Scientists vrs Naturalists REMATCH!

[luis]

Hi,

 

I'm proposing a rematch of the famous Bridge World "Scientists vrs Naturalists" match.

I can play Moscito with my pd Garland Foster and I guess The_hog & rwilley can also play moscito for our team. Do you want ?

 

Now I invite inquiry & pd to choose another pair for the "Naturalists", does BBO have a "way" to play a teams match ?

 

This re-edition of the faous match will be a test for the new state-of-the-art "natural" bidding: 2/1 and one of the most "advanced" relay systems with very light opening bids and so (Moscito)

 

Do you like the idea?

I hope to arrange the conditions/format and players using this thread.

 

Luis

[inquiry]

Gosh knows why anyone would want to call me out... there must be more challenging opponents to play against than me. Oh.. I get it, play against me so you are sure to win... clever, very clever.... B)

 

But hey, I am up to anything. Maybe we should wait until TEAM Tournments are started... hopefully it will not be that long, so each hand can be bid by "naturalist" and "scientist". The tournment could be set up with just two tables and 20 boards or so.

 

BTW, who says I would even want to play as a naturalist? I am busy reviewing a forcing pass system, and I several hours yesterday re-reading ultimate club.

 

But I would be willing to participate..... now, let me go find a bunch of natural gold stars... :-)

 

Ben

[luis]

I agree we should wait until TEAM tournaments are "on", a 20-board match between the two teams seems to be fine.

[hrothgar]

We might be able to run this using the existing tournament software, and then IMP scoring boards by hand.

 

Be interesting to see what Uday has to say.

[luis]

And how can we make both tables play exactly the same 20 deals?

If we can do that then manual scoring and we are ready.

Can I close the Scientific team with you and your pd Richard?

[Yzerman]

There is a way to do it now. You can have 2 tables set up playing one the Spingold or Vanderbilt sets of deals.

[inquiry]

There is a way to do it now. You can have 2 tables set up playing one the Spingold or Vanderbilt sets of deals.

 

Or set up a 2 table tourment with 20 boards per round, and make sure the desired players are only people to enter... and worry about who sits NS and EW at which table. Reading Uday's post some of this should not be too hard...

 

At end of match, total imps win.... (table 1 NS + table 2EW total compared to table 1EW + table 2NS). Should be easy to tell.... The NS pair who is plus at one table, won... as his NS at the other table must be negative... and vise versa.

[luis]

Well, I didn't understand your last post Inquiry but if the conditions are ok then we just have to arrange the players and a date for the match.

 

Pls post proposed dates for the match so we can coordinate the availability of the two teams....

[hrothgar]

I would prefer NOT to use a set of canned deals if possible.

 

I'm not sure of the makeup of the "Science" team.

My guess is that The_Hog and I will both be playing,

 

He and I aren't a regular partnership, so Ron might prefer to play with a regular partner. Potentially we could play together. Please look at my web page for details on my preferred MOSCITO version.

http://web.mit.edu/~rwilley/www/MOSCITO.htm

 

If the Naturalists end up fielding a bunch of "all stars", I might need to call in a favor or two.

[inquiry]

Well, I didn't understand your last post Inquiry but if the conditions are ok then we just have to arrange the players and a date for the match.

 

Pls post proposed dates for the match so we can coordinate the availability of the two teams....

 

 

 

Ok.. I think something can be arranged... Is everyone in North America, so evening would be fine?

 

Let's take a few days to get straight, I would say a good window of opportunity would be starting next Wed and running about two weeks.... from 7:30 EST until 1 AM EST (not all that time, just a time frame). I will check a few naturalist... (I guess we have to play in the nude... at home of course)... but let's see if those times work (anytime on weekend would be fine with me, just not this weekend...)

 

I will captain one team and put it together.. one of you guys volunteer for the other side...

 

Of course we might have to decide what counts as natural... multi 2D? Good/bad 2NT? Flannery, etc/

Ben

[pbleighton]

Please post the times and allow kibitzing B)

[hrothgar]

Ron lives down under, as does his regular partner.

I'm not sure about his availability

 

The timing works for me, assuming that Luis and I can get enough practice in. I have some free time this weekend, however, I'm off in California on Monday and Tuesday.

 

We'll also need to make arrangements with Uday et all to arrange a tournament.

[inquiry]

The naturalist accept the challenge. Because of the protest... we will not field a bunch of "all stars"... just one star should do it.

 

Our team is tentatively scheduled to be,

 

Inquiry,

Malucy,

Kleek,

Fred.

 

As naturalist, we can play in any order, so our line-up is not set yet.

 

Kibitizers of course welcome... and anyone who can explain the scientist's bidding to the kibitizers of course would be welcome too.

 

Ben

[fred]

The naturalist accept the challenge. Because of the protest... we will not field a bunch of "all stars"... just one star should do it.

 

Our team is tentatively scheduled to be,

 

Inquiry,

Malucy,

Kleek,

Fred.

 

As naturalist, we can play in any order, so our line-up is not set yet.

 

Kibitizers of course welcome... and anyone who can explain the scientist's bidding to the kibitizers of course would be welcome too.

 

Ben

 

An honor to be on the team. I am looking forward

to swatting those mosquitos!

 

I am going to the USA Team Trials tomorrow and I

will not be able to play in this match until I get home

(and it is hard to predict how long that will be).

 

As such, if you can wait that long, it may be best

to try to schedule to match for the 2nd week

of June.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

I'll see who/what we are going to be able to field.

 

As to understanding our methods.

 

Whichever partnership that I am playing on will probably be using a modified MOSCITO version.

 

Here is a brief description of the most important points to understand:

 

MOSCITO is a 2 system methods, using very light transfer openings in first and second seat and sound 4 card major openings in 3rd/4th seat, with fairly "standard" preempts in 3rd/4th.

 

We open light.

Almost all of our responses are natural and non-forcing.

 

The preempts from 2D+ are very non-standard.

 

The 2D/2H/2S openings are HIGHLY aggresive preempts based on assumed fit principles. For example, a 2D preempt could be made on a 2434 hand.

 

You really want to work on your defenses to these openings.

 

I strongly suggest looking over my web site. This provides a fairly complete description of my preferred system variant. There are also a series of suggested defenses to the non-standard openings.

 

I HOPE that this is detailed enough that spectators can make use of this during the event.

 

http://web.mit.edu/~rwilley/www/MOSCITO.htm

[hrothgar]

Second week of June works well on this end.

I'm graduating from MIT on Monday the 9th, however, the rest of the week is open.

 

Given this amount of time, I might see if I can convince Paul Marston to play with one of his regular partners.

[the hog]

I'm in - could also get my regular Moscito partner, or am happy to play with Richard. Can't be on Monday nights or not wed nights est- Bridge nights. I think we should make those naturalist guys play "Buller".

 

2nd week of June is fine. I am happy to play your exact system, Richard if playing with you, including Frelling 2s. Justin and I play the new relay structure but use different 2s, but no problem.

[fred]

 

The preempts from 2D+ are very non-standard.

 

The 2D/2H/2S openings are HIGHLY aggresive preempts based on assumed fit principles. For example, a 2D preempt could be made on a 2434 hand.

 

You really want to work on your defenses to these openings.

 

 

Herein lies my basic objection to system such

as Mosqito and why I think:

 

1) Such systems should not be allowed in any

events except for long team matches in very

high level events.

 

2) Many players who use such systems do so

in order to gain an edge, not because of the

superiority of the methods, but because of their

opponents' likely unfamiliarity with them (I am

not suggesting that Richard or any other specific

people have these reasons for choosing to

use such methods).

 

3) That all people who want to play weird

systems on BBO should be relegated to their

own (very) private (and preferrably invisible)

bridge club (just kidding).

 

The basic problem is that the need to spend

serious time having to prepare defenses to

unusual systems ruins the game for a lot of

people (including me). Then there are the 99%

of bridge players in the world who are simply

not capable of dealing with this stuff.

 

Now I do appreciate that there is a percentage

of bridge players in the world (I would guess

around .01%) for whom the game is ruined if

they are not allowed to play highly unusual

methods. Balancing the needs of this (vocal)

minority with those of the masses has been an

impossible problem that has plagued tournament

organizers since the earliest days of bridge.

 

For me bridge is a sufficiently challenging and

interesting game without having to play (or play

against) such methods. Bridge is supposed to be

fun and I do not consider it fun to have to spend

a lot of time devising defenses to conventions

that are designed primarily to cause confusion.

 

Doing homework is not fun!

 

I do not want to even look at the Mosquito

system notes and, unless my teammates have

different views on this subject, I would like to

propose that over any artificial preempt that

occurs in the upcoming match that:

 

- all suit bids are natural

- all notrump bids are natural

- Double is either 13-15 balanced (or perhaps

semi-balanced) or a hand too strong to overcall

or bid notrump directly

- All doubles not made in the direct seat (including

those after which some other direct seat action has

been taken) are "takeout" or "responsive" of the

suit the opponents most recently bid.

 

I realize this post may have opened a real can

of worms. Richard (or anyone) is certainly free to

express their opinions on why they think I am wrong,

but I don't think this issue is going to be decided here

(or in our match of course).

 

If there is one issue that will always divide the

world's bridge players, this is it. The best we can

do is agree to disagree B)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebsae.com

 

PS Congratulations on your graduation Richard!

(who I should mention is a good friend as this

may not be obvious from my responses to some

of his posts!).

[hrothgar]

I'm in - could also get my regular Moscito partner, or am happy to play with Richard. Can't be on Monday nights or not wed nights est- Bridge nights. I think we should make those naturalist guys play "Buller".

 

 

Quick comment:

 

My understanding is that the dividing line for the match is

 

Sound Initial Action versus

Light Initial Action.

 

I am perfectly happy if the sound initial action camp also wants to play natural methods, however, if these players want to use transfers or forcing NTs or whatever, I'm equally content.

[the hog]

I was only kidding with Buller - Australian sense of humour!

Naturalists can play whatever they like afaik, including t/fer responses to 1C, Good/Bad etc etc

 

Ron

;D

[hrothgar]

A few quick comments.

 

I agree with Fred. I don't think that pairs playing against unusual systems should be forced to devise defenses against these methods. Instead, I think that pairs using unusual methods should provide appropriate suggested defenses.

 

My web page describing MOSCITO attempts to provide a set of appropriate defenses to the more "unusual" openings. Whenever possible, I try to sugest methods that are relatively simple and still reasonably effective. In many cases, these methods are quite close to what Fred suggests.

 

For example, over a 1D opening (promising 4+ Hearts) I recommend:

 

X = "Standard" 1 level overcall in Diamonds

1H = Takeout Double of Hearts

1S+ = Precisely what you would have played if we had opened 1H showing 4+ Hearts.

 

Its probably possible to devise a more efficient structure, however, I believe that there is a real benefit to the simplicity of this structure. [Fred prefers to immediately show 13-15 balanced, I prfer to be able to show Diamonds, however, the two structures are pretty close]

 

The defense to the 2D/2H opening bids are necessarily a bit more complex. However, I believe that frequency of these openings suggests adopting slightly more complex methods. On the bright side, you there is no reason that you can't have the notes available in front of you.

 

In any case, if people want more information about any of the methods in question prior to the match, please let me know.

 

Looking forward to the game.

[Rado]

Hi all friends,

Congratulations for the great idea. Please find herebelow some suggestions:

 

1.  Please post the methods of all 4 pairs involved (or maybe 6 if 128 boards match)

2.  Let Fred invite experienced master TD (I’m sure he knows many of them personally

3.  Match segments might be arranged at different times of the day/night in order bridge fans from all over the world to have the possibility to watch some of them. Please post match schedule some days before the commencement.

 

Best regards

Rado

[eyhung]

Great idea, but Richard brought up a good point that should be resolved. What is the purpose of the match? What makes the "scientists" different from the "naturalists"/"traditionalists"?

 

 

In my mind there are several possible areas that could be resolved:

 

1) Natural vs. artificial

2) Initial action: sound vs. light

3) Focus: constructive vs. preemptive

4) System: MOSCITO vs. 2/1

 

I think #4 is best, not #2, because it is unambiguous and encapsulates many of the other issues. (If #2, and one of the pairs wants to play a flavor of Precision, how do we judge whether their initial actions are sound or light? And then it's arguable whether the naturalist overcalls are sound or light -- I think many 2/1 players would overcall a hand discussed elsewhere on this forum that was categorized as "light".)

 

 

As for Fred's can of worms, I am not opposed to having a greater variety of unusual and preemptive systems in top-level events. While I am in full agreement with Fred that playing against systems designed to confuse opponents (destructive systems) is no fun at all, I don't really agree with the "homework" argument. All good bridge is based on "homework" to some degree. After all, if becoming a top player involved no work at all, then where is the fun of achievement? If fun through achievement without effort is the goal, then one might as well be good at snakes-and-ladders, tic-tac-toe, or other games with little-to-zero skill component.

 

Maybe to players like Fred, who have mastered the game to a degree where everything but dealing with unusual systems is second-nature to them, the "homework" of dealing with unusual systems is an unwelcome intrusion. However, for the vast majority of bridge players, good bridge is all about "homework". We have to "work" on counting, remembering system bids/agreements, principles of good judgement, counting, drawing the right inferences, entry management, trump management, counting, mandatory falsecards, squeeze/endplay technique, and counting. Adding in defense to unusual systems is just one more item on the list. If average American bridge players must work to learn how to defend against uncommon conventions such as weak notrumps and strong clubs, why can't the top American players work on formulating general defenses to highly unusual yet not destructive systems? (example of a general defense is like what Fred posted earlier in this thread.) How can people truly claim to be the best in the world without being able to adapt to what the world has to throw at them?

 

Even if unusual systems were banned, homework would not be eliminated. Fred, you are a professional bridge player in a top partnership. You must have spent many hours of your life working on your agreements, and even more hours on general agreements to cover obscure, unusual situations that are undiscussed by most partnerships. How is this different from the homework caused by unusual systems? (Yes, perhaps the game would be ruined if you needed specific, undiscussed defenses to optimally defend against an unusual system, but if that is the case, I would argue that it is better to force the opponents to provide written, detailed, specific, and optimal defenses, rather than bar such systems completely.)

 

In case I didn't make it clear, I'm not advocating an anything-goes policy; systems that are primarly focused on confusing the opponents and randomizing the game are a completely different matter and that may be Fred's primary objection, to which I would agree. But I'm not surprised to hear that in Australia/New Zealand, where "unusual" systems are common, that people have learned to "work" on defending against all of these systems along with "working" on other aspects of their bridge. Personally, as a idealistic young bridge player, I would prefer a more open system in our top events to a closed one -- it makes me feel like I am playing a deeper game. Even though I personally prefer a constructive/simple approach to a preemptive/scientific approach, how can I tell if I am right if I don't have a chance to learn, evaluate, and counter these approaches on a regular basis?

 

Maybe, after more years of experience, I will come around to Fred's point of view that the current game is deep enough to be fun. But it seems a shame to me to dismiss a more open game prematurely, especially if it is working elsewhere.

 

Eugene Hung

 

P.S. Good luck in the USBC, Fred!

[hrothgar]

Good news folks, Paul Marston has generously agreed to participate in the festivities.

 

Looks like the Scientist team will consist of

 

Paul Marston / Sartaj Hans

The_Hog / Hrothgar

 

I'll suggest that we match Paul and Sartaj against Fred and his partner.

This will ensure that the spectators will have one table where they are ensured some quality bridge.

 

Paul and Sartaj will be available starting on June 10th.

This will give Ron and I the chance to practice some.

 

We'll worry about the fine details when Fred gets back from the Team Trials.

[luis]

Well,

 

What a nice match. After starting the theread I expected to play :-)) Can I?

I can play Moscito with my mother (Ana Alonso) or Garland Foster. Maybe we can have 3 pairs in our team.

The 2nd week of June is ok to me too.

 

The version of Moscito that I can play is legal under most ACBL and WBF regulations (what do you think Fred):

 

1c: 15+ 1ny

1d: 10-14 4+h

1h: 10-14 4+s

1s: 10-14 no 4M unbal

1N: 10-14 no 4M bal

2c: Wildcard opening (depending on partnership/tournament, etc)

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

2h: Weak 2 in hearts or three suited hand with short clubs (always 4+h)

2s: Weak 2

2n: 8-11 at least 5/4 in the minors.

 

Luis