[pdmunro]

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

[kenrexford]

A very correct and insightful point.

[foo]

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.

I'll paraphrase Helen Sobel-Smith:
"All the math and theory in the world matters little compared to being able to read the players."

Lawyers tend to be much better at reading people than mathematicians...

[kenrexford]

From a biased position, I'll make some actual observations.

I'm not sure sure that people reading is the key.

I think one aspect of the game for which the practice of law prepares you (and for which bridge prepares you in the practice of law) is in the repeated task of taking limited numbers of facts and being able to extrapolate more than simply what likely happened. Rather, you learn skill at taking a limited number of facts and extrapolating what plausible conclusions others might reach, and how to make suggestions that lead others to a view of your choice.

[foo]

Fair Point.

So perhaps a better way to say what I was trying to say is that Lawyers tend to have better "people manipulation skills" than mathematicians...

[hrothgar]

One point which is well worth considering:

For whatever reason, mathematicians don't seem particularly interested in bridge. I did my first graduate degree in game theory (a branch of mathematical economics). There has been lots of formal work done studying games as diverse as chess, go, and poker. Bridge gets (virtually) no attention from the academic community.

I think that there are a couple explanations for this.

1. From an analytic perspective, bridge is a very complex game. Trying to solve the game would be horrendously complicated. Even attempting to describe the rules to an inexperienced audience can be daunting. In general, if an academic wanted to select a game to illustrate an example there are far better choices available than bridge.

2. From a political perspective, bridge is an extremely frustrating game. Chess, go, and poker don't outlaw certain types of moves. I've never heard of a chess tournament that banned the Sicilian defense or the Queen's Gambit because the opponent's didn't want to prepare an adequate defense. Nor are players allowed to carry around a written defense to Nimzovich because this doesn't get played by many people. The sheer amount of preparation required to play top level chess dwarfs anything you see in the world of bridge, but people understand that it is part and parcel of the game.

In contrast, bridge has (pretty much) banned progress. The only people who have applied much scientific rigor to the game are the bidding theorists responsible for creating Light Opening Systems and relay methods. These players deliberately sat down and starting modeling a bidding system as a channel and studied how to maximize the amount of information that could be passed down this channel. In a similar vein, these same players also studied how to deprive the opponent's of the ability to exchange information. All of this work was (pretty much) suppressed in a political purge.

There have been a LOT of books about bidding. With the exception of a few books focusing on hand valuation, NONE of these works has any analytic rigor.

Give this a thought next time that you wonder why lawyers do better at the game than mathematicians...

[Trinidad]

To summarize hrothgar:

The lawyers managed to get the mathematics banned from bridge. No wonder lawyers are better at it than mathematicians.

Rik

[foo]

Trinidad, on Jun 6 2007, 06:15 AM, said:

To summarize hrothgar:

The lawyers managed to get the mathematics banned from bridge. No wonder lawyers are better at it than mathematicians.

Rik

ROTFL!

Richard is frankly "full of 'it' " here; where 'it' is something I used to clean out of barns on the farm.

The most popular bidding system currently in use, 2/1 GF, is based on huge amounts of "analytical rigor" by players of the caliber of the Dallas Aces (specifically Bobby Goldman and Mike Lawrence in this case) and analysts the caliber of John Lowenthal, the inventor of Borel, the first serious analysis and simulation tool.
Not to mention millions of boards of ATT RW play.

There is a sizable community of very talented theorists thinking about and adding to the body of Bridge Theory all the time. WOS and FPS are !not! the only systems or methods based on analytical rigor.

To some extent, I do agree with Richard that some Sponsoring Organizations, especially the ACBL, have been too conservative in what methods and treatments they allow. But the "All this innovative work that is the only innovative work in years was banned in a political purge" attitude is way too extreme.

The reality is that many of the methods Richard is enamored with simply don't stand up to RW testing as well as Richard claims.
NZ Symmetric Relay looked like a superior system until someone came up with the defense of passing quietly with strong hands.
Relay systems in general have the bad property of exchanging less information per round of bidding than two way communication systems.
Allocating too many bids based strictly on frequency ignores and violates the need to do so based on =utility=.
Systems that are too aggressive start being Destructive and Dominant since the chance of being able to bid your own cards well has dropped too low.
Etc etc.

And of course, there's the fact that Tournament Bridge is first and foremost a =product=. Specifically an =entertainment product=. There always has been and there always will be a tension between "mad science" and what the majority of people willingly accept or put up with in their quest to have a good time.

[kenrexford]

A mathematician might well view a relay system as superior and as originating from superior insights.

A lawyer would likely disagree. From the lawyer's perspective, analytical skills involve more than simply accounting, percentages, and structure. There is also a necessary degree of emotion, art, ruse, feel, and the like, coupled with the percentages and structure.

A robot might be capable of many tasks that people could never accomplish, but it will be quite a while before one can compete with Michael Jordan on the actual court.

[Trinidad]

foo, on Jun 6 2007, 06:18 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Jun 6 2007, 06:15 AM, said:

To summarize hrothgar:

The lawyers managed to get the mathematics banned from bridge. No wonder lawyers are better at it than mathematicians.

Rik

ROTFL!

Richard is frankly "full of 'it' " here; where 'it' is something I used to clean out of barns on the farm.

The most popular bidding system currently in use, 2/1 GF, is based on huge amounts of "analytical rigor" by players of the caliber of the Dallas Aces (specifically Bobby Goldman and Mike Lawrence in this case) and analysts the caliber of John Lowenthal, the inventor of Borel, the first serious analysis and simulation tool.
Not to mention millions of boards of ATT RW play.

There is a sizable community of very talented theorists thinking about and adding to the body of Bridge Theory all the time. WOS and FPS are !not! the only systems or methods based on analytical rigor.

To some extent, I do agree with Richard that some Sponsoring Organizations, especially the ACBL, have been too conservative in what methods and treatments they allow. But the "All this innovative work that is the only innovative work in years was banned in a political purge" attitude is way too extreme.

The reality is that many of the methods Richard is enamored with simply don't stand up to RW testing as well as Richard claims.
NZ Symmetric Relay looked like a superior system until someone came up with the defense of passing quietly with strong hands.
Relay systems in general have the bad property of exchanging less information per round of bidding than two way communication systems.
Allocating too many bids based strictly on frequency ignores and violates the need to do so based on =utility=.
Systems that are too aggressive start being Destructive and Dominant since the chance of being able to bid your own cards well has dropped too low.
Etc etc.

And of course, there's the fact that Tournament Bridge is first and foremost a =product=. Specifically an =entertainment product=. There always has been and there always will be a tension between "mad science" and what the majority of people willingly accept or put up with in their quest to have a good time.

I won't judge what Richard is full of or not. I could agree with you that he is a little extreme.

But the fact is that it would be a tremendous coincidence if the currently allowed systems where bids in clubs mean "I have clubs" and bids in spades mean "I have spades" were anywhere close to "the optimal bidding system" (if such a system exists). Odds are that if the mathematically optimal bidding system would exist, it would currently be banned by more than 99% of the SO's.

Any quest for this optimal bidding system is a complete waste of time since you will not be allowed to play it in real life. The mathematicians realize this. They stop seeking and they are turned away from the game.

The reason why 2/1 GF is so popular is not because this is the best system and so many theorists have worked on it. It is because in the ACBL this is the only type of system that is allowed. Why would theorists spent their time on systems that won't be allowed anyway?

There are excellent players in other countries that have developed other systems and/or conventions. These systems cannot develop because they are barred on an international level. A well-known example is the Wilkosz convention. The Polish think it is better than the Multi. Evolution doesn't get a chance to prove them right or wrong. The bridge lawyers are Anglosaxons and have banned Wilkosz.

To clarify matters: I am against playing different from standard just to confuse the opponents. But changes from the standard that are an improvement to the system should be allowed, (under the condition that the system can be disclosed properly). Most sponsoring organizations do not reason like that.

A simple example of banned systems that are clearly superior to existing systems and that can be disclosed to a decent player in a matter of seconds are defensive signaling systems which use encrypted signals. In this area, the mathematicians have advanced the game of bridge significantly. But the lawyers have put a stop to this by getting these systems barred. (Is there any SO that knowingly allows encrypted signals?) Mathematicians might have tried to stop the use of encrypted signals by devising bidding systems that give away as few keys as possible.

It may be obvious that -in principle- I favor the evolution with the aid of mathematicians (... as well as psychologists and others) over the banning that the lawyers achieve. This banning leaves the game in the stone age but -I must admit- has the advantage that the lawyers can still understand the mathematics of it. (1$, 2$, 3$, ..., 12$, 13$. )

Rik

[Trinidad]

kenrexford, on Jun 6 2007, 08:03 AM, said:

A mathematician might well view a relay system as superior and as originating from superior insights.

A lawyer would likely disagree. From the lawyer's perspective, analytical skills involve more than simply accounting, percentages, and structure. There is also a necessary degree of emotion, art, ruse, feel, and the like, coupled with the percentages and structure.

A robot might be capable of many tasks that people could never accomplish, but it will be quite a while before one can compete with Michael Jordan on the actual court.

I fully agree with your post.

But the original post postulated that lawyers were better bridge players than mathematicians. To me that is obvious if you don't allow the mathematicians to use their skills while allowing the lawyers to use theirs.

Rik

[Quantumcat]

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2007, 06:00 AM, said:

For whatever reason, mathematicians don't seem particularly interested in bridge.

I beg to differ: every single one of my bridge friends, and almost all of the people I know that play bridge, are associated with mathematics in some way.

• My main teacher is in his second year of a mathematics PhD (majored in mathematics as undergrad)
  
• My secondary teacher is in his third year of a chemistry PhD (majored in mathematics and chemistry as an undergrad)
  
• My main partner at the club is in his second year of a physics PhD (majored in mathematics and physics as an undergrad)
  
• My other partner is doing honours in Astrophysics (majored in mathematics and physics)
  
• My main partner's other partner is doing honours in mathematics (mathematics major as undergrad)
  
• My boyfriend did an actuarial degree (never became an actuary though, manages a bridge club) though he is too good for me to play with
  
• All the random people at the university bridge club study either maths or physics, except for two doing medicine and one doing actuarial studies (which is just maths anyway)
  
• And of course there's me, science degree majoring in mathematics and physics.

No bridge player I have ever met is studying law or is a lawyer. (the australian national university is the best or second-best university in the country for studying law by the way, it's not because it doesn't offer law degrees!)

Maybe it's just a co-incidence?

[Trinidad]

Quantumcat, on Jun 6 2007, 08:39 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2007, 06:00 AM, said:

For whatever reason, mathematicians don't seem particularly interested in bridge.

I beg to differ: every single one of my bridge friends, and almost all of the people I know that play bridge, are associated with mathematics in some way.

• My main teacher is in his second year of a mathematics PhD (majored in mathematics as undergrad)
  
  
• My secondary teacher is in his third year of a chemistry PhD (majored in mathematics and chemistry as an undergrad)
  
  
• My main partner at the club is in his second year of a physics PhD (majored in mathematics and physics as an undergrad)
  
  
• My other partner is doing honours in Astrophysics (majored in mathematics and physics)
  
  
• My main partner's other partner is doing honours in mathematics (mathematics major as undergrad)
  
  
• My boyfriend did an actuarial degree (never became an actuary though, manages a bridge club) though he is too good for me to play with
  
  
• All the random people at the university bridge club study either maths or physics, except for two doing medicine and one doing actuarial studies (which is just maths anyway)
  
  
• And of course there's me, science degree majoring in mathematics and physics.

No bridge player I have ever met is studying law or is a lawyer. (the australian national university is the best or second-best university in the country for studying law by the way, it's not because it doesn't offer law degrees!)

Maybe it's just a co-incidence?

I guess, if anybody can determine the odds for that being a coincidence it will be you or one of your bridge friends.

Rik

[jtfanclub]

Trinidad, on Jun 6 2007, 10:16 AM, said:

Quantumcat, on Jun 6 2007, 08:39 AM, said:

I beg to differ: every single one of my bridge friends, and almost all of the people I know that play bridge, are associated with mathematics in some way.
....
(the australian national university is the best or second-best university in the country for studying law by the way, it's not because it doesn't offer law degrees!)

Maybe it's just a co-incidence?

I guess, if anybody can determine the odds for that being a coincidence it will be you or one of your bridge friends.

Not a coincidence- it's just that Australia is one of the few places where the lawyers haven't banned the mathematicians.

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.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Jun 6 2007, 08:03 AM, said:

A mathematician might well view a relay system as superior and as originating from superior insights.

A lawyer would likely disagree.  From the lawyer's perspective, analytical skills involve more than simply accounting, percentages, and structure.  There is also a necessary degree of emotion, art, ruse, feel, and the like, coupled with the percentages and structure.

A robot might be capable of many tasks that people could never accomplish, but it will be quite a while before one can compete with Michael Jordan on the actual court.

This lawyer would disagree: having played a relay system, I am convinced that a well-designed relay method is superior to natural bidding.

My own limited knowledge of bridge-playing lawyers does, however, suggest a different breakdown: litigators tend to make for stronger bridge players than those known in commonwealth countries as solicitors: I suspect that is because litigation attracts games-players... let me stress this is a personal, limited observation, and not 100% accurate...I do not want to annoy any non-litigator bridge player-lawyers out there

[helene_t]

I'm mathematician and not very good at bridge. Lose my attention too easily. Consider too many irrelevant details. Probably wouldn't make a good lawyer for the same reason. Filosofying the day after the trial about what would have been the best way of defending my client won't win the case.

That being id, I know a lot of mathematically minded people who are very good bridge players. Mathematics is certainly relevant in bridge. Not so much for the probability calculations (everyone can develop an intuition for probabilities without studying math). But flair for math make it easier to learn bidding theory.

I wonder why so few linguist ply bridge. seems to me that the communication with partner would make an intereting study field for a linguist.

[Quantumcat]

I didn't know that the ACBL banned more stuff than the ABF (australian bridge federation). That sounds quite interesting. If you are in a top level tournament, why would you need to ban stuff, wouldn't people that are really good recognise all the interesting systems and know defences to them? Or are you just not allowed to play stuff that hasn't been published in the literature before?

My partner and I once made up this totally ludicrous system that worked very shakily, as a practical joke on the old ladies at our club, we didn't care whether we did badly. But our friendly director told us it wasn't appropriate all that effort and laughing for nothing!

Also, I'm curious, is Moscito banned in the US (that's what my teachers play, they tried to explain it to me once when I asked them about it but I was totally bewildered)?

[jtfanclub]

Quantumcat, on Jun 6 2007, 10:58 AM, said:

Also, I'm curious, is Moscito banned in the US (that's what my teachers play, they tried to explain it to me once when I asked them about it but I was totally bewildered)?

Yes, it's banned. No, I don't know why.

They lift the bans for unlimited national events, but if you're playing at that level, you're probably doing it for money. Can't sell books on systems that are banned, can't get hired by a client who'll know these systems. And, of course, 99% of ACBL members don't play exclusively in Superchart events.

[FrancesHinden]

Quantumcat, on Jun 6 2007, 02:39 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2007, 06:00 AM, said:

For whatever reason, mathematicians don't seem particularly interested in bridge.

I beg to differ: every single one of my bridge friends, and almost all of the people I know that play bridge, are associated with mathematics in some way.[LIST]

"Mathematician" and "Lawyer" are not obviously directly comparable. Lawyer is usually used as a job description, mathematician is usually a description of education: my husband is an accountant, but he read maths at university. I have a friend who used to be a lawyer (he's retired) who read maths at university, although most lawyers I think also read law.

Admittedly I don't know any mathematicians who read law...

I'm just thinking about the people I know who are BBO "experts" (i.e. "have won national events") and, where I know what their original training was in, it is...

maths, natural sciences (chemistry), maths, maths, maths, classics-then-law (found one!), maths, engineering, maths, maths, physics, maths


But the thing is, most of these people - where I know their educational background - are people I met at university; and the people I met at university were usually scientists or mathematicians, because that is what I read. Most of my bridge playing friends are (ex-)mathematicians or scientists. So it's all a bit circular.

Also, for other bridge players, I have a feeling that I tend to remember that they were mathematicians when I found that out while other people it's quite possible I've forgotten what they were because I didn't notice the coincidence.

So really that list above is pretty meaningless statistically.

[foo]

jtfanclub, on Jun 6 2007, 11:10 AM, said:

Quantumcat, on Jun 6 2007, 10:58 AM, said:

Also, I'm curious, is Moscito banned in the US (that's what my teachers play, they tried to explain it to me once when I asked them about it but I was totally bewildered)?

Yes, it's banned. No, I don't know why.

They lift the bans for unlimited national events, but if you're playing at that level, you're probably doing it for money. Can't sell books on systems that are banned, can't get hired by a client who'll know these systems. And, of course, 99% of ACBL members don't play exclusively in Superchart events.

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

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.