[olien]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-22, 18:18, said:

Mt. Vesuvius wrote:

" Here's an idea...

How about you answer Owen's questions instead of dodging them and attempting (quite unsuccessfully) to insult him? "

Hudecek: I thought his name was "olien", and I felt I was complimenting his politeness. And I'll try answering.

My friends are allowed to refer to me by name. And I prefer if Mr. Hudecek refers to me as Mr. Lien or olien if he so prefers.

 chudecek, on 2011-May-22, 18:18, said:

We shouldn't have to ask "relevant questions" The call should be EXPLAINED to us via the software. If the opponents play support doubles with three trumps and a certain point range, a pass should be alerted VIA THE SOFTWARE - and they damn well better not have three trumps and the specified point range.

1) Re 1H opener using Flannery 2D: A 1H opener should have the accompanying note "5CM, denies 4 spades unless reversing values" How tough is it to hit a dot on a template with this explanation?

2) The 1C opening is accompanied by an explanatory note that says "might be two - a 1D opener shows
an unbalanced distribution." And it would post a suggested defense: Say "2C overcall shows clubs, 2D overcall=Majors"

It wouldn't slow down the game? I would have to read the explanation of every opening bid to see if it shows this or denies that. And I'm not referring to explanations provided by the software; I'm talking about in real life. Opponents sit down and are playing Flannery, and from what I have deduced from your statements you expect them to alert a 1♥ opening as tending to deny a 4-card ♠ suit? Also, you could have to provide endless qualifiers to each opening; for example: I open 2♥ weak, but we play that this doesn't deny having a 4♠r or 5-card minor. However, some pairs play that it does deny such a holding (especially having 4♠), so you would have a dot for a) weak 2, may have 4♠ and b) weak 2, may not have 4♠. Now you have more specific agreements, and if somebody decides to make the 2♥ opening with 4♠ even though their card says they don't do that, you plan to report it as a psyche? This adds more "red tape" and brings in more bureaucracy than before.

My suggestion would be the ACBL come up with a better convention card format for live play than what they have now; I would suggest something resembling the WBF convention card. This may not be the best solution, but would provide more complete information about people's agreements. An added bonus would be a boom in the convention card holder industry because the cards take so long to fill out people would just prefer to save their cards which is easily facilitated by convention card holders.

[Free]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-20, 19:42, said:

No SPECIAL agreement. That means we have NOT discussed this, and must use common bridge sense to come up with a meaning. That activity is the ESSENCE of bridge, not the development of complex special agreements and methods.

Why?

[Free]

 Vampyr, on 2011-May-22, 18:50, said:

This creation of computer convention cards and development of standard systems and lenghty approval processes for new methods is bound to be a costly, unpopular waste of time, effort, and money. I have a better idea:

Use Deep Finesse to determine the par contract for each deal, and set that as the contract at each table. The advantages of this practice would solve all of the problems outlined in this thread and Carl Hudecek's other thread about slow play:

~snip~

I don't see a downside to this procedure. Does anyone?

I can't play any system anymore, not even boring, bog standard, 2/1 like Richard calls it.

[mgoetze]

 olien, on 2011-May-22, 23:30, said:

My suggestion would be the ACBL come up with a better convention card format for live play than what they have now; I would suggest something resembling the WBF convention card.

A bit hasty there, Owen (I do get to call you Owen, right? ) -- here in Germany, a WBF-Style card is mandated for league play, BUT there are no guidelines on how to fill it out! The result is that 90% have less information on theirs than I do on my half-size convention card, and when people do put in some information, they do it in a semi-random fashion.

Now, the WBF does publish a nice booklet on how to fill out the WBF convention card. I checked about 25 convention cards from Germany's top league and found 2 which weren't obviously in disagreement with this booklet.

So, don't just think about what the blank convention card is going to look like. Think about how you want people to fill it in and how you are going to enforce their doing so. I think you'll find that, if these points are addressed properly, a smaller format will do...

[chudecek]

 olien, on 2011-May-22, 23:30, said:

My friends are allowed to refer to me by name. And I prefer if Mr. Hudecek refers to me as Mr. Lien or olien if he so prefers.




It wouldn't slow down the game? I would have to read the explanation of every opening bid to see if it shows this or denies that. And I'm not referring to explanations provided by the software; I'm talking about in real life. Opponents sit down and are playing Flannery, and from what I have deduced from your statements you expect them to alert a 1♥ opening as tending to deny a 4-card ♠ suit? Also, you could have to provide endless qualifiers to each opening; for example: I open 2♥ weak, but we play that this doesn't deny having a 4♠r or 5-card minor. However, some pairs play that it does deny such a holding (especially having 4♠), so you would have a dot for a) weak 2, may have 4♠ and b) weak 2, may not have 4♠. Now you have more specific agreements, and if somebody decides to make the 2♥ opening with 4♠ even though their card says they don't do that, you plan to report it as a psyche? This adds more "red tape" and brings in more bureaucracy than before.

My suggestion would be the ACBL come up with a better convention card format for live play than what they have now; I would suggest something resembling the WBF convention card. This may not be the best solution, but would provide more complete information about people's agreements. An added bonus would be a boom in the convention card holder industry because the cards take so long to fill out people would just prefer to save their cards which is easily facilitated by convention card holders.

Your problem is you don't understand the software I propose. At the start of the game players insert their PERSONAL SD card into the computer, and for that session the "Standard" system call descriptions embedded in the computer are modified to conform to the explanations on that PERSONAL SD card. So when a player opens 1H, his opponents instantly get a description of the call, eg "12-20, 5 plus hearts" with a second RED FLAG warning in a different box on the computer screen "Flannery played, so 1H denies 4S if 11-15". This takes insignificant time for an opponent to read.

[Free]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-23, 08:03, said:

Your problem is you don't understand the software I propose. At the start of the game players insert their PERSONAL SD card into the computer, and for that session the "Standard" system call descriptions embedded in the computer are modified to conform to the explanations on that PERSONAL SD card. So when a player opens 1H, his opponents instantly get a description of the call, eg "12-20, 5 plus hearts" with a second RED FLAG warning in a different box on the computer screen "Flannery played, so 1H denies 4S if 11-15". This takes insignificant time for an opponent to read.

I propose we store all the systems we play in a central database. Also we are required to tattoo a bar code on our arm (or your face if you want to). Whenever we sit at a table, every player scans his bar code and the computer determines which system file to load according to our bar code and the one from partner.

The big advantage over your suggestion is that you can't forget or break the bar code, which is possible with any "PERSONAL SD card". Since you're never looking at any disadvantages of your proposals, this must be a huge improvement.

[mgoetze]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-23, 08:03, said:

Your problem is you don't understand the software I propose.

Your problem is you don't understand how complex such software would be.

[chudecek]

 mgoetze, on 2011-May-23, 08:15, said:

Your problem is you don't understand how complex such software would be.

Have you ever filled out a "Pick-a-dot" product marketing survey? What kind of computer programming Einsteins (make that Yangs ) does it take to produce that?

If a couple of decent programmers couldn't come up with a suitable program for this in a week, they should change careers, and take up grease trap cleaning at Mickey D's.

[ArtK78]

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread. Mr. Hudacek has some interesting ideas, as impractical and as unwelcome as they may be. But they are interesting ideas. And some of the discussion about the ideas, when it didn't consist of a series of insults and wisecracks, was also very thoughtful and interesting.

I agree with the idea of having computer software used for bidding and system explanation. Steps in that direction are taking place - the full disclosure convention cards on BBO are an example of this. I see computerized scoring systems used in clubs (where the players are typically in their 60's and older) without too much trouble. It is not out of the question for the next step to be using computer input for bidding and play.

The only disturbing aspect of this thread is how much vitriol is being used in the discussion. I would hope that adults discussing interesting proposals about bridge could discuss them in an adult manner.

[blackshoe]

 ArtK78, on 2011-May-23, 09:12, said:

I would hope that adults discussing interesting proposals about bridge could discuss them in an adult manner.

On the Internet? Surely you jest.

[helene_t]

 Free, on 2011-May-23, 08:09, said:

Also we are required to tattoo a bar code on our arm.

What about this: every prospective bridge player has to have a webcam implanted in his forehead at birth. Then we can record his whole life experience up to the day of the tournament. Feed these data, together with a genome scan, into MIT's latest gene-and-environment-interaction model and we will know the player's bridge playing behaviour in detail. Then we can just simulate the tournament. Big advantage of this: we save a lot of money on catering, toilet facilities, water coolers etc as the players don't need to be at the venue, all we need are a few low-price computers to run the tournament.

[RMB1]

 diana_eva, on 2011-May-22, 19:05, said:

+1

Someone called Diana posting pictures of Prince William's wedding - I smell a conspiracy theory.

(I think I've got the picture sourced right: I did not pay much attention to The Wedding.)

[Free]

 helene_t, on 2011-May-23, 09:20, said:

What about this: every prospective bridge player has to have a webcam implanted in his forehead at birth. Then we can record his whole life experience up to the day of the tournament. Feed these data, together with a genome scan, into MIT's latest gene-and-environment-interaction model and we will know the player's bridge playing behaviour in detail. Then we can just simulate the tournament. Big advantage of this: we save a lot of money on catering, toilet facilities, water coolers etc as the players don't need to be at the venue, all we need are a few low-price computers to run the tournament.

Great idea. Should be easy to implement.

If a couple of decent programmers couldn't come up with a suitable program for this in a week, they should change careers, and take up grease trap cleaning at Mickey D's.

[jogs]

 helene_t, on 2011-May-23, 09:20, said:

What about this: every prospective bridge player has to have a webcam implanted in his forehead at birth. Then we can record his whole life experience up to the day of the tournament. Feed these data, together with a genome scan, into MIT's latest gene-and-environment-interaction model and we will know the player's bridge playing behaviour in detail. Then we can just simulate the tournament. Big advantage of this: we save a lot of money on catering, toilet facilities, water coolers etc as the players don't need to be at the venue, all we need are a few low-price computers to run the tournament.

That's the way world health care should be addressed.

[f0rdy]

 helene_t, on 2011-May-23, 09:20, said:

What about this: every prospective bridge player has to have a webcam implanted in his forehead at birth. Then we can record his whole life experience up to the day of the tournament. Feed these data, together with a genome scan, into MIT's latest gene-and-environment-interaction model and we will know the player's bridge playing behaviour in detail. Then we can just simulate the tournament. Big advantage of this: we save a lot of money on catering, toilet facilities, water coolers etc as the players don't need to be at the venue, all we need are a few low-price computers to run the tournament.

I got halfway through this paragraph and assumed it was going to be the natural conclusion of full disclosure; if opponents want to know the partnership's agreements about a particular auction, they quickly filter the video from the opponents' implants and get replays of every relevant auction either opponent has ever had.

[matmat]

I sometimes have strange associations:

http://www.matazone....fleburger1.html

also:

[blackshoe]

Now, that's just weird.

[MrAce]

Carl, i know i sound like a broken record but i have to say it again. I disagree with everything you said and proposed.

[jogs]

I'm probably the only one with some sympathy for Carl's position. Still if you're the best team in the world you should be familiar with every system and convention on the mid chart. You should have your own defenses for all mid chart conventions. When you fight in MMA you can't demand the certain moves can't be made against you because you don't know how to counter them.
Because of this strange full disclosure rule I agree with Carl on super chart systems. They should be posted online 168 hours(1 week) before the event.

[Vampyr]

 jogs, on 2011-May-26, 21:37, said:

I'm probably the only one with some sympathy for Carl's position. Still if you're the best team in the world you should be familiar with every system and convention on the mid chart. You should have your own defenses for all mid chart conventions. When you fight in MMA you can't demand the certain moves can't be made against you because you don't know how to counter them.
Because of this strange full disclosure rule I agree with Carl on super chart systems. They should be posted online 168 hours(1 week) before the event.

So in the rest of the world, where the system regulations are less restrictive than the Super Chart, all players should post their system a week before every event they play in?