"Standard" Systems for Major Tournaments

[chudecek]

The thing is, most of the disclosure issues and long explanations don't come from the opening bids, or even from short uncontested auctions. Much more often the issue is competitive sequences and/or late rounds of auctions, and may revolve around negative inferences due to other agreements as well. Sure, it's easy to write computer software that will alert/explain my opening calls and partner's (uncontested first-round) response. But that stuff is on my written convention card anyway, and the vast majority of pairs play one of the fairly standard styles (i.e. "natural 5cM" or "natural 4cM" or "strong club with 5cM" or "strong club with 4cM" or "two-way club"), and usually strong opponents check out my "general approach" before we start anyway (which takes like one minute).

 

Writing some computer program (or using FD) to describe the meanings of all my calls in a long auction, especially when there is competition and the opponents calls may not have a "natural" meaning is just totally impractical. It's much more likely to lead to disclosure issues than the current system. What comes up with FD a lot is, somehow an incorrect explanation gets into the software (maybe because the opponents bid something that doesn't quite mean what it usually does, like I open 1♣ and LHO bids 1♥ showing spades and partner doubles, but I forgot to include the possibility of a non-natural overcall in my code so partner's double is explained as showing spades when actually it should show hearts). Now we have a huge mess because presumably I'm not allowed to see the software explanation of my (or partner's) bid (allowing me to refer to notes during a live auction would be a radical change to the game after all) so I can't even correct the mistake.

 

Honestly I don't see what you're trying to accomplish here. The proliferation of "systems" doesn't slow down the game all that much... the game is slow because people have tough decisions to think about and because they're allowed to take their time. To the degree that there are disclosure issues, they're usually in long and complicated auctions anyway and no "software package" is going to help. Unless you're planning to take the ridiculous step of disallowing me to have any agreements about complicated auctions, the "problem" will come up. If you're trying to make the game more kibitzer-friendly, I think this is just a waste of time. Bridge will never be something you can show on TV like poker. Even if everyone was playing the simplest bidding system imaginable, just the depth in the card-play is too complex for true novices to work out what's going on in a top-flight event. And the kibitzers aren't exactly paying the bills here. In any case, some of the kibitzers do actually watch in order to learn new conventions/agreements they can use with their partner, and restricting systems further takes this away.

 

Remember that the default for a complex situation is to Alert and use the stylus on the touch screen. And please also remember my initial statement: "the meaning of bids after the opening currently constitute FAR MORE UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION AND UNAPPROVED METHODS THAN DOES A BASIC COMPLEX SYSTEM". So make sure you alert and explain, if it was beyond the scope of a modified System Card.

 

And my proposal has nothing to do with kibitzers. I feel that high level championship bridge is better served without a whole lot of home-made and unapproved gadgets; and It is also better served by playing with a reasonable time consumption - 48 to 54 minutes per player for 32 boards.

[chudecek]

You didn't really read the post to which you replied. It said "uncontested" - you've read it as a contested sequence.

 

Anyhow, even if it were a contested sequence, "a good raise in spades at the given vulnerability conditions" is not "no special agreements" - it is, quite exactly, an agreement.

 

All bidding is agreements or meta-agreements. Card play is, at least to some extent, intuitive (in principle, at least, a super intelligent beginner could work it out). Bidding is not. It has to be learnt.

 

You're seeming to be suggesting that NA tournaments - including by implication the trials that you directly mentioned in the other thread - should be subject this "new" idea. But it is completely ridiculous to restrict your trials event to substantially different rules to those which the teams will encounter in the BB. You'd be picking a team that could win under rule set A and then assume that this qualifies them to win under rule set B - potentially an entirely different game.

 

You're being completely unrealistic.

 

Nick

 

No SPECIAL agreement. That means we have NOT discussed this, and must use common bridge sense to come up with a meaning. That activity is the ESSENCE of bridge, not the development of complex special agreements and methods. That activity should stay within the System Development area until developed and approved and should not be introduced during championship competitions.

[jogs]

 

 

I submit that today, partnership understandings of the meaning of bids after the opening currently constitute FAR MORE UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION AND UNAPPROVED METHODS THAN DOES A BASIC COMPLEX SYSTEM.

 

 

 

The convention cards of the six partnerships were mostly conventions, treatment, and style for uncontested auctions. In the boards played 60-70% were contested auctions. Either these partnerships were just winging it or most of the contested bids were undisclosed partnership understandings. From the high percentage of bidding misjudgments on contested auctions they were probably winging it badly.

[barmar]

Karen Walker's column in this month's ACBL Bulletin is about when 4NT is Blackwood, quantitative, or takeout in various complex (both uncontested and contested) auctions. Do you think your "standard system" would address all these auctions?

[NickRW]

No SPECIAL agreement. That means we have NOT discussed this,...

 

But any even half decent pair WILL have discussed it. Hell I've discussed it with half a dozen partners and I'm nothing like the standard of the US trials.

 

and must use common bridge sense to come up with a meaning.

 

What the hell is "common bridge sense". To a beginner the sequence you alluded to is not a spade raise but a natural bid - as are all bids. To many others it might be a spade raise - but that is because they've discussed it - or read about it. To someone else it just as well might be a transfer. Who the hell are you to tell any of these people that their ideas are wrong.

 

That activity is the ESSENCE of bridge, not the development of complex special agreements and methods.

 

Your opinion only. Obviously doesn't match the opinion of many people here.

 

That activity should stay within the System Development area until developed and approved and should not be introduced during championship competitions.

 

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. We already see how much a pigs ear the ACBL can make of system regulation. You're proposing an even worse, more draconian monstrosity.

 

Nick

[olien]

Why should we expect the Conventions Committee to approve any methods? They always seem to prevent the approval of new methods by saying the methods are too complex or, failing that, to just not approve the defence for the method.

 

The foreigners that come over and play in our tournaments have worked just as long and hard, if not more so, at perfecting their system and learning defences to unusual methods. However, you're narrow-minded and don't think they should be allowed to play their methods. They've had to learn defences to American methods which they think are unusual and are definitely uncommon or rare in Europe. A couple examples are Flannery 2D opening and the Capp defense to 1NT where 2C shows ANY suit. In England, that 2C bid is restricted to certain levels. However, you're suggesting that these pairs come over and have to scrap their systems which they've spent years perfecting and have to play methods with which they're uncomfortable because you can't seem to figure out that the easiest way to treat a polish club is to act like its a short club and bid accordingly. Or that multi 2♦ is not that hard to defend and is actually easier to penalize (usually) than a normal weak 2. But you prefer to play in your protected shell where you don't have to learn anything and they all have to start over in developing system.

[han]

If Carl Hudecek were in charge, I'd quit bridge.

[jogs]

If Carl Hudecek were in charge, I'd quit bridge.

 

This is the problem. It would set bridge back to the 1930's.

 

Online allows fuller disclosure of methods. Pairs playing complex and artificial methods should be required to fill out a convention booklet. It should be in outline form. They would be able to transmit to pertinent section to their opponent's screen. Programmers should make it easy for players to transmit sections of their convention booklet. Type in a keyword to transmit a section.

[olien]

If Carl Hudecek were in charge, I'd quit bridge.

 

I wish there was a "like" button on the BBF :)

[Ant590]

LOL @ use of capitalisation and the whole idea in general

[chudecek]

This is the problem. It would set bridge back to the 1930's.

 

Online allows fuller disclosure of methods. Pairs playing complex and artificial methods should be required to fill out a convention booklet. It should be in outline form. They would be able to transmit to pertinent section to their opponent's screen. Programmers should make it easy for players to transmit sections of their convention booklet. Type in a keyword to transmit a section.

 

 

This is similar to what I am trying to accomplish with my "System Card", except my proposal provides an explanation of each call as it is made; and further provides that methods used be approved, because the meaning of bids after the opening currently constitutes FAR MORE UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION AND UNAPPROVED METHODS THAN DOES A BASIC COMPLEX SYSTEM.

 

And I further think that PRESENT use of complex unapproved systems and methods is primarily for the purpose of gaining advantage through the opponents' unfamiliarity with the method's details and nuances.

 

Playing Championships with everybody using a common "1930's format" would certainly determine who the best team or pair was - and nothing anyone says here can convince me otherwise.

[Bbradley62]

... and nothing anyone says here can convince me otherwise.

That says it all. No one agrees with you, but you stick to your guns...

[mgoetze]

and nothing anyone says here can convince me otherwise.

 

And just to make sure you didn't even read what I wrote. Thanks for wasting our time.

[jogs]

And I further think that PRESENT use of complex unapproved systems and methods is primarily for the purpose of gaining advantage through the opponents' unfamiliarity with the method's details and nuances.

 

 

The solution for this is to allow opponents to discuss their defenses at the table during the play. This way newer methods will be introduced under unfavorable conditions. Win on merit rather than surprise.

[chudecek]

The solution for this is to allow opponents to discuss their defenses at the table during the play. This way newer methods will be introduced under unfavorable conditions. Win on merit rather than surprise.

 

 

A ad hoc defense will never overcome the hours and days of development put in by the perpetrators. That's why a lengthy Trial and Test phase which includes discussions on the internet and articles in bridge magazines, followed by approval or disapproval of the method, is the way to go.

 

If you mean allowing opponents to discuss defenses during "results don't count for anything" trial sessions, I agree.

[TylerE]

Since you seem to find any sort of bidding theory odious, I suggest you start campaigning for a revival of whist.

[barmar]

T I submit that today, partnership understandings of the meaning of bids after the opening currently constitute FAR MORE UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION AND UNAPPROVED METHODS THAN DOES A BASIC COMPLEX SYSTEM.

This is the basic justification for this whole thing, right? Where is your evidence of this problem that requires this draconian solution?

 

I've watched lots of national and world championships on Vugraph, and can't think of many occurrences of this.

[awm]

I just don't understand what the point of this is. It seems to me that your suggested approach incurs the following costs:

 

(1) Huge amount of work by players to construct the flash memory "convention cards" which is obviously a lot more work than a paper CC.

(2) Huge amount of work by the "convention approval" committee to decide what is allowed.

(3) Possibly large number of upset players whose preferred methods have been disallowed.

(4) Potential slowing down of the game since entering data to a computer system is slower for most people than on paper.

(5) Possible complicated MI cases if a mistake was made in generating the flash memory "convention card"

(6) Potentially high monetary cost to acquire the necessary computer hardware.

 

In exchange for this, the benefits are... what?

 

(1) Your perception that events with restricted systems involve more skill and less luck.

(2) Your perception that this will somehow improve disclosure.

(3) Your perception that using computers somehow brings bridge into the modern era.

(4) The ability to automatically record the time taken by players in writing explanations.

 

The first one is actually quite controversial; I think a lot of people believe that ability to devise and remember a complex (and effective) system is a matter of skill, and that the best way to reduce the luck factor is just to play long matches. For the second point, if the idea is that the computer is supposed to automatically generate explanations from the pre-recorded system data, the cost in terms of data entry and MI cases will be way too high for it to be worth it. If the idea is that players enter explanations on the fly by typing or using a stylus, then I don't see how this is any different/better than doing the same on paper. The third point seems totally philosophical and to have no tangible benefits (not to mention a lot of older players might be uncomfortable with computers). And while the fourth point is arguably worth something, I don't think it comes close to justifying the costs (and I don't think the time for explanations is an extremely significant slow play issue -- usually it's "thinking" and not "discussing" that takes most of the time).

[olien]

I think Mr. Hudecek should get his paranoia checked. IMO, the only reason he thinks there isn't full disclosure is because he doesn't ask relevant questions. He asks what a bid means, and they tell him; it seems he expects them to provide every negative and/or positive inference that is relevant. This is equivalent to saying that a failure to make, for example, a support X is alertable. He would cry murder because they passed with their two small or whatever and he took a line of play in case they had three because the pass wasn't alerted as denying three-card support. This negative inference alertability thing can get out of hand. Here are a few examples:

 

1) Opponents play Flannery 2D (I love using Flannery as an example) and open 1H. Should they have to alert 1H as denying a 4-card major unless opener holds reversing values?

 

2) Opponents alert you that they play a 1D opening as denying having balanced distribution. They open 1C and announce that it could be short per regulations. Carl mis-defends because opener had a non-traditional shape (say 3352 or 4342). He would say that full disclosure wasn't given because they didn't say that they opened 1C on all balanced hands outside of the NT range and without a 5-card major even though the negative inference is clear: 5-card majors, unbalanced 1D opening. The same negative inference applies to a precision 1D opening.

 

My point is, Mr. Hudecek saw only two possible solutions:

 

a) To require the opponents to explain every bid and all of its negative/positive inferences. He also would have the opponents submit an entire set of system notes with the same and a suggested defence for anything he considers non-standard. However, he realises this is too cumbersome and would slow the game down too much to be palatable.

 

b) To make the suggestion he did which is at the other extreme. However, this is also clearly wrong; but from his perspective is more palatable than option A.

 

 

 

Also, I ask Mr. Hudecek a question regarding these games for testing systems for approval. Are you not effectively putting a severe restriction on introducing new system? Nobody would want to go through a 2 year "test" phase and expend an immeasurable amount of energy just to hear their method is disallowed. Wouldn't it also cease intellectual bridge thought in the US regarding system development? It would seem to be a logistical nightmare in organising these matches, and to have anywhere near the amount required to meet the desire of those who want to introduce systems would be monetarily impossible; and you can just forget it if you expect the applicants to foot the bill. Also, how can you judge what current bridge players desire? You say you've quit playing, and I'm sure you have at tournaments at least. So, even though you still watch, how can you claim to have an intimate knowledge of what the current bridge player wants?

 

I'll be surprised if you can provide intelligent responses that doesn't ramble on and on like most of your previous posts to this and your concurrent thread.

[jogs]

If you mean allowing opponents to discuss defenses during "results don't count for anything" trial sessions, I agree.

 

Why should pairs be required to prepare defenses in advance for auctions which are unlikely to occur? During the hand after the alert, pairs should be allowed to discuss the meanings of their defenses. All exotic bids are allowed. But they all face harsh battlefield conditions. If the exotic bids are as theoretically superior as their practitioners claim, they would still net positive results. Pairs would still be required to prepare for all bids under A-E on the convention card.

[jogs]

I think Mr. Hudecek should get his paranoia checked. IMO, the only reason he thinks there isn't full disclosure is because he doesn't ask relevant questions.

 

If you need to find the relevant question by definition there wasn't full disclosure.

[chudecek]

I think Mr. Hudecek should get his paranoia checked. ....snip.....

 

Also, I ask Mr. Hudecek a question regarding these games for testing systems for approval....snip...

 

I'll be surprised if you (Hudecek) can provide intelligent responses that doesn't ramble on and on like most of your previous posts to this and your concurrent thread.

 

I haven't been called "Mr. Hudecek" since a couple of months ago, when I answered the doorbell and was asked to buy Girl Scout cookies. Your mother raised you well, olien.

 

And being admonished about "rambling on" by someone who used 524 words in a prior post? Sheesh.

[mtvesuvius]

I haven't been called "Mr. Hudecek" since a couple of months ago, when I answered the doorbell and was asked to buy Girl Scout cookies. Your mother raised you well, olien.

 

And being admonished about "rambling on" by someone who used 524 words in a prior post? Sheesh.

Here's an idea...

 

How about you answer Owen's questions instead of dodging them and attempting (quite unsuccessfully) to insult him?

[BunnyGo]

My duty calls to inform this thread that Someone is wrong on the internet! Hopefully you can correct this problem.

[glen]

My duty calls to inform this thread that Someone is wrong on the internet! Hopefully you can correct this problem.

I'm just waiting for Summer Glau to show up to terminate this:

 

http://xkcd.com/406/