[chudecek]

 the hog, on 2011-May-20, 18:51, said:

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.

Then they could stay home. I don't make the house rules when I visit someone's house.

[the hog]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-20, 19:04, said:

Then they could stay home. I don't make the house rules when I visit someone's house.

There we have it then. So, US teams should stay home when the BB is held outside of the US? End of discussion.

[awm]

The thing is, most of the disclosure issues and long explanations don't come from the opening bids, or even from short uncontested auctions. Much more often the issue is competitive sequences and/or late rounds of auctions, and may revolve around negative inferences due to other agreements as well. Sure, it's easy to write computer software that will alert/explain my opening calls and partner's (uncontested first-round) response. But that stuff is on my written convention card anyway, and the vast majority of pairs play one of the fairly standard styles (i.e. "natural 5cM" or "natural 4cM" or "strong club with 5cM" or "strong club with 4cM" or "two-way club"), and usually strong opponents check out my "general approach" before we start anyway (which takes like one minute).

Writing some computer program (or using FD) to describe the meanings of all my calls in a long auction, especially when there is competition and the opponents calls may not have a "natural" meaning is just totally impractical. It's much more likely to lead to disclosure issues than the current system. What comes up with FD a lot is, somehow an incorrect explanation gets into the software (maybe because the opponents bid something that doesn't quite mean what it usually does, like I open 1♣ and LHO bids 1♥ showing spades and partner doubles, but I forgot to include the possibility of a non-natural overcall in my code so partner's double is explained as showing spades when actually it should show hearts). Now we have a huge mess because presumably I'm not allowed to see the software explanation of my (or partner's) bid (allowing me to refer to notes during a live auction would be a radical change to the game after all) so I can't even correct the mistake.

Honestly I don't see what you're trying to accomplish here. The proliferation of "systems" doesn't slow down the game all that much... the game is slow because people have tough decisions to think about and because they're allowed to take their time. To the degree that there are disclosure issues, they're usually in long and complicated auctions anyway and no "software package" is going to help. Unless you're planning to take the ridiculous step of disallowing me to have any agreements about complicated auctions, the "problem" will come up. If you're trying to make the game more kibitzer-friendly, I think this is just a waste of time. Bridge will never be something you can show on TV like poker. Even if everyone was playing the simplest bidding system imaginable, just the depth in the card-play is too complex for true novices to work out what's going on in a top-flight event. And the kibitzers aren't exactly paying the bills here. In any case, some of the kibitzers do actually watch in order to learn new conventions/agreements they can use with their partner, and restricting systems further takes this away.

[chudecek]

 the hog, on 2011-May-20, 19:08, said:

There we have it then. So, US teams should stay home when the BB is held outside of the US? End of discussion.

No, they should follow the Host's (or WBF's) Tournament rules.

[NickRW]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-20, 18:57, said:

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.

You didn't really read the post to which you replied. It said "uncontested" - you've read it as a contested sequence.

Anyhow, even if it were a contested sequence, "a good raise in spades at the given vulnerability conditions" is not "no special agreements" - it is, quite exactly, an agreement.

All bidding is agreements or meta-agreements. Card play is, at least to some extent, intuitive (in principle, at least, a super intelligent beginner could work it out). Bidding is not. It has to be learnt.

You're seeming to be suggesting that NA tournaments - including by implication the trials that you directly mentioned in the other thread - should be subject this "new" idea. But it is completely ridiculous to restrict your trials event to substantially different rules to those which the teams will encounter in the BB. You'd be picking a team that could win under rule set A and then assume that this qualifies them to win under rule set B - potentially an entirely different game.

You're being completely unrealistic.

Nick

[chudecek]

 awm, on 2011-May-20, 19:21, said:

The thing is, most of the disclosure issues and long explanations don't come from the opening bids, or even from short uncontested auctions. Much more often the issue is competitive sequences and/or late rounds of auctions, and may revolve around negative inferences due to other agreements as well. Sure, it's easy to write computer software that will alert/explain my opening calls and partner's (uncontested first-round) response. But that stuff is on my written convention card anyway, and the vast majority of pairs play one of the fairly standard styles (i.e. "natural 5cM" or "natural 4cM" or "strong club with 5cM" or "strong club with 4cM" or "two-way club"), and usually strong opponents check out my "general approach" before we start anyway (which takes like one minute).

Writing some computer program (or using FD) to describe the meanings of all my calls in a long auction, especially when there is competition and the opponents calls may not have a "natural" meaning is just totally impractical. It's much more likely to lead to disclosure issues than the current system. What comes up with FD a lot is, somehow an incorrect explanation gets into the software (maybe because the opponents bid something that doesn't quite mean what it usually does, like I open 1♣ and LHO bids 1♥ showing spades and partner doubles, but I forgot to include the possibility of a non-natural overcall in my code so partner's double is explained as showing spades when actually it should show hearts). Now we have a huge mess because presumably I'm not allowed to see the software explanation of my (or partner's) bid (allowing me to refer to notes during a live auction would be a radical change to the game after all) so I can't even correct the mistake.

Honestly I don't see what you're trying to accomplish here. The proliferation of "systems" doesn't slow down the game all that much... the game is slow because people have tough decisions to think about and because they're allowed to take their time. To the degree that there are disclosure issues, they're usually in long and complicated auctions anyway and no "software package" is going to help. Unless you're planning to take the ridiculous step of disallowing me to have any agreements about complicated auctions, the "problem" will come up. If you're trying to make the game more kibitzer-friendly, I think this is just a waste of time. Bridge will never be something you can show on TV like poker. Even if everyone was playing the simplest bidding system imaginable, just the depth in the card-play is too complex for true novices to work out what's going on in a top-flight event. And the kibitzers aren't exactly paying the bills here. In any case, some of the kibitzers do actually watch in order to learn new conventions/agreements they can use with their partner, and restricting systems further takes this away.

Remember that the default for a complex situation is to Alert and use the stylus on the touch screen. And please also remember my initial statement: "the meaning of bids after the opening currently constitute FAR MORE UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION AND UNAPPROVED METHODS THAN DOES A BASIC COMPLEX SYSTEM". So make sure you alert and explain, if it was beyond the scope of a modified System Card.

And my proposal has nothing to do with kibitzers. I feel that high level championship bridge is better served without a whole lot of home-made and unapproved gadgets; and It is also better served by playing with a reasonable time consumption - 48 to 54 minutes per player for 32 boards.

[chudecek]

 NickRW, on 2011-May-20, 19:23, said:

You didn't really read the post to which you replied. It said "uncontested" - you've read it as a contested sequence.

Anyhow, even if it were a contested sequence, "a good raise in spades at the given vulnerability conditions" is not "no special agreements" - it is, quite exactly, an agreement.

All bidding is agreements or meta-agreements. Card play is, at least to some extent, intuitive (in principle, at least, a super intelligent beginner could work it out). Bidding is not. It has to be learnt.

You're seeming to be suggesting that NA tournaments - including by implication the trials that you directly mentioned in the other thread - should be subject this "new" idea. But it is completely ridiculous to restrict your trials event to substantially different rules to those which the teams will encounter in the BB. You'd be picking a team that could win under rule set A and then assume that this qualifies them to win under rule set B - potentially an entirely different game.

You're being completely unrealistic.

Nick

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. That activity should stay within the System Development area until developed and approved and should not be introduced during championship competitions.

[jogs]

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

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.

The convention cards of the six partnerships were mostly conventions, treatment, and style for uncontested auctions. In the boards played 60-70% were contested auctions. Either these partnerships were just winging it or most of the contested bids were undisclosed partnership understandings. From the high percentage of bidding misjudgments on contested auctions they were probably winging it badly.

[barmar]

Karen Walker's column in this month's ACBL Bulletin is about when 4NT is Blackwood, quantitative, or takeout in various complex (both uncontested and contested) auctions. Do you think your "standard system" would address all these auctions?

[NickRW]

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

No SPECIAL agreement. That means we have NOT discussed this,...

But any even half decent pair WILL have discussed it. Hell I've discussed it with half a dozen partners and I'm nothing like the standard of the US trials.

Quote

and must use common bridge sense to come up with a meaning.

What the hell is "common bridge sense". To a beginner the sequence you alluded to is not a spade raise but a natural bid - as are all bids. To many others it might be a spade raise - but that is because they've discussed it - or read about it. To someone else it just as well might be a transfer. Who the hell are you to tell any of these people that their ideas are wrong.

Quote

That activity is the ESSENCE of bridge, not the development of complex special agreements and methods.

Your opinion only. Obviously doesn't match the opinion of many people here.

Quote

That activity should stay within the System Development area until developed and approved and should not be introduced during championship competitions.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. We already see how much a pigs ear the ACBL can make of system regulation. You're proposing an even worse, more draconian monstrosity.

Nick

[olien]

Why should we expect the Conventions Committee to approve any methods? They always seem to prevent the approval of new methods by saying the methods are too complex or, failing that, to just not approve the defence for the method.

The foreigners that come over and play in our tournaments have worked just as long and hard, if not more so, at perfecting their system and learning defences to unusual methods. However, you're narrow-minded and don't think they should be allowed to play their methods. They've had to learn defences to American methods which they think are unusual and are definitely uncommon or rare in Europe. A couple examples are Flannery 2D opening and the Capp defense to 1NT where 2C shows ANY suit. In England, that 2C bid is restricted to certain levels. However, you're suggesting that these pairs come over and have to scrap their systems which they've spent years perfecting and have to play methods with which they're uncomfortable because you can't seem to figure out that the easiest way to treat a polish club is to act like its a short club and bid accordingly. Or that multi 2♦ is not that hard to defend and is actually easier to penalize (usually) than a normal weak 2. But you prefer to play in your protected shell where you don't have to learn anything and they all have to start over in developing system.

[han]

If Carl Hudecek were in charge, I'd quit bridge.

[jogs]

 han, on 2011-May-21, 10:53, said:

If Carl Hudecek were in charge, I'd quit bridge.

This is the problem. It would set bridge back to the 1930's.

Online allows fuller disclosure of methods. Pairs playing complex and artificial methods should be required to fill out a convention booklet. It should be in outline form. They would be able to transmit to pertinent section to their opponent's screen. Programmers should make it easy for players to transmit sections of their convention booklet. Type in a keyword to transmit a section.

[olien]

 han, on 2011-May-21, 10:53, said:

If Carl Hudecek were in charge, I'd quit bridge.

I wish there was a "like" button on the BBF

[Ant590]

LOL @ use of capitalisation and the whole idea in general

[chudecek]

 jogs, on 2011-May-21, 11:13, said:

This is the problem. It would set bridge back to the 1930's.

Online allows fuller disclosure of methods. Pairs playing complex and artificial methods should be required to fill out a convention booklet. It should be in outline form. They would be able to transmit to pertinent section to their opponent's screen. Programmers should make it easy for players to transmit sections of their convention booklet. Type in a keyword to transmit a section.

This is similar to what I am trying to accomplish with my "System Card", except my proposal provides an explanation of each call as it is made; and further provides that methods used be approved, because the meaning of bids after the opening currently constitutes FAR MORE UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION AND UNAPPROVED METHODS THAN DOES A BASIC COMPLEX SYSTEM.

And I further think that PRESENT use of complex unapproved systems and methods is primarily for the purpose of gaining advantage through the opponents' unfamiliarity with the method's details and nuances.

Playing Championships with everybody using a common "1930's format" would certainly determine who the best team or pair was - and nothing anyone says here can convince me otherwise.

[Bbradley62]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-21, 13:55, said:

... and nothing anyone says here can convince me otherwise.

That says it all. No one agrees with you, but you stick to your guns...

[mgoetze]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-21, 13:55, said:

and nothing anyone says here can convince me otherwise.

And just to make sure you didn't even read what I wrote. Thanks for wasting our time.

[jogs]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-21, 13:55, said:

And I further think that PRESENT use of complex unapproved systems and methods is primarily for the purpose of gaining advantage through the opponents' unfamiliarity with the method's details and nuances.

The solution for this is to allow opponents to discuss their defenses at the table during the play. This way newer methods will be introduced under unfavorable conditions. Win on merit rather than surprise.

[chudecek]

 jogs, on 2011-May-21, 15:37, said:

The solution for this is to allow opponents to discuss their defenses at the table during the play. This way newer methods will be introduced under unfavorable conditions. Win on merit rather than surprise.

A ad hoc defense will never overcome the hours and days of development put in by the perpetrators. That's why a lengthy Trial and Test phase which includes discussions on the internet and articles in bridge magazines, followed by approval or disapproval of the method, is the way to go.

If you mean allowing opponents to discuss defenses during "results don't count for anything" trial sessions, I agree.