[Laird]

Hello All
I hope you are as excited about the prospect of this match as I am.
A team of natural players including Inquiry,Malucy,Kleek and Fred will play against a team including hrothgar, The_Hog and others who will be playing the artificial Mosquito bidding system.
So that we Too can enjoy this event I hope that someone will provide us with a short simplified summary of the key aspects of the artificial bidding that we should be looking out for.
I also hope that there will be some kind of expert commentary during the event.
I also hope that there will be some control over the 'kib chat' during the event so that we can concentrate and enjoy it more fully.
I'm sure that this match will go some way to showing us in a practical way the merits/ demerits of both systems.
I don't know if there is a gender bias or not in the team selection but maybe this will go some way to satisfying some of 'Old Fogey's' criticism of the scientific method.
Luis has to be credited for coming up with the idea and we as part of the BBO community should play our part in helping to make it a memorable event.
The fact that it is a REMATCH means that something like it was previously attempted.... anybody know the details?

John

[the hog]

There was a match some years ago between "traditionalists vs scientists". I can't remember exactly who played but Meckwell was on pair. It didn't prove much one way or another.

Re commentating - see my post in the other forum.

[eyhung]

Also, in the Encyclopedia it says there were three matches between "scientists" and "traditionalists". All three matches were won by the "scientists". Hmm.

Eugene Hung

[Cave_Draco]

I think Fred summed it up pretty well on the "other" string: Scientists choose to learn an unnatural system; "natural" players have it thrust upon them!

Even Precision, if one has time to agree a defence, can be upset; far more easily than a "natural" system!

However, one gets into a never-ending spiral... once a defence becomes a problem, you need a defence to the defence, .

Then again, if the PtB have licensed the "Scientific" system, what can they do but license any defence to it?

The systems one has to know become worse than chess openings! At least I don't have to "know" Ruy Lopez or Giocco Piano, just the Caro-Kann and "certain lines" of the Sicilian will do me for all e4, ;D.

[hrothgar]

I have two basic problems with this line of argument:

The first is that there are [essentially] no logicial boundaries that can be used in licensing conventions. Almost universally, this leads to convention regulations that are inherently subjective and biased.

Many authorities attempt to claim that convention licensing should be based on"familiarity". Players should not be expected to compete against methods with which they are unfamilar. The problem with this approach is that most players aren't even familiar with their own methods. Traditional Goren style 4 card majors is as foreign as any of the "new fangled" systems that have been developed more recently. Ifind it incredibly amusing that Bob Hamman makes such a strong claim that it is necessary to protect pairs against unfamiliar methods while simultaneously lobbying to ensure that his pet canape based 4 card major system can be used at all levels within the ACBL. You can't have it both ways.

Other authorities try to divide convention licensing into sets of destructive and non-destructive conventions. Here once again, however, there does not seem to be any logical basis to the dividing line. I would love to understand why Jacoby transfers over a 1NT opening are constructive, however, transfer responses over a 1 Major opening are inherently destructive.

In actuality, convention regulations are a simple example of an entrenched interest group using the regulatory structure to inhibit competition. This happens all the time in industry. It happens in hobbies as well. Those who are currently at the top try to eliminate sources of variance to ensure that nothing rocks the boat.

Second, I have problems with the argument that "stasis" is in the best interest of the game. I agree that declarer play and defense offer an amusing intellectual pass time. However, I think that biddig is an integral part of the game. Maybe its just my immaturity, however, being asked to accept things based on faith doesn't sit well with me. Until someone is able to come up with a convincing proof that they've perfected a bidding system, I'm going to want to be able to tweak, optimize, etc. My belief is that this characteristic is shared by most people below a certain age group. Equally significant, this same group of players is not likely to accept "Because I saw so" as a reasonable answer regarding convention regulations. [Utiimately, the ACBL's inability to establish a logical set of regulations means that it is relying on the weight of authority for credence which is also dangerous with the young"

If the ACBL is serious about wanting to broaden its appeal to a younger demographic, it will utilimately need to relax system regulations.

[Yzerman]

Some personal thoughts on the subject with respect to what is said in this post as well as the other "scientist vs naturalist" thread.

I tend to agree with Fred on the general theory of bridge (obviously, or I would not be participating in this), that bridge is a complex enough game without all the overhead associated with artificial/scientific bidding systems. Why do WE play the game? Personally I play the game because of the challenge that NOTHING else in life has posed to me in comparison. The dynamics of the game of the game of bridge are like no other game in the world.

These are just some of the factors that one must weigh in approaching the game of bridge (to name a few);

a) Defensive Card Play
Declarer Card Play
c) Partnership Skills
d) Table Feel
e) Bidding Judgement
f) System Construction/Agreement

Those are quite a few intangibles one must "master" before becoming a competetitive bridge player. These tend to get prioritized base upon personal approach to the game, people value these in different priorities. So based upon that personal prioritization or approach to the game, is how one adopts their approach. I, for one, take a much more simplistic approach where I value Card Play, Bidding Judgement, and Partnership Skills (I try, trust me I try!). My personal "theory" is that if I can master those that I mentioned as important to me, I feel as though I will be successful.

However I very much appreciate what Richard (hrothgar) wrote in this post as well as what Eugene (eyhung) wrote in the other post. To establish a bias or prejudice against certain systems is to greatly hinder the progress of bridge. Certain "components" within a bidding system may have some value for bridge players, competitive players or even casual. As long as certain systems are deemed NOT to be totally destructive (as judged by our domestic governing body - ACBL), I accept them as viable systems that I have to play against. This is a free world, and as long as governance states that something is legal I believe people have the right to exercise that freedom.

Personally I play alot of artificial/scientific "stuff" (although never studied MOSCITO), but I tend to do so ONLY in established partnerships or in partnerships where that is the stated goal, bidding experimentation or learning of new system. One reason I personally dont like to play in casual partnerships with lots of artificial bidding, is that ALOT of bidding and bidding judgement is based upon what partner did NOT bid as opposed to what they DID bid. Hence, if I am not familiar with a partners tendencies with certain hands, there is a whole extra layer of information/logic I am not able to evaluate effectively.

As I understand the cause of this whole challenge, our team will probably field the following pairings;

kleek-fred/inquiry-malucy
malucy-fred/inquiry-kleek

Although Kurt (kleek) and I are not "world class" or "expert" players, we have a very refined partnership (not only system, but familiarity with how each other judge bidding and our tendencies) and that would present us with a predisposed advantage. Furthermore, our partnerhip utilizes alot of artificial bidding (relays, artifical forcing bids, etc) that would not help promote the cause of this event (and I just cant play with kleek and NOT have my bidding tools!). One advantage that we will have in these pairings, is that we will NOT have to spend much time (if any) preparing lots of agreements. Our approach will be very simple, and consistent with what is set out to be measured;

What approach is best strategy for being successful at bridge, (a) scientific/artificial bidding or ( natural bidding?

[Cave_Draco]

I agree with your sentiments, hrothgar.

However, every coin has two sides. I devised a system for opposing Precision... call it Weak Club, lol. 1C was either 7-11 or a major 2-suiter.

Politically, there are ways to beat bureaucracy... Opposing it is not one! Wind it up the way it wants to go & stand well back, .

I may be ancient but... been there, done that, Dragons don't wear T-shirts.

The chess analogy is valid... You are playing Precision... OK, we are playing Weak Club! Consider the scissors/paper/stone game as SAYC/Acol/Precision? Just consider?

I did post on trump signals... Why would the EBU ban the Vinje trump signal? Encrypted information? Rude words!

[hrothgar]

I always thought that there is a farily simple solution to the "Chicken and egg" problem which Draco describes as rock paper scissors.

Bidding systems must be defined in the order of play.

In this case, the opening bidder defines his bidding style, LHO defines an overcall structure based on this, ...

To extend this to Draco's example, I see nothing wrong with chosing top play Weak Club, but you need to play it against all opponents, not just those playing Precision. [Your decision what to open in first seat can not be constrained by our action in second] However, I see nothing wrong with you're chosing to play Weak Club in second seat based on the fact that we passed in first.

[Cave_Draco]

Close, who hands over the convention card first? Chicken & egg is simple... look up the natural history of the basilisk, lol.

Simultaneously? Paper/scissors/stone!

I'm happy to play Benj Acol v SAYC; Precision v Benj Acol; SAYC v Precision.

Although I do prefer 4-card majors & Weak NT, ;D.

[pbleighton]

"Until someone is able to come up with a convincing proof that they've perfected a bidding system, I'm going to want to be able to tweak, optimize, etc. My belief is that this characteristic is shared by most people below a certain age group."

Some of us "of a certain age" share this characteristic too!

Without disrespect to any of the Naturalists:

GO SCIENTISTS!

[luis]

Hi all,

I started the thread so I'm very very happy to see the idea was widely accepted. I hope to play for the "scientists" playing Moscito with one of my reg pds. If not then I'll be happy to comment the match for the kibitzers.

This is not a crusade, the idea is not to prove that Moscito is better than 2/1 or than SAYC is better than Moscito. The idea is to show how radically different bidding systems bid the same hand, to show beginners and intermediate players that artificial systems are not satanic just another side of the same coin and that you are not losing just because their methods are mor complex than yours.

The first match of Naturalists vrs Scientists was organized by Bridge World, the naturalists played Standard american + blackwood and Stayman while the scientists used complex methods. If I remember well Mathew Granovetter was playing with Rubin a complex relay system they used to win the challenge the champs section of BW for a record number of times.

Anyway this matches are a lot of fun, there will be "Natural" supporters hoping for a relay misunderstanding to go down 7 in a 2-1 fit and there will be "Science" fans hoping for the perfect grand slam where you have to know your pd has the singleton dQ and the club J. :-)

The important idea in my opinion is to show that natural systems can be as good as complex systems and that artificial systems are not satanic nor designed to destroy the game. Many players can learn a lot and have a lot of fun watching players like Fred and Paul Marston playing.

I'm happy to announce that Fred will be playing for the Naturalists. The "Scientists" will use Moscito (we don't know the flavour yet since there are MANY variations) but I'm very happy to announce that Paul Marston the inventor of Moscito and a remarkable Aussie player will be playing.

I'll post a thread "Introduction to Moscito" in this same forum so you can read something not-so-technical about the system.

Enjoy!

Luis.

[Laird]

Hello All

We 'natural bidders' must take some comfort, when we read about Fred's proposed strategy to deal with the Moscito threat...ie

Over any artificial preempt that occurs
- all bids are natural
- all n/t bids are natural
- double is either 13 -15 balanced( maybe semi -balanced) or a hand too strong to overcall or bid n/t directly
- All doubles not made in the direct seat( including thase after which some other direct seat action has been taken) are 'take out' or 'responsive of the suit most recently bid by opponents.

He says he doesnt even want to read up about Moscito....
It seems to me that this is almost a universal strategy to deal with the unknown and may be applicable in many bridge situations?
Maybe I am being too confident but I seem to be losing my fear of Moscito already but as I come from Scotland I am well aware of 'Midges' which are small moscitos' and a real torment in summer when they bite.
Perhaps I better not say too much and keep my powder dry!

John

[the hog]

At the risk of dampening everyone's enthusiasm. System has little to do with whether you win or lose at bridge. No system is a panacea for crappy play and no judgement. You can win using anything, (well within reason), if you are good enough. I think the purpose of this exercise is to have a bit of fun and to see if early and light action can cause some strife. Why you would "fear" any system is beyond me.



Cheers
Ron

[luis]

For some reason "Naturalists" tend to decline studying opponents system and claim that they don't need any specialized defense.
"Scientists" on the other hand are generally players that like to study and carefully prepare defenses for many situations even in competence, they like to analize the opponents systems and find weak spots where a particular bid may disrupt the whole sequence etc.

I think studying and preparing defenses and pre-arranging some conventions is an important phase of a team match specially when the match is long.

[pbleighton]

Ron writes:
"At the risk of dampening everyone's enthusiasm. System has little to do with whether you win or lose at bridge. No system is a panacea for crappy play and no judgement. You can win using anything, (well within reason), if you are good enough. I think the purpose of this exercise is to have a bit of fun and to see if early and light action can cause some strife."

True enough, but would you deprive us of our rooting interests?

You the man!