[Walddk]

A bushel basket holds 36,35 liters (of IMPs)?

Roland

[david_c]

hrothgar, on May 30 2005, 10:02 AM, said:

3. Its completely unclear whether bidding systems are "transitive". Assume that 2/1 Game Forcing > Precision. Futhermore assume Precision is > EHAA. If this relationship is transitive, than 2/1 GF > EHAA. My gut tells me that the rleationship is not transitive.

That's a very interesting question. (Well, I think so anyway ) I would agree that it's highly unlikely that bidding systems are transitive. Even so, it's still possible that an "optimal" bidding system might exist in a theoretical sense. If you're playing a form of rubber bridge, and all you're interested in is maximizing your expected score per hand, I believe it's possible to prove the existence of an optimal bidding system. (Sadly, the proof is non-constructive.) At teams it's more complicated because your chance of winning depends on the system played at the other table; I suspect that there does exist an optimal bidding system, but it's a mixed strategy - "Choose your bidding system according to the following probability distribution."

[Winstonm]

This is an interesting discussion, and it seems that with system complexity one may reach a "point of diminishing returns". I do not think anyone would argue too long and too hard that equally talented opponents playing 1950's-style Goren would not fare well opposite a quartet playing even basic Precision.

I believe it was Howard Schenken who said that the Italian teams during their heyday won not because they played better but because they bid better. Schenken believed this so much that he developed his own forcing club system which he later used in the Bermuda Bowl.

There seems to be an easy way to determine how far each person should go: when the FF (forget factor) is taking so much energy that one's play is affected, then you need to back off.

I believe Hamman's point, as well as Fred's and Roland's is well taken and correct, that the cart goes in front of the horse - play well first; learn to bid along the way; when you reach the point where play is maximized, then you can look for additional advantages by modifying your system. But as soon as the system becomes more important than judgement or play, it is a game of linguistics, but it is not bridge.

winstonm

[EricK]

luis, on May 30 2005, 03:22 PM, said:

fred, on May 30 2005, 03:14 PM, said:

hrothgar, on May 30 2005, 03:02 PM, said:

4.  Playing a pair's match there are advantages to playing anti-field systems.

That's funny - I have always thought the opposite was true

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred,

It depends if you are better or worst than the average field :-)
If you are worst then playing anti-field systems works in your advantage.
If you are better then you want to play the same contracts they play and hope your cardplay or defense will produce a result.
Maybe that's why you always thought the opposite. ;-)

I think the point is whether you are trying to maximise your expected percentage or maximise your chance of coming first.

If you are a good pair but not clearly the best pair then in order to win the event it may pay to increase the variance of your scores at the expense of slightly reducing your average score. That way you win more often (but also come low down more often).

Playing a different system is a good way to increase the variance without adversely affecting your expected score too much (or at all).

Eric

[csdenmark]

..

[Walddk]

csdenmark, on May 30 2005, 01:47 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 30 2005, 07:58 PM, said:

play well first; learn to bid along the way

I think I have heard that before. Mostly from experts in simple bridge.

Let me make it clear so that no misunderstanding should arise. It's quite possible to learn dozens of systems and zillions of conventions, even by heart if you are so inclined, but it will never, and I repeat never, make up for the lack of skills as far as declarer play, defence and judgement are concerned.

Since very few, percentagewise, master both parts to perfection, my recommendation is that you first get a system skeleton (basics) and learn to play. After some time, when you feel comfortable about your play, you can start adding conventions and change to a new system as you see fit.

But learn the basics first. A library, on the internet or at home, with various systems and conventions is fine, no doubt about it. But it doesn't make you a better bridge player. Sometimes the systems won't help you either, because very often you are in a situation where you must judge what the best bid/approach is.

Roughly speaking: good judgement and less frequent errors are what separates the expert from the intermediate/advanced player - regardless of system!

Roland

[slothy]

csdenmark, on May 30 2005, 01:47 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 30 2005, 07:58 PM, said:

play well first; learn to bid along the way

I think I have heard that before. Mostly from experts in simple bridge.

Geezzzzzz Claus you certainly know how to wind me up and you do so very successfully i hasten to add

that is a very glib and (over)simplistic statement to make, if i may say so and even if i may not...

you ask any expert - no self-proclaimed expert but one who has earned his or her stripes - his/her opinion and i will give you a bushel of cokes

(lot in the store-room that fellow commentators have won from Roland)

for ANY one of them who puts a system compilation ABOVE a comprehensive understanding of card play technique as what makes a good expert bridge player.

They all have run the gauntlet of learning to play cards using a basic system and THEN when they want to extend their horizons, normally because the card play doesnt offer them sufficient challenges any more, decide to change their bidding system to one that may bring them better results. But, i am quite sure, at the back of their minds, they appreciate that the bridge system is the chisel whereas their card play is the statue.

A person can (purport to) play as many fancy systems as she or he wants and decide, for whatever ridiculous reason she or he thinks is worthwhile, to concentrate his or her efforts on learning many more....but if s/he hasnt gone through the mill of learning the many ropes of card-play technique can spend many hours in the bar after a competition saying how they got to the grand slam, that no one else bid, after a 24 bid sequence where each bid had 23 meanings...

(but then fails to mention that s/he went 1 off coz he didnt know how to play the hand (properly) )

One of the most intelligent, most intuitive and best bridge players i have ever played against (and with on a couple of occasions), and who sadly died a few years back, played the simplest system you could think for FORTY years (begrudgingly adding transfers 3 months before she died - alas her death-wish). Rarely got into the wrong contract. But give her a 4♠ contract that is makeable (and a cigarette to puff whilst she played it) and she would make it 95% of the time.

lol. She was once told "What do you think of table presence?"

She replied "Table presence? The best presents are those of opps who come to the table playing a system they cant pronounce and their card play is 4 times out of 5 just as unpronounceable"

I rest my case.

[csdenmark]

..

[slothy]

csdenmark, on May 30 2005, 03:47 PM, said:

Oh Roland and Slothy - I just got upset to read the rubbish statement play well first; learn to bid along the way once again. This whole thread has been about that and many seems to need to give me the same message each day. They all have one chance to do that - and one only.

O Claus...

It is not a moral lecture... and if i were to give you one, believe me, the crucifices will be waving frantically....

You stated something as a fact, and in my humble opinion, a highly erroneous and fatuous one.

Quote

'Mostly from experts in simple bridge'.

What are YOU suggesting??? That only people who play some contorted system have any meaningful opinion (which is right) and, even more so, that they actually believe that the system they play is the foundation of their success?

As i said, do yourself a favour and ask any expert on BBO, or beyond, whether they agree with your comment - that only experts in simple bridge believe what Winston alleged and then if they believe what you have written.

Quote

This whole thread has been about that and many seems to need to give me the same message each day.

Without stating the obvious, the reason is Claus that this is the opinion held by the majority of the people writing to the thread.... i dont see many people agreeing with yours?

Your Humble Heckler

Alessio

[luke warm]

alex, i think there has been a big leap from what started this thread (hamman's statement) to where it's ended..

i haven't read in any posts anything that contradicts what you, roland, fred, and some others have said... but that isn't what hamman was speaking of... take it as a given that within the small universe of expert players *all* are good at the various technical aspects of the game... the question isn't, should a beginning/advancing player concentrate on learning play skills or on learning a complicated system? of course s/he should focus on learning to play... the question is, once these skills are learned, can one philosophy of bidding, manifest in the system used, improve the results of a person?

hamman is saying that, in his opinion, some systems of bidding are better than others (or that at least one system is clearly inferior).. and if his opinion is valid (and i don't know if it is), then it seems obvious that the already good player can achieve better results by concentrating on superior systems, whatever they may be, wherever they may be found

it's true that a player of hamman's quality would succeed regardless of the system he plays.. however, there are levels of success... and his opinion seems to be that higher levels can be reached under certain systems than under others

whether he's being merely provacative or actually believes what he says, i don't know.. but no number of anecdotal stories can change the fact that he said what he said

[slothy]

Quote

whether he's being merely provacative or actually believes what he says, i don't know.. but no number of anecdotal stories can change the fact that he said what he said

geez Jimmy read the OPENING POST. It is, in itself, anecdotal

[luke warm]

maybe so, alex... this quote from claus seems to be what started this debate, "If Bob Hamman had just played the kind of simple systems many seems to prefer these days he would not have been on top today."

do you think that's true? i believe hamman believes it to be true.. so this isn't about the needs of the less than expert player, imo

[hrothgar]

If I had to make a guess, I'd say that Hamman is being deliberately provacative...

As I recall, Hamman states in the same book that the main reason that he adopted Neopolitan Club was to avoid the need to write up a set of detailed system notes for practice with the Aces...

Is hard for me to combine this statement with the dogmatic belief in system that some are suggesting

[slothy]

lol Richard

it seems some people in this thread other than Mr Hamman himself are being provocative )

i bowing out of this now, too volatile....

But as Mr Hamman himself could have said

"dont argue or fight with a pig... u will both fall in the mud, but the pig will love it"

i just bought some new cream trousers so thats me outta the sty

Mr PorkChopsRDaBest

[csdenmark]

..

[Walddk]

I need to be enlightened. Where exactly is it that Eric Kokish commented on this topic? EricK is not Eric O. Kokish of Canada as fas as I know.

"My last comment will be this which sounds very nice in danish".

"Trace the footsteps of Hamman then you will be beating Gitelman. - Thats for sure!"

I would also like to know why this sounds particularly nice in Danish. It translates to:

Følg i Hammans fodspor, så vil du slå Gitelman - Det er sikkert!"

Sludder og vrøvl Claus!

Roland

[slothy]

Quote

Trace the footsteps of Hamman then you will be beating Gitelman. - Thats for sure!

i will give it to you, Claus...you certainly got a way about you that make people wanna love ya

[Winstonm]

Certainly an enjoyable debate, and I hope I offended no one. I do not place myself into the category of being able to instruct capable bridge players how to play or bid better.

So for those of us below world class, a story.

I had picked up the game of bridge at a fairly advanced age (23) and my experience of it was two months of playing for cash in the locker room of the local golf course. Life led me to Santa Barbara, Califormia, where I knew not one other soul. So I looked up "Bridge Clubs" in the yellow pages, and low and behold there resided a vast array of interesting, intelligent people playing this thing called "Matchpoint Pairs". Then someone told me there were actually books on the subject of bridge if I wanted to improve my game.

I was fortunate to have some kind of talent for the game along with the passion of new discovery, and Santa Barbara was fairly well endowed with young players about my age who were willing to help me along.

Sometime in this first year, someone mentioned that we should play Precision. The club owner, a fine lady and a straight shooter, said, "Don't teach Winston Precision. He doesn't play well enough yet." It was a crushing blow to my ego, but she was exactly right - I had no idea how to value hands, use judgement, or play the hands to exact the 24 point games to which Precision geared itself. I simply wasn't ready as a driver to hop behind the wheel of a Ferarri. Better for me to drive the dirt circuit for a few years in a souped up Chevy.

I don't know how this story would have ended had I been enouraged to play Precision - but overall, I like the way things turned out.

Postscript: Many years later, when I did know what I was doing, I adopted and played Power Precision, acutally getting the chance in a Regional to play the system against Sontag and Weichsel. We lost. The hand that cost us had nothing to do with systems - it was a matter of judgement - and their's was better.

WinstonM

[Fluffy]

hrothgar, on May 30 2005, 03:02 PM, said:

3. Its completely unclear whether bidding systems are "transitive". Assume that 2/1 Game Forcing > Precision. Futhermore assume Precision is > EHAA. If this relationship is transitive, than 2/1 GF > EHAA. My gut tells me that the rleationship is not transitive.

I have no clue of what EHAA is, but if you are suggesting that a system can wrok better than another specifically against another one this is simply baseless:

How do I defend against specific systems is completelly independant from what system do I play, I would clearly overcall 1♥ with a 4card suit against a natural 1♦ opening with 14 HCP and unbalanced hand regardless of what system do I play. It changes nothing. Sam applies to how do I handle a precision 2♣ opening, or a ultra weak 3♠ preemptive, my system has nothing to do with that.

[slothy]

I am going to deviate a bit here....coz i want to make a point and also because i a cant fall asleep and I hope that writing a lot of incomprehensible and tangential dialectic will make me drowsy .

And i hope it validates what the majortiy of people are saying.

It is 2:30 in the morning so bear with me

...and even then, slithering about in the mud has made me quite exhausted

I want to take BRIDGE out of the equation, and thus shall be using a rather perverted analogy ..coz it seems (to me at least) that this argument is not about whether one particular system is better than a particular other but whether adopting a different system would have any bearing on ones success as a competitive bridge player.

so the basis of the analogy is GOD (i am not evangelising so please bear with me ) and the presumption that you believe he (or she for the Gaiaists amongst you ) exists.

NB It may be of interest that i dont actually personally believe in God but i hope that does not invalidate my analogy

So you believe in God and, as tradition, upbringing and culture dictate you believe in God through the credo of a religion and belief structure. It doesnt matter whether you are a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, or a member of any other religious community, the common denominator is that you believe in God.

Just as much as you believe in God you also accept that other people have different manifestations of him and you accept that. It would be foolish not to.

You also accept that, even though you truly perceive your God as the one that is responsible for the creation of the (your) Universe, you do not deny that another person of another religion may perceive his own with the same passion and devotion as you do.

But if you come together in conference with people from your own religion and from others you soon realise one overriding premise. The ones who have respect, and common respect, are not ones affiliated to any one particular religion but those who have FAITH in the God they happen to believe in, and live their lives in accordance to the rules (tried and tested) set down by that religion and make it their mission to ensure that they deviate as little as possible from their Chosen Way.

If one person were to 'jump ship' through either disillusionment of his/her religion or because s/he believed the foundations of another religion suited his her changing philosophy, one does not necessarily question this persons FAITH in God, only that this person intends to worship Him/Her differently!

So what am i getting at i hear you all cry in blasphemous cacaphony?

What i am getting at is this: Like in bridge, it doesnt matter which God you believe in, but how much FAITH you have in the God you DO believe in. You can wake up one morning and decide to change your religion but what is crucial is not that you changed religion but how much that transition has affected the FAITH you have and the manner in which you intend to worship God. If the transition has given you more Faith, so much the better. Sometimes, your FAITH is unwavered, just that you feel more comfortable in your worship.

It ain't the RELIGION per se, its the FAITH you have in it that allows you to worship the God you want to worship more effectively.

Right, i feel sleepy now. Most likely, some of you will too, hee hee.