[awm]

There's a difference between people trained in mathematics and career mathematicians. I suspect that the former tend to be good at bridge (certainly better than the general bridge-playing population) whereas the latter are not particularly strong bridge players.

Mathematics is about the rare brilliancy. A mathematician makes his career by (typically) having a small number of incredibly intelligent ideas that advance the state of the field. This is very different from bridge, which is all about consistently not making mistakes. I'm sure we all know mathematicians who couldn't calculate the tip on a dinner bill to save their lives -- this is not what mathematicians are good at. If you want a bridge player who can execute an exotic squeeze a mathematician may be a good choice. If you want a player who will go 24 boards without losing concentration (perhaps because he's thinking about how to make that hand a few boards ago on the exotic squeeze) you're probably better off with a lawyer. After all, law (much more than mathematics) is about not making silly mistakes.

[mikeh]

It struck me, on reading these posts, that another characteristic of a litigation lawyer is the need to develop the ability to predict how others will react to a perceived state of affairs. We need this in part to craft trial strategy, but, far more frequently, in order to do risk analysis. As a trial lawyer, I spend far more time negotiating/mediating than I do in court, and evaluating settlement positions requires predicting how a judge or jury will react to the case. This mental modelling is perhaps a transferable skill in terms of bridge... when embarking upon a bidding plan or formulating lines of play or defence. Often, the most effective plan is not the mathematically superior plan... because of the human element.

And another transferable skill is the ability to concentrate for extended periods. When fellow trial lawyers ask me what it is like to play in major bridge events, I tell them that it is similar, in mental demand, to a trial... and when bridge players ask me about trial, I tell them that a day in court is like playing a 64 board ko match.

Cross-examining a difficult witness requires the same intense focus as playing a very difficult set of boards against skilled opponents... and when one does well, at either, the thrill is much the same as well.

Whereas I suspect that working on a mathematical problem is more introspective in nature: just as intense, perhaps, but internally directed, without a need to model other people.

[foo]

IMHO, mikeh comments mesh very nicely with kenrexford's comments.

[Apollo81]

Lawyers are undoubtedly better at exploiting their opponents' weaknesses.

[pclayton]

I'm not one, but as our monthly legal bills attest, I work with a few attorneys on a regular basis.

I think a lot of posters are equating practicing law with poker, becuase of the people-reading skills. Litigators need this trait for slecting juries, but most law is practiced outside of the courtroom, in spite of what TV indicates. Contracts, complaints, responding to complaints, and motions, and various drafting are what most do on a day-to-day basis.

I think the reason attorneys are good at bridge, aside from being very bright individuals, is because they are excellent at two things: 1. Logic, and 2. Being able to make judgements based on a lot of different (and potentially conflicting) information.

Logic translates into solid card play. Judgement translates into solid bidding.

I know nothing about mathmaticians, so I can't comment on whether or not they can or should be good bridge players.

[Trinidad]

foo, on Jun 6 2007, 11:38 AM, said:

The only things "banned" in the ACBL are =illegal= methods such a encrypted signals.

(and yes, cheating should be illegal. Encrypted signals are cheating because they violate the basic tenet that everyone ATT should be able to use logic to decide what the best course of action is.)

It seems like you don't know what an encrypted signal is.

What is legal and what is not is written in the bridge laws. There is nothing in the bridge laws that says that encrypted signals are illegal. Apart from that, SO's (read "lawyers" ) can decide to ban certain bidding and playing conventions. In the case of encrypted signals SO's have chosen to pretty much ban them universally. Thus, encrypted signals fall in the same category as e.g. forcing pass opening systems, or a Wilkosz 2♦ opening. An SO can choose to allow them. (They are actually allowed at my bridge club.) They are not illegal, they are banned.

A quick introduction to encrypted signals:

Suppose the opponents bid to 4♠ through a Stayman auction: (1NT-2♣; 2♠-4♠) or after a negative double auction like 1♣-(1♥)-Dbl-(Pass); 2♠-(Pass)-4♠-All Pass. You can be fairly sure that they play in an eight card fit. If you look at two trumps, you know that your partner has three. At the same time, partner sees his three and knows that you have two trumps. Declarer doesn't have this information and you can use it as a key to the encryption of your signals.

Say declarer leads clubs. Now you could simply signal count and tell everybody whether you have an even or odd number of clubs as is standard. On the other hand, you can also signal count not for clubs, but for the black cards. Given the fact that partner knows that you have two spades, he will know that you have an even number of clubs when you signal an even number of black cards. Declarer only knows that you have an even number of black cards, while partner has the - generally more useful- information that you have an even number of clubs, since he already knew about your two spades.

This is an agreement that is simple to disclose: "Partner shows an even number of black cards." (The whole agreement in 8 words!) Encrypted signals don't even come near cheating.

A well known problem with banning encrypted signals is that in real life people use them all the time. Suppose again that the opponents have an eight card spade fit and that I have two of them. Now partner signals an even number of hearts and on the next round an odd number of diamonds. Effectively, on this last round partner has signaled an even number in the blacks. This passes the encrypted information to me that partner has an odd number of clubs. Declarer doesn't get that information. But this encrypted signal is "obviously" allowed.

It is beyond me why one would want to ban encrypted signals... and at the same time allow them. And these signals are not just banned at the club level where my grandparents are playing. They are banned in the Bermuda Bowl too!

[pbleighton]

Quote

MOSCITO is not "banned" in the ACBL....

The ACBL uses 3 levels of conventions: GCC, mid-chart, and superchart

Depending on what form of MOSCITO you are playing, some parts of it may or may not be allowed under the GCC.

Foo, your comments about aggressive bidding methods are consistently ill-informed.

FYI, you can't play transfer openings (the current version of MOSCITO uses them) even in Super Chart events. The ACBL has disallowed all defenses to them, and therefore, even though they are technically legal, they may not be played.

Therefore, MOSCITO is effectively banned in the ACBL

This has been true for some years now.

Peter

[awm]

In fact there are many cases where encrypted bidding is possible too. Consider the following simple auction:

1♠ - 3♠; 4NT - 5♣; 5NT

Let's say 4NT is RKC. The 5♣ bid shows zero or three keycards. The 5NT call guarantees all the keycards and asks about kings. At this point:

The opponents know only that the opening side has (between them) all five keycards, and that responder has zero or three.

Opener knows exactly how many keycards responder has (he can tell by counting points and looking at his own hand). He also knows which keycards responder has, since responder has "exactly the ones opener doesn't have."

Eventually this hand may come to the defenders selecting an opening lead against 6♠. It would certainly help the opening leader to know which aces are in responder's hand. But the defense does not have this information, even though declarer does.

Nonetheless, "encrypted bidding" is outlawed in most of the world (if not everywhere) even though I doubt anyone would have problems with this particular auction.

[foo]

As a matter of fact, I found encrypted signals fascinating when I first heard of them and spent some time studying and playing them in contexts where all concerned knew the experiment was going on and were willing participants.
(IOW, !not! in any sanctioned Bridge tournament!)

The problem with the sort of encrypted signals that are banned is that We can agree to completely change Our defensive methods based on the presence or the absence of the Key. Say standard signals in the presence of the key and UDCA in the absence of the key; =and Declarer has no chance of knowing what our carding means until it is too late.=

OTOH,

Quote

A well known problem with banning encrypted signals is that in real life people use them all the time. Suppose again that the opponents have an eight card spade fit and that I have two of them. Now partner signals an even number of hearts and on the next round an odd number of diamonds. Effectively, on this last round partner has signaled an even number in the blacks. This passes the encrypted information to me that partner has an odd number of clubs. Declarer doesn't get that information. But this encrypted signal is "obviously" allowed.

Declarer =does= have the chance to work out the same things the Defenders do here.

The situations are not analogous.

It should also be noted that encrypted =bidding= systems =are= perfectly legal.
As long as the opponents are told everything they are entitled to before the opening lead is made.

An example would be any GF relay sequence where one hand is strong and the other hand is weak- and only the bidding side tends to know which hand is which.
NZ Symmetric Relay worked on this principle.
I've mentioned the killing defense: pass with strong hands so the bidding side doesn't know that both hands are weak.

[jdonn]

Trinidad, on Jun 6 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

Suppose again that the opponents have an eight card spade fit and that I have two of them. Now partner signals an even number of hearts and on the next round an odd number of diamonds. Effectively, on this last round partner has signaled an even number in the blacks.

No, he has signalled his hearts and diamonds. You inferred the rest.

[Trumpace]

pdmunro, on Jun 4 2007, 09:57 PM, said:

Rixi Markus is purported to have said that "lawyers make better bridge players than mathematicians". If true, I wonder why.

Maybe because mathematicians are always looking for "elegant" solutions to bridge problems and don't really care about winning.

Lawyers might make better bridge players on the table, but mathematicians will make better bridge analysts off the table.

[foo]

pbleighton, on Jun 6 2007, 02:11 PM, said:

Foo, your comments about aggressive bidding methods are consistently ill-informed.

FYI, you can't play transfer openings (the current version of MOSCITO uses them) even in Super Chart events.  The ACBL has disallowed all defenses to them, and therefore, even though they are technically legal, they may not be played.

Therefore, MOSCITO is effectively banned in the ACBL

This has been true for some years now.

Peter

I haven't looked at MOSCITO in a while, but I thought there was a version specifically created to be legal in ACBL land?

As for transfer openings not being legal within the ACBL, I agree with you that this is a very hard to understand or accept stance by the ACBL C&C committee.
Especially given that transfer =responses= to openings are considered OK.

OTOH, some long conversations with folks who have sat on that committee has convinced me that the task is far harder than most of us not doing it understand.
...and that for the most part the task is thankless. It's an unpaid volunteer position where no matter what you do as a member of the C&C committee, you are going to p*ss off someone.

I've also developed a better appreciation of just how hard it is to put together a database of adequate defenses (as in "has a reasonable chance to restore equity") to many of these gadgets that can be used by the average tournament player who is not a system freak.

IMHO, the ACBL tends to err too far on the side of caution. But I understand why they feel that is more justifiable and safer than the alternative.

[blackshoe]

jtfanclub, on Jun 6 2007, 10:22 AM, said:

Little old ladies in Australia play stuff that would not only get them banned from the ACBL, but everybody who played against them would have to go through a special clensing ritual.

Hm. What's Australia's current immigration policy?

[kenrexford]

I find the comments about the restrictions on bidding systems humorous, especially as explanations for mathematicians not wanting to play or being frustrated.

The ACBL, for instance, has some rules. These rules are not quite as limiting as some suggest, though, as 1♦ openings can mean anything, canape is allowed, and much can be done late and in competition. Sure, some of the limitations seem silly, but there is a lot in the way of complexity that can be achieved. Most complain that the level of complexity I have sometimes suggested to partners would make their heads explode, in a basically natural approach.

That being said, the complaint is somewhat silly. Years ago, I taught some people a game we called Riverboat. In Riverboat, anything was allowed, and the bids went from 1 to 13 (no book).

If bridge allowed you to start the bidding at 0 spades, or -2 clubs, there would be more space with which to describe hands, at least as opener. This would help tremendously. But, you cannot do that.

So, the ACBL says you must start by contracting to take 7 tricks (1♣). They do not allow you to start contracting for tricks with a sub-minimum hand (6-9 HCP) unless you contract to take 8 tricks (sort of). The opening bids, to some degree, then have standards that must be met.

Complaints about the conditions a priori, as to bidding tools allowed, are fair, to a degree. But, to claim that barring innovation outside of the rules frustrates those who would be good at innovation outside of the rules makes little sense. The same restrictions barring innovation, in a sense, for relay-based systems also creates barriers for natural-based system designers. As a simple case in point, I cannot open 2♠ to show spades (natural) and an unknown minor (pattern treatment), which affects my handling of high reverses (1♠-P-2♥-P-3♣) negatively. I cannot agree to bid a natural 1♠ as a response to 1♥ with 3+ spades, even though bidding 1♠ with 3+ makes natural sense in a canape structure. So, the rules affect both styles.

For that matter, I cannot open 0♠ with 8-10 HCP's and five spades, which seems outrageous from one perspective, nor can I bid 8♥, which may well be a good sacrifice over 7♠.

Do mathematicians get angry because of a known speed of light? Is that unfair? Or, do mathematicians accept the speed of light and figure stuff out using that known variable?

Finally, 2/1 is not the only system in the ACBL. I for years played a system where 1♦ was the strong, forcing opening, where 1♣ showed any number of wildly different hands, with canape major opening, a three-suited 2♣ that was 10-34 HCPs, 2-bids that were two-suited, and 2NT for the minors, all GCC legal. I doubt that many would call this basic 2/1 GF.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Jun 6 2007, 11:22 PM, said:

I find the comments about the restrictions on bidding systems humorous, especially as explanations for mathematicians not wanting to play or being frustrated.

The ACBL, for instance, has some rules. These rules are not quite as limiting as some suggest, though, as 1♦ openings can mean anything, canape is allowed, and much can be done late and in competition. Sure, some of the limitations seem silly, but there is a lot in the way of complexity that can be achieved.

...

Complaints about the conditions a priori, as to bidding tools allowed, are fair, to a degree. But, to claim that barring innovation outside of the rules frustrates those who would be good at innovation outside of the rules makes little sense.

There is one point that you fail to consider...

In recent years, the ACBL introduced a series of new restrictions which (essentially) destroyed the ability of players to use a wide variety of methods. The ACBL Midchart explicitly allows players to use any bid that shows 4+ cards in a known suit. This clause actually permits a wdie variety of methods. For example, most of MOSCITO is legal at the Midchart level.

However, a few years back, the ACBL introduced the Defensive Database and announced that players may not use any methods that don't have a published defense. Furthermore, the Conventions Committee refused to approved suggested defenses to a wide variety of methods. (Including MOSCITO). What was most annoying about this, was that the ACBL neutered the Midchart while explaining that they were liberalizing the sanctioning regime.

I started out as a fan of the Defensive Database. Back during my more naive days, when I still had a modicum of faith in the Conventions Committee I thought that the ACBL had implemented something good.

I got a bit annoyed when I kept running into roadblocks getting defense approved to MOSCITO opening. I got VERY annoyed when Meckstroth was stupid enough to CC me on an email stating that the CC couldn't sanction a defense to an opening because this would open the door for people to start playing MOSCITO.

I go extremely pissed and exited the system when the ACBL declared that assumed fit preempts where inherently destructive and banned them all together.

The ACBL has deliberately crippled the ability of players to use a wide variety of methods and is significantly increasing the amount of regulations on non-mainstream bidding systems.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 6 2007, 10:44 PM, said:

OTOH, some long conversations with folks who have sat on that committee has convinced me that the task is far harder than most of us not doing it understand.
...and that for the most part the task is thankless.  It's an unpaid volunteer position where no matter what you do as a member of the C&C committee, you are going to p*ss off someone.

It may be an thankless, unpaid position. At the same time, Meckstoth, Martel and the like make quite a handy living selling themselves to the highest bidder as bridge pros. All of the members of the Conventions COmmittee have a significant investment in preserving the status quo.

Low and behold, they're restricting the ability of players to use anything different from their preferred methods.

Spare me the descriptions about the noble sacrifice of the members of the Conventions Committee.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 6 2007, 10:44 PM, said:

I haven't looked at MOSCITO in a while, but I thought there was a version specifically created to be legal in ACBL land?

These days, MOSCITO is (essentially) defined by

1. Light and limited constructive openings anchored by a 15+ HCP strong club
2. Majors first bidding with 4 card majors
3. Transfer opening bids
4. Light 2/1's (~7 - 11 HCP)
5. Extensive use of relays with strong hands

Take away the transfer openings and the relays and the resulting system isn't recognizable as MOSCITO

[pbleighton]

Quote

I haven't looked at MOSCITO in a while, but I thought there was a version specifically created to be legal in ACBL land?

I believe you are referring to Honeymoon Moscito, which doesn't have true relays (or transfer openings), but which are technically relays, so that the system is Mid Chart. It's not a serious system.

Peter

[pbleighton]

Quote

These rules are not quite as limiting as some suggest, though, as 1D openings can mean anything

In theory, you are right. 1C and 1D *should* be able to be anything you want in a GCC event, and 2C and 2D *should* be able to be anything you want in a GCC event, subject to being *strong*. Alas, this is not how the ACBL does its business. I was playing 2C and 2D as strong transfer openings (showing 15 hcp and 5+H and 5S respectively). A TD banned it. I wrote to rulings@acbl, and wa told it was legal, as it clearly was, by Mike Flader. The TD appealed the ruling, and Rick Beye overturned the ruling, and said that since it was a transfer opening, the obvious language of the GCC which allowed the bid didn't apply, that it was obviously the intent of the framers that the Mid Chart clause applied.

The depth of dishonesty is appalling. This is a separate issue from the restrictiveness of the regulations.

Peter