't achieve acceptable results with these systems, but rather, that better alternatives are available.  Moreover, I believe that the main reason that these systems continue to be used in high level competitive bridge is that the systems regulations are being deliberately used to cripple any bidding system that might threaten "traditional" methods.

 

Let's start by breaking each of those two statements down:

 

The first issue is considering how a traditional bidding system like 2/1 could be considered to be flawed.  I will readily that my own theories about the design of bidding systems may have been somewhat warped by my academic and professional research.  I did my original graduate work studying mathematical economics with a specific focus in game theory.  I spent the next 10 years working TCP/IP stack implementations.  I'm currently enrolled at MIT working on next generation computer networks.  The common theme underlying each of these areas is that they all deal with the science of information exchange:  How does one go and design communications structures to compress the optimal amount of information into a limited channel.  

 

There are any number of very complex tradeoffs that need to be considered in solving such a problem.  The two most complicated issues are probably:

 

1.  The same information that allows you and your partner to accurately judge whether to bid a game may also help the opponents in planning their defense.

 

2.  There is a fundamental tension between the need to preserve bidding space to explore our best contract and using up bidding space as quickly as possible in order to deny the opponent's the ability to exchange information.

 

Traditional systems such as 2/1 game forcing were never optimized to solve this class of information exchange problems.  Accordingly, it should come as little or no surprise that systems like BWS or SAYC do not exchange information as efficiently as some of the more scientifically designed systems.  It's possible to demonstrate this mathematically using a variety of different methods.  I prefer to point out to a much more simple proof.  Traditional bidding systems are forced to use legislative fiat to protect themselves more modern systems.

 

At one point in time, some very innovative work was being done to design a new class of bidding systems that were optimized to solve these types of problems.  Most notably the research into so-called strong pass systems that was pioneered by the Poles and extended in areas as diverse as Sweden, Australia, and New Zealand was really ground breaking in its scope.  Unfortunately, almost all of this work was ended when the World Bridge Federation adopted a series of extremely restrictive requirements regarding what class of bidding systems could be used in different events.

 

For example, the ACBL Conventions Committee, in its infinite wisdom, just ruled that transfer opening bids [1D = Hearts, 1H = Spades] are too difficult to defend against to be allowed in MIDCHART level events.  There are two different explanations that could be used justify this occurrence.

 

Explanation 1:  A 1D opening bid that shows 4+ Hearts is so difficult to defend against that Flight A players in North America can't possibly protect themselves against this devastating opening.  [Never mind that there are trivial defenses to this opening bid.  Some of the extremely simple defenses might not be perfectly optimized, but they are simply to remember and apply and provide at least as much bidding space as is available over a "natural" 1H opening bid.

 

Explanation 2:  The ACBL conventions committee is made of a small group of professional players who have a vested interest in suppressing any methods that might threaten their livelihood.  Accordingly, individual members of the committee (hypothetically Jeff Meckstroth and Chip Martel) have twisted both the committee and the ACBL defensive database to eliminate competition.

 

I know for a fact which explanation that I think is most likely.  

 

I will note in passing that this is a rather tender subject with me since I have had a number of rather unpleasant run ins with the Convention Committee over the years.  This most recent decision - which means that I need to throw away the last three years or so of work that I have done learning MOSCITO - has me extremely upset.

[Codo]

Hi Richard,

 

for some part of your arguments, I am with you. But: I live in Germany. (okay okay nobody is without a fault..)

And here, mosquito is not forbidden. (Forcing pass is till a decent level). But still: Nobody uses it. There was ONE pair in our highest league. They had some remarkable results including reaching 7 club in a 4-2 fit, which was the only grand to be made. And the declarer was able to name all High Cards in his partners hand and claim before dummy hits the table...

 

But they had some big desasters too. Just because mosquito is wonderful in theory, but very complicate to use in practice in a long lasting event. It costs so much power to remember all details.

 

So there are some reasons besides legislative, that make natural systems more popular.

Even if relay systems are the answer to a lot of problems. They create other problems and therefor it is no clear white/black in this threat. Both systems have their ups and downs.

 

But surely, it is ridicoulus, how strong the law comittee is masterminding the bridge players esp. in the US.

If there are real novice tourneys, fine, let them all play sayc. But later..

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[the hog]

Roland, believe it or not Moscito is NOT as difficult to play as Acol. It has taken my partner and I since Febuary to play the new version of Moscito and bid at faster than natural bidder's tempo without making any relay mistakes whatsoever. Admitedly I have an advantage here in that some years ago I played the old version for quite a while.

 

The hard part is to visualise what is needed in relay responder's hand to make slam investigation worthwhile. However I would contend that we have a major advantage here over natural bidders. (Talk to Rene Steiner). Playing 2/1 last year, it took at least 8 months of solid work, bidding, discussion etc to achieve an understanding which made me feel comfortable to play the system in top flight competition.

 

I do feel for Richard as I agree with his views on draconian legislation. While our systems restrictions are not as stupid - and I use that word advisedly - as those in the States, let me give you one example of the idiocy of legislators.

 

Thursday night one of my team mates - a top flight expert - opened 3C nv vs vul on

x

xxxx

xx

JT9xxx

Now I don't care what you think of the opening, the point is this is illegal here and liable to a fine of ? Imps. It does not conform to the requirements of 15 "opening points". It is this sort of stupidity which permeates the bridge world, but has found its apotheosis in the States, and I agree with Richard's surmises as to why this might be so.

 

The other week we were playing in a Gold point event at a privately owned Bridge Club. In the second round we played a weak team, but regular clients of the club owner. As soon as we announced our methods they wanted to forfeit the match, "We don't want to play against this sort of rubbish". This despite the fact that we bent over backwards to give them a simple defence to transfer openings, big C etc. The response was simply that they would get more confused. In other words the simply did not want to be taken out of their area of comfort, despite the fact that bridge is meant to be an intellectual challenge. The owner of the club was not happy that we were playing Moscito, but as this was a national event could do naught. It will be interesting to see the reaction of the owner when we play in his congress in a couple of weeks time. The point of all this is to show you the prejudice and antipathy that certain players have about being removed from their comfort zone. As these people are paying clients, owners, professionals etc are at great pains to keep them happy. I can understand this even though I disagree with the mentality. If I didn't want intellectual stimulation I would play Snap instead of bridge.

[oldfogey]

The type of super-scientific system desired by hrothgar if he could achieve it would be better played by four computers.     It's fair enough that the authorities should discourage such systems from other than top competitions, since the great majority of players do not understand or wish to use them.    Surely there's no satisfaction in winning by using methods that confuse opponents by their complexity?

 

oldfogey

[hrothgar]

"Old Fogey" wrote:

 

>The type of super-scientific system desired by

>hrothgar if he could achieve it would be better

>played by four computers.    

 

The systems that I normally play are not noticably more complex that "standard" bidding systems.  However, they are based on fundamentally different design principles, which can, at times, make them somewhat confusing to inexperienced opponents.

 

As an example, consider the response structure over

a 1D opening promising 4+ Hearts.

 

1S = Relay, game invitational values or better

1N = Natural and non forcing

2C = 5+ clubs, 7-11 HCP, natural and non-foricng

2D = 5+ diamonds, 7-11 HCP, natural and non-forcing

2H = 3 card heart support, natural and non-forcing

2S = 5+ spades, 5+ cards in either minor

        game invitational values

2NT  Weak jump shift in either minor

3C = Fit showing, 6 clubs and 3 hearts

3D = Fit showing, 6 diamonds and 3 hearts

3H = 4 card heart support

 

If this is too complex for you to defend against, then I have no sympathy for you.

 

>It's fair enough that the authorities should

>discourage such systems from other than top >competitions, since the great majority of players

>do not understand or wish to use them.    

 

My issue is that, in the US at least, such systems have been banned at the top levels of play.

 

The authorities in the US seem to believe that they can restore bridge to the "glory that was" by continually dumbing down the game.  I would argue that it is necessary to move in the opposite direction.  Bridge is a gloriously complex game.  The people who will take the time to learn a card game like bridge in this day and age are the ones who appreciate complexity and nuance.

 

Once upon a time, bridge attracted players who wanted a simple, relaxing way to waste time.  There are a fair number of those players left in our ranks, though we are fast approaching the point where the great die off happens.

 

Its very important to recognize that the next generation of bridge players will not be drawn from the same demographic niche.  If I want a simple way to kill some time, I'll download a video or play X-Box.  These provide much better entertainment value than bridge.,  What bridge has going for it is that its a great way to streach my brain.  So, I tend to get a little annoyed at the constant attempts to dumb down the game to appeal to a rapidly dwindling demographic contingent.

 

>Surely there's no satisfaction in winning

>by using methods that confuse opponents

>by their complexity?

 

I have no problem with "no-fear" events for beginners.

I have no problem with restricted covention events for individuals who want to play a simplier game.  I will, however, note in passing that this type of event is constantly being proposed and constasntly failing to attract players.

 

Players aren't interested in "simple" systems.

They are interested in banning anything that they aren't accustomed to.

 

Case in point.  This whole thread started when Old Fogey wanted to find players willing to play "Benji" Acol.  This is not a system that I particularly like nor i it one that I have bothered to learn.  However, I don't go arround saying that it should be banned because I don't want to bother to learn how to defend against it.

[the hog]

"It's fair enough that the authorities should discourage such systems from other than top competitions, since the great majority of players do not understand or wish to use them.  "

 

Sayc is rarely played here. The great majority does not wish to use it and they don't know much about it. A logical extension of your above argument is that it should be banned. How silly is that?

[Laird]

Hrothgar,Codo,The Hog,Old Fogey....Gentlemen I am ssure that like many of the readers we cannot fail to be impressed by the quality of the arguments presented for and against Mosquito and natural systems like Acol :

 

Optimisation of information exchange in limited channels,

 

Fudamental tension regarding preservation of bidding space and denying oponents chance to exchange information,

 

Mosquito not as difficult to play as Acol,

 

Prejudice and apathy amongst powers that be,

 

Rapidly dwindling demographic contingent - great die off.

 

Unless I am missing something these are quite contentious statements worthy of input in defense of the natural systems we all seem to take for granted - but by more able people than me.

In my simple minded way I know that I can put all the Acol system notes I need onto 2 A4 sheets of paper.... the mosquito summary I downloaded needs 13.... but I am no expert and theres the rub.

I believe that optimisation of the teaching and learning process involved in Mosquito may be a way forward to breaking down prejudices etc and making it more appealing to the masses. Not dumbing down but like babies perhaps we need fed on milk to start before being able for real nourishment.

Richard you raised some very important issues and I can understand your frustration.... remember it's the pioneers who get the arrows fired at them... with patience I feel the way ahead will be more like your vision... remember the man with the flag walking in front of the motor car he is gone now.  B)

 

Kind regards and best wishes

 

John

[DenisO]

Roland, believe it or not Moscito is NOT as difficult to play as Acol. It has taken my partner and I since Febuary to play the new version of Moscito and bid at faster than natural bidder's tempo without making any relay mistakes whatsoever. Admitedly I have an advantage here in that some years ago I played the old version for quite a while.

 

,

 

Hello Hog

I have never played Moscito but would like to read up a bit before the Scientists/Naturalists match on BBO. Could you give me a good URL with a description of a recent version. As a GIB Owner I have some old stuff from BO Yang on Terrorist Moscito but that is pretty HEAVY stuff!

Regards

Denis ;)

[hrothgar]

I have pretty extensive MOSCITO notes available

The system being played has some differences with the version described here, however, this will be enough for you to understand the basics.

 

http://web.mit.edu/~rwilley/www/moscito.doc

[luis]

I'll be playing "German-Moscito" in the match. It's based on the German Moscito version by Rene Steiner with some modifications we added. (We replaced the asking bids system with a simplified yet more powerful denial cuebids approach). This version has the advantage that we managed to get it accepted under ACBL mid-chart regulations so we can play it in most events we don't need yet another system and we can practice it a lot.

 

Opening bids:

1c: 15+ any (Rubensohl on if they bid 2x)

1d: 10-14 no 4M (Rubensohl if they bid 2x)

1h: 10-14 4+h denies 4s

1s: 10-14 4+s unbalanced without 4h

1n: 10-14 balanced with 4/5 spades

2c: 10-14 5/4 or better in the majors

2d: 10-14 three suited with 4+ clubs

2h: Weak 2 in hearts or 10-14 three suited with short clubs

2s: Weak 2 in spades Igust style

2n: 8-11 5/4 or better in the minors

 

Relays are used over any non-1c opening to show INV+ hands, INV hands relay 1 time and then bid naturally, GF+ hands relay all the way until the exact distribution is known. Then we ask for controls and use denial cuebids.

The relay structure is symetric and easy to memorize, it's based in very simpe rules that can be momorized easily.

 

It's not optimal, we have to rely on judgment sometimes and we do have problems in some sequences too but we have minimized the chances of a bidding accident with very strict rules including competition and we do have some advantage over natual bidders on some hands.

 

One example from a recent tourney:

Dealer: AKJxx, xx, AJxxx, x

Pd: Qxx, Ax, KQxx, Axxx

 

1s (10-14 unbal 4+s) 1n (relay INV+)

2c (diammonds) 2h (relay GF)

2s (same length) 2n (relay)

3c (short clubs) 3d (relay)

3h (5-2-5-1) 3s (controls?)

4h (5 A=2, K=1) 4s (relay)

4n (AK of sp or nothing) 7d (pd has AKxxx, xx, Axxxx, x so 13 tricks)

 

The field played 4 spades :-) one pair managed to play 6 spades making.

[Cave_Draco]

I see oldfogey's grumble, ;D.

 

As an "ancient" Acol player, lol, "Ah! An Acol post... will LQQK!"

 

Nah, nothing to do with Acol, let alone "Find a Partner/Teacher"!

 

I was reluctant to play Acol with my reg. P because of the inferences to be drawn from what P didn't bid!

That is the only complicated part of "ancient" Acol.

"Modern" Acol removes most of the inferences... 4-4 in the majors - bid H? Against other Acol players, maybe; against any other system? Hey, I have SPADES, lol.

[luis]

After being accused of satanism for playing moscito I played "colonial" Roth-Stonish Acol in a tourney some months ago with my father, we won the tourney for a huge margin, the reason being unfamiliarity of "modern" players with our Colonial methods :-)

 

Example 1:

 

Axx

xx

xxx

QJxxx

 

pd opens 1d they overcall 1nt I doubled since we only open with 13+ :-) +300 for us. Everybody was in +50 or +100

 

Example 2:

 

KJTx

AKx

AJTx

Qx

 

They open a weak 2s, double (penalty1!) + 1100 for us

 

Example 3:

 

Pd opens an Acol 2d

 

Axx

Qxxx

xxx

Axx

 

6d! making 6, the field playing a "curious" 3NT

pds hand: x, AKx, AKQxxx, xxx

 

Of course we were lucky on the 3 examples but it was a lot of fun. You can't imagine the face of the 2s opener when my double was alerted as "penalties" :-) or the amazing number of questions they asked after the 6d bid :-)

 

At the end I asked: Are you thinking about banning colonial acol now?

[EricK]

Luis,

 

I knew deep down that you were a Naturalist pretending to be a Scientist ;D

 

Eric

 

ps Did you just raise the 2D to 6D? That's a bit rich for me. I would have raised to 3D and cue-bid the rest of the way - but then I am a bit of a coward

[DenisO]

Many thanks to Hrothgar and Luis for Moscito notes

Denis B)