[patroclo]

Someone should be able, trough the hands played in bbo,for example by champions, to establish what is the better system.
Give an end at this question

[gwnn]

we should make a supercomputer and wait for 10 million years. disguising ourselves as innocuous experimental rodents is merely optional.

[helene_t]

It has been settled here long ago. Precision rules. Everything else sucks.

gwnn: you know that the answer is 42.

[barmar]

Too many variables. You need to be able to separate the contribution of the system from the expertise of the players. So unless you have lots of examples of the same pairs using different systems, it's difficult to rank the systems.

This is similar to the Power Rating system. It will only generate individual ratings for players that have played with at least 12 different partners. Otherwise, there isn't enough information to determine the individual contributions to the partnership results.

But if you really want to try this, you could purchase BridgeBrowser, which has a database of many thousands of hands played on BBO, and allows you to search them in many ways.

One problem: BBO doesn't record the system that the players are playing. So how would you sort the results by system in the first place?

[mohitz]

helene_t, on Aug 10 2010, 08:36 PM, said:

It has been settled here long ago. Precision rules. Everything else sucks.

Agree!

[kenrexford]

What about precision is so great?

If the answer is the strong club, there are many systems that include a strong club. So, that cannot be the reason.

If the answer is the limited openings, there are many systems that include limited openings. So, that cannot be the reason.

If the answer is that the core structure of the limited openings is fabulous and ideal, I beg to differ. Even with a natural strong club approach, my opinion is that precision sucks royally, in three bids.

I hate the 2♣, 2♦, and 1♦ openings in precision. A simple re-arrange, that we called "Flamingo Diamond," is better, IMO:

2♦ = both minors
2♣ = 4441 (any short), with 2♦ asking bid
1♦ = "normal" minor opening, if unbalanced longer in either minor, never both minors.

That core seems much better to me, from experience playing both Flamingo and Precision.

You could then take it a step further and incorporate canape into the approach.

So, if you want an "ideal," I don't think precision is all that.

[nigel_k]

patroclo, on Aug 11 2010, 04:02 AM, said:

Someone should be able, trough the hands played in bbo,for example by champions, to establish what is the better system.
Give an end at this question

My non-extensive analysis of World Championship hands proves that pairs playing Fantunes get much much better results on average than pairs playing 2/1 or Precision based systems QED.

[mohitz]

nigel_k, on Aug 12 2010, 01:26 AM, said:

My non-extensive analysis of World Championship hands proves that pairs playing Fantunes get much much better results on average than pairs playing 2/1 or Precision based systems QED.

How many pairs in World Championships play Fantunes?