[TylerE]

Since you seem to find any sort of bidding theory odious, I suggest you start campaigning for a revival of whist.

[barmar]

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

T 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.

This is the basic justification for this whole thing, right? Where is your evidence of this problem that requires this draconian solution?

I've watched lots of national and world championships on Vugraph, and can't think of many occurrences of this.

[awm]

I just don't understand what the point of this is. It seems to me that your suggested approach incurs the following costs:

(1) Huge amount of work by players to construct the flash memory "convention cards" which is obviously a lot more work than a paper CC.
(2) Huge amount of work by the "convention approval" committee to decide what is allowed.
(3) Possibly large number of upset players whose preferred methods have been disallowed.
(4) Potential slowing down of the game since entering data to a computer system is slower for most people than on paper.
(5) Possible complicated MI cases if a mistake was made in generating the flash memory "convention card"
(6) Potentially high monetary cost to acquire the necessary computer hardware.

In exchange for this, the benefits are... what?

(1) Your perception that events with restricted systems involve more skill and less luck.
(2) Your perception that this will somehow improve disclosure.
(3) Your perception that using computers somehow brings bridge into the modern era.
(4) The ability to automatically record the time taken by players in writing explanations.

The first one is actually quite controversial; I think a lot of people believe that ability to devise and remember a complex (and effective) system is a matter of skill, and that the best way to reduce the luck factor is just to play long matches. For the second point, if the idea is that the computer is supposed to automatically generate explanations from the pre-recorded system data, the cost in terms of data entry and MI cases will be way too high for it to be worth it. If the idea is that players enter explanations on the fly by typing or using a stylus, then I don't see how this is any different/better than doing the same on paper. The third point seems totally philosophical and to have no tangible benefits (not to mention a lot of older players might be uncomfortable with computers). And while the fourth point is arguably worth something, I don't think it comes close to justifying the costs (and I don't think the time for explanations is an extremely significant slow play issue -- usually it's "thinking" and not "discussing" that takes most of the time).

[olien]

I think Mr. Hudecek should get his paranoia checked. IMO, the only reason he thinks there isn't full disclosure is because he doesn't ask relevant questions. He asks what a bid means, and they tell him; it seems he expects them to provide every negative and/or positive inference that is relevant. This is equivalent to saying that a failure to make, for example, a support X is alertable. He would cry murder because they passed with their two small or whatever and he took a line of play in case they had three because the pass wasn't alerted as denying three-card support. This negative inference alertability thing can get out of hand. Here are a few examples:

1) Opponents play Flannery 2D (I love using Flannery as an example) and open 1H. Should they have to alert 1H as denying a 4-card major unless opener holds reversing values?

2) Opponents alert you that they play a 1D opening as denying having balanced distribution. They open 1C and announce that it could be short per regulations. Carl mis-defends because opener had a non-traditional shape (say 3352 or 4342). He would say that full disclosure wasn't given because they didn't say that they opened 1C on all balanced hands outside of the NT range and without a 5-card major even though the negative inference is clear: 5-card majors, unbalanced 1D opening. The same negative inference applies to a precision 1D opening.

My point is, Mr. Hudecek saw only two possible solutions:

a) To require the opponents to explain every bid and all of its negative/positive inferences. He also would have the opponents submit an entire set of system notes with the same and a suggested defence for anything he considers non-standard. However, he realises this is too cumbersome and would slow the game down too much to be palatable.

b) To make the suggestion he did which is at the other extreme. However, this is also clearly wrong; but from his perspective is more palatable than option A.



Also, I ask Mr. Hudecek a question regarding these games for testing systems for approval. Are you not effectively putting a severe restriction on introducing new system? Nobody would want to go through a 2 year "test" phase and expend an immeasurable amount of energy just to hear their method is disallowed. Wouldn't it also cease intellectual bridge thought in the US regarding system development? It would seem to be a logistical nightmare in organising these matches, and to have anywhere near the amount required to meet the desire of those who want to introduce systems would be monetarily impossible; and you can just forget it if you expect the applicants to foot the bill. Also, how can you judge what current bridge players desire? You say you've quit playing, and I'm sure you have at tournaments at least. So, even though you still watch, how can you claim to have an intimate knowledge of what the current bridge player wants?

I'll be surprised if you can provide intelligent responses that doesn't ramble on and on like most of your previous posts to this and your concurrent thread.

[jogs]

chudecek, on 2011-May-21, 16:58, said:

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

Why should pairs be required to prepare defenses in advance for auctions which are unlikely to occur? During the hand after the alert, pairs should be allowed to discuss the meanings of their defenses. All exotic bids are allowed. But they all face harsh battlefield conditions. If the exotic bids are as theoretically superior as their practitioners claim, they would still net positive results. Pairs would still be required to prepare for all bids under A-E on the convention card.

[jogs]

olien, on 2011-May-21, 23:46, said:

I think Mr. Hudecek should get his paranoia checked. IMO, the only reason he thinks there isn't full disclosure is because he doesn't ask relevant questions.

If you need to find the relevant question by definition there wasn't full disclosure.

[chudecek]

olien, on 2011-May-21, 23:46, said:

I think Mr. Hudecek should get his paranoia checked. ....snip.....

Also, I ask Mr. Hudecek a question regarding these games for testing systems for approval....snip...

I'll be surprised if you (Hudecek) can provide intelligent responses that doesn't ramble on and on like most of your previous posts to this and your concurrent thread.

I haven't been called "Mr. Hudecek" since a couple of months ago, when I answered the doorbell and was asked to buy Girl Scout cookies. Your mother raised you well, olien.

And being admonished about "rambling on" by someone who used 524 words in a prior post? Sheesh.

[mtvesuvius]

chudecek, on 2011-May-22, 13:03, said:

I haven't been called "Mr. Hudecek" since a couple of months ago, when I answered the doorbell and was asked to buy Girl Scout cookies. Your mother raised you well, olien.

And being admonished about "rambling on" by someone who used 524 words in a prior post? Sheesh.

Here's an idea...

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

[BunnyGo]

My duty calls to inform this thread that Someone is wrong on the internet! Hopefully you can correct this problem.

[glen]

BunnyGo, on 2011-May-22, 14:56, said:

My duty calls to inform this thread that Someone is wrong on the internet! Hopefully you can correct this problem.

I'm just waiting for Summer Glau to show up to terminate this:

http://xkcd.com/406/

[Phil]

[inquiry]

glen, on 2011-May-22, 15:04, said:

I'm just waiting for Summer Glau to show up to terminate this:

http://xkcd.com/406/

Finally something of value in this thread. I'm always ready for Summer Glau .... firefly, Sarah Connor Chronicles, the cape. (well, i passed on power rangers).

[chudecek]

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.

olien, on 2011-May-21, 23:46, said:

I think Mr. Hudecek should get his paranoia checked. IMO, the only reason he thinks there isn't full disclosure is because he doesn't ask relevant questions. He asks what a bid means, and they tell him; it seems he expects them to provide every negative and/or positive inference that is relevant. This is equivalent to saying that a failure to make, for example, a support X is alertable. He would cry murder because they passed with their two small or whatever and he took a line of play in case they had three because the pass wasn't alerted as denying three-card support. This negative inference alertability thing can get out of hand. Here are a few examples:

1) Opponents play Flannery 2D (I love using Flannery as an example) and open 1H. Should they have to alert 1H as denying a 4-card major unless opener holds reversing values?

2) Opponents alert you that they play a 1D opening as denying having balanced distribution. They open 1C and announce that it could be short per regulations. Carl mis-defends because opener had a non-traditional shape (say 3352 or 4342). He would say that full disclosure wasn't given because they didn't say that they opened 1C on all balanced hands outside of the NT range and without a 5-card major even though the negative inference is clear: 5-card majors, unbalanced 1D opening. The same negative inference applies to a precision 1D opening.

My point is, Mr. Hudecek saw only two possible solutions:

a) To require the opponents to explain every bid and all of its negative/positive inferences. He also would have the opponents submit an entire set of system notes with the same and a suggested defence for anything he considers non-standard. However, he realises this is too cumbersome and would slow the game down too much to be palatable.

b) To make the suggestion he did which is at the other extreme. However, this is also clearly wrong; but from his perspective is more palatable than option A.



Also, I ask Mr. Hudecek a question regarding these games for testing systems for approval. Are you not effectively putting a severe restriction on introducing new system? Nobody would want to go through a 2 year "test" phase and expend an immeasurable amount of energy just to hear their method is disallowed. Wouldn't it also cease intellectual bridge thought in the US regarding system development? It would seem to be a logistical nightmare in organising these matches, and to have anywhere near the amount required to meet the desire of those who want to introduce systems would be monetarily impossible; and you can just forget it if you expect the applicants to foot the bill. Also, how can you judge what current bridge players desire? You say you've quit playing, and I'm sure you have at tournaments at least. So, even though you still watch, how can you claim to have an intimate knowledge of what the current bridge player wants?

I'll be surprised if you can provide intelligent responses that doesn't ramble on and on like most of your previous posts to this and your concurrent thread.

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"




a) The SOFTWARE provides the explanation and suggested defense automatically and I find that very palatable to the point of being delectable. And it wouldn't "slow the game down".

And if a method is so great it certainly should have to go thru a development, trial, and testing phase. If people want to spend time developing a system or method and come to "agreements", they can take 5% of that time to use a "pick-a-dot" template to codify bid meanings, inferences and defenses.

The development, trial and SOME testing phases could be done over the internet- FREE at a BBO table.
And the current crop of American tournament bridge players just want a smooth-flowing, reasonably paced game where they don't have to confront obscure methods and listen to half-baked explanations.

And I guess I have "rambled on" enough.

[Vampyr]

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:

• no one would have to deal with methods that are unfamiliar, destructive, or difficult to defend against.
  
  
• no one would be at a disadvantage because their favourite or familiar methods are not allowed by the bidding authority in charge of the particular event.
  
  
• no one would have to go through the process of waiting two years for the approval of a bidding innovation.
  
  
• play would be sped up enormously -- not only would there be no hesitations or explanations in the bidding, but there would be less to think about during the play of the hand, as declarer/defenders would not have to consider inferences from the bidding -- plus no declarer would find himself having to make the best of a ridiculous or inferior contract.

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

[chudecek]

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:

• no one would have to deal with methods that are unfamiliar, destructive, or difficult to defend against.
  
  
• no one would be at a disadvantage because their favourite or familiar methods are not allowed by the bidding authority in charge of the particular event.
  
  
• no one would have to go through the process of waiting two years for the approval of a bidding innovation.
  
  
• play would be sped up enormously -- not only would there be no hesitations or explanations in the bidding, but there would be less to think about during the play of the hand, as declarer/defenders would not have to consider inferences from the bidding -- plus no declarer would find himself having to make the best of a ridiculous or inferior contract.

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

I love this idea.

[diana_eva]

[kayin801]

chudecek, on 2011-May-22, 18:58, said:

I love this idea.

[TylerE]

I've got an even better idea, let's just all agree to pass out every board. Then no one will have to face any methods they'd rather not, and they won't have to tire their precious minds with any of that annoying card play either.

[babalu1997]

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:

• no one would have to deal with methods that are unfamiliar, destructive, or difficult to defend against.
  
  
• no one would be at a disadvantage because their favourite or familiar methods are not allowed by the bidding authority in charge of the particular event.
  
  
• no one would have to go through the process of waiting two years for the approval of a bidding innovation.
  
  
• play would be sped up enormously -- not only would there be no hesitations or explanations in the bidding, but there would be less to think about during the play of the hand, as declarer/defenders would not have to consider inferences from the bidding -- plus no declarer would find himself having to make the best of a ridiculous or inferior contract.

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

Thus has already been invented at bbo windows server.

it is called minibridge

you all can go there and practice

[Bbradley62]

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

And the current crop of American tournament bridge players just want a smooth-flowing, reasonably paced game where they don't have to confront obscure methods and listen to half-baked explanations.

I'm sure your "current crop" gets plenty of opportunity to play in Seniors events and tournaments, which should be a good fit for their wants and needs.