[TimG]

joshs, on May 5 2006, 06:44 PM, said:

A good way of giving a method exposure is to first let it be played for longer matches (especially swiss teams) and then as people become "less scared of it" allow it for pairs movements. I expect this to be a natural process, as long as methods are approved for swiss teams. If things are only allowed only in the top flights of KO's they will never get enough exposure for people in the rank and file to be able to say "oh x-fer opening bids, lets play the suggested defense" and move on in pairs movements.

The 1♥ transfer opening (which is otherwise equal to a Standard American 1♠ opening bid) was approved for segments of 12 boards or more. A typical Swiss match at a New England Regional is either 7 or 9 boards. I do agree with you that a step-wise process is a good idea. I also agree with you that approving the method for segments of 12 boards or more severely limits the opportunities to put it into practice.

I will also note that the approved defense requires about two and a half pages when the defense could likely be summarized in 3-4 sentences. But, if you sit down against a pair, hand them the defense and say (honestly) all you really need to know is ... they will likely be skeptical and want to browse through the whole thing. Some pairs will be overwhelmed by the length and be sure you're trying to pull something over on them or that you're just out to confuse them.

[JanM]

TimG, on May 5 2006, 05:49 PM, said:

The arguement that these methods are unfamiliar and will take more time for the opponents to cope with strikes me as flawed for a couple of reasons.  First, players are already faced with a number of transfer methods: over NT openings (weak and strong) and after overcalls come to mind quickly.  Transfers are not unfamiliar to any but the most novice of players.  Yes, these transfers are a bit different, but it should not be a difficult thing for a pair to adapt to another transfer method, especially when they can refer to the opponents' cheat sheet.

In most auctions in which we're comfortable with transfers, the side making the transfer bid has the majority of the values (a transfer response to a weak NT would sometimes be an exception). In the MOSCITO case, since the opening bid is quite limited, there really isn't an inference that they have most of the values. Also, in most other transfer auctions, the transfer shows more than a 4 card suit. So I think you're wrong that there isn't a significant difference between the MOSCITO transfer openings and other transfers.

"It seems to me that it shouldn't really be too hard to come up with some system regulations based upon the combination of known and unknown suits and whether the suit bid is one of the known suits and whether the method is constructive of obstructive. (I do realize there will probably have to be some sort of arbitrary evaluation technique used for this determination.) It also seems to me that it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with generic defenses which would be considered adequate for the average player (in the events where the methods are permitted) based upon those basic combinations.

But, maybe I'm fooling myself. Maybe there should be a new thread where this community undertakes an effort at such classifications."

I think it's much harder than you think to come up with system regulations that work and are reasonably simple. Neither ACBL nor WBF has managed (it would take another thread as long as this one to cover the flaws in the WBF policies, but trust me, in some ways it's better than ACBL's in some ways it's worse, but it is far from either ideal or simple). I'd love to see a group like this work on it, though - I'm sure that no one individual can do it, and I'm afraid that the C&C committee, most of whose members somehow understand our existing convention charts, and which has a lot of other stuff on its plate, isn't going to throw out what we have and start from scratch.

If you want a "simple" project to start with , please take a look at the USBF General Conditions of Contest Systems sections and help me do better there.

[JanM]

TimG, on May 5 2006, 08:36 PM, said:

The 1♥ transfer opening (which is otherwise equal to a Standard American 1♠ opening bid) was approved for segments of 12 boards or more.  A typical Swiss match at a New England Regional is either 7 or 9 boards.  I do agree with you that a step-wise process is a good idea.  I also agree with you that approving the method for segments of 12 boards or more severely limits the opportunities to put it into practice.

But most Regional Knockout matches do have segments of 12 boards - that's probably why 12 boards (instead of 16) was chosen. It seems to me as if there are at least as many Regional KOs as Regional Swisses (there seems to be a KO starting every day). So there should be adequate opportunities for people to play things that are approved for 12 board segments. And usually the people who choose to play in the KOs are the ones who will be able to deal with new methods and won't be unhappy that they're allowed.

[pbleighton]

"If you want a "simple" project to start with , please take a look at the USBF General Conditions of Contest Systems sections and help me do better there."

Here's a modest proposal, which would make a lot of us pretty happy: add to permitted bids (openings and responses):

"Any bid which shows at least four cards in a known suit, and at least 10 hcp for an opening bid, and at least 6 hcp for a response"

This, or something like it, was suggested by Adam in another thread. I understand (though disagree very strongly with) the sentiment among ACBL members to outlaw unusual preempts, or unusual super light one bids. Constructive bidding is another matter. Using a 10 hcp floor (or rule of 19, if you choose, though the ABCL seems to be more comfortable with hcp) seems to be a good compromise - the alert requirements use 10-21 as their "no alert" range for one bids. I don't think that most members would have much of a problem with this.

On defenses to transfer openings, given the above, I really don't see why double = stolen bid, and bidding the suit shown = takeout wouldn't work. The defenders have a very significant and useful extra bid at their disposal. Other things being equal, I would rather play against transfer openings than natural openings. Now, they are not equal, because the opening side has an extra bid too. But if you keep the prohibition against relay systems in the GCC, then bidding the suit shown shows either:
1. a natural trump raise of some sort, which is easy enough to deal with, or
2. an artificial game forcing (though non-relay) bid, which is very easy to deal with (if you are inclined to jump overcall in the sandwich seat, you would rather do it when only one of the opponents has shown her shape), or
3. a transfer response, which again is not so tough - you have a lead directing double at your disposal. BTW, while a transfer after a strong NT tends to imply the opps have the balance of power, a transfer over weak/mini NT (which I play) does not.

Peter

[JanM]

pbleighton, on May 6 2006, 06:59 AM, said:

add to permitted bids (openings and responses):

"Any bid which shows at least four cards in a known suit, and at least 10 hcp for an opening bid, and at least 6 hcp for a response"

Using a 10 hcp floor (or rule of 19, if you choose, though the ABCL seems to be more comfortable with hcp) seems to be a good compromise - the alert requirements use 10-21 as their "no alert" range for one bids.  I don't think that most members would have much of a problem with this.

I'm afraid you misunderstood me, or perhaps I misunderstood Tim. I'm not asking for suggestions of new "grafts" onto the confusing tree of convention regulation, but rather for a better way to define what is allowed and what is not. The USBF context is simpler because there is no need to deal with what is now labeled GCC. USBF events have Round Robin phases (which sometimes have quite short matches, sometimes fairly long ones) and KO phases, where the Super Chart is allowed. The bids you want allowed are allowed in the KO phases, which are the major part of the events. What I'd like to see is a clear, simple and appropriate listing of what bids should (or should not) be allowed in both phases.

"On defenses to transfer openings, given the above, I really don't see why double = stolen bid, and bidding the suit shown = takeout wouldn't work. "

But that's not enough, at least for people who aren't familiar with this method. What about:
(1♦(H))-DBL(D)-(RDBL)-?? Certainly you'd want to know what RDBL means, wouldn't you? Possibly different pairs would give it different meanings. So a "generic" defense to everyone's transfer openings isn't going to cover everyone.

And, perhaps more basic, you haven't suggested how we define which bids require advance notification and a recommended defense. I raised the point about Polish Club needing advance submission for Verona and the fact that I'd be very surprised if it happened, in part because it's a good example of how complex the regulation of systems can be and how important your basic definitions are.

I guess I should create a signature line making it clear that "these views are the opinions of the individual, not the organization"

[hrothgar]

JanM, on May 6 2006, 07:16 PM, said:

I'm afraid you misunderstood me, or perhaps I misunderstood Tim. I'm not asking for suggestions of new "grafts" onto the confusing tree of convention regulation, but rather for a better way to define what is allowed and what is not. The USBF context is simpler because there is no need to deal with what is now labeled GCC. USBF events have Round Robin phases (which sometimes have quite short matches, sometimes fairly long ones) and KO phases, where the Super Chart is allowed. The bids you want allowed are allowed in the KO phases, which are the major part of the events. What I'd like to see is a clear, simple and appropriate listing of what bids should (or should not) be allowed in both phases.

Here is a remarkably simple / boring suggestion:

The USBF events are designed to select the US teams for events like the World Championships.

In my humble opinion, it would make sense to use the same Convention Licensing specifications that will be used in the Championship in question. After all, your goal should be to select players who will do well that event and who have invested the time necessary to cope with the methods that they will be encountering.

[uday]

Richard, that makes excellent sense (but i don't know what I'm talking about).

[fred]

uday, on May 6 2006, 04:55 PM, said:

Richard, that makes excellent sense (but i don't know what I'm talking about).

One possible argument against this suggestion:

If the USBF believes that the WBF systems policy allows systems or conventions that would randomize the outcome of the trials, then allowing such systems or conventions in the trials would be contrary to the purpose of the trials:

To select the team that rates to do best in the World Championships.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

fred, on May 6 2006, 08:12 PM, said:

If the USBF believes that the WBF systems policy allows systems or conventions that would randomize the outcome of the trials, then allowing such systems or conventions in the trials would be contrary to the purpose of the trials:

To select the team that rates to do best in the World Championships.

As I've noted in the past, this entire process can be modelled as a statistical sampling problem. (I find this sort of thing useful because it formalizes the problem).

In any case, if your goal is to select the "best" team, you have a couple choices:

1. Use an event format that protects against the rub of the green. Long head to head competitions are the best format to identify the best team playing. Adopting methods with a low expected value / high variance works in short events. It runs into BIG problems if you have a reasonable number of samples.

2. Don't use a trial based system to select your teams. Ultimately, your complaint boils down to the fact that the team that you think is best might not win the event. If you know the best team why bother playing a match. Alternatively, if there are teams that aren't good to represent the country, don't let them play.

(Personally, I think that option 1 is a lot better. It certainly sidesteps a lot of political problems. I have very little sympathy for players who complain that this format is flawed becase they might only get to play in one match. After all, the goal is to select the team that rates to do best in the World Championships, not to ensure a "fun" weekend)

As a final note: One could make the argument that teams from the USBF don't perform as well as they might in World Championships because they compete in a very sheltered environment where they don't get to practice against the methods in widespread use throughput the rest of the world. I agree that permitting a broader range of methods might increase the variance in results. With this said and done, it might also provide some useful practice...

[fred]

hrothgar, on May 6 2006, 06:40 PM, said:

As a final note:  One could make the argument that teams from the USBF don't perform as well as they might in World Championships because they compete in a very sheltered environment where they don't get to practice against the methods in widespread use throughput the rest of the world.  I agree that permitting a broader range of methods might increase the variance in results.  With this said and done, it might also provide some useful practice...

One could also compare the results of USA (serious system restrictions) and Australia (few systems restrictions) and conclude the relatively "mainstream" methods are much more effective than "unusual" methods.

If that comparison is not fair due to population size and the professional bridge factors, compare Canada (serious systems restrictions) and Australia. I believe that a previous post of yours stated that Canada, despite having a 30+% bigger population than Australia, has about half as many bridge players.

Canadians have won a lot of medals at the world level during the past 35 years. Australian medals during this period have been few and far between (I can't remember any off the top of my head).

Of course systems may have nothing to do with this...

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Cascade]

There is another significant advantage that the USA have over other countries.

That is that they are the only country that sends two teams to the world championships. This has both direct and indirect benefits. The direct benefit is that they have a higher probability of winning medals. The indirect benefit is that more of their players are given experience playing in these events.

[Cascade]

joshs, on May 6 2006, 06:15 AM, said:

It may interest people to know that over the 1D and 1H x-fer opening bid (showing 4+ hearts and 4+ spades) the best uses for x and the 1 level "cue bid" were
a. x=natural, e/g the suit xed and the cue-bid is the takeout x
b. x=the takeout x, and the cue-bid = sound hand with 5+ cards in opener's suit!

I too find this interesting.

We play against these things relatively often in New Zealand and Australia.

b/ is my preferred defense to these openings.

In fact we have a meta-defense that if the opponents play any method (opening or overcall) that shows 4+ suits and they may have a longer suit we can always bid their potential four-card suit naturally. I think this works well.

[Sigi_BC84]

JanM, on May 6 2006, 05:16 PM, said:

(1♦(H))-DBL(D)-(RDBL)-?? Certainly you'd want to know what RDBL means, wouldn't you? Possibly different pairs would give it different meanings. So a "generic" defense to everyone's transfer openings isn't going to cover everyone.

What about (1♥[♥])-Dbl-(Rdbl)-?? if "Rdbl" was a transfer to, say, ♣ (in a 2/1 context)? That is unfamiliar and opps won't be prepared to it but I guess (?) it is allowed without having an suggested defense. The kind of problem for the defender that you mentioned arises everytime if the opponents do anything that is not widely perceived as "standard" (not only when the opening was unusual).

To me it seems like you open Pandora's Box if you require suggested defenses multiple levels into the bidding tree.

--Sigi

[JanM]

hrothgar, on May 6 2006, 11:42 AM, said:

Here is a remarkably simple / boring suggestion:

The USBF events are designed to select the US teams for events like the World Championships.

In my humble opinion, it would make sense to use the same Convention Licensing specifications that will be used in the Championship in question.  After all, your goal should be to select players who will do well that event and who have invested the time necessary to cope with the methods that they will be encountering.

We did in fact use that approach (including requiring WBF convention cards) for a while in the USWBC, which selects our women's teams. When I proposed it for the USBC, the ITT Committee, which determines the conditions for that event, decided that there were two purposes for the event - to select our team and also to have a high quality event that people would enjoy playing in. In order to meet the second purpose, the committee chose to limit bidding methods to those that are allowed in ACBL events. The WITT committee then agreed to change the rules for their event so that we would have consistent conditions of contest for both.

I should add that saying "we'll use the WBF rules" wouldn't actually solve all problems - some of those rules are not easy to interpret either. I just had one of our Junior pairs ask whether 3♠ showing a gambling 3NT, which they defined as AKQxxxx in one of the minors, was Brown Sticker. I'm comfortable that it's not, because it's not "weak" but that was far from clear to them.

[JanM]

hrothgar, on May 6 2006, 01:40 PM, said:

As a final note:  One could make the argument that teams from the USBF don't perform as well as they might in World Championships because

Would you like to make a side bet on the Rosenblum? I'll take the USBF teams against the rest of the field (of course, since the Rosenblum is now transnational, that would be tricky).

But seriously, the US has a better record in the Rosenblum (where we are not limited in the number of teams that can enter) than any other country or probably all the rest put together. And our record isn't bad in the other events.

I think we do an excellent job of selecting our teams, using an open Trials with long matches. I'd like to do a better job of describing what systems are allowed and which ones need advance disclosure and recommended defenses, but not because I think we're doing anything wrong in terms of selecting the best teams.

[JanM]

Cascade, on May 6 2006, 02:31 PM, said:

There is another significant advantage that the USA have over other countries.

That is that they are the only country that sends two teams to the world championships. This has both direct and indirect benefits. The direct benefit is that they have a higher probability of winning medals. The indirect benefit is that more of their players are given experience playing in these events.

Wait a moment!! The US is allowed two teams in the Bermuda Bowl. Europe (with a population, even a bridge population, less than the US - if that's wrong, at least I'm sure the European bridge population isn't significantly greater than that of the US) is allowed 7 or maybe it's 8 or 9 teams. In the Olympiad, each country gets one team. The Rosenblum is open. In fact, one of the disadvantages US players face is the fact that there are so many good teams in the US that very few of them have the opportunity to compete in World Championships. Move the tenth best team in the US to Monaco (a country I just chose at random), and it would probably get to play in the World Championships every year.

[Cascade]

JanM, on May 7 2006, 11:26 AM, said:

Cascade, on May 6 2006, 02:31 PM, said:

There is another significant advantage that the USA have over other countries.

That is that they are the only country that sends two teams to the world championships.  This has both direct and indirect benefits.  The direct benefit is that they have a higher probability of winning medals.  The indirect benefit is that more of their players are given experience playing in these events.

Wait a moment!! The US is allowed two teams in the Bermuda Bowl. Europe (with a population, even a bridge population, less than the US - if that's wrong, at least I'm sure the European bridge population isn't significantly greater than that of the US) is allowed 7 or maybe it's 8 or 9 teams. In the Olympiad, each country gets one team. The Rosenblum is open. In fact, one of the disadvantages US players face is the fact that there are so many good teams in the US that very few of them have the opportunity to compete in World Championships. Move the tenth best team in the US to Monaco (a country I just chose at random), and it would probably get to play in the World Championships every year.

Maybe but I cannot think of another team sport where one country gets to send two teams and countries get to send at most one team.

I am not talking about individuals but about countries. The fact that USA gets two teams significantly increases their chance of winning.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on May 7 2006, 02:26 AM, said:

Wait a moment!! The US is allowed two teams in the Bermuda Bowl. Europe (with a population, even a bridge population, less than the US - if that's wrong, at least I'm sure the European bridge population isn't significantly greater than that of the US) is allowed 7 or maybe it's 8 or 9 teams.

As noted earlier in this thread

United States
Population: 295734134
ACBL membership: 140272

Percentage: 0.00047432

European Union
Population: 456953258
Total Membership in WBF recognized associations: 387684

Percentage: 0.00084841

[MickyB]

JanM, on May 6 2006, 11:11 PM, said:

I should add that saying "we'll use the WBF rules" wouldn't actually solve all problems - some of those rules are not easy to interpret either. I just had one of our Junior pairs ask whether 3♠ showing a gambling 3NT, which they defined as AKQxxxx in one of the minors, was Brown Sticker. I'm comfortable that it's not, because it's not "weak" but that was far from clear to them.

The WBF systems policy defines weak as

"high card strength below that of an average hand"

So it seems to be that it is brown sticker unless it promises another high card somewhere

[TimG]

JanM, on May 5 2006, 11:25 PM, said:

But most Regional Knockout matches do have segments of 12 boards - that's probably why 12 boards (instead of 16) was chosen. It seems to me as if there are at least as many Regional KOs as Regional Swisses (there seems to be a KO starting every day). So there should be adequate opportunities for people to play things that are approved for 12 board segments. And usually the people who choose to play in the KOs are the ones who will be able to deal with new methods and won't be unhappy that they're allowed.

Not all brackets of a regional KO are mid-chart. (Which ones are varies from distirct to district.) And, while a team can always play in the Flight A Swiss, they cannot always play in the top bracket of a KO.