Opener's Rebids And Beyond In Precision

[pbleighton]

I practiced bidding Precision for the first time tonight (with fellow poster ejfree), and it was a lot of fun.  We are both using Precision Today to learn, and it is a good book, as far as it goes.  What I am looking for is a book that goes further into the bidding after 1C.  This book is somewhat cursory about the 1C bid after the responder's first bid (though it does have some stuff about interference).

What I need is a good book that goes into more depth, but doesn't use relays (too much at this point). More stuff on how to deal with interference would be good too.

[csdenmark]

Handling of interferences is not a part of the original Precision system by Wei. It is an integral part of Belladonna/Garozzo and a Wei authorized version you will find by Goren and by Judy Radin. By Terence Reese you will find handling of interferences too, but pity like the version I understand you prefere, Reese is a private system too.

 

Claus - csdenmark  :)

[pbleighton]

"Handling of interferences is not a part of the original Precision system by Wei. It is an integral part of Belladonna/Garozzo and a Wei authorized version you will find by Goren and by Judy Radin. By Terence Reese you will find handling of interferences too, but pity like the version I understand you prefere, Reese is a private system too.

"

The system in Precision today is a basic, natural form of Precision.  I think any books which refer to a non-relay form of Precision would be helpful. Are either the Goen/Radin or Reese books based on a natural flavor of Precision, and do they address subsequent bidding?

[ejfree]

After looking at things and hearing others, I get the distinct feeling that most "advanced" precision systems are generally changes and additions to the base foundation that a partnership decides.

 

For instance, they decide that a treatment doesnt work, so they modify it or bolt on another piece. So the real trick then is to gain enough experience to figure out for yourself where the system falls apart for your partnership, then add parts there.

 

Seems that was the idea the Dwayne used to build KLP.

 

right, wrong or still ignorant?

 

BTW (Peter and I are gonna pester the hell out of you all for a while :))

[hrothgar]

After looking at things and hearing others, I get the distinct feeling that most "advanced" precision systems are generally changes and additions to the base foundation that a partnership decides.

 

For instance, they decide that a treatment doesnt work, so they modify it or bolt on another piece. So the real trick then is to gain enough experience to figure out for yourself where the system falls apart for your partnership, then add parts there.

 

Seems that was the idea the Dwayne used to build KLP.

 

right, wrong or still ignorant?

 

BTW (Peter and I are gonna pester the hell out of you all for a while :))

 

There are a number of different approaches to "system design".  [At the moment, I am talking about designing any type of complex system, rather than designing a bidding system].  Two of the most important schools of thought are so-called evolutionary design methods and concious design methods.

 

 

Concious design is a top down development approach that attempts to use formal logic and modeling techniques to create an optimal solution to the problem being solved.

 

As the name suggests, evolutionary design is based on trial and error.  

 

Random permutations are made to a complex system.  A feedback mechanism rewards "good" changes while punishing bad changes.  Over time, the system converges on a locally optimal solution.

 

Evolutionary design methods are capable of creating remarkably sophisticated systems.  The application of evolutionary design is not limited to the biological arena.  Evolutionary methods are currently being applied to designing computer programs, integrated cicuits, and even phyical constructs.  There are numerous well documented examples in which evolutionary design methods have produced superior solutions than expert humans.

 

There are three main limitations to evolutionary design methods.  

 

The first is time.  Applying these methods requires extremely large numbers of generations.

 

The second limitation is the requirement to develop an appropriate feedback mechanism.

 

The final problem is local optimums.  In many cases, a system will converge on a solution that is a local optimum, but globally sup-optimal.  If mutuations are not large enough to perturb the local optimum, the system will never converge on the global.  [There are some really ugly relationships between the "size" of a mutation and the amount of time required to converge on an equilibrium.]  In a worst case scenario the search landscape is designed such that a series of local optimums block all potential paths from the starting point to the global optimum.

 

Now, back to bridge.

 

You are (essentially) suggesting a evolutionary approach to the design of bidding systems.  I contend that this is impractical without significant computer assistance.  There are a wide number of problems with the approach that you are suggesting.  The most significant is that people aren't able to extract enough information about the specific elements of a bidding system to appropriately condition the design of the bidding system.  [People are myopic and they don't play enough hands]  This is not to say that many people don't design bidding systems in just the way that you suggest.  However, they rarely arrive at anything thats particularly good.

 

I think that you will have far better luck designing a bidding system using a concious design approach starting from first principles.

 

You first goal really needs to be establishing a set of basic design goals for the system that you are playing.  Decide what you want from a bidding system before worrying how you're going to get tere.

[the hog]

"Handling of interferences is not a part of the original Precision system by Wei. "

 

Inferences are available in every single bidding system ever devised if you care to look for them.

 

All bidding systems evolve over time. I don't know of one pair who plays the original Wei system; when you play for a while you realise what works and what doesn't, hence virtually all today play that the 2C opening shows 6C.

 

How much do you want to get in the auction, in other words, "Do you feel lucky, punk?" If you do, (and I do), you tend to open lighter. Someone - I forgot who - published a list of systems and their mean openings on the web. We decided that we wanted to bid and get in there, hence we play what we now play. Our philosophy is borne out by looking at what the top players - the Scandinavians, Italians and Meckwell do. Looking at what works for them in the VAST MAJORITY of hands should be the first determinant in system design. Also some of what you decide to play depends on cultural differences, (eg NT ranges),  and also on what your ruling body dictates. Some clearly demonstrable superior treatments are outlawed by some ruling organisations, (eg Wilkosz 2D). If I lived in the US, I would probably not play bridge as I would find the systems restrictions too stultifying.

 

"You first goal really needs to be establishing a set of basic design goals for the system that you are playing.  Decide what you want from a bidding system before worrying how you're going to get there."

 

I agree with the above; we don't have the time to do a huge number of simulations so we look at what appears to be practical, what works and what appeals to us as individuals. One principle we empathise with is that bridge is a 4 handed game, not a 2 handed game as so  many US players seem to believe.