[NickRW]

Cascade, on Nov 12 2008, 08:24 PM, said:

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.

Yeah, but Wayne, you look reasonably young in your pic. It seems that most of the money in Rugby Union is in England these days - so if your experience is at all recent, then I can understand what you say. There are all sorts of Kiwis and Argentinians and and Fijians etc who have been playing over here. I'm talking more about what was going on 20 or so years ago around the time when the Rugby World Cup came into existence. It was painfully obvious that, in general, the Northern Hemisphere teams were not competitive and their lack of polishedness at the basic skills was painful to watch (or it was painful for me - maybe if you're from down under watching opponents fumble so much was a good laugh!)

Nick

[Cascade]

NickRW, on Nov 13 2008, 10:13 AM, said:

Cascade, on Nov 12 2008, 08:24 PM, said:

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.

Yeah, but Wayne, you look reasonably young in your pic. It seems that most of the money in Rugby Union is in England these days - so if your experience is at all recent, then I can understand what you say. There are all sorts of Kiwis and Argentinians and and Fijians etc who have been playing over here. I'm talking more about what was going on 20 or so years ago around the time when the Rugby World Cup came into existence. It was painfully obvious that, in general, the Northern Hemisphere teams were not competitive and their lack of polishedness at the basic skills was painful to watch (or it was painful for me - maybe if you're from down under watching opponents fumble so much was a good laugh!)

Nick

Thanks for the compliment - i think the pic is about two years old - I am 45.

I played Senior Rugby in Christchurch in 1986!!!

My teammate was just an ordinary club level player - he never represented Canterbury or anything like that as far as I am aware. We weren't getting paid at this level in NZ at that time. My teammate was getting match fees for playing club rugby in England I think in the 85-86 season (maybe a year earlier - I left Christchurch in 1987 so it wasn't later).

There was talk at the time that some of the better players were getting under the table payments. At that time All Blacks were turning out for their clubs in the weekly competition - there were at least a dozen (maybe 20) current (at that time) or former All Blacks playing in the Christchurch Senior Competition. I never saw any direct evidence of payments but the rumours were rife - we didn't have any All Blacks in my club side while I was playing. There was one playing at our club a year or two earlier and another recently retired was my assistant coach when I was playing in the Under 21 grade.

[matmat]

so if both teams have pairs playing HUMs, who gets seating rights?

[awm]

Two different questions here:

Should BSC/HUMs be restricted in general? We have discussed this topic in the forums many times before. It is probably not interesting to hear the same opinions stated by the same people yet again.

Given that BSC/HUMs are allowed but carry "seeding rights" penalties, should we discourage members of our national team from playing BSC/HUMs? I think the answer here is no. We have heard from many top-level players and coaches (for example Fred Gitelman and Jan Martel) indicating that preparing for these methods is very painful and time-consuming. Many of the less elite nations may not have the time/money/coaching to adequately prepare. And in many cases BSC/HUMs help increase the variance of the result (although it is certainly possible to play a high variance system without these methods). All of these things point to a substantial advantage, particularly for a weaker team that does not "rate" to do very well in the event. Most teams for Bermuda Bowl, European Championships, etc. include at least two strong pairs. So "seeding rights" are not likely to make a huge difference in these matches. It is not enough to compensate for the advantages of (well-designed) BSC/HUMs.

[JanM]

Gerben42, on Nov 12 2008, 06:48 AM, said:

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.

In general, I don't think seating rights are a big deal - I've seen the same two pairs play back to back sessions where one pair dominates the first session and the other pair the second (this is assuming the pairs are pretty even).

But in the case of HUM & to some extent BSC, seating rights make a big difference. There are some excellent players who just don't do well against unusual methods. Some who can't be bothered to refer to their written defenses but just guess at what bids mean. Some who just get irritated at "oddness." And before you tell me that no "expert" would do that, give it a moment's thought.

Not all experts are the same. Some are "scientists," some aren't. Being able to play the pair that's "good" against artificiality against the other team's pair that's playing HUM or lots of BSCs is definitely an advantage. Because by and large, HUM and BSC methods gain only because of their unfamiliarity - a well-prepared pair that's comfortable against a HUM system will almost certainly come out ahead over the long term. A pair that "hates" unusual methods may not, even though they are better players than the HUMmers.

In response to "so if both teams have pairs playing HUMs, who gets seating rights?"

If two teams both have HUM pairs, seating rights revert to normal. Also if two teams have pairs playing more than 2 BSCs (at least that was so at the latest WBF event where HUMs and BSCs were allowed):

WBF Supplementary Conditions of Contest for Shanghai:

§17.8 Seating Rights for Pairs using Brown Sticker Conventions
Teams will be awarded seating rights if they are playing against a pair or pairs
using two or more BS Conventions but not if both teams have a pair using 2 BS
Conventions.

§17.11
When a team that includes a pair using a HUM System (whether or not such pair
will play) is opposing a team that has no such pair, the HUM System team will
always be the Visiting Team. No special seating rights or line-up restrictions shall
apply when two teams containing pairs using HUM Systems (regardless of line-
up) oppose one another.

[NickRW]

First off, Wayne, I bow to your greater experience.

awm, on Nov 12 2008, 10:15 PM, said:

Should BSC/HUMs be restricted in general? We have discussed this topic in the forums many times before. It is probably not interesting to hear the same opinions stated by the same people yet again.

I dare say it may be uninteresting for some. Personally, I am in favour, in principle at least (though the detail often leaves a lot to be desired), of whatever restrictions the authorities think appropriate for the lower levels of competition. However, for world class events, I cannot see the justification for restrictions. You can argue as eloquently as you like about why restrictions at that level are a good idea - to my mind such arguments are completely irrelevant - I just dont see how anyone can say "we won the world championship of bridge" with any pride at all when what you actually won was a neutered version. So it is time consuming to prepare defences - tough luck.

Nick

[mycroft]

I wouldn't necessarily say that a well-designed HUM is going to be automatically down against well-prepared opponents over a non-HUM system - I can't really see where a well-designed "Precision" system that inverts the meaning of pass and 1C could be much worse than normal, for instance.

I do agree that a well-designed HUM could very easily be system-neutral (at least within standard system-choice error) against well-prepared opponents over a non-HUM system. Of course, that's one of the things playing against well-prepared opponents over long games should be able to test.

Also, of course, if the pair learning the Anti-HUM defence is better player than their opponents, system-neutral means that they're still likely to win - and that's what we want.

I feel uncomfortable about this "loss of seating rights, even when the HUM pair isn't in" - I'd prefer "if you're playing a HUM, the non-HUM-playing opposition may designate a pair to play against the HUM whenever that pair plays. Other than that, normal seeding rights applies". I see every reason why the HUM team shouldn't get to cherry-pick their system against the most-bamboozlable opponent, and some reason why everybody should have to go to the trouble of learning the anti-HUM defence, but why penalize the rest of the team?

[Gerben42]

Quote

In general, I don't think seating rights are a big deal - I've seen the same two pairs play back to back sessions where one pair dominates the first session and the other pair the second (this is assuming the pairs are pretty even).

Perhaps not on the international level. But where I'm playing, I am pretty sure I've won some matches because of the seating rights in the 2nd half.

[dake50]

Are they worth it? I assumed you would have a rant/ blog about the winning-ness of HUM. Surely a cost/ payoff balance sheet can/ should be developed for any treatment. SOMETHING more than Expert1, 2, etc. play this as justification (that's a logical non-sequitor: ad populum). I hunger for those types of presentation.

[kenrexford]

Random thoughts, but whatever:

1. I find it wonderful that we love a game where the top players in the world can be frazzled by methods that are designed by competitors and plausible enough to enable the innovators to earn the right to frazzle. That speaks volumes about the intrinsic wonder of this game.

2. I find it rather humorous for people who spend their every waking hour playing, discussing, practicing, writing, etc., about bridge as a profession to be protected by rules like these. I understand the rules for the rest of us. But,. come on, a lot of this is dealing with WBF competitions, right? I can just imagine a football team (American) complaining that a hurry-up offense is too difficult for them to handle with their own defense and that they would like, therefore, to tell the other team which receivers to put on which side of the field.

3. It also seems to me that with very long matches, a "filing deadline" for conventional treatments makes a lot of sense and should protect the opposition. I cannot imagine sufficient prior notice being insufficient.

4. That said, I can see how high variance approaches might be a very bad idea. It does make some sense, IMO, to somehow eliminate the use of what could reasonably be ascertained to be highly variant systems. Sure, that would be fuzzy. Fuzzy leads to some unsound decisions and some biased decisions that are unfair, in some ways. But, ultimate fairness is somewhat achieved if the playing field is equally unfair.

[paulg]

kenrexford, on Nov 15 2008, 05:30 AM, said:

2.  I find it rather humorous for people who spend their every waking hour playing, discussing, practicing, writing, etc., about bridge as a profession to be protected by rules like these.  I understand the rules for the rest of us.  But,. come on, a lot of this is dealing with WBF competitions, right?  I can just imagine a football team (American) complaining that a hurry-up offense is too difficult for them to handle with their own defense and that they would like, therefore, to tell the other team which receivers to put on which side of the field.

3.  It also seems to me that with very long matches, a "filing deadline" for conventional treatments makes a lot of sense and should protect the opposition.  I cannot imagine sufficient prior notice being insufficient.

At the European Championships the Women played a complete round robin, 24 matches of 20 boards. All systems had to be filed one month before the tournament. Most teams had three system cards but a handful had four, so quite a lot of work to do.

It was worse in the Open. There were 38 teams of whom you would play 19 in a round robin, but the draw for the groups happened just two weeks before the event. The top 9 from each group qualified for the 'final', another round robin. So, essentially, you had to analyse all of the teams.

This may be okay for the professional teams but it's a lot of work for the smaller countries.

I'm very happy to see HUM/BSC at this level but it makes the preparation more difficult.

But, as I've said previously, there were no HUMs and BSCs are declining. I believe that this is because there is nowhere to practise playing them, given that most countries have banned them in their local competitions.

[the hog]

cardsharp, on Nov 15 2008, 04:04 PM, said:

This may be okay for the professional teams but it's a lot of work for the smaller countries.

I'm very happy to see HUM/BSC at this level but it makes the preparation more difficult.

But, as I've said previously, there were no HUMs and BSCs are declining. I believe that this is because there is nowhere to practise playing them, given that most countries have banned them in their local competitions.

A couple of points: if you play in a major competition then you should o your preparation. I agree with Ken that there should be no protection at thias level.

I certainly agree that the reason you give is why HUMs and BSC are declining. We used to play a strong pass system but got jacked off when we could only play it a couple of times a year. BSCs otoh are frequent in Oz.

[Trinidad]

kenrexford, on Nov 15 2008, 12:30 AM, said:

Random thoughts, but whatever:
4.  That said, I can see how high variance approaches might be a very bad idea.  It does make some sense, IMO, to somehow eliminate the use of what could reasonably be ascertained to be highly variant systems.  Sure, that would be fuzzy.  Fuzzy leads to some unsound decisions and some biased decisions that are unfair, in some ways.  But, ultimate fairness is somewhat achieved if the playing field is equally unfair.

The problem with banning a 'high variance' approach (if you are really talking about high variance and not about HUMs) is that the variance is determined by the difference between the high variance system and the rest of the field.

Say that I have a pair tournament where everyone is playing Regress (or Magic Diamond for that matter) except for one pair that is playing middle of the road 2/1 GF. Then there is no doubt about it that the 2/1 GF pair is causing the high variance. Supporting the ban of a high variance approach is nothing else but supporting the banning of 'minority methods that are rather different from the majority'.

Now, let's get back to the teams format. We have the match between Poland and the USA. The Poles have a team that only plays Polish club. The Americans play 2/1 GF. Which method causes the high variance? If you think about it, you will realize that this is a complete nonsense question. After all, the difference between (Polish club and 2/1 GF) is equal to the difference between (2/1 GF and Polish club).

In short: There is basically no such thing as a 'high variance method' *. There are methods that lead to a high variance, against other, specified methods. Carotti is a high variance method against 2/1 GF. However, it is a small variance method against Magic Diamond (and an even smaller variance method against Carotti).

* The only methods that are inherently high variance are methods with a lot of inherent randomness. That means that the 'system' uses a lot of random bids, e.g. psyches or situations where the system is ill defined. (That is the reason why I put 'system' in quotation marks. We are talking about methods that basically have a lack of system.) Seen in that light, Acol is probably one of the highest variance methods in the world. The variance in a match with four Acol pairs will be much higher than the variance in a match with four pairs playing Regres. But I doubt that most people will think of Acol (or SAYC) when they are referring to high variance methods.

Rik

[NickRW]

Trinidad, on Nov 16 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

Seen in that light, Acol is probably one of the highest variance methods in the world. The variance in a match with four Acol pairs will be much higher than the variance in a match with four pairs playing Regres.

You were doing so well. You are obviously correct.

I do take slight exception to this bit about Acol. Acol as played in clubs certainly is high variance - largely because there are so many versions of it that pass under that name*. However a pair playing essentially Acol style who have thoroughly discussed their common sequences are certainly not random. And, if they were in a field of similar players with similar ideas, then there would be no more variance in that field than any other homogenous field.

Nick

* People think "Acol" means 4 card majors and weak NT. In reality it mainly means limit style responses and rebids with a lot of non forcing sequences. People play what they call "Acol" with 5 card majors (both the 5533 and 5542 type) - also with just 5 card spades. I've even seen 5 card majors with 5 card diamonds. And of those who use 4 card majors some open 4 card suits up the line and some don't. Some play strong NT, or 14-16NT or variable NT and, of course, mini NT too 1st/2nd NV. The opening 2 bids are also quite variable - strong twos, Benji style, SA style, Multi and other variations sometimes seen. These all get called "Acol".

[awm]

There's a difference between "methods which go against the field" and "methods which are high variance."

I'd define "high variance methods" as methods which often lead to a big penalty being obtained (one way or another) -- i.e. methods which would have high variance results if the other table always played at "absolute par."

Examples are things like very aggressive preempts, FERT bids above the level of 1m, non-forcing preempts that may or may not show the suit named, and so forth. While it's true that if everyone plays a forcing pass with all 2-level bids showing 0-7 with 4+ in the suit you will see a lot of push results, there will also be a lot of boards where some ridiculous contract is played and you will see a huge number of swings when compared to "par" results (hands where either side missed game because of a crazy preempt, hands where the crazy preempt just went down a bunch doubled or undoubled, hands where people had to overcall at the two-level and went for a number, etc).

EHAA is a high-variance method (no forcing bid, very wide ranging preempts mean a lot of "mistakes" on both sides). Most forcing pass systems are actually not particularly high-variance methods (although if you want to play a 2♣ FERT, it's probably high variance).

[hrothgar]

Trinidad, on Nov 16 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

The problem with banning a 'high variance' approach (if you are really talking about high variance and not about HUMs) is that the variance is determined by the difference between the high variance system and the rest of the field.

Hi Rik

For the most part, I agree with your assessment, however, I don't think that thigns are quite as cut-and-dried as you might think:

Let's consider the following:

2♦ opening #1 = a single suited hand with 6-7 Diamonds, no four card major, ~ 5-9 HCP and two of the top four Diamonds.

2♦ opening #2 = 4+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major, denies 4441 or 5440 shape, ~ 5-9 HCPs, promises either Qxxx or xxxxx in a major.

I'm going by gut feel here, but my guess is that the variance in scores after someone opens 2♦ bid #2 is significantly higher than after 2♦ opening #1. Some of this (undoubtedly) is a function of the relative familiarity of the two methods. However, I also think that some of this is a function of the nature of the opening bids.

(Or, more simply, there's more than one way to consider variance)

[Free]

You can also compare variance with the same system when opening in another seat and/or vulnerability. For example, opening 2♦ with 4+♦ and 4+M will not always get you to the same contract as like partner opened (probably more 1NT instead of 2♦/M). However, with a classic weak two in ♠ you'll probably end up in the same contract, whoever opens.

[Echognome]

kenrexford, on Nov 14 2008, 09:30 PM, said:

2. I find it rather humorous for people who spend their every waking hour playing, discussing, practicing, writing, etc., about bridge as a profession to be protected by rules like these. I understand the rules for the rest of us. But,. come on, a lot of this is dealing with WBF competitions, right? I can just imagine a football team (American) complaining that a hurry-up offense is too difficult for them to handle with their own defense and that they would like, therefore, to tell the other team which receivers to put on which side of the field.

I don't think this is a fair analogy.

Suppose one NFL team decided to try a play where they made two forward passes or made a forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage and said "why can't you be prepared for this? this is the NFL."

I mean everything is down to the set up of the rules and the rules may change as is the whim of powers that be. (e.g. the forward pass was only made legal in football in 1906) What should really matter is what is best for the sport overall and in my view that means what is best for the masses.

[cherdano]

Echognome, on Nov 17 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 14 2008, 09:30 PM, said:

2.  I find it rather humorous for people who spend their every waking hour playing, discussing, practicing, writing, etc., about bridge as a profession to be protected by rules like these.  I understand the rules for the rest of us.  But,. come on, a lot of this is dealing with WBF competitions, right?  I can just imagine a football team (American) complaining that a hurry-up offense is too difficult for them to handle with their own defense and that they would like, therefore, to tell the other team which receivers to put on which side of the field.

I don't think this is a fair analogy.

Suppose one NFL team decided to try a play where they made two forward passes or made a forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage and said "why can't you be prepared for this? this is the NFL."

I mean everything is down to the set up of the rules and the rules may change as is the whim of powers that be. (e.g. the forward pass was only made legal in football in 1906) What should really matter is what is best for the sport overall and in my view that means what is best for the masses.

The other problem with Ken's argument is that the premise is wrong.
Last time I checked Bob Hamman did not "spend their every waking hour playing, discussing, practicing, writing, etc., about bridge". Yeah, Bob Hamman is an amateur...

Unlike the other two big mind games (go and chess), bridge has created many world class players for whom bridge is not their only profession, or even their main profession.

[csdenmark]

Echognome, on Nov 17 2008, 10:15 PM, said:

What should really matter is what is best for the sport overall and in my view that means what is best for the masses.

Then you dont need to worry at all.

The masses are playing social bridge bridge in small clubs. Most of them never heard of tournaments with curious names like Bermuda, Spingold, Vanderbilt, White House etc. And they are not interested in systems.

They dont even know the name of what they are doing themselves and never heard the word 'convention card'.

The masses plays WHIST.