[hrothgar]

Screed: “A long, very straight board used for striking off concrete”, alternatively “a long monotonous harangue” Here's one of my own (and I mean that in oh so many ways)

There are many individuals who experience a sea-change; a sudden moment of transcendence that transforms one's world view. Looking back two thousand years ago there is the parable of Saul on the road to Damascus. In more modern times, we have the examples of neo-conservatives like Irving Kristol or David Horowitz who whipsawed from Trotskism to the reactionary right. One can even look to President Bush. Here once again, the scales fell from his eyes, he cast down drugs and the bottle, and found God. Idiots all...

I have a deep and profound distrust for anyone who claims such a defining moment. In my experience, the individuals involved haven't changed at all. They may have transitioned from one superficial/absolutist world view to another, but their fundamental flaw - the need for simplicity and certainty – remains the same.

Knowledge brings the courage of conviction. I see nothing wrong with that. Equally significant, there is nothing wrong with learning from one's mistakes. Where I start to wonder is individuals who are capable of maintaining an absolute moral compass, even as their belief system transitions from one polar extreme to another. These types of changes are rooted in ignorance: It might be ignorance before the fact. Some times its ignorance after the fact. All too often, both apply.

These are but a few things that come to mind as I see the architect of Keylime precision start expounding about a wide variety of badly flawed conventions. On a more practical level, I'll simply note in passing that there is a difference between a random collection of conventions and a well integrated bidding system.

Full fathom five thy father lies:
Of his bones are coral made:
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.

[kenberg]

Least favorite convention: The one (any one) that
a. I have never before heard of
b. Partner insists we play
c. Ater the disaster, he begins "Oh, yes, I forgot to mention ..., but everyone plays it that way so I figured you would know."

k

[keylime]

Hroth-ster,

I gather you don't give your fellow man a chance to evolve, to question, to change, and to transform. C'mon, no need to be mercurial or negative - embrace the light. :-)

KLP is in its 16th version. In each one of those forms there's been a gradual change going from one concept to another with the ultimate goal of playability and scalability. The differences from V13 that's posted on the web and V16 alone are substantial - far more emphasis has been placed on competitive auctions and making things "repeatable". To become better, we must be willing to constantly ask "Can I do this better?". If I was not willing to delete, veto, trash, and destroy ideas because they didn't work - then how can I then turn around and say in such direct language what I think and more importantly, why? Matter of fact, the codename for V16 is "Phoenix" - very appropriate considering the 3 major epiphanies that happened along the way of writing the text for it, and the confluence of those events in my personal and professional life.

Scary enough, many of the principles that are being wrote into the writing of V16, evolved from my current p'ship which is 2/1 based. Yes, that's right - 2/1 based. Why so - because the world of North American bidding revolves around 2/1 GF; therefore I must tailor my general scheme around the pursuit of defeating this. I had to be willing to develop a 2/1 scheme (its name is Tangelo by the way) and actually play it often enough to be able to determine how to take its merits and detractors and improve upon it. From Tangelo, there's at least 9 different concepts/ideas that are used in KLPV16. As Tangelo evolves, so will KLP; it is a symbiotic relationship between the two.

It isn't chest pounding, ranting, or bloviating - it's the cumulative observation of error after error, time after time. It's bad enough that politics were brought into this discussion - those who know me well know exactly where I stand with things. I will defer my views for another time; this isn't the right forum. I will simply say that in exercising the choice to express myself, I have already defeated the naysayers and the critics, because they themselves refuse to adapt and question themselves. The courage to admit that idea A and treatment B doesn't work, is the provider of momentum to become better. I feel quite strongly, that I am a better partner simple due to my willingness to admit fault and to constantly probe, analyze, interpret, and resolve issues.

With that, I happily will play with my Lego toys, eat some Danish ham, and enjoy some Havarti cheese.

[luke warm]

it's one thing to say "I have a deep and profound distrust for anyone who claims such a defining moment (ie, "a sudden moment of transcendence that transforms one's world view")" and quite another to call those who claim such an ephiphany "Idiots all..."

experiential knowledge (insight, belief, whatever) can and often should be attacked on philosophical grounds, but imo that's the only type of detraction that can convincingly be made... it seems illogical to say that an experience is wrong based on only the fact that we haven't experienced (yet!!) whatever it is we disagree with

re: dwayne's list, he knows i disagree with him on some (but not all) of the conventions he posted.. but he's such a good partner to play with that i'm willing to overlook this character flaw

[joshs]

hrothgar, on Mar 1 2006, 11:57 AM, said:

Screed: “A long, very straight board used for striking off concrete”, alternatively “a long monotonous harangue” Here's one of my own (and I mean that in oh so many ways)

There are many individuals who experience a sea-change; a sudden moment of transcendence that transforms one's world view. Looking back two thousand years ago there is the parable of Saul on the road to Damascus. In more modern times, we have the examples of neo-conservatives like Irving Kristol or David Horowitz who whipsawed from Trotskism to the reactionary right. One can even look to President Bush. Here once again, the scales fell from his eyes, he cast down drugs and the bottle, and found God. Idiots all...

I have a deep and profound distrust for anyone who claims such a defining moment. In my experience, the individuals involved haven't changed at all. They may have transitioned from one superficial/absolutist world view to another, but their fundamental flaw - the need for simplicity and certainty – remains the same.

Knowledge brings the courage of conviction. I see nothing wrong with that. Equally significant, there is nothing wrong with learning from one's mistakes. Where I start to wonder is individuals who are capable of maintaining an absolute moral compass, even as their belief system transitions from one polar extreme to another. These types of changes are rooted in ignorance: It might be ignorance before the fact. Some times its ignorance after the fact. All too often, both apply.

These are but a few things that come to mind as I see the architect of Keylime precision start expounding about a wide variety of badly flawed conventions. On a more practical level, I'll simply note in passing that there is a difference between a random collection of conventions and a well integrated bidding system.

Full fathom five thy father lies:
Of his bones are coral made:
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.

One of my favorite all time philosophy articles was by Alasdair MacIntyre where he discusses Hamlet and Emma. In Hamlet, he claims, Hamlet starts with a flawed view of the world, faces an epistomological crisis when he finds out the truth about his fathers death, and slowly emerges with a more complete sopisticated world view that includes an understanding of how he came to his crisis and what he understood before and, most importantly an understanding of the limitations of his knowledge. In Emma, she has her crisis, and then has a new rosey world view at the end, oblivious that she once again may just have a partial understanding of the world.

It was MacIntyre's view, that science works best when it not only adjusts following a scientific revolution, but is able to retain an understanding of why people felt a different idea was true before and why our current understanding might be wrong or incomplete. So to with bidding theory and political philosophy...

How's that Richard?

[joshs]

keylime, on Mar 1 2006, 12:24 PM, said:

Scary enough, many of the principles that are being wrote into the writing of V16, evolved from my current p'ship which is 2/1 based. Yes, that's right - 2/1 based. Why so - because the world of North American bidding revolves around 2/1 GF; therefore I must tailor my general scheme around the pursuit of defeating this.

To quote or paraphrase Hegel, "The idea, within itself, lies the seeds of its own distruction." (Anyone know the exact quote, or its engish translation?)

[Al_U_Card]

joshs, on Mar 1 2006, 01:33 PM, said:

keylime, on Mar 1 2006, 12:24 PM, said:

Scary enough, many of the principles that are being wrote into the writing of V16, evolved from my current p'ship which is 2/1 based. Yes, that's right - 2/1 based. Why so - because the world of North American bidding revolves around 2/1 GF; therefore I must tailor my general scheme around the pursuit of defeating this.

To quote or paraphrase Hegel, "The idea, within itself, lies the seeds of its own distruction." (Anyone know the exact quote, or its engish translation?)

Wasn't it "The convention, and its intricasies, create the seeds for its own destruction."...;-)

[han]

I thought that this thread was very interesting before it turned into a political/phylosophical discussion, shall we go back to bridge?

Bridge players come from a wide spectrum of political and religious views. It should be possible to enjoy bridge even with people who think completely differently about things unrelated to bridge.

[joshs]

Hannie, on Mar 1 2006, 02:27 PM, said:

I thought that this thread was very interesting before it turned into a political/phylosophical discussion, shall we go back to bridge?

Bridge players come from a wide spectrum of political and religious views. It should be possible to enjoy bridge even with people who think completely differently about things unrelated to bridge.

I thought we were discussing bridge. We were discussing the evolution of bidding systems and conventions, and how changes (new conventions, changes in style, or whatever), while solving one problem often creates another, so you have to think about the system as a whole. Hence all new conventions should come from an understanding of how the entire bidding system is put together, and if this convention is consistant with the logic and philosophy of the system. If its not, it likely will create more problems than it solves...

At least thats what I thought this part of the thread was about...But I did enjoy the chance to quote Hegel.

[han]

I don't think that any of your comments were offensive to anybody Josh.

[mikeh]

This is developing into an interesting thread!

I find Dwayne's diatribe interesting in that I can empathize with much of what he says, while, in a sense, disagreeing with almost everything.

Thus, in the hands of a skilled player, in my view some of the methods he finds abhorrent are extremely powerful.

These include the various flavours of double and the proliferation of transfers.

Indeed, the transfer concept is probably the single most powerful tool available to the scientific player, and that includes relay! I am a relay player (or, more accurately, used to be). I love a well designed relay method and, when it comes up, it is great. But transfers are more flexible: I have never seen relays used after we begin our bidding with an overcall, as an example. Nor do relays come into play with a weak hand opposite a minimal opening with the opps interfering. Both of these situations can benefit from the use of transfers.

In a similar vein, developing the double as a multi-purpose tool, with a wide range of meaning depending upon often-subtle distinctions in the auction can be powerful in comparison to more simplistic schemes.

But there is considerable validity to Dwayne's comments if they are read (as I believe they were intended) as a lament that the average bridge player (maybe only the average forum reader/tournament player) adopts too many tools without first learning the basics of the game.

That usually results in several problems, two of the most prominent being:

1) the player stops (or at least slows) his or her development of judgement because his energies are mis-directed

2) the player ends up with an incoherent method: as in Dwayne's complaint that a combination of the (god-awful, imho) 'rule of 20' combined with 2/1 GF leads to many hopeless games.

I appreciate that my comments may suggest that I am an elistist with an over-developed sense of my own skill level However, I have found my enjoyment of the game immeasurably enhanced by the adoption of what would seem to many (certainly, I suspect, to Dwayne) to be very complex methods.

In fact, after playing a very high-tech method for several years, when that partnership ended I found my self sorely missing the availability of many of our methods.

As others have observed, Dwayne's complaints are not properly addressed to the methods he describes (other than the hideous rule of 20) but to the propensity of many players to want to use complex methods before mastering the fundamentals.

My own, biased and subjective, view is that many players become aware of deficiencies in their results and seize on a gadget to resolve it when the reality may be that the problem arose from an incorrect application of an otherwise sound basic approach: it was the user at fault, not the tool, and changing tools won't improve the overall result.

So where does that leave me? I advocate for most a straght-forward, natural based method, consistent with popular methods in use amongst ones peers (in some parts of the world, that might mean a precision like structure rather than a 'natural' one). Once that method has been fully internalized, add gadgets or treatments, with proper regard for how they affect existing usages. Always be aware, also, of the impact that increased memorization has on one's ability both to remember the methods and to play the cards to one's maximum ability: card play can be adversely affected by the mental demands of complex bidding methods... I speak from personal experience.

But for the skilled player, I strongly recommend complex methods, including just about everything that Dwayne dislikes

BTW, Dwayne, if your objection is really against the intrinsic merits of complex agreements, the strongest rebuttal I can think of is to look at the level and nature of agreements on display in the Bermuda Bowl and other World Championships.

Even the so-called natural pairs (such as Zia and Rosenberg) have a lot of the gadgets you attack.

[joshs]

Al_U_Card, on Mar 1 2006, 01:54 PM, said:

joshs, on Mar 1 2006, 01:33 PM, said:

keylime, on Mar 1 2006, 12:24 PM, said:

Scary enough, many of the principles that are being wrote into the writing of V16, evolved from my current p'ship which is 2/1 based. Yes, that's right - 2/1 based. Why so - because the world of North American bidding revolves around 2/1 GF; therefore I must tailor my general scheme around the pursuit of defeating this.

To quote or paraphrase Hegel, "The idea, within itself, lies the seeds of its own distruction." (Anyone know the exact quote, or its engish translation?)

Wasn't it "The convention, and its intricasies, create the seeds for its own destruction."...;-)

Yeah, I like your version

[keylime]

Mike,

You read my mind almost literally. Then again, I have been a fan of yours since I moved up to Nanaimo in 2004 (and remain still that I am back Stateside).

I actually like complex methods myself; when KLPV16 is released I'll definitely have many mention the detail and scope of thoughts as it relates to my preceptions of things. However, this has been a two year process and my primary goal is to make the complexity not only manageable but repeatable. I'll define it as my "convention to play ratio" (CPR). My declarer play under V14 and the early flavors of V15 was just horrible. I had a very high CPR and I literally had hands where I couldn't even count the number of winners I had. It has improved markedly with V16 and Tangelo; confidence for me in having that fluidity has parried fatigue when I get to match 7 or 8 of a swiss or the last 4 boards of a late round KO. You know a lot better than most, the importance of being able to be "automatic" in high level competition. I will say very directly, that with complex methods, that they require much practice, discussion, and application. Put it this way - I still have my thoughts from KLPV1.

My vein was the fact that so many on BBO and in real life have the "laundry list" of conventions that most of the time are misused, misunderstood, etc. I rather just play p's card and try to win at the table, so to speak. Some of my BEST games have been using both simple and complex methods.
My monologue was definitely from the view that the majority of players simply do not have enough grasp of the tools that they wish to use; instead of being implements to a greater good, they often become the bludgeons of punishment themselves.

[pbleighton]

"My monologue was definitely from the view that the majority of players simply do not have enough grasp of the tools that they wish to use; instead of being implements to a greater good, they often become the bludgeons of punishment themselves."

I don't agree with all of your first laundry list, and feel that it is overstated, but this revised version is a reasonable general point. I will add a specific agreement to your list, in conjunction with this revision:

Most club players (and I certainly include myself in this category) who play 2/1 would probably be better off playing modern Standard American (not SAYC ).

I realize that in the hands of experts and the better advanced players, in established partnerships with a lot of agreements, that 2/1 has better slam bidding than Standard. The tradeoffs are the loss of a natural 1M-1NT and inferior bidding with invitational hands, resulting in poorer game bidding on these hands.

If you don't get significantly better slam bidding with 2/1 because you don't have good agreements, you are better off playing Standard. Also, if you play mostly MPs, you are better off playing Standard.

The stuff frequently talked about in the Forum (Serious 3NT, etc.) isn't played by most 2/1 players I have seen. Even fast/slow arrival is only practiced regularly by (mostly) the strongest pairs.

I like fancy stuff in the right partnership - my Precision partnership has better slam bidding than my 2/1 partnership - but of course we put more effort into it.

Peter

[pbleighton]

"Disagree. I think that fast arrival is predominantly used by weaker players, and few strong (north american) players use it in 2/1 auctions."

LOL.

Depends on your definition of strong, I guess. My point was that the majority of club 2/1 bidders (who form the great majority of 2/1 players) don't even use slow arrival - they don't have any agreements, they have no methods to show or deny extra values.

I won't venture to aregue with you on what national caliber players and just below are doing. I will say that if club players in the northeast are using Serious 3NT, etc, they aren't alerting it, in the clubs or in the local tournaments.

Perhaps it's different in Texas.

Peter

[pbleighton]

"I agree that a majority of people don't use serious 3N. This is a seperate issue from fast arrival/slow arrival."

What do most club level 2/1 players that you know use to show or deny slam interest in a 2/1 auction? How many of them effectively have basically no agreements at all?

This was the point of my original post, not the actual merits of any particular method.

Peter

[joshs]

pbleighton, on Mar 1 2006, 04:59 PM, said:

"My monologue was definitely from the view that the majority of players simply do not have enough grasp of the tools that they wish to use; instead of being implements to a greater good, they often become the bludgeons of punishment themselves."

I don't agree with all of your first laundry list, and feel that it is overstated, but this revised version is a reasonable general point.  I will add a specific agreement to your list, in conjunction with this revision:

Most club players (and I certainly include myself in this category) who play 2/1 would probably be better off playing modern Standard American (not SAYC ).

I realize that in the hands of experts and the better advanced players, in established partnerships with a lot of agreements, that 2/1 has better slam bidding than Standard.  The tradeoffs are the loss of a natural 1M-1NT and inferior bidding with invitational hands, resulting in poorer game bidding on these hands.

If you don't get significantly better slam bidding with 2/1 because you don't have good agreements, you are better off playing Standard.  Also, if you play mostly MPs, you are better off playing Standard.

The stuff frequently talked about in the Forum (Serious 3NT, etc.) isn't played by most 2/1 players I have seen.  Even fast/slow arrival is only practiced regularly by (mostly) the strongest pairs.

I like fancy stuff in the right partnership - my Precision partnership has better slam bidding than my 2/1 partnership - but of course we put more effort into it.

Peter

I do find it interesting how many intermediate players who only play MPs take up 2/1.

In comparing 2/1 to SA:
A. 2/1 is much better at choice of game auctions since you don't have to jump around so much. This is very important at all forms of scoring.
B. 2/1 is better at slam bidding, if you have the machinery to make up for the fact that no one is jumping around to show extra strength. Often, playing SA you go down in a game, when slam was making in another strain. You do, sometime find a slam in SA that you miss in 2/1 because responder was able to make a bid on his 10-11 HCP hand and then find a big fit.
C. SA is much better at deciding if you belong in game, since responder can start describing his 10-11 HCP hands earlier than they can in 2/1. When the auction goes 1M-1N(forcing)-2Y-3M do you ever know for sure if you should be bidding game with your 13-14 HCP hand? In IMPS, this doesn't matter that much. You just bid game, and if it turns out to be a 35% game instead of a 45% game, you lose some imps when it goes down (you would rather be right, but any bidding system has some limitations and the limitation of 2/1 is you have to guess on these auctions without knowing how good the hands fit). In MPS, the swing from +140 to -50 is a bit more severe.

Note: Some conventions (Serious 3N, etc) hurt you in A in order to help you in B if you are not careful about when it applies....

In General, and this should be obvious, SA is better when responder holds an 10-11 point hand, it doesn't matter all that much when responder holds 6-9 points (Statistical studies have found that the Forcing NT actually works better than a non-forcing or semi-forcing NT on these hands, ruffly breaking even when you play a 5-2 fit instead of 1N) and 2/1 is better when responder has 12+. So the question is:
what are the relative frequencies of these?
what is the cost of making the wrong decision at the given form of scoring for each of these?

Anyway, just my usual random babbling...


Personally, I just think 2/1 is easier than SA, since its much clearer which auctions are forcing and which are not.

[pbleighton]

"Personally, I just think 2/1 is easier than SA, since its much clearer which auctions are forcing and which are not."

For me, the "easy" test is a wash - the 2/1 auctions are easier, the 1NT forcing with invitational hands are harder.

I actually don't have anything againt 2/1 - I play it in one partnership and have a good time. What I find amusing is the attitude of so many club players that 2/1 is clearly superior to Standard, which is just baby bidding

Peter