[chudecek]

To minimize the “luck factor” of unusual methods, and to emphasize skill in bidding judgment, play, and defense, I propose that major bridge tournaments have “standard systems” for various levels and types of events. The ACBL and EBU do this now to some extent, (eg ACBL Superchart), but I propose taking it a step further by using computer technology (Tablets or Laptops).

This has the added benefit of monitoring playing time of each contestant and presenting the auction and played cards in a way that nearly eliminates tempo issues (while preventing revokes, instantly displaying the meaning of calls, and providing convenient means for additional Alert and call / play explanations using a stylus for handwriting on touch screens), Additionally, the time of recording scores, etc. is saved.

I submit that today, partnership understandings of the meaning of bids after the opening currently constitute FAR MORE UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION AND UNAPPROVED METHODS THAN DOES A BASIC COMPLEX SYSTEM.

A key element of “standardization” is use of flash memory cards to specify or modify explanations of calls during the auction, similar to the rudimentary explanations provided in BBO robot games.

The computer contains “standard” templates (revised annually by the Systems Committee) that gives the "standard” meaning of calls, and APPROVED variations for various contests. At the beginning of a session, a pair inserts THEIR memory card into the computer to override the “standard” template.

A pairs’ template can be modified over time (but not during an event) by using a menu of APPROVED meanings. For example over a standard 15-17 1NT opening, for a call of 2C, the modification menu would consist of approved “pick a dot” meanings. You could pick a dot that specifies Astro or Landy or Transfer or any other approved method. (e.g. if you pick “transfer”, submenus would come up “pick a dot” - Next higher suit (point range) plus, if applicable “All suit bids thru zz are transfers to next higher suit”. Suggested defenses would also be “pick a dot”, eg “Double is Stayman” or “Double shows bid suit” or “Double start of Penalty sequence”.

The Alert and /or explanation would appear on both opponents’ computers. Alerted opponents would be “given” say 5 seconds free time to read any non-standard method and proposed defense(s).

This procedure would be used in final rounds of National championships and team trials, and perhaps in some major Regional events and money tournaments. As computer costs become minimal and the world’s youngsters mature, it could be nearly universal for Duplicate bridge - or even rubber.

The “Approved Systems Committee” might be three people appointed for staggered 3-year terms with the duty of (once a year) adding or removing call meanings from the standard templates.

New agreements or proposals would go through a one-year preliminary trial phase in “System Development” events (live or on-line), and thru a second year of Testing phase, prior to approval or rejection by the Approved Systems Committee.

It is past time to move Tournament Bridge into the computer age. This proposal maybe is a start.

[olien]

This sounds like such a wonderful idea! As a junior, I will find the game much more interesting now that we all play nearly the same system and have 6 minute time limits per hand.

[mgoetze]

I have a proposal for you Carl... how about you use the existing Full Disclosure software to create just one such system of standard meanings, with NO variations at all. It should be very detailed, including auctions where all 4 hands are bidding. Once you have done that, consider the implications when you allow big variations and how that changes all the subsequent bidding in competitive auction. Come up with an estimate of how many hours per week your 3-member committee is going to have to work year-round.

By the way, I assume you won't be including Polish Club, Multi, etc., so your new mind sport is going to be American only - the rest of the world will be happy to play the Bermuda Bowl without you.

And of course, you'll be stifling all innovation in bidding system design. If your system had been implemented 30 years ago, Transfer Walsh and Gazzilli would never get in. Yeah, I'm sure that will appeal to some people. But count me out, I'd rather play bridge.

[Phil]

I started to type a long response to this but figured this insanity didn't warrant one.

However, there are some kernels of good ideas in this, but I will leave it to others with more patience to parse the good from the bad from the awful.

[helene_t]

we have just seen, this week, several world champs being beaten by random drunken high school dropouts. Obviously this game is just too complicated for the world champs. so yeah, I agree with the proposal. Let the bermuda bowl be played as some simpler card game, say canasta.

[NickRW]

chudecek, on 2011-May-20, 11:42, said:

To minimize the “luck factor” of unusual methods...

I don't agree with your basic premise.

Further I think it would be a retrograde step - to the extent that I'd not bother playing anymore if I have to bid according to some preset rules. Nor do I want to watch experts on vugraph that have been emasculated in this fashion.

Nick

[mycroft]

All I can say is that in the final, there were three pairs playing a 1960's system (with some interesting transfers, and some conventions that came up in the 1980s), and three pairs playing a 1970's system (with some interesting transfers...) and it's all too complicated and new for some people.

Do I think that there should be more required disclosure, pre-event, for the kibitzers if not for the players? Sure. It's not fun to watch a crazy relay system that nobody knows. It's not fun to have the experts try to guess what bids mean, and then base their commentary on how this affects the players' judgement on a best guess which turns out to be wrong. I think it really sucks, from an organizational standpoint, that that more required disclosure, for an event that is *known* to be generating an audience of thousands, doesn't exist. I think it really sucks, from any standpoint, that things like the Shanghai Holo-Bolo incident can happen *at the tournament*, or that players are continually allowed to play in international championships with the kind of basic disclosure mistakes, clearly insufficient disclosure and other anomalies as happen, every year - especially because of the kibitzers, but primarily because the players are here for a world championship in a game where there is supposed to be full disclosure. But limiting what needs to be disclosed isn't the answer.

Some people really do think that the game's skill simply relies on cardplay, table feel and judgment, and the more that can be done to empower those skills to the detriment of anything else is a benefit. Most, but not all of them are excellent card players with great table feel and judgement.

Some people really do think that the game's skill primarily relies on perfect and perfectly disruptive bidding systems, and the more that can be done to allow those skills their freedom to the detriment of anything else is a benefit. Most, but not all of them are excellent system designers, with great ability to both foment (successfully) and handle aggressive disruption.

Funny how that works, eh?

As far as "standard systems" go, so, what's the NT range? 10-12 (1960's system)? 12-14 (earlier than that)? 13-15 (1970)? 15-17 (again, about 1970)? 16-18 (earlier than that)? Others - 14-16? 9-12? 10-12 *or* 15-17? What does that mean for minor openings? Major openings? Now, 4- or 5-card majors? What's the strong bid(s)? Do they have to be unilaterally strong? How much work for a committee to "standardize" all of *just that*? And we haven't started in with rebids, overcalls, preempts, Stayman, Blackwood, any possible transfer or lebensohl-style response, never mind any actual "conventions". And given the response we have got from the current "promulgator of new experimental system defences", I don't see it being any better here.

I just saw a system checksheet. It was 16 pages. And half of it is useless to me, because I play Precision. So, another 8 pages, minimum - probably about 12 because "defence to defences to 1C" is a pretty big "page". Either the committee is going to allow "standard Ruritanian, these 5 options" (which almost nobody's going to like - we've tried it in the ACBL, twice, to resounding silence), or the size of this standardization is going to be "one grain of rice on the first square..." insane, or somewhere in the middle, which will please neither group.

Feh. I don't like a lot of the current system regulations, and the reasoning behind them. But this is worse.

[chudecek]

mgoetze, on 2011-May-20, 14:54, said:

I have a proposal for you Carl... how about you use the existing Full Disclosure software to create just one such system of standard meanings, with NO variations at all. It should be very detailed, including auctions where all 4 hands are bidding. Once you have done that, consider the implications when you allow big variations and how that changes all the subsequent bidding in competitive auction. Come up with an estimate of how many hours per week your 3-member committee is going to have to work year-round.

By the way, I assume you won't be including Polish Club, Multi, etc., so your new mind sport is going to be American only - the rest of the world will be happy to play the Bermuda Bowl without you.

And of course, you'll be stifling all innovation in bidding system design. If your system had been implemented 30 years ago, Transfer Walsh and Gazzilli would never get in. Yeah, I'm sure that will appeal to some people. But count me out, I'd rather play bridge.

Since I don't know what the present "Full Disclosure" software is, I respectfully decline.

But if you provide me with a Standard Template and the associated "pick a dot" menu revision software as I have described, I would be more than happy to comply. It shouldn't take me more than an hour or so, because 98% plus of the call definitions in the Standard Template I would leave at their DEFAULT "No special agreement".

And players can "innovate" to their heart's desire, by going thru the two-year trial, test and approval phases. Only their innovations can't be used in major events such as the Reisinger until they are approved. Why should the field wrestle random "pigs in a poke" in a major contest?

[the hog]

chudecek, on 2011-May-20, 17:54, said:

Since I don't know what the present "Full Disclosure" software is, I respectfully decline.

But if you provide me with a Standard Template and the associated "pick a dot" menu revision software as I have described, I would be more than happy to comply. It shouldn't take me more than an hour or so, because 98% plus of the call definitions in the Standard Template I would leave at their DEFAULT "No special agreement".

And players can "innovate" to their heart's desire, by going thru the two-year trial, test and approval phases. Only their innovations can't be used in major events such as the Reisinger until they are approved. Why should the field wrestle random "pigs in a poke" in a major contest?

Carl, I have been amused by your posts on rgb in the past. In your reply here I notice that you have not answered any of the criticism made above. Would Polish Club be included? Would Italian systems be included? Would a mini NT even be included. My guess is not. Why should this game be played according to methods which are popular in one country and maybe not in another?

[mgoetze]

chudecek, on 2011-May-20, 17:54, said:

But if you provide me with a Standard Template and the associated "pick a dot" menu revision software as I have described, I would be more than happy to comply. It shouldn't take me more than an hour or so, because 98% plus of the call definitions in the Standard Template I would leave at their DEFAULT "No special agreement".

LOL, I see, your plan is to get rid of disclosure and make concealed partnership understandings the norm. Yeah, sounds like fun.

[chudecek]

mycroft, on 2011-May-20, 17:46, said:

Do I think that there should be more required disclosure, pre-event, for the kibitzers if not for the players? Sure. It's not fun to watch a crazy relay system that nobody knows. It's not fun to have the experts try to guess what bids mean, and then base their commentary on how this affects the players' judgement on a best guess which turns out to be wrong. I think it really sucks, from an organizational standpoint, that that more required disclosure, for an event that is *known* to be generating an audience of thousands, doesn't exist....snip... But limiting what needs to be disclosed isn't the answer.

Some people really do think that the game's skill simply relies on cardplay, table feel and judgment, and the more that can be done to empower those skills to the detriment of anything else is a benefit. Most, but not all of them are excellent card players with great table feel and judgement.

Some people really do think that the game's skill primarily relies on perfect and perfectly disruptive bidding systems, and the more that can be done to allow those skills their freedom to the detriment of anything else is a benefit. Most, but not all of them are excellent system designers, with great ability to both foment (successfully) and handle aggressive disruption.

As far as "standard systems" go, so, what's the NT range? 10-12 (1960's system)? 12-14 (earlier than that)? 13-15 (1970)? 15-17 (again, about 1970)? 16-18 (earlier than that)? Others - 14-16? 9-12? 10-12 *or* 15-17? What does that mean for minor openings? Major openings? Now, 4- or 5-card majors? What's the strong bid(s)? Do they have to be unilaterally strong? How much work for a committee to "standardize" all of *just that*? And we haven't started in with rebids, overcalls, preempts, Stayman, Blackwood, any possible transfer or lebensohl-style response, never mind any actual "conventions". And given the response we have got from the current "promulgator of new experimental system defences", I don't see it being any better here.

Feh. I don't like a lot of the current system regulations, and the reasoning behind them. But this is worse.

Thanks for the well-thought-out reply, and I apologize for snipping some (for MY convenience) My proposal amplifies, not limits, what is disclosed. And I guess one could "disrupt" by opening all non-vulnerable hands with 3S. Might not win on balance, but sure would disrupt.

And I would describe TODAY'S standard system (in the USA) as "Simple 2/1, 5CM, Jacoby 2NT, splin, 15-17NT, Jacoby XFER (Sys ON over dble or 2C), neg X thru 3S, 1430RKC, 2C Strong (2D resp neg), 2D-H-S weak but sound - RONF, 4th best leads, K from AK+, standard carding"

Now THAT wasn't so lengthy or complicated, was it? I play it. And my pickup partner AND the System Committee "gets it" right away. And I play BETTER by keeping it simple, because my mind is not cluttered with "system".

[chudecek]

mgoetze, on 2011-May-20, 18:16, said:

LOL, I see, your plan is to get rid of disclosure and make concealed partnership understandings the norm. Yeah, sounds like fun.

Where did I sat THAT? If there is "no special agreement" on a call there is NO SPECIAL AGREEMENT. The partner must use his best judgment, just like the opponents.

[the hog]

"Now THAT wasn't so lengthy or complicated, was it? I play it."

I don't. My partner doesn't. 60% of people in my area play Acol. 90% of Poles play Polish Club. Why should we play what you play? I note again that you don't answer. Don't you have an answer?

[mgoetze]

chudecek, on 2011-May-20, 18:25, said:

Where did I sat THAT? If there is "no special agreement" on a call there is NO SPECIAL AGREEMENT. The partner must use his best judgment, just like the opponents.

Sorry, that's ridiculous.

1♣-1♠-1NT-2♣ (uncontested) is (a) Natural, NF (b) Checkback © Two-way checkback (d) part of a game-forcing precision auction - seriously, how many boards do you think you can play with someone before you have a better idea of which they mean than your next opponents?

And this just gets worse with contested auctions. We have it on record here on the forums that at least one of the partnerships who will be representing the USA in the Bermuda Bowl next year have specifically discussed 1♦-1♥-X-p-2♦-p-p-X as showing a penalty double with 0-1 spades. Are you going to forbid them from discussing that? How will you enforce it? They bid this, it pops up on opponent's screens as "no special agreement", and they just happen to guess correctly what their partner has. Yeah, that sounds much better than what we have today.

[chudecek]

the hog, on 2011-May-20, 18:26, said:

"Now THAT wasn't so lengthy or complicated, was it? I play it."

I don't. My partner doesn't. 60% of people in my area play Acol. 90% of Poles play Polish Club. Why should we play what you play? I note again that you don't answer. Don't you have an answer?

The suggestions I've made are for North American major tournaments. The EBU or Timbuktu Bridge Union can define "standard" based on what it popular in THEIR playing regions, and set a Standard Template accordingly. If somebody wants to play a "Universal One Club Machete System", he can spend the time modifying the region's Standard Template to fit. Then he can play it in practice matches for a year and in specified Test Matches for another year, playing against those of his ilk who like to use complexity regardless of its effect on others, or on the game.

And then he can get it approved. But most likely have it thrown out on its a$$ by the Systems Committee, without so much as a second glance.

[mgoetze]

chudecek, on 2011-May-20, 18:21, said:

And I would describe TODAY'S standard system (in the USA) as "Simple 2/1, 5CM, Jacoby 2NT, splin, 15-17NT, Jacoby XFER (Sys ON over dble or 2C), neg X thru 3S, 1430RKC, 2C Strong (2D resp neg), 2D-H-S weak but sound - RONF, 4th best leads, K from AK+, standard carding"

I would describe today's standard system (in Poland) as "odw 4455 magister prec wilk 1430 standard carding" (whereby standard carding means that low = even or encouraging. It's standard because everyone east of France plays it that way). I'm willing to bet that you can't play this system and would be very confused if all the bids in it were described to you as "no special agreement".

[JLOGIC]

helene_t, on 2011-May-20, 15:27, said:

we have just seen, this week, several world champs being beaten by random drunken high school dropouts. Obviously this game is just too complicated for the world champs. so yeah, I agree with the proposal. Let the bermuda bowl be played as some simpler card game, say canasta.

haha, awesome.

[the hog]

chudecek, on 2011-May-20, 18:42, said:

The suggestions I've made are for North American major tournaments. The EBU or Timbuktu Bridge Union can define "standard" based on what it popular in THEIR playing regions, and set a Standard Template accordingly. If somebody wants to play a "Universal One Club Machete System", he can spend the time modifying the region's Standard Template to fit. Then he can play it in practice matches for a year and in specified Test Matches for another year, playing against those of his ilk who like to use complexity regardless of its effect on others, or on the game.

And then he can get it approved. But most likely have it thrown out on its a$$ by the Systems Committee, without so much as a second glance.

So Carl, by implication you are saying that NA tournaments are for NA's only? Last time I looked you had Italians, Poles, Swedes, Norwegians, Brits etc etc playing. YOur regulations would exclude them unless they satisfied your conditions, which they would not do.

[chudecek]

mgoetze, on 2011-May-20, 18:39, said:

Sorry, that's ridiculous.

1♣-1♠-1NT-2♣ (uncontested) is (a) Natural, NF (b) Checkback © Two-way checkback (d) part of a game-forcing precision auction - seriously, how many boards do you think you can play with someone before you have a better idea of which they mean than your next opponents?

2C "no special agreements" in the auction 1C-1S-1NT-2C means a good raise in spades at the given vulnerability conditions. Usually it means an unwillingness to defend 1NT doubled or undoubled at the given vulnerability. An example hand vul vs non would be QJ9x KTx AJTx xx.

[chudecek]

mgoetze, on 2011-May-20, 18:49, said:

I would describe today's standard system (in Poland) as "odw 4455 magister prec wilk 1430 standard carding" (whereby standard carding means that low = even or encouraging. It's standard because everyone east of France plays it that way). I'm willing to bet that you can't play this system and would be very confused if all the bids in it were described to you as "no special agreement".

The Standard Template for Poland would cover the calls and signals related to that system. The explanation of the calls would appear on the screen, along with an Alert! flag if they were not natural.