[Jlall]

billw55, on Apr 9 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 9 2010, 01:42 PM, said:

The fact that the Aces and the Blue Team were required to have very well defined systems and lots of agreements doesn't matter much when their systems were so bad and they didn't know as much.

I would be interested in examples of ways in which their systems were bad.

Lol, they played 13-17 NT and control showing responses to their strong club...give me a break. Did they even play keycard?

None of this is meant as a knock against any of these guys, they were the best players of their era and got even better as times changed and there was more knowledge etc around. It's not like people now are born knowing bidding, we just don't have to figure most of it out since others have done it for us by studying the old systems and building on that etc.

It is completely natural in all games that people start off knowing nothing, they try things out, some sticks, some is proven to be bad and is adapted, and then it keeps building on itself etc. I'm not sure why this is such a surprising concept.

It's not even about the exact system, there are many auctions like 1S-2C-2H-2N-3S-4C which are now obviously cuebids for spades but before people would probably be like wtf?

edit: Did I mention 4 card majors?! Of course I cannot prove that 5 card majors are better than 4 card majors, but given that probably none of the top 20 pairs in the world play 4 card majors when it used to be dominant at the top levels, one could rationally assume that people came to the conclusion that 5 card majors are better.

[billw55]

Jlall, on Apr 9 2010, 04:07 PM, said:

billw55, on Apr 9 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 9 2010, 01:42 PM, said:

The fact that the Aces and the Blue Team were required to have very well defined systems and lots of agreements doesn't matter much when their systems were so bad and they didn't know as much.

I would be interested in examples of ways in which their systems were bad.

Lol, they played 13-17 NT and control showing responses to their strong club...give me a break. Did they even play keycard?

None of this is meant as a knock against any of these guys, they were the best players of their era and got even better as times changed and there was more knowledge etc around. It's not like people now are born knowing bidding, we just don't have to figure most of it out since others have done it for us by studying the old systems and building on that etc.

It is completely natural in all games that people start off knowing nothing, they try things out, some sticks, some is proven to be bad and is adapted, and then it keeps building on itself etc. I'm not sure why this is such a surprising concept.

It's not even about the exact system, there are many auctions like 1S-2C-2H-2N-3S-4C which are now obviously cuebids for spades but before people would probably be like wtf?

edit: Did I mention 4 card majors?! Of course I cannot prove that 5 card majors are better than 4 card majors, but given that probably none of the top 20 pairs in the world play 4 card majors when it used to be dominant at the top levels, one could rationally assume that people came to the conclusion that 5 card majors are better.

Thanks Justin. I wasn't trying to argue with you, I was actually asking

Regarding "Did they even play keycard?" ... I thought it was called "Roman Keycard" precisely because the Blue team played it.

[bluecalm]

Quote

However in 2060 when we look back on the bidding and leads in 2010 I'm sure we're gonna be like lol what a joke

There are 2 other possibilities:

a)The game of bridge will continue to be like today, ie. nobody will get serious training (at least compared to other sports/intellectual sports) and everybody will continue to suck. Those who suck the least will win (like today).

b)People will improve big time and the edge will be that small that the game will not be worth playing anymore as it will be reduced to almost purely variance (I believe variance in bridge is quite a factor if teams are at similar level)

I hope it will be a) if anything

[Jlall]

billw55, on Apr 9 2010, 04:16 PM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 9 2010, 04:07 PM, said:

billw55, on Apr 9 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 9 2010, 01:42 PM, said:

The fact that the Aces and the Blue Team were required to have very well defined systems and lots of agreements doesn't matter much when their systems were so bad and they didn't know as much.

I would be interested in examples of ways in which their systems were bad.

Lol, they played 13-17 NT and control showing responses to their strong club...give me a break. Did they even play keycard?

None of this is meant as a knock against any of these guys, they were the best players of their era and got even better as times changed and there was more knowledge etc around. It's not like people now are born knowing bidding, we just don't have to figure most of it out since others have done it for us by studying the old systems and building on that etc.

It is completely natural in all games that people start off knowing nothing, they try things out, some sticks, some is proven to be bad and is adapted, and then it keeps building on itself etc. I'm not sure why this is such a surprising concept.

It's not even about the exact system, there are many auctions like 1S-2C-2H-2N-3S-4C which are now obviously cuebids for spades but before people would probably be like wtf?

edit: Did I mention 4 card majors?! Of course I cannot prove that 5 card majors are better than 4 card majors, but given that probably none of the top 20 pairs in the world play 4 card majors when it used to be dominant at the top levels, one could rationally assume that people came to the conclusion that 5 card majors are better.

Thanks Justin. I wasn't trying to argue with you, I was actually asking

Regarding "Did they even play keycard?" ... I thought it was called "Roman Keycard" precisely because the Blue team played it.

Yeah I don't know at what point it was invented, not sure if they played it during the beginning of their run. They def invented it though.

That being said, I'm sure when they invented it they hadn't thought of what all the bids mean after queen ask/specifically 5N bids, and what non queen/king ask bids mean, etc etc. RKC is also a convention that evolved, and now people play kickback.

I always wonder how "everyone" at the top level can not play for instance that 4N-5C-5S is not the king ask when hearts is trumps, (5D Q ask, 5S king ask), that way you can bid 5N over 5S with the SK and you don't have any issues, and you can use 5N over 5C as your 3rd round spade control ask.

Then I remember that people who care about stuff like this probably played kickback.

Anyways knowledge of situations like this and how to handle these auctions has advanced a ton. There is no way the blue team from then could ever compete in slam bidding against a team of today, and from what I gather no one could compete with their slam bidding back in the day.

[Jlall]

bluecalm, on Apr 9 2010, 04:27 PM, said:

Quote

However in 2060 when we look back on the bidding and leads in 2010 I'm sure we're gonna be like lol what a joke

There are 2 other possibilities:

a)The game of bridge will continue to be like today, ie. nobody will get serious training (at least compared to other sports/intellectual sports) and everybody will continue to suck. Those who suck the least will win (like today).

b)People will improve big time and the edge will be that small that the game will not be worth playing anymore as it will be reduced to almost purely variance (I believe variance in bridge is quite a factor if teams are at similar level)

I hope it will be a) if anything

B has not happened to basketball, baseball, chess, running, anything. B is theoretically possible but we are so far away from it that it is not even worth considering. Right now we all suck. Once we all get good, then people will make small improvements and get better and better. The small edges will be enough to win long matches most of the time (of course luck is a factor).

Bridge is too complicated for this to happen for a long long time.

Certainly A is the most likely with less and less people beginning to play bridge though. Still, even with a smaller player pool, the good players will obviously become better than the best players of today, becuase they have their knowledge and experience to build upon.

People talk about B happening in poker a lot. It basically happened in heads up limit which has kinda died, but I doubt it will happen ever for deep stacked no limit play for instance. Even that is too complicated.

[junyi_zhu]

Jlall, on Apr 9 2010, 09:07 PM, said:

billw55, on Apr 9 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 9 2010, 01:42 PM, said:

The fact that the Aces and the Blue Team were required to have very well defined systems and lots of agreements doesn't matter much when their systems were so bad and they didn't know as much.

I would be interested in examples of ways in which their systems were bad.

Lol, they played 13-17 NT and control showing responses to their strong club...give me a break. Did they even play keycard?

None of this is meant as a knock against any of these guys, they were the best players of their era and got even better as times changed and there was more knowledge etc around. It's not like people now are born knowing bidding, we just don't have to figure most of it out since others have done it for us by studying the old systems and building on that etc.

It is completely natural in all games that people start off knowing nothing, they try things out, some sticks, some is proven to be bad and is adapted, and then it keeps building on itself etc. I'm not sure why this is such a surprising concept.

It's not even about the exact system, there are many auctions like 1S-2C-2H-2N-3S-4C which are now obviously cuebids for spades but before people would probably be like wtf?

edit: Did I mention 4 card majors?! Of course I cannot prove that 5 card majors are better than 4 card majors, but given that probably none of the top 20 pairs in the world play 4 card majors when it used to be dominant at the top levels, one could rationally assume that people came to the conclusion that 5 card majors are better.

4 card major could be slightly worse than 5 card major because of the scoring method and nature of bidding. The basic trend I observe in bidding is that the higher the bidding is, the more precise the bid has to be defined. In that sense, 4 card major openings don't distinguish the difference between 1C and 1S and define 1S to a much narrower range, which is a key problem. In that sense, 4 card major systems should play better with strong clubs.
Still the major reason for no top players play 4 card major is that really few theorists study it.

[jdonn]

junyi_zhu, on Apr 9 2010, 05:15 PM, said:

Still the major reason for no top players play 4 card major is that really few theorists study it.

Um, what? I second that the reason is simply because it's worse. I think your comment is just untrue.

[Jlall]

Just had the following convo at work fwiw:

Me: How would you rate the best team of the 60s vs the best teams now?
Hamman: It would be an absolute slaughter.

Me: How would you rate the card play of the best team of the 60s vs the best team now?
Hamman: Close to equal, and if you don't allow modern signalling then it's equal or the old guys are slightly better because they're more used to "playing in the dark"

Me: Would you say the 40 seed of the vanderbilt would beat the best team of the 60s?
Hamman: Yes, but it's not really like that because given a month to study the new stuff, the old team would win easily.

Me: So you would say the only reason this difference is so large is because of bidding?
Hamman: Yes, but it's completely natural for newer generations to be better than older ones because they can build upon the older one.

[junyi_zhu]

jdonn, on Apr 9 2010, 10:21 PM, said:

junyi_zhu, on Apr 9 2010, 05:15 PM, said:

Still the major reason for no top players play 4 card major is that really few theorists study it.

Um, what? I second that the reason is simply because it's worse. I think your comment is just untrue.

Of course, it's worse. I am just saying that it's unpopular which makes it worse. Do you know any strong players play 4 card major with 2/1 scheme and a lot of gadgets and relays? If nobody studies and plays this system, this system can't be good. Still, if everything is quite optimized with a lot of people study and improve this system, 4 card major shouldn't be much worse than 5 card major. Just slightly worse IMO.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Just had the following convo at work fwiw:

Me: How would you rate the best team of the 60s vs the best teams now?
Hamman: It would be an absolute slaughter.

What kind of work is that that you have Hamman to talk to ?
I am jealous...

[jdonn]

junyi_zhu, on Apr 9 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 9 2010, 10:21 PM, said:

junyi_zhu, on Apr 9 2010, 05:15 PM, said:

Still the major reason for no top players play 4 card major is that really few theorists study it.

Um, what? I second that the reason is simply because it's worse. I think your comment is just untrue.

Of course, it's worse. I am just saying that it's unpopular which makes it worse.

I'm saying it's worse which makes it unpopular. Chicken and the egg?

[Hanoi5]

Jlall, on Apr 9 2010, 06:32 PM, said:

Just had the following convo at work fwiw:

Me: How would you rate the best team of the 60s vs the best teams now?
Hamman: It would be an absolute slaughter.

Me: How would you rate the card play of the best team of the 60s vs the best team now?
Hamman: Close to equal, and if you don't allow modern signalling then it's equal or the old guys are slightly better because they're more used to "playing in the dark"

Me: Would you say the 40 seed of the vanderbilt would beat the best team of the 60s?
Hamman: Yes, but it's not really like that because given a month to study the new stuff, the old team would win easily.

Me: So you would say the only reason this difference is so large is because of bidding?
Hamman: Yes, but it's completely natural for newer generations to be better than older ones because they can build upon the older one.

I want your job.

[gnasher]

junyi_zhu, on Apr 9 2010, 11:34 PM, said:

Of course, it's worse. I am just saying that it's unpopular which makes it worse. Do you know any strong players play 4 card major with 2/1 scheme and a lot of gadgets and relays?

Four-card majors aren't competely dead:
Helgemo-Helness
Saelensminde-Brogeland
Townsend-Gold

[bluecalm]

I don't think Norwegians play 4 card majors. They just sometimes open 1♥ with 4♥ but their style is basically standard 5M and most hands are bid the way standard 5M bidders do.

[nigel_k]

Scoring: IMP


P 1♦ X XX
2♥ P 3♥ 4♠
X

---

The hand is from a book I have just been reading. It was in 1950 and Sobel was West and Goren East. So defensive bidding has come a long way since then. Bidding over preempts even more.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Apr 9 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

The real innovations lately are coming in competitive auctions and slam bidding.

As well as these, I think that modern systems have lots of room for improvement in minimising information-leakage and in right-siding.

[nige1]

Jlall, on Apr 9 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

The real innovations lately are coming in competitive auctions and slam bidding.

gnasher, on Apr 9 2010, 06:41 PM, said:

As well as these, I think that modern systems have lots of room for improvement in minimising information-leakage and in right-siding.

Agree.
BTW, doesn't Hamman favour 4 card majors?
IMO, in their heyday, Sharples and Co, playing Acol, were the best bidders in the world.
Also, incidentally, Roman Blackwood steps are...

• 1/4.
  
• 0/3.
  
• 2 same colour or rank
  
• 2 different colour and rank.

[Siegmund]

Seconding (okay, tenthing) that bidding has come a long way and has a long way to go.

Seconding (really seconding) that Roman Blackwood was their invention, (non-Roman) Keycard Blackwood was somebody else's, and I don't know off the top of my head who combined the two or led the rush to the hybrid. Incidentally, I actually have one partner with whom I play Roman Gerber, though I've never played Roman Blackwood.

We're at a time when in some limited contexts -- for instance, an uncontested auction after a fit and a game force is established -- that it's imaginable we can find a theoretically optimal system. We are in no danger of finding optimal approaches to competitive auctions, and I think there's very little chance of our current methods being close to right.

Re 4 vs 5 card majors: Let us not forget that there is a substantial body of, shall we say, "experimental bidding systems," almost everything in the TOSR/MOSCITO family for instance, that is 4-card-major based, and it's still an open question how good those systems are and how best to defend them.
The fact that there is a flourishing struggle between 1CF-1M promising 4 and promising 5 is perhaps evidence there's room for the same struggle with the opening bids themselves.

[gwnn]

I just hope jlall doesnt think that twalsh isnt as revolutionary as 1/1 forcing...

[Jlall]

bluecalm, on Apr 9 2010, 05:53 PM, said:

Quote

Just had the following convo at work fwiw:

Me: How would you rate the best team of the 60s vs the best teams now?
Hamman: It would be an absolute slaughter.

What kind of work is that that you have Hamman to talk to ?
I am jealous...

I have a tough job, I test games all day and actually work like 1/8th of the time I'm there, and am a "consultant" so I can work whenever I want so I can go to as many regionals/vacations as I want or just take a day off if I feel like it, also if I live in NY I can work from there offsite.

If I wanna talk bridge I sit right next to Bramley and have an office near Bob and also can talk to Chris Hamman/my dad/Jeremy if I want to do a bidding poll. When I'm not doing anything (aka most of the time) I split action with Chris on pokerstars, or play him in Liars Poker.

Since I have no skills, education, or work ethic and frequently move back and forth and am generally at bridge tourneys more often than not, it's pretty funny that I even have a job. Bridge is great for networking since you get to meet people who are often CEOs etc and might just hire you because they think you're talented (Bob is the CEO).

But my job is tough I wouldn't wish it on anyone

Also, obv it was a mistake to open up the 4 card majors debate I guess but my points remain regarding everything else even if you disagree that 4 card majors are worse. To me it is an evolution of the game that the top pairs used to play 4 card majors, and now the top pairs play 5 card majors. I wasn't really counting the Norweigans as 4 card major pairs since they are basically 5cM as others have said, but whatever.

Quote

BTW, doesn't Hamman favour 4 card majors?

He played them his entire life and now plays 5 card majors with Zia.