Bob Hamman's assertion

[hrothgar]

Here are a few "serious" thoughts about bidding systems:

 

1. I doubt that it would EVER be possible to develop an kind of elegant analytic proof that demonstrates that system XYZ is the best. The problem is too complex to solve analytically using traditional appraoches like game theory. In particular, the feedback between the "bidding" game and the "declarer play/defense" game makes life extremely complicated.

 

2. With this said and done, I do believe that it is possible to make judgements about the relative performance of different bidding systems. Brute force and simulations would be our most powerful tools. Given sufficient resources, its certainly feasible to program one set of computers to play 2/1 Game Forcing, a second set to to play Precision, and see what happens. The most important output from such an experiment would include the expected IMP score per board along with the standard deviation. Its entirely possible for an "inferior" bidding system to outperform a superior systems over a short set of boards.

 

3. Its completely unclear whether bidding systems are "transitive". Assume that 2/1 Game Forcing > Precision. Futhermore assume Precision is > EHAA. If this relationship is transitive, than 2/1 GF > EHAA. My gut tells me that the rleationship is not transitive.

 

4. Playing a pair's match there are advantages to playing anti-field systems.

 

If you take all of these factors into consideration, I strongly believe that the "equilbirum" for this system is mixed. Bridge tournaments should consist of a mixture of different systems with some "optimal" ratio between systems X, Y, and Z.

 

Give me enough money and I could probably even prove this...

[csdenmark]

..

[fred]

4. Playing a pair's match there are advantages to playing anti-field systems.

That's funny - I have always thought the opposite was true :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[luis]

4.  Playing a pair's match there are advantages to playing anti-field systems.

That's funny - I have always thought the opposite was true :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Fred,

 

It depends if you are better or worst than the average field :-)

If you are worst then playing anti-field systems works in your advantage.

If you are better then you want to play the same contracts they play and hope your cardplay or defense will produce a result.

Maybe that's why you always thought the opposite. ;-)

[hrothgar]

4.  Playing a pair's match there are advantages to playing anti-field systems.

That's funny - I have always thought the opposite was true :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

If I declared/defended like you, I might feel the same way...

[slothy]

Desperately stopping myself from replying to Rolands rather perennial allusion to Shakespeare and the fact that he seems to jingoistically believe that Hamlet is the only play the Bard ever produced..... :D ....

 

One thing that seems to be omitted form these 'arguments' is the exclusion of the 'human factor'. I remember a similar discussion in a previous thread to which nobody really gave me a satisfactory reply to.

 

the human factor being: how does a system cope with a preemption? or a slightly freakish bid, or a bid knowing it exposed a chink in the system's armour? (the defenses to Precision being a notorious one ).

 

In a game where by definition one has 7 levels, if the opponents take away 3 of them the amount of available space left in proportion to what was available is severly reduced. IMO no system can really cope with this phenomenon. If there were 14 levels and an opp steals you 2 of them, there is still time to recoup, reposition your little tin men and change your battle strategy.

 

No computer can be encoded to simulate unpredictable human behavior and thus no quantitiative analysis can really be made as to which system outperforms any other. As 'the other Dane' said B) most unnatural systems are systems off after a high(er) level interference.

 

The best bridge players in this world, of which Bob Hamman is undoubtedly one of, have a bridge judgement that most of us would give the ace we have tucked up our sleeve for. They are able to retaliate to situations at the table that their system is not necessarily constructed to respond to , and make assumptions and inferences about hands that no number of variables in a C#** function can reproduce.

 

Alessio

 

PS ** sorry i meant a Java Class :)

[hrothgar]

The best bridge players in this world, of which Bob Hamman is undoubtedly one of, have a bridge judgement that most of us would give the ace we have tucked up our sleeve for. They are able to retaliate to situations at the table that their system is not necessarily constructed to respond to , and make assumptions and inferences about hands that no number of variables in a C#** function can reproduce.

I'm sure Kasparov supporters felt much the same...

[slothy]

I'm sure Kasparov supporters felt much the same...

:) B) :D

 

You are shamelessly smacking both of my cheeks with your white glove with that remark. I dont like 'pistols at dawn' as i am not that with it in the mornings...

 

There is a slight difference here and you know it. :) :) :)

[Chamaco]

The best bridge players in this world, of which Bob Hamman is undoubtedly one of, have a bridge judgement that most of us would give the ace we have tucked up our sleeve for. They are able to retaliate to situations at the table that their system is not necessarily constructed to respond to , and make assumptions and inferences about hands that no number of variables in a C#** function can reproduce.

I'm sure Kasparov supporters felt much the same...

 

At chess pro levels, the opening theory (e.g. the equivalent of bidding theory) extends right into the middlegame with mating attacks or into the endgame, so it is strictly connected to tactics and technique.

 

The vital need for opening preparaton arises in those complicated long variations (e.g. Dragon, Najdorf, Sveshnikov Sicilian or Marshall attack in the Spanish) where you can indeed find yourself in a losing position right after the opening.

 

In those openings, a 2450 ELO rating player can indeed defeat a 2600 player.

 

BUT, in openings where there is not such a strong theory (e.g. the game does not land into a forced mate sequence or a forced losing endgame), commonsense still prevails, and I could bet way more than a couple of cokes that if you pair Kasparov vs any 2650 GM in a "normal" position, Kasparov will win 75% of the time.

 

===============================

 

In Bridge, it's not the same: the bidding theory does not have the same strong, direct connection to card play technique (which is the equivalent of middlegame tactics and endgame technique).

[shoeless]

Wow a little energy in this thread - caused me to think about a quote - either Jacoby or Goren when asked why he was so successful - he replied "That's simple - I just put a bushel basket under the table and catch everything that falls off."

[Walddk]

A bushel basket holds 36,35 liters (of IMPs)?

 

Roland

[david_c]

3. Its completely unclear whether bidding systems are "transitive". Assume that 2/1 Game Forcing > Precision. Futhermore assume Precision is > EHAA. If this relationship is transitive, than 2/1 GF > EHAA. My gut tells me that the rleationship is not transitive.

That's a very interesting question. (Well, I think so anyway ;) ) I would agree that it's highly unlikely that bidding systems are transitive. Even so, it's still possible that an "optimal" bidding system might exist in a theoretical sense. If you're playing a form of rubber bridge, and all you're interested in is maximizing your expected score per hand, I believe it's possible to prove the existence of an optimal bidding system. (Sadly, the proof is non-constructive.) At teams it's more complicated because your chance of winning depends on the system played at the other table; I suspect that there does exist an optimal bidding system, but it's a mixed strategy - "Choose your bidding system according to the following probability distribution." :unsure:

[Winstonm]

This is an interesting discussion, and it seems that with system complexity one may reach a "point of diminishing returns". I do not think anyone would argue too long and too hard that equally talented opponents playing 1950's-style Goren would not fare well opposite a quartet playing even basic Precision.

 

I believe it was Howard Schenken who said that the Italian teams during their heyday won not because they played better but because they bid better. Schenken believed this so much that he developed his own forcing club system which he later used in the Bermuda Bowl.

 

There seems to be an easy way to determine how far each person should go: when the FF (forget factor) is taking so much energy that one's play is affected, then you need to back off.

 

I believe Hamman's point, as well as Fred's and Roland's is well taken and correct, that the cart goes in front of the horse - play well first; learn to bid along the way; when you reach the point where play is maximized, then you can look for additional advantages by modifying your system. But as soon as the system becomes more important than judgement or play, it is a game of linguistics, but it is not bridge.

 

winstonm

[EricK]

4.  Playing a pair's match there are advantages to playing anti-field systems.

That's funny - I have always thought the opposite was true :unsure:

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Fred,

 

It depends if you are better or worst than the average field :-)

If you are worst then playing anti-field systems works in your advantage.

If you are better then you want to play the same contracts they play and hope your cardplay or defense will produce a result.

Maybe that's why you always thought the opposite. ;-)

I think the point is whether you are trying to maximise your expected percentage or maximise your chance of coming first.

 

If you are a good pair but not clearly the best pair then in order to win the event it may pay to increase the variance of your scores at the expense of slightly reducing your average score. That way you win more often (but also come low down more often).

 

Playing a different system is a good way to increase the variance without adversely affecting your expected score too much (or at all).

 

Eric

[csdenmark]

..

[Walddk]

play well first; learn to bid along the way

I think I have heard that before. Mostly from experts in simple bridge.

Let me make it clear so that no misunderstanding should arise. It's quite possible to learn dozens of systems and zillions of conventions, even by heart if you are so inclined, but it will never, and I repeat never, make up for the lack of skills as far as declarer play, defence and judgement are concerned.

 

Since very few, percentagewise, master both parts to perfection, my recommendation is that you first get a system skeleton (basics) and learn to play. After some time, when you feel comfortable about your play, you can start adding conventions and change to a new system as you see fit.

 

But learn the basics first. A library, on the internet or at home, with various systems and conventions is fine, no doubt about it. But it doesn't make you a better bridge player. Sometimes the systems won't help you either, because very often you are in a situation where you must judge what the best bid/approach is.

 

Roughly speaking: good judgement and less frequent errors are what separates the expert from the intermediate/advanced player - regardless of system!

 

Roland

[slothy]

play well first; learn to bid along the way

I think I have heard that before. Mostly from experts in simple bridge.

Geezzzzzz Claus you certainly know how to wind me up :unsure: and you do so very successfully i hasten to add ;) :)

 

that is a very glib and (over)simplistic statement to make, if i may say so and even if i may not...

 

you ask any expert - no self-proclaimed expert but one who has earned his or her stripes - his/her opinion and i will give you a bushel of cokes

 

(lot in the store-room that fellow commentators have won from Roland)

 

for ANY one of them who puts a system compilation ABOVE a comprehensive understanding of card play technique as what makes a good expert bridge player.

 

They all have run the gauntlet of learning to play cards using a basic system and THEN when they want to extend their horizons, normally because the card play doesnt offer them sufficient challenges any more, decide to change their bidding system to one that may bring them better results. But, i am quite sure, at the back of their minds, they appreciate that the bridge system is the chisel whereas their card play is the statue.

 

A person can (purport to) play as many fancy systems as she or he wants and decide, for whatever ridiculous reason she or he thinks is worthwhile, to concentrate his or her efforts on learning many more....but if s/he hasnt gone through the mill of learning the many ropes of card-play technique can spend many hours in the bar after a competition saying how they got to the grand slam, that no one else bid, after a 24 bid sequence where each bid had 23 meanings...

 

(but then fails to mention that s/he went 1 off coz he didnt know how to play the hand (properly) )

 

One of the most intelligent, most intuitive and best bridge players i have ever played against (and with on a couple of occasions), and who sadly died a few years back, played the simplest system you could think for FORTY years (begrudgingly adding transfers 3 months before she died - alas her death-wish). Rarely got into the wrong contract. But give her a 4♠ contract that is makeable (and a cigarette to puff whilst she played it) and she would make it 95% of the time.

 

lol. She was once told "What do you think of table presence?"

 

She replied "Table presence? The best presents are those of opps who come to the table playing a system they cant pronounce and their card play is 4 times out of 5 just as unpronounceable"

 

I rest my case.

[csdenmark]

..

[slothy]

Oh Roland and Slothy - I just got upset to read the rubbish statement play well first; learn to bid along the way once again. This whole thread has been about that and many seems to need to give me the same message each day. They all have one chance to do that - and one only.

 

O Claus...

 

It is not a moral lecture... and if i were to give you one, believe me, the crucifices will be waving frantically....

 

You stated something as a fact, and in my humble opinion, a highly erroneous and fatuous one.

 

'Mostly from experts in simple bridge'.

 

What are YOU suggesting??? That only people who play some contorted system have any meaningful opinion (which is right) and, even more so, that they actually believe that the system they play is the foundation of their success?

 

As i said, do yourself a favour and ask any expert on BBO, or beyond, whether they agree with your comment - that only experts in simple bridge believe what Winston alleged and then if they believe what you have written.

 

This whole thread has been about that and many seems to need to give me the same message each day.

 

Without stating the obvious, the reason is Claus that this is the opinion held by the majority of the people writing to the thread.... i dont see many people agreeing with yours?

 

Your Humble Heckler

 

Alessio

[luke warm]

alex, i think there has been a big leap from what started this thread (hamman's statement) to where it's ended..

 

i haven't read in any posts anything that contradicts what you, roland, fred, and some others have said... but that isn't what hamman was speaking of... take it as a given that within the small universe of expert players *all* are good at the various technical aspects of the game... the question isn't, should a beginning/advancing player concentrate on learning play skills or on learning a complicated system? of course s/he should focus on learning to play... the question is, once these skills are learned, can one philosophy of bidding, manifest in the system used, improve the results of a person?

 

hamman is saying that, in his opinion, some systems of bidding are better than others (or that at least one system is clearly inferior).. and if his opinion is valid (and i don't know if it is), then it seems obvious that the already good player can achieve better results by concentrating on superior systems, whatever they may be, wherever they may be found

 

it's true that a player of hamman's quality would succeed regardless of the system he plays.. however, there are levels of success... and his opinion seems to be that higher levels can be reached under certain systems than under others

 

whether he's being merely provacative or actually believes what he says, i don't know.. but no number of anecdotal stories can change the fact that he said what he said

[slothy]

whether he's being merely provacative or actually believes what he says, i don't know.. but no number of anecdotal stories can change the fact that he said what he said

 

geez Jimmy read the OPENING POST. It is, in itself, anecdotal

[luke warm]

maybe so, alex... this quote from claus seems to be what started this debate, "If Bob Hamman had just played the kind of simple systems many seems to prefer these days he would not have been on top today."

 

do you think that's true? i believe hamman believes it to be true.. so this isn't about the needs of the less than expert player, imo

[hrothgar]

If I had to make a guess, I'd say that Hamman is being deliberately provacative...

 

As I recall, Hamman states in the same book that the main reason that he adopted Neopolitan Club was to avoid the need to write up a set of detailed system notes for practice with the Aces...

 

Is hard for me to combine this statement with the dogmatic belief in system that some are suggesting

[slothy]

lol Richard

 

it seems some people in this thread other than Mr Hamman himself are being provocative :unsure:)

 

i bowing out of this now, too volatile....

 

But as Mr Hamman himself could have said ;)

 

"dont argue or fight with a pig... u will both fall in the mud, but the pig will love it"

 

i just bought some new cream trousers so thats me outta the sty

 

Mr PorkChopsRDaBest

[csdenmark]

..