[Cascade]

awm, on Jun 27 2007, 10:59 AM, said:

The only real reason to ban certain methods is the unfair advantage that can be gained due to the opponents' unfamiliarity with the methods. It seems clear that if I play something weird that has a lot of inferences which can't be explained briefly and requires devising a defense that's pretty different from a good defense to anything else, opponents will be at a significant disadvantage (at least if they don't have several hours to prepare for the match in advance). Bridge is not a game of secret messages, or of "who can play the weirdest stuff" and so there is some incentive to ban certain things especially in the context of short matches (pair games, less serious events, etc). How far to go with this is a matter of opinion, as is what exactly to expect people to be familiar with.

IMO this is a fallacy.


It is easy to criticize someone playing an unusual system but the same problem exists with pairs or players playing a so-called standard system. Rarely does anyone disclose all of the inferences that are available to a partnership. I mean everyone's style is different. And the subtle differences in style are not usually readily available.

[Cascade]

pbleighton, on Jun 27 2007, 10:19 AM, said:

Its major disadvantage in a *standard* field is that it's strong hands are subject to effective destructive bidding by the *standard* pairs. It is not *more of a crap shoot* than standard methods. It's just a different crap shot.

This is a very perceptive comment.

[Cascade]

ArcLight, on Jul 5 2007, 02:21 PM, said:

A preempt based on a 6 card suit holding 3 of the top 5 honors is constructive as well as obstructive. (in 1st or 2nds seat, in 3rd preempts can be wild)
A 5 card suit to the jack is more like a random carp shoot. It might be effective, it might not. But I think that type of bidding makes the game random and I don't enjoy it as much. Same for opening 1 Spade with 8 HCP. It may "work" but I think it changes the nature of the game and makes it less interesting. It becomes more random. Maybe Sabine Auken likes that, I don't.

So what you really want is a game that you like and not one that someone else likes.

If so-called disruptive bidding was not part of the game then it would be easily fixed without artificial system regulations. Simply increase the penalties for failing in a contract.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I've never met anyone playing strange systems who claimed to do so because they thought that unfamiliarity would give them an advantage. It's always because they think the strange system might be better than standard, or are experimenting to evaluate whether it's better than standard. Unfamiliarity advantage might be an acknowledged byproduct (even though most users of strange systems make good efforts at full disclosure when asked), but it's not the real reason behind their choice.

It's the people who are against strange systems who make the statements that "they are doing so for the unfamiliarity advantage".

I wouldn't say never but otherwise I agree with this. The regulations sometimes make it hard to find a compromise between what I personally think is best and what's allowed.

BTW when did this thread derail?

Quote

If so-called disruptive bidding was not part of the game then it would be easily fixed without artificial system regulations. Simply increase the penalties for failing in a contract.

This was already done once. Did it help? (assuming there was a problem in the first place)

[foo]

So, an idea based on a suggestion of Cascade as a modification of the regulations on allowed methods at the ACBL GCC or other "general playing member" level:

"If the opening is systemically 'light' enough that it has less than a 75% chance of resulting in a makable contract (example: Frelling Two's with a low enough HCP range), then the pair using it
a= must play the opening strictly within it's stated shape and value range
(IOW, they may pass hands they consider poor in the stated range, but they may not use this opening with hands that have more or less HCP than the stated range; nor with hands that are off-shape for the stated description.)
AND
b= every time a pair uses such an opening and fails to make the resulting contract, the hand is scored as if it was XX."

EDIT: replaced clause "b" with improved version

Thus there will be a built-in dis-incentive against being more "random" than Usual Practice.

75% may not be the correct value. The mathematicians can figure out where the cut-off should exist such that people playing too Destructive a method end up having a large negative overall expectation on the scoring table.
Certainly any methods having a 55% or less expectation of leading to a making contract should end up being long term losers if this idea is adopted, but I'm not mathematically adept enough to figure out what the optimal exact percentage should be in the proposed regulation above.

This post has been edited by foo: 2007-July-06, 14:00

[Gerben42]

Quote

Many people, myself included, consider Hamman's book a joke. Its been widely ridiculed on rec.games.bridge for years.

I have not read Hamman's book. Can someone tell me more about it (maybe in another thread?)

[Free]

foo, on Jul 6 2007, 10:59 AM, said:

So, an idea based on a suggestion of Cascade as a modification of the regulations on allowed methods at the ACBL GCC or other "general playing member" level:

"If the opening is systemically 'light' enough that it has less than a 75% chance of resulting in a makable contract (example: Frelling Two's with a low enough HCP range), then the pair using it
a= must play the opening strictly within it's stated shape and value range
(IOW, they may pass hands they consider poor in the stated range, but they may not use this opening with hands that have more or less HCP than the stated range; nor with hands that are off-shape for the stated description.)
AND
b= every time a pair uses such an opening the hand is declared XX."

Thus there will be a built-in dis-incentive against being more "random" than Usual Practice.

75% may not be the correct value. The mathematicians can figure out where the cut-off should exist such that people playing too Destructive a method end up having a large negative overall expectation on the scoring table.
Certainly any methods having a 55% or less expectation of leading to a making contract should end up being long term losers if this idea is adopted, but I'm not mathematically adept enough to figure out what the optimal exact percentage should be in the proposed regulation above.

HCP is a ridiculous guide for pre-emptive openings. So why would you ever use it in regulations to define if an opening is destructive or not??? Poor idea!

[pbleighton]

Mike, you made a strong statement:

Quote

There does seem to be a consensus in the articles I have read over the decades that many weaker players seek to gain advantage by playing unfamiliar methods in short pair or teammatches. This does seem to contribute to a decline in paying customers. In any case the debate continues and should."

This is an accusation of unethical behavior. You bear the burden of proof.

The only thing you can cite is:

Quote

Thumbing through Hamman's book At the Table, I see he focuses on issues to keep the game competitive and interesting. He brings up several points and I will let the reader draw their own opinions.

I encourage the reader to pick up a copy of the book to read Mr. Hamman's thoughts more fully. Here are a few short quotes.

"My objection in the high-tech area concerns the advantage gained because a system or method is completely foreign to the opposition. Full disclosure....is impossible in many cases."

"Pair games are an incredible mine field."

"Now I'm not opposed to innovation and/or improvement..."

"...you may not be trying to concel what you're doing, but your methods are so difficult to explain that you don't have time during a round to meet your responsibiilities fully..."

---------------------------------------

Again speaking for myself it is comments such as these that lead my to make my comment. You may form a different one. 

One quote, and it doesn't:
1. Say anything about weak players.
2. Say that any pair is playing an unfamiliar system in order to get an advantage. Hamman is complaining that full disclosure is impossible, a different thing altogether.

Your statement runs completely contrary to my experience, and to my reading.

Can you do better than this?

Peter

[helene_t]

pbleighton, on Jul 6 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

Mike777 said:

There does seem to be a consensus in the articles I have read over the decades that many weaker players seek to gain advantage by playing unfamiliar methods in short pair or teammatches. This does seem to contribute to a decline in paying customers. In any case the debate continues and should."

Your statement runs completely contrary to my experience, and to my reading.

Two points:
- Some of those eternal beginners who complain about opps using unusual methods have wicked notions about what "unusual" means. I have had just as many complains about bread-and-butter auctions which opps happened not to understand because they subscribed to some bizare interpretation of standard bidding, as about weired conventions.
- I don't know why low-intermediates would play, e.g., the multi 2♦. I can imagine a number of reasons. It's possible that making opps' confused is a reason for some. The fact that almost nobody is experimenting with unusual obstructive methods suggests otherwise (APSTRO-preempts and Psycho Suction are fully legal yet nobody play them except at the highest level).

[Free]

helene_t, on Jul 6 2007, 03:06 PM, said:

Some of those eternal beginners who complain about opps using unusual methods have wicked notions about what "unusual" means. I have had just as many complains about bread-and-butter auctions which opps happened not to understand because they subscribed to some bizare interpretation of standard bidding, as about weired conventions.

I feel completely the same! Btw, the way eternal beginners bid is most of the time VERY unusual if you ask me, but the good players may not complain about this ofcourse, it just happens and you can't do anything about it...

[jtfanclub]

Stephen Tu, on Jul 5 2007, 09:20 PM, said:

I've never met anyone playing strange systems who claimed to do so because they thought that unfamiliarity would give them an advantage. It's always because they think the strange system might be better than standard, or are experimenting to evaluate whether it's better than standard. Unfamiliarity advantage might be an acknowledged byproduct (even though most users of strange systems make good efforts at full disclosure when asked), but it's not the real reason behind their choice.

It's the people who are against strange systems who make the statements that "they are doing so for the unfamiliarity advantage".

I don't use Precision because I think it's better than standard. I use it because I can flavor it to my taste. If I play Precision with a partner, and we agree on what the bids mean, and then she goes off and plays "SAYC" with some other partner, when she comes back she'll still play Precision to our agreements.

On the other hand, if I play SAYC and we play (for example) openings a hair weaker than 'standard', and responses a hair stronger than 'standard', and then she goes off and plays SAYC with somebody else, she's going to get confused with them or with me. The same goes for when doubles should be penalty, when new suits become cue bids, etc. etc. Too many cooks in SAYC. I'd rather have my own soup.

But I'm well aware of the advantages that playing Precision gives me.

-Against weak players, many of them have never seen these bids before. You would think, after 40 years, that pairs playing in an unlimited side game would have a set defense for 12-15. And yet, about half the players haven't even agreed on whether it's 'weak' or 'strong'. I think I make about twice the normal number of doubled contracts of a pair my level, not because I'm good at card play, but because the opponent's haven't had the opportunity to ruminate about the system. For example, After 1♥-P in SAYC, responder will stretch to bid with a good 5 count. On the same auction with Precision, responder could have a misfit 8 count. So if responder passes the first round and bids a new suit the second round, this is not the suicide that it tends to be in SAYC.

-Against strong players, I'll happily take advantage of wrongsiding. For example, with 16 across 8 hcp, I don't know what the odds are that I'll make more tricks with the 8 hcp hand declarer vs. an expert team with the 16 hcp hand declarer, but I'd be willing to wager that it's more likely than that I'll make more tricks with identical bidding. Simply playing from the other side on marginal contracts makes the results much, much more random than playing the same side.

[foo]

Free, on Jul 6 2007, 07:35 AM, said:

foo, on Jul 6 2007, 10:59 AM, said:

So, an idea based on a suggestion of Cascade as a modification of the regulations on allowed methods at the ACBL GCC or other "general playing member" level:

"If the opening is systemically 'light' enough that it has less than a 75% chance of resulting in a makable contract (example: Frelling Two's with a low enough HCP range), then the pair using it
a= must play the opening strictly within it's stated shape and value range
(IOW, they may pass hands they consider poor in the stated range, but they may not use this opening with hands that have more or less HCP than the stated range; nor with hands that are off-shape for the stated description.)
AND
b= every time a pair uses such an opening and fails to make their contract the board is scored as if it was declared XX."

Thus there will be a built-in dis-incentive against being more "random" than Usual Practice.

75% may not be the correct value. The mathematicians can figure out where the cut-off should exist such that people playing too Destructive a method end up having a large negative overall expectation on the scoring table.
Certainly any methods having a 55% or less expectation of leading to a making contract should end up being long term losers if this idea is adopted, but I'm not mathematically adept enough to figure out what the optimal exact percentage should be in the proposed regulation above.

HCP is a ridiculous guide for pre-emptive openings. So why would you ever use it in regulations to define if an opening is destructive or not??? Poor idea!

Ridiculous or not, all of the present regulations regarding acceptable bids are based on HCP.

It could be reasonably argued that said regulations should be based on tricks or some other more accurate methods of hand evaluation. However, that is not the way things are done.
Frankly, I'm improving things by =weakening= the regulations cuurent tie to HCP considerably. The focus is on the percentage odds of constructive results in my suggestion. This, of course, is what constructive bidding is =really= about. Not HCP.

I'm basing my suggestions on established precedent.

[mike777]

As I mentioned the endless debate continues, and it should.
As I see even what the literature says or does not say is debated. If you read it and get a different understanding or opinion, fair enough. I am not trying to convert anyone.

Here is something from Michael Rosenberg's book. Bridge, Zia and me. I note he put the word "destructive" in bold type but did not seem to define it.

"Personally, I think bridge is more enjoyable when the game revolves around bidding judgement and card-play, rather than systemtic understanding (especially DESTRUCTIVE systemic understanding) I would prefer that any convention which currently requires a prepared defense be made illegal............Speaking of the WBF, it took about 40 hours of work to prepare the WBF convention card....I found this particularly irritating because I know the cards are rarely even looked at during a match..........there should be a seperate card comprehensively defining all carding agreements ( this is important information which is often hidden.).....
----------------------------

I found his tiny comment about hidden, undisclosed carding agreements at the highest level of bridge interesting. He then drops the subject and does not elaborate. Perhaps he meant hidden or perhaps he meant the information is there but impossible to find at the table, who knows.



OTOH

In Sabine Auken's book from last year, I Love This Game (btw my favorite book from last year) she seems to agree with limiting conventions in pair games due to time but in general thinks a more wide open, anything goes, in bidding systems is good for the game. She disagrees with the argument that simplier bidding systems is good for marketing the game or for enjoyment of the game.


Swanson's book, Inside the Bermuda Bowl, ( one of my alltime fav. books, lots of behind the scene stuff) highly entertaining and controversial book goes into cheating and unethical behavior in detail.

Please spare me the outrage responses, yes it is controversial. Comment on them but just leave me out of it. I only list it for those interested in reading some more on the subject. thanks but leave me out of the flame wars.

[foo]

I also agree with whoever stated that those who are actually particpating members of Organized Bridge should get more of a voice and vote than players who are not.

Micheal's comments were specifically about hidden defensive carding agreements from my read of that section of the book.
...and he's right. Many pairs do things with regards to carding that if they were bids and similarly unexplained, the pair in quesiton would be in "hot water" fast.

[TimG]

awm, on Jun 26 2007, 05:59 PM, said:

The only real reason to ban certain methods is the unfair advantage that can be gained due to the opponents' unfamiliarity with the methods.

How do you determine which advantages are fair and which are unfair?

[TimG]

mike777, on Jul 6 2007, 10:42 AM, said:

Quoting Rosenberg: "I would prefer that any convention which currently requires a prepared defense be made illegal."

Don't Standard American opening bids require a prepared defense?

[pbleighton]

Quote

As I see even what the literature says or does not say is debated. If you read it and get a different understanding or opinion, fair enough. I am not trying to convert anyone.

Here is something from Michael Rosenberg's book. Bridge, Zia and me. I note he put the word "destructive" in bold type but did not seem to define it.

"Personally, I think bridge is more enjoyable when the game revolves around bidding judgement and card-play, rather than systemtic understanding (especially DESTRUCTIVE systemic understanding) I would prefer that any convention which currently requires a prepared defense be made illegal............Speaking of the WBF, it took about 40 hours of work to prepare the WBF convention card....I found this particularly irritating because I know the cards are rarely even looked at during a match..........there should be a seperate card comprehensively defining all carding agreements ( this is important information which is often hidden.).....
----------------------------

I found his tiny comment about hidden, undisclosed carding agreements at the highest level of bridge interesting. He then drops the subject and does not elaborate. Perhaps he meant hidden or perhaps he meant the information is there but impossible to find at the table, who knows.



OTOH

In Sabine Auken's book from last year, I Love This Game (btw my favorite book from last year) she seems to agree with limiting conventions in pair games due to time but in general thinks a more wide open, anything goes, in bidding systems is good for the game. She disagrees with the argument that simplier bidding systems is good for marketing the game or for enjoyment of the game.


Swanson's book, Inside the Bermuda Bowl, ( one of my alltime fav. books, lots of behind the scene stuff) highly entertaining and controversial book goes into cheating and unethical behavior in detail.

Please spare me the outrage responses, yes it is controversial.  Comment on them but just leave me out of it. I only list it for those interested in reading some more on the subject. thanks but leave me out of the flame wars. 

You still haven't backed up your original statement (weak players, intentionally playing unfamiliar methods to get a good score with confusion), at all.

Will you try, or have you given up?

Peter

[TimG]

pbleighton, on Jul 6 2007, 11:59 AM, said:

You still haven't backed up your original statement (weak players, intentionally playing unfamiliar methods to get a good score with confusion), at all.

Will you try, or have you given up?

I will admit to playing non-mainstream methods and enjoying the fact that my expert opponents were out of their comfort zone. I'm not saying it is the primary purpose for using these methods, but it is a beneficial aspect.

[pbleighton]

Quote

I'm not saying it is the primary purpose for using these methods, but it is a beneficial aspect.

Everyone likes gifts

The biggest source of gifts comes from playing a weak/min notrump ina strong NT field, where many play DONT and ovecall light - what a diabolical plot that is!

But I don't know anyone whose primary purpose in playing unusual systems is opponent error.

Peter

[EricK]

foo, on Jul 6 2007, 09:59 AM, said:

So, an idea based on a suggestion of Cascade as a modification of the regulations on allowed methods at the ACBL GCC or other "general playing member" level:

"If the opening is systemically 'light' enough that it has less than a 75% chance of resulting in a makable contract (example: Frelling Two's with a low enough HCP range), then the pair using it
a= must play the opening strictly within it's stated shape and value range
(IOW, they may pass hands they consider poor in the stated range, but they may not use this opening with hands that have more or less HCP than the stated range; nor with hands that are off-shape for the stated description.)
AND
b= every time a pair uses such an opening the hand is declared XX."

Thus there will be a built-in dis-incentive against being more "random" than Usual Practice.

75% may not be the correct value. The mathematicians can figure out where the cut-off should exist such that people playing too Destructive a method end up having a large negative overall expectation on the scoring table.
Certainly any methods having a 55% or less expectation of leading to a making contract should end up being long term losers if this idea is adopted, but I'm not mathematically adept enough to figure out what the optimal exact percentage should be in the proposed regulation above.

Why is reaching a makeable contract the gold standard you compare to? Every hand has a par score which may or may not be a makeable contract and the point of bidding is to arrive in a contract which is at least as good as par - that might be a makeable contract over which the opponents don't find a profitable sacrifice, it might be a non-makeable contract which the opponents don't double, it might be a non-makeable contract which the opponents fail to bid over, or it might be that the opponents overstretch in one way or another, or it might just be that you bid to the correct contract.

If your bidding achieves these goals more often than other people's then you have bid well. So if there is a standard to compare to it should be something like having a less than x% chance of reaching a contract which is better than par.