"Standard" Systems for Major Tournaments

[Phil]

http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/094/331/original/YallN1ggazPostinInATrollThread.jpg?1295566234

[inquiry]

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

 

http://xkcd.com/406/

 

 

 

Finally something of value in this thread. I'm always ready for Summer Glau :) .... firefly, Sarah Connor Chronicles, the cape. (well, i passed on power rangers).

[chudecek]

Mt. Vesuvius wrote:

 

" Here's an idea...

 

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

 

Hudecek: I thought his name was "olien", and I felt I was complimenting his politeness. And I'll try answering.

 

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.

 

We shouldn't have to ask "relevant questions" The call should be EXPLAINED to us via the software. If the opponents play support doubles with three trumps and a certain point range, a pass should be alerted VIA THE SOFTWARE - and they damn well better not have three trumps and the specified point range.

 

1) Re 1H opener using Flannery 2D: A 1H opener should have the accompanying note "5CM, denies 4 spades unless reversing values" How tough is it to hit a dot on a template with this explanation?

 

2) The 1C opening is accompanied by an explanatory note that says "might be two - a 1D opener shows

an unbalanced distribution." And it would post a suggested defense: Say "2C overcall shows clubs, 2D overcall=Majors"

 

 

 

 

a) The SOFTWARE provides the explanation and suggested defense automatically and I find that very palatable to the point of being delectable. And it wouldn't "slow the game down".

 

And if a method is so great it certainly should have to go thru a development, trial, and testing phase. If people want to spend time developing a system or method and come to "agreements", they can take 5% of that time to use a "pick-a-dot" template to codify bid meanings, inferences and defenses.

 

The development, trial and SOME testing phases could be done over the internet- FREE at a BBO table.

And the current crop of American tournament bridge players just want a smooth-flowing, reasonably paced game where they don't have to confront obscure methods and listen to half-baked explanations.

 

And I guess I have "rambled on" enough.

[Vampyr]

This creation of computer convention cards and development of standard systems and lenghty approval processes for new methods is bound to be a costly, unpopular waste of time, effort, and money. I have a better idea:

 

Use Deep Finesse to determine the par contract for each deal, and set that as the contract at each table. The advantages of this practice would solve all of the problems outlined in this thread and Carl Hudecek's other thread about slow play:

 

• 
   
  
• no one would have to deal with methods that are unfamiliar, destructive, or difficult to defend against.
   
  
• no one would be at a disadvantage because their favourite or familiar methods are not allowed by the bidding authority in charge of the particular event.
   
  
• no one would have to go through the process of waiting two years for the approval of a bidding innovation.
   
  
• play would be sped up enormously -- not only would there be no hesitations or explanations in the bidding, but there would be less to think about during the play of the hand, as declarer/defenders would not have to consider inferences from the bidding -- plus no declarer would find himself having to make the best of a ridiculous or inferior contract.
   
  

 

I don't see a downside to this procedure. Does anyone?

[chudecek]

This creation of computer convention cards and development of standard systems and lenghty approval processes for new methods is bound to be a costly, unpopular waste of time, effort, and money. I have a better idea:

 

Use Deep Finesse to determine the par contract for each deal, and set that as the contract at each table. The advantages of this practice would solve all of the problems outlined in this thread and Carl Hudecek's other thread about slow play:

 

• 
   
  
• no one would have to deal with methods that are unfamiliar, destructive, or difficult to defend against.
   
  
• no one would be at a disadvantage because their favourite or familiar methods are not allowed by the bidding authority in charge of the particular event.
   
  
• no one would have to go through the process of waiting two years for the approval of a bidding innovation.
   
  
• play would be sped up enormously -- not only would there be no hesitations or explanations in the bidding, but there would be less to think about during the play of the hand, as declarer/defenders would not have to consider inferences from the bidding -- plus no declarer would find himself having to make the best of a ridiculous or inferior contract.
   
  

 

I don't see a downside to this procedure. Does anyone?

 

 

I love this idea.

[diana_eva]

http://www.gagsnaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/royal-wedding-girl.jpg

[kayin801]

I love this idea.

 

http://www.chaobell.net/newgallery/d/2264-2/monty-python-my-brain-hurts-4001113.jpg

[TylerE]

I've got an even better idea, let's just all agree to pass out every board. Then no one will have to face any methods they'd rather not, and they won't have to tire their precious minds with any of that annoying card play either.

[babalu1997]

This creation of computer convention cards and development of standard systems and lenghty approval processes for new methods is bound to be a costly, unpopular waste of time, effort, and money. I have a better idea:

 

Use Deep Finesse to determine the par contract for each deal, and set that as the contract at each table. The advantages of this practice would solve all of the problems outlined in this thread and Carl Hudecek's other thread about slow play:

 

• 
   
  
• no one would have to deal with methods that are unfamiliar, destructive, or difficult to defend against.
   
  
• no one would be at a disadvantage because their favourite or familiar methods are not allowed by the bidding authority in charge of the particular event.
   
  
• no one would have to go through the process of waiting two years for the approval of a bidding innovation.
   
  
• play would be sped up enormously -- not only would there be no hesitations or explanations in the bidding, but there would be less to think about during the play of the hand, as declarer/defenders would not have to consider inferences from the bidding -- plus no declarer would find himself having to make the best of a ridiculous or inferior contract.
   
  

 

I don't see a downside to this procedure. Does anyone?

 

 

Thus has already been invented at bbo windows server.

 

it is called minibridge

 

you all can go there and practice

[Bbradley62]

And the current crop of American tournament bridge players just want a smooth-flowing, reasonably paced game where they don't have to confront obscure methods and listen to half-baked explanations.

I'm sure your "current crop" gets plenty of opportunity to play in Seniors events and tournaments, which should be a good fit for their wants and needs.

[olien]

Mt. Vesuvius wrote:

 

" Here's an idea...

 

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

 

Hudecek: I thought his name was "olien", and I felt I was complimenting his politeness. And I'll try answering.

 

My friends are allowed to refer to me by name. And I prefer if Mr. Hudecek refers to me as Mr. Lien or olien if he so prefers.

 

 

We shouldn't have to ask "relevant questions" The call should be EXPLAINED to us via the software. If the opponents play support doubles with three trumps and a certain point range, a pass should be alerted VIA THE SOFTWARE - and they damn well better not have three trumps and the specified point range.

 

1) Re 1H opener using Flannery 2D: A 1H opener should have the accompanying note "5CM, denies 4 spades unless reversing values" How tough is it to hit a dot on a template with this explanation?

 

2) The 1C opening is accompanied by an explanatory note that says "might be two - a 1D opener shows

an unbalanced distribution." And it would post a suggested defense: Say "2C overcall shows clubs, 2D overcall=Majors"

 

It wouldn't slow down the game? I would have to read the explanation of every opening bid to see if it shows this or denies that. And I'm not referring to explanations provided by the software; I'm talking about in real life. Opponents sit down and are playing Flannery, and from what I have deduced from your statements you expect them to alert a 1♥ opening as tending to deny a 4-card ♠ suit? Also, you could have to provide endless qualifiers to each opening; for example: I open 2♥ weak, but we play that this doesn't deny having a 4♠r or 5-card minor. However, some pairs play that it does deny such a holding (especially having 4♠), so you would have a dot for a) weak 2, may have 4♠ and b) weak 2, may not have 4♠. Now you have more specific agreements, and if somebody decides to make the 2♥ opening with 4♠ even though their card says they don't do that, you plan to report it as a psyche? This adds more "red tape" and brings in more bureaucracy than before.

 

My suggestion would be the ACBL come up with a better convention card format for live play than what they have now; I would suggest something resembling the WBF convention card. This may not be the best solution, but would provide more complete information about people's agreements. An added bonus would be a boom in the convention card holder industry because the cards take so long to fill out people would just prefer to save their cards which is easily facilitated by convention card holders.

[Free]

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.

Why?

[Free]

This creation of computer convention cards and development of standard systems and lenghty approval processes for new methods is bound to be a costly, unpopular waste of time, effort, and money. I have a better idea:

 

Use Deep Finesse to determine the par contract for each deal, and set that as the contract at each table. The advantages of this practice would solve all of the problems outlined in this thread and Carl Hudecek's other thread about slow play:

 

~snip~

 

I don't see a downside to this procedure. Does anyone?

I can't play any system anymore, not even boring, bog standard, 2/1 like Richard calls it. ;)

[mgoetze]

My suggestion would be the ACBL come up with a better convention card format for live play than what they have now; I would suggest something resembling the WBF convention card.

 

A bit hasty there, Owen (I do get to call you Owen, right? ;) ) -- here in Germany, a WBF-Style card is mandated for league play, BUT there are no guidelines on how to fill it out! The result is that 90% have less information on theirs than I do on my half-size convention card, and when people do put in some information, they do it in a semi-random fashion.

 

Now, the WBF does publish a nice booklet on how to fill out the WBF convention card. I checked about 25 convention cards from Germany's top league and found 2 which weren't obviously in disagreement with this booklet.

 

So, don't just think about what the blank convention card is going to look like. Think about how you want people to fill it in and how you are going to enforce their doing so. I think you'll find that, if these points are addressed properly, a smaller format will do...

[chudecek]

My friends are allowed to refer to me by name. And I prefer if Mr. Hudecek refers to me as Mr. Lien or olien if he so prefers.

 

 

 

 

It wouldn't slow down the game? I would have to read the explanation of every opening bid to see if it shows this or denies that. And I'm not referring to explanations provided by the software; I'm talking about in real life. Opponents sit down and are playing Flannery, and from what I have deduced from your statements you expect them to alert a 1♥ opening as tending to deny a 4-card ♠ suit? Also, you could have to provide endless qualifiers to each opening; for example: I open 2♥ weak, but we play that this doesn't deny having a 4♠r or 5-card minor. However, some pairs play that it does deny such a holding (especially having 4♠), so you would have a dot for a) weak 2, may have 4♠ and b) weak 2, may not have 4♠. Now you have more specific agreements, and if somebody decides to make the 2♥ opening with 4♠ even though their card says they don't do that, you plan to report it as a psyche? This adds more "red tape" and brings in more bureaucracy than before.

 

My suggestion would be the ACBL come up with a better convention card format for live play than what they have now; I would suggest something resembling the WBF convention card. This may not be the best solution, but would provide more complete information about people's agreements. An added bonus would be a boom in the convention card holder industry because the cards take so long to fill out people would just prefer to save their cards which is easily facilitated by convention card holders.

 

Your problem is you don't understand the software I propose. At the start of the game players insert their PERSONAL SD card into the computer, and for that session the "Standard" system call descriptions embedded in the computer are modified to conform to the explanations on that PERSONAL SD card. So when a player opens 1H, his opponents instantly get a description of the call, eg "12-20, 5 plus hearts" with a second RED FLAG warning in a different box on the computer screen "Flannery played, so 1H denies 4S if 11-15". This takes insignificant time for an opponent to read.

[Free]

Your problem is you don't understand the software I propose. At the start of the game players insert their PERSONAL SD card into the computer, and for that session the "Standard" system call descriptions embedded in the computer are modified to conform to the explanations on that PERSONAL SD card. So when a player opens 1H, his opponents instantly get a description of the call, eg "12-20, 5 plus hearts" with a second RED FLAG warning in a different box on the computer screen "Flannery played, so 1H denies 4S if 11-15". This takes insignificant time for an opponent to read.

I propose we store all the systems we play in a central database. Also we are required to tattoo a bar code on our arm (or your face if you want to). Whenever we sit at a table, every player scans his bar code and the computer determines which system file to load according to our bar code and the one from partner.

 

The big advantage over your suggestion is that you can't forget or break the bar code, which is possible with any "PERSONAL SD card". Since you're never looking at any disadvantages of your proposals, this must be a huge improvement.

[mgoetze]

Your problem is you don't understand the software I propose.

 

Your problem is you don't understand how complex such software would be.

[chudecek]

Your problem is you don't understand how complex such software would be.

 

 

Have you ever filled out a "Pick-a-dot" product marketing survey? What kind of computer programming Einsteins (make that Yangs :) ) does it take to produce that?

 

If a couple of decent programmers couldn't come up with a suitable program for this in a week, they should change careers, and take up grease trap cleaning at Mickey D's.

[ArtK78]

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread. Mr. Hudacek has some interesting ideas, as impractical and as unwelcome as they may be. But they are interesting ideas. And some of the discussion about the ideas, when it didn't consist of a series of insults and wisecracks, was also very thoughtful and interesting.

 

I agree with the idea of having computer software used for bidding and system explanation. Steps in that direction are taking place - the full disclosure convention cards on BBO are an example of this. I see computerized scoring systems used in clubs (where the players are typically in their 60's and older) without too much trouble. It is not out of the question for the next step to be using computer input for bidding and play.

 

The only disturbing aspect of this thread is how much vitriol is being used in the discussion. I would hope that adults discussing interesting proposals about bridge could discuss them in an adult manner.

[blackshoe]

I would hope that adults discussing interesting proposals about bridge could discuss them in an adult manner.

 

On the Internet? Surely you jest. B-)

[helene_t]

Also we are required to tattoo a bar code on our arm.

What about this: every prospective bridge player has to have a webcam implanted in his forehead at birth. Then we can record his whole life experience up to the day of the tournament. Feed these data, together with a genome scan, into MIT's latest gene-and-environment-interaction model and we will know the player's bridge playing behaviour in detail. Then we can just simulate the tournament. Big advantage of this: we save a lot of money on catering, toilet facilities, water coolers etc as the players don't need to be at the venue, all we need are a few low-price computers to run the tournament.

[RMB1]

http://www.gagsnaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/royal-wedding-girl.jpg

+1

 

Someone called Diana posting pictures of Prince William's wedding - I smell a conspiracy theory. :)

 

(I think I've got the picture sourced right: I did not pay much attention to The Wedding.)

[Free]

What about this: every prospective bridge player has to have a webcam implanted in his forehead at birth. Then we can record his whole life experience up to the day of the tournament. Feed these data, together with a genome scan, into MIT's latest gene-and-environment-interaction model and we will know the player's bridge playing behaviour in detail. Then we can just simulate the tournament. Big advantage of this: we save a lot of money on catering, toilet facilities, water coolers etc as the players don't need to be at the venue, all we need are a few low-price computers to run the tournament.

Great idea. Should be easy to implement.

 

If a couple of decent programmers couldn't come up with a suitable program for this in a week, they should change careers, and take up grease trap cleaning at Mickey D's.

[jogs]

What about this: every prospective bridge player has to have a webcam implanted in his forehead at birth. Then we can record his whole life experience up to the day of the tournament. Feed these data, together with a genome scan, into MIT's latest gene-and-environment-interaction model and we will know the player's bridge playing behaviour in detail. Then we can just simulate the tournament. Big advantage of this: we save a lot of money on catering, toilet facilities, water coolers etc as the players don't need to be at the venue, all we need are a few low-price computers to run the tournament.

 

That's the way world health care should be addressed.

[f0rdy]

What about this: every prospective bridge player has to have a webcam implanted in his forehead at birth. Then we can record his whole life experience up to the day of the tournament. Feed these data, together with a genome scan, into MIT's latest gene-and-environment-interaction model and we will know the player's bridge playing behaviour in detail. Then we can just simulate the tournament. Big advantage of this: we save a lot of money on catering, toilet facilities, water coolers etc as the players don't need to be at the venue, all we need are a few low-price computers to run the tournament.

 

I got halfway through this paragraph and assumed it was going to be the natural conclusion of full disclosure; if opponents want to know the partnership's agreements about a particular auction, they quickly filter the video from the opponents' implants and get replays of every relevant auction either opponent has ever had.