[david_c]

fred, on Sep 5 2005, 01:49 AM, said:

It may be possible to prepare generic defense against most weird bids, but if you want to win a World Championship you have to do better than that. The best "generic defense" will not be the "best defense" in many situations and if you include too many exceptions in your generic defense, it stops being generic.

Here I do agree with Fred. What I would hope to see in a world championship is the best systems and the best defences to those systems.

[Free]

mrdct, on Sep 5 2005, 10:54 AM, said:

Walddk, on Sep 1 2005, 11:34 PM, said:

I do indeed speak for myself, but I also believe that you belong to the tiny minority, Todd. We haven't made a survey, but rest assured that very few among our spectators would welcome HUM systems.

I did conduct a survey (of sorts) when broadcasting from two separate matches from the Australian National Championships last year at the same time. One match had a forcing-pass pair and the other match was all natural. The table with the HUM system had about 500 spectators and the table that was all natural had about 200 spectators.

I think it's a complete myth that vugraph spectators prefer natural systems. With HUM methods so heavily restricted in many parts of the world, vugraph is just about the only chance many people get to see such methods.

Indeed. It's like when you're a fish in an aquarium, and suddenly you have the chance to see what's outside the water. Admit it, you're curious.

Erick also has a good point: many players say that system is no more than 5% of the result, but when it comes to system regulations people suddenly don't agree that generic defenses which only work in about 90% of the hands are good enough. There's only about 0,5% left of poor hands, so what's the big problem there?

Imo the attitude that most bridgeplayers have when playing unusual methods is a problem. I know that many just don't explain everything there is to know, and this creates the biggest "negative attitude" against unusual systems. BUT! If you look at the disclosure natural players give, it's also very poor on some occasions. But since everyone knows natural systems, usually the problem isn't that big a deal, and this is the biggest difference. When playing natural your opponents are supposed to understand your bidding, even if you don't explain propperly, but when playing non-natural methods people get annoyed when they don't get their complete explanations. So to get to the point: it's not so much a problem of just non-natural players, no, it's everyone (generaly speaking, don't feel targetted).

Giving actual full disclosure will not help much to save a lot of time. But when people would have to post their defenses against the methods as well, then time would be saved a lot! Not at first, since defenses should be created, but once the defences are up, people just can find their defenses in such database. And perhaps they can still improve them.

This however is a long-term vision, where most people at this moment prefer short-term decisions. It's actually not thàt 'long', but nevertheless...

[hrothgar]

Comment the first:

I've seen many North American pros state that they need to have detailed defenses optimized to the specific treatments employed by opposing pairs. At the same time, I've seen a large number of very strong players from Australia and Europe insist that they are able to adopt generic defenses:

I suggest that both sides are correct:

I agree with Fred. Having a defense that is specifically tailored to method XYZ will almost certainly be "better" than applying some generic meta-defense like SOAP. [I'm certainly not going to disagree with Fred regarding the "best" way that he should prepare for top level bridge competitons]

I also agree with The Hog and Paul Marston who insist that meta-defenses are the way to go. If you are playing in Australia or Europe where you regularly encounter Brown Sticker Conventions and even HUMs in pairs events and short team matches its IMPOSSIBLE to prepare "optimal" defenses in advance. Developing effective meta-defenses and being able to apply / modify said defenses on the fly is a necessary survival skill.

Different playing environments lead to different decisions regarding how "best" to invest limited resources

Comment the Second:

Lets consider how different teams "prepare" for the Bermuda Bowl. The North Americans don't have nearly as much experience practicing meta-defenses. Regardless if they chose to apply a meta defense or customize specific defenses, they still need to invest a lot of time preparing to combat all of the weird ***** thats going to get thrown at them. Given this choice, you might as well do a bit of extra effort and try to tailor so-called optimal defenses.

European and Aussie pairs already have some form of "meta-defense" in their bag of tricks. Accordingly, they have a choice of

(A) Investing lots of time/effort to develop "optimal" defenses
(B) Relying on meta-defenses that are almost as good and applying those 2.5 monthes of prep time on something that will yield more direct benefits.

[Brandal]

Free, on Sep 5 2005, 06:55 AM, said:

Imo the attitude that most bridgeplayers have when playing unusual methods is a problem. I know that many just don't explain everything there is to know, and this creates the biggest "negative attitude" against unusual systems.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here,and yes it
goes both ways.....playing "natural" doesn't mean the
same everywhere so "we" are just as "bad" if we don't
explain partnership agreements properly.

But when it comes to highly unusual methods it's like
what's the point if I have to tell you what it means?

That is how it feels when given a bad or insufficient
explanation anyway,intended or not.

Even when it goes both ways,it kinda "feels" worse
when it's something unusual

[fred]

EricK, on Sep 5 2005, 07:36 AM, said:

fred, on Sep 5 2005, 12:49 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Sep 5 2005, 12:01 AM, said:

Most Hums have common features. If one looks at the Polish "grab bag" of Regres, NoName and its late version of Suspensor, all of these are predicated on the fact that they have a strong pass, (13+), a fert, (usually 1D or 1H). It is perfectly possible to prepare a generic defence against these. I have already mentioned the Swedish Anti Nonsens, which the Swedish Open Team used against FP systems. I would argue that you need nowhere near 2 months to prepare.

It may be possible to prepare generic defense against most weird bids, but if you want to win a World Championship you have to do better than that. The best "generic defense" will not be the "best defense" in many situations and if you include too many exceptions in your generic defense, it stops being generic.

When people bring up the question of which bidding system is best the reply is usually it doesn't matter what system you play as long as you and partner understand it; or they mention Hamman's comment about system being only 3% of the game (or something like that).

Yet when it comes to defending against HUM, you suddenly want to find an "optimal defense" and having a reasonable method which you and partner both understand is no longer sufficient.

Aren't these contradictory attitudes?

Eric

No these are not contradictory attitudes.

I never said *I* wanted to find the "optimal defenses". The discussion about generic/best defenses was one of the arguments I made in support of my assertion that, if *one* wanted to be be "properly prepared" for all the weird bids one might face if there were no bidding restrictions, then one would have a LOT of work to do.

For me (and most other people who will play in the Bermuda Bowl) it would not mattered if I wanted to be properly prepared or not. The circumstances of my life (ie I have a life) are such that I could not possibly become properly prepared for an "anything goes" Bermuda Bowl (not that I think anyone could be properly prepared for such an event regardless of the nature of his life and not that I would have any interest in playing in such an event in the first place).

By the way, I suspect Hamman's comment (assuming he really said that) referred mostly to constructive bidding and simple competitive auctions. I suspect that Hamman would agree that it pays to know what you are doing when the opponents make a weird bid.

Probably I should not have used the word "best" since I think it is pretty much impossible to know which defense is "optimal". However, it is far from impossible to know how a generic defense can be made better by modifying it slightly according to the specific weird bid you are facing.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

Free, on Sep 5 2005, 11:55 AM, said:

Imo the attitude that most bridgeplayers have when playing unusual methods is a problem.

Perhaps it is the unusual methods, not the attitude, that is the problem. If the unusual methods went away then there would be no attitude.

Most bridge players have this attitude because they think bridge is a better and more enjoyable game if there are strict rules in place regarding unusual methods.

I hope you will agree that they have a right to feel this way, even if you disagree with them. There are plenty of scientists out there who have bad attitudes too and I am sure they would also claim that it is the rules, not their attitudes, that is a problem.

You happen to like to play bridge one way and I happen to like to play it another way. Neither of us is right or wrong - this is a matter of taste. However the rules are defined, either you are going to be unhappy or I am going to be unhappy.

The one thing "my" set of rules has going for them is that (in my opinion) a lot more people agree with me. Presumably your use of the word "most" in the quote above suggests that you agree with me.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

fred, on Sep 5 2005, 09:25 PM, said:

Perhaps it is the unusual methods, not the attitude, that is the problem. If the unusual methods went away then there would be no attitude.

Be real... People like to bitch.

If they weren't complaining about unusual systems, they'd be bitching about psyches. If they couldn't bitch about psyches, they'd be complaining about tempo violations. If there weren't tempo violations, then the directoring staff would be doing something wrong, or the smoking section would be in the wrong place, or the food would be too greasy...

[Echognome]

I'm also not so sure about this. People like the status quo. If all they knew about bridge was that 'anything goes' you just have to disclose it, perhaps they'd have a different view of the game. Historically speaking, we know that fielding psyches used to be allowed and it certainly made for some interesting bridge. However they changed the laws to protect the players. I have no idea whether that was popular or unpopular at the time.

At least what 'anything goes' has going for it is that the laws are extremely straightforward and no one can complain that they allow X, but they don't allow Y.

All that being said, I have not played enough against strange systems to say whether I would enjoy it or dislike it. I enjoy playing against it online as it adds some variety to the game, however I view online bridge different from face to face. What I wouldn't enjoy however is complete randomization and frivolity. I would assume at the highest levels that aspect wouldn't be a problem, but perhaps it could?

[akhare]

fred, on Sep 5 2005, 01:25 PM, said:

Free, on Sep 5 2005, 11:55 AM, said:

Imo the attitude that most bridgeplayers have when playing unusual methods is a problem.

Perhaps it is the unusual methods, not the attitude, that is the problem. If the unusual methods went away then there would be no attitude.

Most bridge players have this attitude because they think bridge is a better and more enjoyable game if there are strict rules in place regarding unusual methods.

That does beg the question, does it not, what would the attitudes towards unusual methods be if the unusual methods weren't that unusual after all? Fear of the unknown is one of most elemental parts of the human psyche. The problem has been exacerbated by bureaucracies like the ACBL who insist on banning anything besides brain dead systems (most likely at the behest of certain vested interests, whose clients couldn’t be bothered to play against anything remotely complex).

[Free]

fred, on Sep 5 2005, 07:25 PM, said:

Perhaps it is the unusual methods, not the attitude, that is the problem. If the unusual methods went away then there would be no attitude.

Once upon a time, there were only natural bids. A 1NT opener was balanced. Then suddenly some guy came up and used a 2♣ response to ASK for a Major suit. The whole world was shaken upside down. What an unusual method! Was this allowed? A bit later, some smartass suddenly bid 4NT, and it was alerted as "ASKING for ACES"! What was that all about? Extremely unusual. Another few years later, someone overcalled 2NT, it wasn't natural, nooooo, it showed both minors! Balanced? No, minors, at least 5-5! This even received the label 'unusual 2NT' for ever.

So what's unusual? It's just something unknown, nothing more. Anything might become a standard method when people would get in contact with it. Ok, Stayman has been modified, 4NT has been modified, but it's still the same principle which lives among almost every bridgeplayer around the world! So is it such a big problem to improve bidding?

I respect people's oppinions, everyone has the right to think what he wants, but I'm just offering an alternative vision based on historic facts (perhaps not in the right order, but it's a fary tale ).

[fred]

akhare, on Sep 5 2005, 08:25 PM, said:

fred, on Sep 5 2005, 01:25 PM, said:

Free, on Sep 5 2005, 11:55 AM, said:

Imo the attitude that most bridgeplayers have when playing unusual methods is a problem.

Perhaps it is the unusual methods, not the attitude, that is the problem. If the unusual methods went away then there would be no attitude.

Most bridge players have this attitude because they think bridge is a better and more enjoyable game if there are strict rules in place regarding unusual methods.

That does beg the question, does it not, what would the attitudes towards unusual methods be if the unusual methods weren't that unusual after all? Fear of the unknown is one of most elemental parts of the human psyche. The problem has been exacerbated by bureaucracies like the ACBL who insist on banning anything besides brain dead systems (most likely at the behest of certain vested interests, whose clients couldn’t be bothered to play against anything remotely complex).

Of course it is possible that is "anything goes" became it norm, that most bridge players would decide they preferred it.

It is also possible that most bridge players would hate it and give up playing completely.

It should not be up to tournament organizers and lawmakers to have to make predictions like this or to establish rules based on their own opinions as to where to draw lines. Instead they should listen to the players and try to give them the game that they want.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mikeh]

Given the reality that most players never get to a BB, and that many of those who do, get to a lot of them, my perspective is a little different. I have played in a BB (on a team with Fred, as it happens) but only one (so far ). Our team did get some coaching but not a great deal. We did badly enough that we did not have to worry about the playoffs .

However, as an amateur, I can tell you that it is impossible for players previously unexposed to BSC methods to adequately prepare to play against them. There is not enough time, given that we are all working for a living and trying to have a family life, and working on our own game. Even adoption of 'standard' meta-defences would be problematic, given that it would be likely that some variant of a sequence would arise in which 'survival' depends on each partner simultaneously recognizing the need to depart from the agreed-upon meta-defence and in the same fashion: one earlier poster said that this kind of flexibility is required in BSC environments.

This may well be a result of an appalling (from the perspective of many players) attitude on the part of the ACBL (as far as NA is concerned), but it is a reality for NA players, and maybe others.

If we want the BB to be a test of the best players, not the best system designers, then we need rules that in some manner represent a compromise. The current rules do that. By definition, compromise solutions will never appear to be 'best' to most players.

In my line of work (dispute resolution, usually by way of modern society's equivalent of armed combat: trials), we have a saying: a bad settlement is better than a good trial. Another saying is that the best settlement is when both sides are happy, the next best is when both sides are unhappy.

The current rules seem to fit these adages. As such, we will never resolve the debate to the satisfaction of the majority of players, but at least we will not get the worst outcome: one that suits one side while strongly annoying and disadvantaging the other.

[akhare]

mikeh, on Sep 5 2005, 03:37 PM, said:

However, as an amateur, I can tell you that it is impossible for players previously unexposed to BSC methods to adequately prepare to play against them. There is not enough time, given that we are all working for a living and trying to have a family life, and working on our own game.

Well, I am sure that most of us are amateur players who have to hold down a job and all that. However, IMO, the basic problem isn't the unusual methods as lack of exposure to them. Ensconcing players in a protective cocoon of regulations that precludes them from facing anything remotely close to what they might encounter on a world stage can only result in shell shock.

Chip away at the shell I say -- a little exposure goes a long way at building immunity...

Atul

[mikeh]

I agree: personally I am in favour of allowing a great more freedom in ACBL land. The lol's (of both genders) might have a shock initially, but they'd get over it and in the meantime we'd probably see more young players and our top players would likely become even more competitive internationally. But this is an entirely different issue (albeit one that is connected to some degree). I was not speaking of how the world should be, but of how the world is

[awm]

Perhaps this is a peripheral issue, but the "normal" meaning for 1♣ is different in different regions. It seems that:

(1) In the UK, it shows 4+♣ (four card majors)
(2) In the US, it shows 3+♣ (convenient minor)
(3) In Poland, it shows either a balanced hand or 18+ hcp (polish club)
(4) In India and China, it shows a strong hand (strong club)

It seems very convenient for the US players that "weird" defenses to 1♣ showing 3+ are considered HUM (brown sticker) and are very restricted, whereas the same "weird" defenses to polish or strong club are not equally restricted.

Doesn't this put Polish, Indian, and Chinese players at a big disadvantage?

It seems to me that the main issue is insuring a level playing field. That's a lot more important than allowing system freaks to run rampant, or restricting the "weird stuff" to increase the enjoyment of people who like tough play/defense problems and hate dealing with systems. But I'm not sure that the current regulations do a real good job of that.

[sartaj1]

hrothgar, on Sep 5 2005, 02:16 PM, said:

If they weren't complaining about unusual systems, they'd be bitching about psyches.  If they couldn't bitch about psyches, they'd be complaining about tempo violations.  If there weren't tempo violations, then the directoring staff would be doing something wrong, or the smoking section would be in the wrong place, or the food would be too greasy...

LOL.

So true.
Me and Tony belong to the "generic defence" school. One of the biggest upside of this approach is that we are unlikely to have a serious misunderstanding.
Sometime in a 80s World Championship, Hamman quotes in his book two americans who agreed to treat a 2C overcall over a 1H fert just like "opening a game force"

It came up and the bidding went (1H) - 2C - All pass.

One could blame the method or the forgettor but the un-intuitive nature of this agreement increases the likelihood of a mishap.