[kenrexford]

Just for fun, imagine bridge with no alerts, and not even a duty to explain what any bid meant, with no convention charts. While this might seem like chaos, it seems to me that this would open up a fascinating world of unique bidding theory.

As a simple start, overcall structures would need to cater to more possibilities. Granted, some preemptive action would likely be curtailed. One would need more space for description of sound values hands, which would probably reduce interference. That problem, however, might be balanced with a limited disclosure requirement to state strength only, but perhaps allowing for multi bids as to strength.

Where this would be really cool is in encrypting methods to avoid the opponents learning your secrets. There would be an incentive, for example, to play multiple systems at once, perhaps switched based on seat, vulnerability, board numbrr, or whatever else.

In that context, some normally inferior methods might gain traction as diversion systems, with useful space principles forfeit to prediction elimination gains. For example, opening 1S with spades and values is nearly universal. Opening 1S with hearts is bizarre and ineffective, unless you want to force 1S overcall structures to cater to spade holdings.

It is not the chaos that intrigues me. It is the theory elements that would emerge that intrigue me.

[NickRW]

Typical, indeed classic KR

kenrexford, on 2015-August-19, 20:26, said:

...Opening 1S with hearts is bizarre and ineffective

I seem to recall someone posting asking for a defence to inverted major openings a year or two back. Its more difficult than you might think. Indeed I've played inverted major responses to 1♦. The theory being that you hog their space when you have the inferior heart suit and give it back when you have the boss suit (but do you care then!).

[Zelandakh]

NickRW, on 2015-August-20, 08:30, said:

Indeed I've played inverted major responses to 1♦. The theory being that you hog their space when you have the inferior heart suit and give it back when you have the boss suit (but do you care then!).

Another decent option that works similarly is skip bid responses, where 1♥ denies 4 hearts, 1♠ shows hearts and 1NT is limited with both majors.

And while I can imagine the game from the OP, I'd rather not. The way to get more varieties of system allowed is more disclosure and not less. I look forward to the day when a system like FD is available to opponents automatically so alerts and explanations are seamlessly given without UI implications.

[barmar]

Many years ago I was discussing the game with an old friend, who knows the game but isn't a regular player. He said that it was the disclosure requirement that turned him off. As a mathematician, he was more intrigued by the idea of being able to concoct arbitrary systems and being challenged in decoding the opponents' system.

[awm]

This would make it very easy to cheat... Opponents would have no way to tell if I have some complicated secret agreement about (say) notrump ranges... or if I just open 1nt on all balanced hands and signal my high card strength using the position of my fingers on the cards...

[kenrexford]

awm, on 2015-August-20, 17:42, said:

This would make it very easy to cheat... Opponents would have no way to tell if I have some complicated secret agreement about (say) notrump ranges... or if I just open 1nt on all balanced hands and signal my high card strength using the position of my fingers on the cards...

Screens

[awm]

Replace "fingers on cards" with "coughs" or "position of bid cards in tray" or "phone vibrations" or whatever. The point is that disclosure of methods makes it easier to detect suspicious auctions...

[kenrexford]

awm, on 2015-August-20, 18:30, said:

Replace "fingers on cards" with "coughs" or "position of bid cards in tray" or "phone vibrations" or whatever. The point is that disclosure of methods makes it easier to detect suspicious auctions...

Play in separate rooms, with electronic bidding. Or, even better, allow nonverbal signals also. I like the post mortem...

Would you have opened a crossed finger 1S with this hand?

Heck no. The standard treatment is a two cough 2C, perhaps with a toe tap, but I think the tap to be a slight overbid.

You are out of your mind. Two coughs, sure, but coupling 2C with a toe tap is a gross misdescription.

I think you missed RHO'S giggle pass.

Oh. For God's sake, I thought he just thought passing was funny.

[diana_eva]

kenrexford, on 2015-August-20, 18:44, said:

Play in separate rooms, with electronic bidding. Or, even better, allow nonverbal signals also. I like the post mortem...

Would you have opened a crossed finger 1S with this hand?

Heck no. The standard treatment is a two cough 2C, perhaps with a toe tap, but I think the tap to be a slight overbid.

You are out of your mind. Two coughs, sure, but coupling 2C with a toe tap is a gross misdescription.

I think you missed RHO'S giggle pass.

Oh. For God's sake, I thought he just thought passing was funny.

Maybe I shd move this to Exp Forums - funny passes aren't for everyone.

[MrAce]

diana_eva, on 2015-August-20, 19:07, said:

Maybe I shd move this to Exp Forums -..

Please don't!

[helene_t]

kenrexford, on 2015-August-20, 18:44, said:

Play in separate rooms, with electronic bidding. Or, even better, allow nonverbal signals also. I like the post mortem...

Would you have opened a crossed finger 1S with this hand?

Heck no. The standard treatment is a two cough 2C, perhaps with a toe tap, but I think the tap to be a slight overbid.

You are out of your mind. Two coughs, sure, but coupling 2C with a toe tap is a gross misdescription.

I think you missed RHO'S giggle pass.

Oh. For God's sake, I thought he just thought passing was funny.

So if you and p know sign language and opps don't, you just start by exchanging your exact handa. Then you open whatever you think your par is, or you psyche something. You will almost never need the 2nt bidding card (or 1 of a suit for that matter) so you can use those cards for taking notes of the opponents card play so you don't have to count.

[PhilKing]

diana_eva, on 2015-August-20, 19:07, said:

Maybe I shd move this to the Water Cooler - funny passes aren't for everyone.

fyp

[diana_eva]

MrAce, on 2015-August-20, 20:09, said:

Please don't!

I was joking ffs

[MrAce]

diana_eva, on 2015-August-21, 05:10, said:

I was joking ffs

Was a bad joke!

[diana_eva]

MrAce, on 2015-August-21, 05:16, said:

Was a bad Romanian joke!

I thought it was funny

[MrAce]

diana_eva, on 2015-August-21, 05:17, said:

I thought it was funny

I doubt Ken will find neither of us funny if we don't stop it . And neither of us will find it funny when Barmar or Ben kicks us due to hijacking the topic

[Zelandakh]

It seems to me that we can reduce this game down to one where we simply show all 4 players the complete deal and they then bid as usual. This becomes in effect an exercise in double dummy analysis. We can dispense with the actual playing of the hand and use a DD Solver for that. This game has a number of advantages over regular bridge - it is simpler for new players to pick up and hands are shorter so one could play more hands per hour and it also matches to lower attention spans. It is also very easy to produce 2 and 3 player variants making it more flexible than regular bridge. Perhaps this is really the future...

[Free]

kenrexford, on 2015-August-19, 20:26, said:

Just for fun, imagine bridge with no alerts, and not even a duty to explain what any bid meant, with no convention charts. While this might seem like chaos, it seems to me that this would open up a fascinating world of unique bidding theory.

Agree that bidding theory would be fascinating. However, it wouldn't be as spectacular as you might think. Imo bidding theory would evolve to meta agreements, since any bid from opps has to be handled as a non-bid. With full disclosure your overcall system is based on what opps' call mean (cuebids for example), without disclosure you just play your own stuff.

Note that psychs would no longer be useful, you only fool your CHO
Note that it might be useful to obligate full disclosure by both pairs right before the lead, this keeps the play quite rational and might result in funny moments

[kenrexford]

MrAce, on 2015-August-21, 05:41, said:

I doubt Ken will find neither of us funny if we don't stop it . And neither of us will find it funny when Barmar or Ben kicks us due to hijacking the topic

Actually, the more the topic is hijacked, the better.

As to the actual post, however, there is a potential solution to some of the complaints. Suppose no alerts or explanations were required, but a maximum of four variations allowed. You might have a requirement to have four complete sets of system notes available. The encrypting of when each applies need not, however, be disclosed. That might avert some problems and might allow for some after-the-fact analysis, if ever needed.

This, of course, risks the encryption being coded through gestures, but maybe that's not so much a problem anyway. As long as everyone can see your fingers as easily as partner, all is good.

I would imagine that a four-way encryption might even be taken to the table if you placed a restriction of a maximum of 20 seconds on any bid. Opener bids and then slaps the timer. Next hand has 20 seconds to bid. If the buzzer goes off, LHO is forced to pass. That would eliminate any ability to cater to whatever the notes say and force agreements based on no knowledge of meaning. Sure, you might allow a 60-second perusing of general notes before the start of the first auction, perhaps.

I am sure that some minor restrictions might solve the problem of enabling no disclosure while avoiding any effective and unfair cheating. Once all of that is accomplished, then you get to the theory, which would be the fun part.

[Vampyr]

kenrexford, on 2015-August-21, 12:58, said:

Actually, the more the topic is hijacked, the better.

Ah, you have said something sensible in this three.