[awm]

We're getting to the point where technology can help competitors in most games or sports. For example:

(1) Computers play chess better than humans. But I'm sure if you allowed top human players to consult with the machines, you could probably do better than either human or computer unassisted, since the top human and computer chess players have different strengths/weaknesses. However, no one in the chess world is seriously supporting this as far as I know.

(2) In many sports, steroids and other drugs can be used to enhance athletic performance. The idea that this should be encouraged rather than banned is not very popular in the sports world.

(3) Participants in many team sports could probably be helped by wearing high-quality radio gear while they play. The coaches could then give them advice or call plays via this gear during the game. I haven't seen too many sports eager to adopt this.

So are we all technophobes? I don't think this is the whole story. There's something elegant about humans competing on the basis of their own natural abilities. We'd also like these activities to be accessible to people at the entry level without a huge investment in technology. Once memory aids are allowed, bridge at the upper echelons will become completely indecipherable to spectators. Every bid in every possible auction will be assigned a different meaning. The number of UI/MI cases dealt with in committees will increase by an order of magnitude. People will start coming up with wackier and wackier conventions, not because of technical merit but to get the opponents "out of book." People will bring double-dummy solvers to the table to play the hands for them. The game will become more an exercise in who has the better technology than who has better bridge skills. I don't see how any of this is a good thing.

There are a lot of elements to the game of bridge, including:

(1) Being able to read your opponents.
(2) Having a good ability to estimate probabilities.
(3) Knowing how to play hands, which is a combination of memory and reasoning skills.
(4) Visualizing the opponents cards based on the auction.
(5) Judging the best contract based on only partial information.

Yes, designing a bidding system is one of many parts of the game. But it's not the only part. It's not the part that draws the majority of players to bridge. While I oppose the actions of some regulators who seem to want to remove "designing a bidding system" from the game of bridge by enforcing draconian system regulations, I think the attempt to "allow memory aids" is essentially an attempt to eliminate all other aspects of the game besides designing a bidding system. This is patently ridiculous and will never be popular.

[csdenmark]

hrothgar, on Jan 5 2007, 07:45 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Jan 5 2007, 08:26 PM, said:

In itself Bidedit as it is today is a fairly simple application. You ought to know that Richard. Your comments are very disappointing as they reveals problems I thought I never would find by you.

Look back to the forum discussions about the FD application. These are FULL of people stating that

BidEdit is too complicated
I can't figure out how to use the application
I tried for hours and hours and couldn't do anything

How many different quotes you want? 10? 20? I can find them if you don't believe me.

These comments are comming from forum posters who are, almost by definition, much more tech savy than the vast majority of the user base out there. Hell, I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the bridge users out there don't know how to load a third party app like Bid Edit onto a smart phone. (You don't really believe that any of the carriers are gonna support this in one of their portals do you?)

Its not gonna fly any time soon.

I dont care about those. The statements are not valid I have said before. What I talk about as simple is Bidedit as a tool. The skills needed to create that. I assume a solid programmer will be able to produce a copy of Bidedit in C++ in 1-2 days. Todd has agreed to that in general.

[csdenmark]

awm, on Jan 5 2007, 08:00 PM, said:

We're getting to the point where technology can help competitors in most games or sports. For example:

(1) Computers play chess better than humans. But I'm sure if you allowed top human players to consult with the machines, you could probably do better than either human or computer unassisted, since the top human and computer chess players have different strengths/weaknesses. However, no one in the chess world is seriously supporting this as far as I know.

(2) In many sports, steroids and other drugs can be used to enhance athletic performance. The idea that this should be encouraged rather than banned is not very popular in the sports world.

(3) Participants in many team sports could probably be helped by wearing high-quality radio gear while they play. The coaches could then give them advice or call plays via this gear during the game. I haven't seen too many sports eager to adopt this.

So are we all technophobes? I don't think this is the whole story. There's something elegant about humans competing on the basis of their own natural abilities. We'd also like these activities to be accessible to people at the entry level without a huge investment in technology. Once memory aids are allowed, bridge at the upper echelons will become completely indecipherable to spectators. Every bid in every possible auction will be assigned a different meaning. The number of UI/MI cases dealt with in committees will increase by an order of magnitude. People will start coming up with wackier and wackier conventions, not because of technical merit but to get the opponents "out of book." People will bring double-dummy solvers to the table to play the hands for them. The game will become more an exercise in who has the better technology than who has better bridge skills. I don't see how any of this is a good thing.

There are a lot of elements to the game of bridge, including:

(1) Being able to read your opponents.
(2) Having a good ability to estimate probabilities.
(3) Knowing how to play hands, which is a combination of memory and reasoning skills.
(4) Visualizing the opponents cards based on the auction.
(5) Judging the best contract based on only partial information.

Yes, designing a bidding system is one of many parts of the game. But it's not the only part. It's not the part that draws the majority of players to bridge. While I oppose the actions of some regulators who seem to want to remove "designing a bidding system" from the game of bridge by enforcing draconian system regulations, I think the attempt to "allow memory aids" is essentially an attempt to eliminate all other aspects of the game besides designing a bidding system. This is patently ridiculous and will never be popular.

I am not sure my english is solid enough to understand you precisely Adam. I prefer to avoid misinterpretations so I will reduce comments to say it looks like you point to what I think ought to be discussed instead of what is discussed.

I will comments this natural abilities very short. This is what has been ruled out during the commando raid for 20 years now. Nivelling bridge to the lowest denominator in order to provide equal opportunities for all. I strongly support equal opportunities but not in the lowest level. Highest level will probably not be my choice either - you point to some of the problems. WBF board ought to look for and seek a fair modus vivendi instead of running screaming away from a modern society.

[glen]

Perhaps this discussion might not be of any interest to "BBO Tournament Directors", and the thread moved to the Water Cooler section?

Personally I suggest waiting until the Singularity before revamping the bridge laws to the new technoscape. See: Singularity Summit

[DrTodd13]

BidEdit is certainly not a complex application. Any good programmer with a knowledge of the file format could crank out an editor in a relatively short amount of time. How would you make the current BidEdit better? I'm not sure. The number of possible scenario varying by vulnerability and seat are all necessary to capture the richness of bidding in use around the world but most people don't really vary much of anything based on vulnerability or seat. Therefore, they are overwhelmed by options. When you can't get people to fill out a sheet of paper then there is no way you will get them to use FD, or anything like it, en masse.

There are already chess tournaments where humans get to collaborate with computers to decide moves. It is a different form of chess. No more pure or less pure than human-only chess. Purity is a function of human likes and dislikes in this case. Do you like to watch a human lose by making some stupid blunder on a 5 second brain fart? I don't.

Bridge at the upper echelons is already undecipherable from almost everyone. I would say that if they used FD or something like it that UI/MI would go way down. The opps would get to see your file and so would you so you would never be confused about what bid meant what. (Actually, I think there is a possible exception to this but it is too complicated to cover here.) If someone invents a whacky convention then a killer defense will be found, sent around the world, everybody will include it in their files and then the whacky convention will be punished next time around.

I can envision a smart cloth you can drape over a table and cards, bidding cards embedded with RFID chips that could bring all sorts of benefits to f2f bridge. Hand records for every board, timings for bids and for cards to help with tempo issues. There are also technologies for flexible displays. You could integrate those into the cloth to allow everyone to see their FD files. You could limit the ability of these clothes to do FD and not allow a double-dummy solver. I don't know how far in the future such technology could be cheap enough to be available to the average club. It won't happen tomorrow but it could be doable at most 20 years from now.

None of this does anything to playing the hand. Humans could enjoy one kind of bridge this decade and another kind 20 years from now. Things have gotten a lot more complex over time. There is no magic set of rules. The rules are agreed by humans as to what they like. There are some here that would at least like to experiment with this form of bridge. Will it ever be popular? I don't know. If radical innovations didn't happen we'd all be playing whist.

[csdenmark]

DrTodd13, on Jan 5 2007, 09:13 PM, said:

Will it ever be popular?  I don't know.  If radical innovations didn't happen we'd all be playing whist.

Todd this discussion is of no meaning unless we believe in survival. Therefore we do so but I agree odds are bad.

The improvements of FD are not about entering the bids. Only some of this Forums posters care about that - or claim they do so.

The improvements needed are for the audience, the WEB-TV audience. Something radical is needed for the establishing of value. Many kind of sports have needed to change some of their methods in order to be attractive in a competitive market. Fred knows a song about that I am sure. Online bridge is an easy example of that.

The core values are:
Judgement
Equal options on a fair level
Individuality - promotion
Strategy
Mistakes - especially fatal ones
Interpretation and perception
Test phase is untouched

Everything else is for sale!

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Jan 5 2007, 11:57 PM, said:

The improvements of FD are not about entering the bids. Only some of this Forums posters care about that - or claim they do so.

The improvements needed are for the audience, the WEB-TV audience. Something radical is needed for the establishing of value. Many kind of sports have needed to change some of their methods in order to be attractive in a competitive market. Fred knows a song about that I am sure. Online bridge is an easy example of that.

Ok

This is a bit more reasonable that your earlier claims. However, even here there are some severe problems.

The first (and probably most significant) problem is that the Full Disclosure application does not provide any support for competitive bidding. I'm not sure what percentage of auction involve interference of one form or another, however, I'm willing to bet that the number is pretty high. (Ben / Stephen is there any way that BrBr could estimate this?) If the FD application stops working on 40 - 50% of all auctions you're going to run into some problems. You're going to have one dislcosure regime for uncontested auctions and then switch to something radically different for contest auctions. Not good if your goal is attracting a viewing audience.

Second: In order to get this type of system to fly you're going to need to get top pairs to create FD files documenting their systems. This is a lot easier said than done. I don't think brute force type solutions are going to work. If you order Meckwell to create an FD file documenting their aggrements they're going to get upset and dig in their heels. My guess is that many of the top pairs would support this type of idea in principle, however, their willingness to do anything in practice would depend on the degree of difficulty in creating an accurate FD file. Personally, I wouldn't want to float this idea until there were some much better editors available for the FD system. (I can't really see Meckwell sitting down with the BidEdit program translating over their system notes) In short: This technology needs to mature much more before we start pushing this seriously.

There MIGHT be some things that folks could do to try to accelerate some of these trends. As I noted earlier, I think that the most important issue is integrating FD files into organized education systems. However, if you are a true blue believer that FD files should be used by the Pros than the obvious place to start is the JEC team matches that take place on BBO each night.

Cayne is playing every single night. You'd probably get the most bang for the buck if you focused on writing an FD card that documented the system that Cayne playing. Alternatively, Fantoni-Nunes and Lauria-Versace also play an awful lot of these events. Personally, I think that randomly accosting any of these players and insisting that they start using the FD application would be a disaster. However, there is always the possibility that someone on the forums knows one of these players. In theory, you MIGHT be able to pull some off like the following:

Get a very good copy of a set of system notes. Prepare an FD file that documents this system. Finish all the hard stuff in advance. Demonstrate that you're serious about this project. Then have your contact politely ask if they <insert partnership> might be interested in experimenting with the FD system one night. In theory, if you did a good enough job with the FD file, you'd be providing some real value for both <insert partnership> and the audience.

Leading by example like this might work. However, even here, I'm somewhat skeptical.

[csdenmark]

Richard you seems to prefer to continue to cry with the wiping widows. Not of my concern.

I think many of the top pairs who needed to strip their systems before last Bermuda Bowl are well aware of the risks about their future. For some of them they play for a living. I think some of them know that this downhill tour cannot last very much longer. Some may migrate into poker others into chess and others just give up.

You mention Meckwell - the pair with solid notes second to none. I think they will be ready for whatever to come which will enable them to switch back to their strong features.

Please note - also top pairs must accept the rules of the sponsoring organization. Today they for Bermuda Bowl are to deliver a pdf-file for Anna Gudge(E-Cat).

Please also note I just mentioned FD because it is a well working database product. It could be anything else and I think SMS is just as important. But unless bridge will return to be exciting through a rewamp - we will spend our time better preparing the funeral.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Jan 6 2007, 01:48 AM, said:

Richard you seems to prefer to continue to cry with the wiping widows. Not of my concern.

You mention Meckwell - the pair with solid notes second to none. I think they will be ready for whatever to come which will enable them to switch back to their strong features.

Please note - also top pairs must accept the rules of the sponsoring organization. Today they for Bermuda Bowl are to deliver a pdf-file for Anna Gudge(E-Cat).

How much work do you think was required for Meckwell to create that PDF file for the "BridgeCats" web site. I'm guessing three to five hours, based primarily on typing speed.

You've created a fair number of Convention files... Any estimation how long it would take to create a reasonably complete file documenting Meckwell's Precision variant? I suspect that you're looking at 100's of man hour's worth of work. (As you note, they have a very well documented system)

You are right: In theory the WBF could order everyone who is competing the Bermuda Bowl to submit a complete FD type file. In practice, thats not going to happen.

Please understand: I agree with your long term goal. I'd LOVE to see a system where Meckwell did create an FD type file documenting their system and this was available during events like the Spingold and the Bermuda Bowl. However, I dont think that your little pipe idea that the WBF is going to order Meckwell to comply is a constructive way to move towards that goal.

From my perspective, the "right" way to proceed is to focus on the benefits that an electronic playing environment will provide to players, administrators, and spectators. I would focus my presentation on

1. Improved security
2. Record keeping / administration
3. Vugraph

This is going to be a hard sell at the best of times. (The pros aren't going to like losing their table feel, even if it does help stamp out cheating) Telling that pros that they will be required to invest hundreds of hours in order to comply with the FD system will guaruntee that they will vehemently oppose this proposition. More significantly, since the administrators are (typically) also top players you've just killed off any chance of a fair hearing.

Start small.
Make it things easy for people.
Build on your successes

Thats how you introduce a new regime.

[csdenmark]

Looks better and more constructive this time Richard. Your estimate for pdf-file is much below I think but for FD-file I think fairly correct. I would say I would need around 100 hours for the typing of Meckwell. I used of course much more because I and Fiske Warren needed much work figuring out the cryptical meanings.

I dont care if some of the top players oppose - some of them will not be benefitting at all. I am pretty sure Lars Blakset/Mathias Bruun will be ready to do their part and so for Fredin, Berthau, Groetheim you name them. They are all suffering right now and will be waiting for perspectives.

There is not so much time and especially no more room for mistakes. Some kind of positive action is urgent.

Maybe even you will benefitting Richard! How about re-invent Moscito - the until 1991 popular pass-system. This is just one example of effect of mis-rulings. More of that kind is unbearable.

[csdenmark]

Presented on CES 2007, Las Vegas 8-11 January 2007



This article in danish language refer to the Samsung presentation made by Bill Gates on CES.

It is estimated to be introduced for american market for $ 1.500,-. Weight 500 grams, Vindows Vista capable.

Danish article from epn.dk

[FrancesHinden]

The first time I played in an EBL event I filled in a WBF convention card. Starting from scratch, it took me about five hours work, plus another couple of hours proof-reading/discussing things with my partner (some of the discussions were quite useful). The end result was the 2 main pages, plus 3 pages of notes. That's a lot more than your typical WBF-style card submitted before a major tournament (Meckwell are a huge and admirable exception in the amount of info they submit).

Yesterday I added a few lines to our system file on a subset of 4NT-bids-in-competition:

Quote

After a take-out double of a 2-level+ pre-empt.
- If partner jumps to 4M or bids it voluntarily after a raise from 3rd hand, then 4NT is RKCB.
- If partner was forced to bid at the 4-level (in any suit) then 4NT is natural
- A jump to 4NT by partner of the doubler is natural
- A non-jump to 4NT by partner is 2 places to play
- A jump 4NT overcall is 2 suits
- A non-jump 4NT overcall is 2 suits over 4M, natural over 4m.
- If partner bids 3M in response to the double, a jump to 4NT is natural

I haven't worked out how many sequences those 7 lines cover, but it's an awful lot. It didn't take that long to write down in that format. How long would it take me to get it into FD? What's more, when a not-quite-the-same sequence comes up that hasn't been included here (e.g. 2H x 3H x P 4NT is not specified), I don't want FD to tell my opponents there's no agreement, I want to it say 'no agreement, but here are their other agreements about 4NT in competition'.

Don't get me wrong: I would love my guardian angel to give me an IT application which shows me the meaning of my opponents' bidding in real time, based on a full database of all our possible sequences. I also think it is the right vision.

But we ain't going to be filling ours in any time soon.

[hotShot]

One of the best post about FD i have seen so far!
Thank you Frances!

[csdenmark]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 9 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

After a take-out double of a 2-level+ pre-empt.
- If partner jumps to 4M or bids it voluntarily after a raise from 3rd hand, then 4NT is RKCB.
- If partner was forced to bid at the 4-level (in any suit) then 4NT is natural
- A jump to 4NT by partner of the doubler is natural
- A non-jump to 4NT by partner is 2 places to play
- A jump 4NT overcall is 2 suits
- A non-jump 4NT overcall is 2 suits over 4M, natural over 4m.
- If partner bids 3M in response to the double, a jump to 4NT is natural

I dont know how many either but probably 5-10 times as many. Most of them will just be the same. Use copy/paste. Time consumation approx. 1 hour.

Quote

After a take-out double of a 2-level+ pre-empt.
- If partner jumps to 4M or bids it voluntarily after a raise from 3rd hand, then 4NT is RKCB.
- If partner was forced to bid at the 4-level (in any suit) then 4NT is natural
- A jump to 4NT by partner of the doubler is natural - 4 lines
- A non-jump to 4NT by partner is 2 places to play 12 lines
- A jump 4NT overcall is 2 suits 12 lines
- A non-jump 4NT overcall is 2 suits over 4M, natural over 4m. 4 lines
- If partner bids 3M in response to the double, a jump to 4NT is natural4 lines

[FrancesHinden]

Sorry?

After a take-out double of a 2-level+ pre-empt.
- If partner jumps to 4M or bids it voluntarily after a raise from 3rd hand, then 4NT is RKCB.

This one line covers the following sequences:

2C (weak) x P 4H
2C (weak) x P 4S
2C (weak) x 2NT 4H
2C (weak) x 2NT 4S
2C (weak) x 3C 4H
2C (weak) x 3C 4S
2C (weak) x 4C 4H
2C (weak) x 4C 4S

2D (weak) x P....
2H (weak) x P....
2S (weak) x P....

3C (weak) x P...
3D (weak) x P...
3H (weak) x P...

It doesn't actually specify the following sequences, though it should do

2C (weak) x 2D 4H
2C (weak) x 2H 4S
2C (weak) x 2H 4H
2C (weak) x 2S 4S (common psyche position)
2C (weak) x 3D (nat/fit) 4H
2C (weak) x 3D 4S
2C (weak) x 3H 4S
....

It also applies to
2C (weak 2 suiter, clubs + another) x P/2S/3D/3C/3H/2NT 4M
....

but not to
2D (multi) x P 4H/4S because the double had a different meaning.

I'm only on the first one of my rules, and I'm into well over 100 sequences. Possibly rather more, I've lost count.

[csdenmark]

In Vancouver Steve Job today presented Apples offer for a new version of a compact internet mobil phone.



Link to Apple presentation site in english language

The info from CES seems to indicate that a lot of company's in the coming days will be ready to introduce new kind of advances mobil phones with flash harddrives, Nokia, Motorola, Yahoo, Microsoft, Cisco.

Will be very interesting to see whether somebody will be able to explore the options and relate those for bridge.

[csdenmark]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 9 2007, 07:57 PM, said:

Sorry?

After a take-out double of a 2-level+ pre-empt.
- If partner jumps to 4M or bids it voluntarily after a raise from 3rd hand, then 4NT is RKCB.

This one line covers the following sequences:

2C (weak) x P 4H
2C (weak) x P 4S
2C (weak) x 2NT 4H
2C (weak) x 2NT 4S
2C (weak) x 3C 4H
2C (weak) x 3C 4S
2C (weak) x 4C 4H
2C (weak) x 4C 4S

2D (weak) x P....
2H (weak) x P....
2S (weak) x P....

3C (weak) x P...
3D (weak) x P...
3H (weak) x P...

It doesn't actually specify the following sequences, though it should do

2C (weak) x 2D 4H
2C (weak) x 2H 4S
2C (weak) x 2H 4H
2C (weak) x 2S 4S (common psyche position)
2C (weak) x 3D (nat/fit) 4H
2C (weak) x 3D 4S
2C (weak) x 3H 4S
....

It also applies to
2C (weak 2 suiter, clubs + another) x P/2S/3D/3C/3H/2NT 4M
....

but not to
2D (multi) x P 4H/4S because the double had a different meaning.

I'm only on the first one of my rules, and I'm into well over 100 sequences. Possibly rather more, I've lost count.

I don't understand your point Frances. As I understand you it is a lot of lines inserting exactly the same info - you only need to paste your RKCB feature for those sequences. To me it looks like the only problem is to find the sequences. Posting those here is likely to be more time consuming than just paste them.

It is impossible for me to see whether this info is important or not. There is always a point to stop prepared info.

[the hog]

Claus please don't include graphics that take ages to download. I have a dial up connection here.

[csdenmark]

The_Hog, on Jan 10 2007, 05:50 AM, said:

Claus please don't include graphics that take ages to download. I have a dial up connection here.

LOL - not aimed to upset you. Dial up is no longer available in Denmark.

[awm]

The electronic technology is not the issue here. That's easy to handle. The problems are:

(1) The difficulty of building an accurate Full Disclosure file. This is what Frances is complaining about. There are often rules that are relatively easy to state in English (or any other spoken language) such as Frances' rule about 4NT. However, these rules potentially apply in hundreds of sequences. Even with cut and paste functionality, copying the bidding tree over hundreds of times for something so easily stated (and so infrequently used) is a big waste of time.

(2) The difficulty of maintaining an accurate Full Disclosure file. People change their agreements from time to time. Despite efforts to "update" the file, there are often a few remnants that are incorrect. Searching through and finding all the "old usages" to update can be a lot more painful than adding new information.

(3) The increased number of MI cases due to inaccurate Full Disclosure files. In general MI cases are relatively rare, because people usually know what they're playing. When the players aren't on the same page, often their opponents get a good result anyway (accidents happen) and there's not much need for a director. But once the disclosure responsibilities are taken over by software, it's quite possible that both players are on the same page, but the opponents are given misinformation due to an out-of-date or incompletely filled out FD file. While the laws do provide methods to handle MI issues, they are among the most difficult and contentious of director calls and very often result in controversial committee rulings. Increasing this type of case is very undesirable.

(4) Allowing people to see their own FD file during play changes the game radically. The issue is that most conventional methods can be described relatively simply; otherwise people simply couldn't remember them. People have hundreds of pages of system notes, sure, but they don't enumerate every single possible sequence and assign an arbitrary distinct meaning to their calls in all of them. Using FD would encourage people to do that. What's the problem? The problem is defenses. If I'm told before a match that "my opponents play Wilcosz 2♦" then it's fairly easy for me to take ten minutes with partner and hash out a reasonable (okay not optimum, but reasonable) defense. If I'm told before a match that every single one of my opponents calls in every single possible auction has a different meaning and handed a full disclosure file several megabytes (or gigabytes!) long detailing their agreements, I have no chance of hashing out reasonable defenses in an hour (or a week) before the match. Not to mention, my own FD file needs to be modified just for these opponents because likely my 2♣ overcall of 1♣ has a different meaning when their bid is natural, or polish, or strong, or shows hearts, or shows spades, or shows clubs and a major, or shows an undisclosed two-suiter with intermediate values (and my opponents may play every single one of these meanings depending on seat and vulnerability).