[paulg]

Do you think the benefits of Highly Unusual Methods (HUM) and Brown Sticker Conventions (BSC) are worth the cost of playing them?

Within the UK and the ACBL (although regulations vary), conventions and/or systems are permitted or not without direct reference to HUM and BSC, and so there is no cost to playing such a method.

But at international tournaments, a pair playing a HUM loses seating rights. And, at European Championships, a pair playing two or more BSCs also lose seating rights.

As an NPC I I think seating rights are important (when you have the opportunity). When you play a HUM pair it means you can sit your most proficient pair against them, then reducing the advantage of the HUM to my mind. Playing teams with multiple HUM and/or BSCs means that your pairs can spread the preparation load by only working on one pair's methods.

So I am considering petitioning my selectors to bar HUM systems and multiple BSC from future trials, as I consider it advantageous to play against teams with these restrictions.

Would you agree?

Paul

HUM and BSC definitions

[helene_t]

In general, I wouldn't think seating rights matter much. Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary I would assume that relative strength is additive, ie if team A features pair A1 and A2, then
(A1-B1)+(A2-B2)=(A1-B2)+(A2-B1)
But this is just my personal taste for simple models.

[Gerben42]

Seating rights can matter a lot if there is more than 1 segment to play. If you had a good round against a pair, you should want to play the same pair again. Similarly, if a pair just showed you all corners of the bridge table, you want to switch tables.

If you have an inexperienced pair, you might want to not seat them against a pair playing complex methods. This should however not be relevant in top-level events.

[paulg]

Gerben42, on Nov 12 2008, 11:48 AM, said:

If you have an inexperienced pair, you might want to not seat them against a pair playing complex methods. This should however not be relevant in top-level events.

For a relatively small country, with no professional players, this is a real concern (as can be seen by our performance in the two major championships this year). Our trials process and lack of top-flight players means that it is inevitable that inexperienced pairs will be playing for us.

Paul

[hotShot]

If you never play against systems containing HUM bids, they will stay HUM to you. There are people who believe that these methods are better, ignoring that most of the gain they notice is a consequence of opps being unprepared to handle them.
Prepare a defense you feel comfortable with, and have fun when they discover that they don't get the benefit they are used to.

[glen]

cardsharp, on Nov 12 2008, 07:18 AM, said:

For a relatively small country, with no professional players, this is a real concern (as can be seen by our performance in the two major championships this year). Our trials process and lack of top-flight players means that it is inevitable that inexperienced pairs will be playing for us.

If you are a small country, no pros, with a lack of top-flight players, then using a method where a whole mob of these play against each other to select the best team for the 2009 worlds doesn't work, HUM or not. That is the pairs you obtain out of the results of these trials are the best pairs for playing teams that have no pros and lack top-flight players. Instead you really need to find pairs/teams that have the resources to enter team events such as last week's White House or Monte Carlo (if no invite to WH), and thus you can rely on the conditions of contests of the bulk of those types of events - if most don't allow HUM, then ban them.

[655321]

I don't agree.

Though I guess if you did ban HUMs, in practice you would lose little or nothing because (IMO) these systems are not as effective as their adherents like to think. But in theory at least, by forcing people to play non-preferred methods, you could end up with a weaker team (i.e. a HUM pair playing a natural system less effectively loses their spot to a weaker pair comfortable with the enforced methods.)

And I do think that people should be allowed to play these systems.

Anyway, if you have pairs playing HUM in your trials, and these pairs don't qualify for the team, then you have given other pairs practice at playing against such methods, letting them see that it is not so difficult after all. So this would have nothing but a beneficial effect.

In your worst case, if a HUM pair qualifies for the team and you lose seating rights, well, that is not so bad. In short (one-session) matches, there is a good case for not worrying about seating at all. Only in a long match would seating be a concern, and from your comment earlier in the thread, it sounds as though playing in a final is not a realistic danger anyway.

Incidentally, it is not clear to me that playing your 'best' pair against the HUM pair is the right strategy. If a pair has an excellent constructive system with all the bells and whistles, they will only be able to play their system when they have an opening hand as dealer. The rest of the time the HUM opponents will be opening ferts, or 8-12 openings, etc. Often 2 good players without a bunch of system, as long as they have some simple agreements on methods against the HUM, will do very well.

[paulg]

glen, on Nov 12 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Nov 12 2008, 07:18 AM, said:

For a relatively small country, with no professional players, this is a real concern (as can be seen by our performance in the two major championships this year). Our trials process and lack of top-flight players means that it is inevitable that inexperienced pairs will be playing for us.

If you are a small country, no pros, with a lack of top-flight players, then using a method where a whole mob of these play against each other to select the best team for the 2009 worlds doesn't work, HUM or not. That is the pairs you obtain out of the results of these trials are the best pairs for playing teams that have no pros and lack top-flight players. Instead you really need to find pairs/teams that have the resources to enter team events such as last week's White House or Monte Carlo (if no invite to WH), and thus you can rely on the conditions of contests of the bulk of those types of events - if most don't allow HUM, then ban them.

Glen,

Your perception of our trials process is generous, it is nowhere near as effective as you'd hope.

But your comments are spot on.

Paul

[hrothgar]

I strongly believe that the conventions charts for a selection process should mirror those for the main event.

If you are selecting teams that are going to go off and compete in the Bermuda Bowl, you should use the same convention charts as the Bermuda Bowl.

There are folks who disagree strongly...

For example Fred thinks that its a mistake to permit high variance methods during the selection process because this increases the chance that a weaker team will pass through the filter. Also, this increases the number of possible systems that contestents need to prepare to face which can create a burden for all those teams who compete but don't win.

Personally, I think that the first issue can be addresss fairly easily by tweaking the Conditions of Contest to emphasize long KO matches. (I don't find the second reason particularly compelling)

[fred]

hrothgar, on Nov 12 2008, 02:03 PM, said:

For example Fred thinks that its a mistake to permit high variance methods during the selection process because this increases the chance that a weaker team will pass through the filter. Also, this increases the number of possible systems that contestents need to prepare to face which can create a burden for all those teams who compete but don't win.

I can't say I disagree with myself here, but more generally I think it is a mistake to allow what you are calling "high variance methods" in *any* bridge tournament of consequence (including the World Championships of course).

I do admit that it is hard to define where the line should be drawn.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[ASkolnick]

I agree the conditions of contests for the trials should be the same as the final event, but I don't see a problem with allowing unusual systems for matches.

Highly Unusual Methods will become less unusual once people get exposure to it. I am sure in the 1930's people were saying the same thing about stayman or whenever transfers started, people said the same about them. But you can't get exposure unless you are allowed to play against them. I am sure the Wick-Wack Club (or whatever system) showing a combined odd point count and a prime number of cards in a major probably has some holes in it. As long as you give people the opportunity to play against it, people will find a defense against it.

If you are the weaker team, it makes sense for you to "trick" up your offense since you know in a match, if you play straight up, you would not have a chance. My guess is if you play a long enough match the variance from any system will decrease anyway and the proper people will avail. And if the reason the "tricked" up system wins and qualifies, maybe that is a serious advantage.

Most likely the gain is from the element of surprise.

[FrancesHinden]

fred, on Nov 12 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 12 2008, 02:03 PM, said:

For example Fred thinks that its a mistake to permit high variance methods during the selection process because this increases the chance that a weaker team will pass through the filter.  Also, this increases the number of possible systems that contestents need to prepare to face which can create a burden for all those teams who compete  but don't win.

I can't say I disagree with myself here, but more generally I think it is a mistake to allow what you are calling "high variance methods" in *any* bridge tournament of consequence (including the World Championships of course).

I do admit that it is hard to define where the line should be drawn.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Whether or not I agree with you (I don't know if I do or not, to be honest) I think there is a fundamental mistake in even thinking about a way to forbid "high variance" methods.

I think I'll play a blue-club type approach (4-card majors, strong club, weak twos).
I'm going to open light - my 1-level openings will be about 8-16 HCP - and with a strict majors first approach, so 1S is the systemic opening on 8xxx x AKQxx Jxxx

I probably need to keep a 2C opening as showing an opening bid with clubs, but I'm going to play very random weak twos in diamonds, hearts and spades. Bergen-style, if you like: I'll open 2H on xx KQJx xxxxx xx NV, for example.

My 1NT opening is wide range and frequently off shape. NV, I'll play 1NT as 8-12.
I'll play a forcing 1NT response to the 1-level openings, but all jumps will be weak.

I think this is a playable system, but it's definitely a high variance method.

Oh yes, and I'm going to psyche quite often, though not in a predictable way (so as not to create any partnership understanding).

Compare that to a HUM which is basic Acol (or basic standard american) except that a 1C opening shows a hand that would otherwise have passed, and an initial pass shows a normal 1C opening. This seems to me to have no real merit at all, but it has been played in major international championships in the past.

The point is that it's not necessarily the method which is high variance, it's the way in which it is played.

[fred]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 12 2008, 03:27 PM, said:

I think this is a playable system, but it's definitely a high variance method.

I am not sure I agree that this is a playable system, but I would agree that it is a high variance method.

But please note that my post referred to what Richard means when he employs the euphemism "high variance" instead of what he really means: "highly unusual". My statement that "high variance" methods should not be allowed pertained to what Richard is calling "high variance" - not what "high variance" actually means.

My problem is not with "high variance" per se (though I can't imagine why a player with your apparent knowledge, ability, and judgment would ever want to play such a system). My problem is with "highly unusual".

I have explained why enough times. I will try to stay out of it this time around.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

cardsharp, on Nov 12 2008, 02:18 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Nov 12 2008, 11:48 AM, said:

If you have an inexperienced pair, you might want to not seat them against a pair playing complex methods. This should however not be relevant in top-level events.

For a relatively small country, with no professional players, this is a real concern (as can be seen by our performance in the two major championships this year). Our trials process and lack of top-flight players means that it is inevitable that inexperienced pairs will be playing for us.

Paul

In what right do the british think they have a right to compete on highest level without the relevant qualifications?

Paul similar proposals like yours have now for 40 years, step by step, ruined bridge to what it really is today - whist. That can be interesting too.

A few days ago I watched the film '80 days around the world'. Still a marvellous film and mr. Philias Fogg is still a passionated whist player.

[Walddk]

cardsharp, on Nov 12 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

So I am considering petitioning my selectors to bar HUM systems and multiple BSC from future trials, as I consider it advantageous to play against teams with these restrictions.

Would you agree?

No. Let the contestants play whatever they like and change the format. Let them play longer matches against each other and make the HUM and BSC pairs send their convention cards to their opponents well in advance.

If you don't get used to playing against such methods in domestic tournaments, you will never be able to cope with them at major championships. "Practice makes perfect" applies here too.

Roland

[paulg]

Perhaps I did not make myself entirely clear.

I don't mind other teams playing HUM and multiple BSC. With adequate preparation and defensive notes, a competent pair can cope playing against them.

So I'd prefer Scotland to retain seating rights rather than have a pair playing these methods.

To be honest the problem is quickly becoming moot. I believe there were no HUM systems at the European Championships this year and only a small number of pairs playing more than one BSC. For example my Women's team had seating rights against only two teams (of 24).

Paul

[NickRW]

csdenmark, on Nov 12 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

In what right do the british think they have a right to compete on highest level without the relevant qualifications?

This comment is spot on. If you don't have pros and you are playing pros then you are mostly going to lose - usually by a large margin. Except in the mostly utterly neutered of competitions this will apply regardless of the specific conditions of contest.

Nit picking over "highly unusual" versus "high variance" methods is just that - nit picking. It is true that bith "high variance" and "highly unusual" will sometimes help the underdog a little (if these methods a used to advantage by the underdog), but the underdog will still mostly lose.

Some time ago, in the sport of Rugby Union, there was enforced, or supposedly enforced amateurism. A club could not hire and pay its players. And for a long time that was sort of OK - if you accept the Victorian, "stiff upper lip" mentality of "its not the winning that counts". However, in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, they started to get round the rules with "sponsorship" deals. As a result the principle Southern Hemisphere nations at this particular sport managed to move to at least a semi professional model. The principle Northern Hemisphere teams (England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, France) were getting thrashed - and as a result the rules were changed and professional players were allowed universally. And the playing field became a lot more level as a result.

Bridge is no different. Since quite a few bridge pros make their money from teaching, writing, partnering wealthy clients and money rubber bridge (i.e. are to an extent self employed) trying to ban professionalism is obviously a non flier from the start.

Therefore, if you don't have pros, get some. Bitching about the conditions of contest will not solve your problems.

Nick

[csdenmark]

NickRW, on Nov 12 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Nov 12 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

In what right do the british think they have a right to compete on highest level without the relevant qualifications?

This comment is spot on. If you don't have pros and you are playing pros then you are mostly going to lose - usually by a large margin. Except in the mostly utterly neutered of competitions this will apply regardless of the specific conditions of contest.

Nit picking over "highly unusual" versus "high variance" methods is just that - nit picking. It is true that bith "high variance" and "highly unusual" will sometimes help the underdog a little (if these methods a used to advantage by the underdog), but the underdog will still mostly lose.

Some time ago, in the sport of Rugby Union, there was enforced, or supposedly enforced amateurism. A club could not hire and pay its players. And for a long time that was sort of OK - if you accept the Victorian, "stiff upper lip" mentality of "its not the winning that counts". However, in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, they started to get round the rules with "sponsorship" deals. As a result the principle Southern Hemisphere nations at this particular sport managed to move to at least a semi professional model. The principle Northern Hemisphere teams (England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, France) were getting thrashed - and as a result the rules were changed and professional players were allowed universally. And the playing field became a lot more level as a result.

Bridge is no different. Since quite a few bridge pros make their money from teaching, writing, partnering wealthy clients and money rubber bridge (i.e. are to an extent self employed) trying to ban professionalism is obviously a non flier from the start.

Therefore, if you don't have pros, get some. Bitching about the conditions of contest will not solve your problems.

Nick

Certainly Nick. Until 20 years ago we did not have professional football in Denmark. We always lost to all big nations, even with Netherlands we were unable to compete with. Now we have prof. football and today we are fairly competitive - OK our best players still plays in other leages. But Laudrup and Schmeichel we would have had in no other way. Thats the good story about this.

The bad story our societies experience these days. We have had very hard times to compete with the anglo-american way for financial service. We have therefore also de-regulated our markets. We got competitive but the whole buble blasted.

In bridge I certainly agree to this Therefore, if you don't have pros, get some. Bitching about the conditions of contest will not solve your problems. But thats not the whole story. It is also about personal drive. I am not sure how many of the italian and polish top players who are profs. I think at least not all - but heavyly sponsored I am sure they are. But what about the norwegians this year and the icelanders in 1996.

I think all has a chance even in high level competition if they have the right ego to be serious about their sport. What I can see on BBO is that very very few have some of that what is needed.

Instead of trying to compete on unequal terms I think it might be a better way to create some kind of world league. Maybe we some day can have a revival of our bridge. De-regulation is urgent in bridge.

[Walddk]

csdenmark, on Nov 12 2008, 09:45 PM, said:

But what about the norwegians this year and the icelanders in 1996.

Regarding Iceland I assume you mean 1991 in Yokohama, Japan, but that's a minor issue. The issue is that they are pros too! The Icelanders were sponsored in 1991 (as are all top Icelandic teams today actually), and so are the Norwegians.

Helness, Helgemo, Brogeland and many others have bridge as their living.

Roland

[Cascade]

NickRW, on Nov 13 2008, 07:15 AM, said:

Some time ago, in the sport of Rugby Union, there was enforced, or supposedly enforced amateurism. A club could not hire and pay its players. And for a long time that was sort of OK - if you accept the Victorian, "stiff upper lip" mentality of "its not the winning that counts". However, in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, they started to get round the rules with "sponsorship" deals. As a result the principle Southern Hemisphere nations at this particular sport managed to move to at least a semi professional model. The principle Northern Hemisphere teams (England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, France) were getting thrashed - and as a result the rules were changed and professional players were allowed universally. And the playing field became a lot more level as a result.

Finally something on the forums that I know something about.

When I played amateur senior (grade not age) rugby in New Zealand it was not our team that was paying players - well I didn't get any money - but my teammate who played in the off-season in England came home with a fat wallet.