[Walddk]

csdenmark, on May 28 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

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.

This is sheer nonsense Claus! He would have been on top playing ANY system. He has his preferences, yes, but he would get along nicely with anything.

As an aside (At The Table), he could perhaps have been a bit more dimplomatic occasionally. He uses phrases most authors would not even think about when writing a book.

"The Danish declarer butchered the contract".

Lars Blakset (not mentioned in the book) may not have chosen the best line on that particular deal, but it is somewhat rude to write "butchered". Fred can confirm that Lars is a world class player and that he had his reasons for adopting that line which led to minus 300.

(Was in the semi-finals at the Olympics in Rhodes 1996 and was a contributing factor to Denmark's loss after overtime).

By the way, Denmark went on to win the bronze medal. No one does that in an event like this if you have butchers in the team.

Roland

[david_c]

fred, on May 29 2005, 07:16 AM, said:

1) For 99% of all bridge players out there for want to improve their results, they will be MUCH better off keeping the bidding simple and spending their time learning to play well.

I do disagree with this. Yes, if you want to become a good player, there is nothing more important than developing good judgement and learning to play well. But you can't completely ignore the aspect of making agreements with partner, and for most people this process will tend to make their bidding more complicated.

There are plenty of good reasons to play relatively complicated systems:

1. Conventions can reduce the amount of guesswork needed. [e.g. playing artificial raises of a 1M opening, to make it easier to decide what level to play at.]

2. You rely less on judgement than if you play a simpler system. (Of course, it would be even better if you could improve your judgement as well, but even then, nobody can get everything right all of the time.)

3. Simple systems tend to have holes, many of which can filled by playing artificial methods. You rarely get a good result when you fall into a hole.

4. If you change your system of opening bids (or overcalls or responses), there will be some hands which are good for the system and some hands which are bad for the system. To a large extent you should expect these to cancel out. However, it is an inescapable fact that some systems are better than others. If you switch to a system which gains you, say, 0.2 IMPs per board on average, then that will increase your chances of winning. Of course, you have to put the effort in to learn the system, but this only has to be done once. After that, you can go on collecting your 0.2 IMPs per board as long as you can keep your partner.

5. If you're playing a system which you believe to be superior to your opponents' system, then this can give you extra confidence. On the other hand, if you are playing a system which you believe is weak in some areas, then you may worry too much about what happens when these things come up.

Though, I have to admit, the main reason I tend to play relatively complex systems has nothing to do with wanting to improve my results:

6. Bidding theory is interesting in its own right.

[luke warm]

while fred may be correct that hamman's quote didn't refer to his system specifically (though who knows, that might be just what he meant), it's self-evident that system matters...

at the highest levels, all pairs look for competitive advantages... that's why the rodwells of the world exist, and it's why he has worked endlessly to "perfect" his system.... he knows, at some level, that it's a pipe dream but so what? in the searching he just might stumble on something that gives his team that elusive advantage... doesn't that mean that this bid/convention/*system* is "better" than another, at least in his mind?

fred and brad, for instance, honestly believe (at this point in time) that a 5 card major system will give them a competitive advantage, i.e. that this system is "better" than others... if they didn't believe this, they wouldn't play it... hamman obviously believes (or at least he says he does) this systemic philosophy is inferior, so he has adopted a method of play that doesn't let other pairs take advantage of what he sees as its weaknesses

i agree that if you can't play, you can't play... the system won't much matter... and if you can play, you can play irregardless of the system... but that's a far cry from saying that ones results would be the same regardless of the system played...

[csdenmark]

..

[glen1]

Although I fully agree that Hamman would be “on top” playing any decent system, it has been said that he split with Wolff because the latter would not change their bidding methods. So Hamman himself could believe that methods are important (at the highest levels) and hence the quote from this book. For myself, even as a long-time system designer and chaser of bidding science utopias, I don’t believe Hamman’s choice of system had much bearing on his results in general. For players like Hamman, and his current partner Soloway, their success over the years, in my view, derives from their amazing ability to play consistent error-free bridge. In such light, the number one factor in deciding on a system to play should be does it assist the partnership in consistently reducing the number of errors.

Put another way, the system chosen should be one the partnership is comfortable with, and enjoys playing. I think Hamman likes his system a lot, though I have wondered if Soloway would prefer 2/1, given he played it with Walsh and Goldman (though with Goldman for some time they dabbled with using a light opening bid strong club system when not vulnerable). Although Soloway might prefer 2/1, I don’t think he minds playing Hamman’s system, since he knows it functions well too.

[glen1]

david_c said:

I do disagree with this. Yes, if you want to become a good player, there is nothing more important than developing good judgement and learning to play well. But you can't completely ignore the aspect of making agreements with partner, and for most people this process will tend to make their bidding more complicated. {goes on the provide excellent reasons to play a system}

You provide 5+ good reasons how system can have a positive impact on results, and these are all valid. However system can also hinder the development of a bridge player, as the very same reasons become a crutch, and the players don't learn to run.

While I would not go so far as Fred's '99%' of players, I would suggest that developing players avoid the crutch, and don't rely on the positive impacts of bidding systems while trying to get better. Then later, when they are ready to take on the world (and/or Fred), they can pick a system or two to beat up Hamman and rest of the bridge mob.

luke warm said:

fred and brad, for instance, honestly believe (at this point in time) that a 5 card major system will give them a competitive advantage, i.e. that this system is "better" than others...

I don't know about Brad, but I think that Fred may believe that his system is not any "better" or worse than the other systems employed at the highest levels, and that his competitive advantage comes from always knowing what they are doing - that is trying to play error-free bridge.

Fred's teammates Eric Greco and Geoff Hampson likely believe that system is important in some way, as they switched from 2/1 to Meckwell strong club. They might have done this because they believe it is more effective, or they might have done it because they like opening 11 counts. Perhaps they could lend Fred their notes.

[fred]

glen, on May 29 2005, 04:21 PM, said:

david_c said:

I do disagree with this. Yes, if you want to become a good player, there is nothing more important than developing good judgement and learning to play well. But you can't completely ignore the aspect of making agreements with partner, and for most people this process will tend to make their bidding more complicated. {goes on the provide excellent reasons to play a system}

You provide 5+ good reasons how system can have a positive impact on results, and these are all valid. However system can also hinder the development of a bridge player, as the very same reasons become a crutch, and the players don't learn to run.

While I would not go so far as Fred's '99%' of players, I would suggest that developing players avoid the crutch, and don't rely on the positive impacts of bidding systems while trying to get better. Then later, when they are ready to take on the world (and/or Fred), they can pick a system or two to beat up Hamman and rest of the bridge mob.

luke warm said:

fred and brad, for instance, honestly believe (at this point in time) that a 5 card major system will give them a competitive advantage, i.e. that this system is "better" than others...

I don't know about Brad, but I think that Fred may believe that his system is not any "better" or worse than the other systems employed at the highest levels, and that his competitive advantage comes from always knowing what they are doing - that is trying to play error-free bridge.

Fred's teammates Eric Greco and Geoff Hampson likely believe that system is important in some way, as they switched from 2/1 to Meckwell strong club. They might have done this because they believe it is more effective, or they might have done it because they like opening 11 counts. Perhaps they could lend Fred their notes.

I agree with almost all of this post.

I have absolutely no idea if the basic system (5-card majors, 2/1 GF, strong notrumps) is "better" or "worse" than any other basic system. Furthermore I have no idea how one would even try to go about demonstrating something like this. I choose play this system, not because I think it gives me a competitive advantage in and of itself, but because I am comfortable with it (and I believe that this is far more important than what methods we actually use).

Hampson and Greco switched from 2/1 to Precision a couple of years ago for a strange reason: they felt their partnership was getting stale and wanted to try something new. As with Brad and myself, the reason they play the methods they do are more personal than related to any strong conviction that their system is "better" than a natural system.

A story:

Some time during the past year I played a team of young players during the first round of a Spingold or Vanderbilt. One of the pairs on this team showed up at the table with a thick binder filled with hundreds of pages of system notes that described their highly artificial and complex system. They had plenty of "pre-alerts" and used several conventions that I had never heard of. Although I had never met these 2 before, they were obviously very bright and had put a great deal of time and effort into developing their bidding system.

I played 48 of the 64 boards of this match against this pair.

The approximate number of IMPs they won through "system truimphs": 0

The approximate number of boards in which they forgot their system, had misunderstandings in auctions in which their system was not in play, or learned the hard way that their were massive holes in their system: 10

The approximate number of IMPs they lost as a result: 100

The approximate number of IMPs they lost through stupid mistakes and poor judgment: 150

I have seen this sort of thing happen time and time again. Talented young players who devote their time and energy to developing systems and do not know how to win a trick lose and lose and lose. Most of these people are so emotionally attached to their systems that they never see why they are losing. They are almost always Flight-B players for life.

The other class of talented young players include the Jlall's of the world. These people understand what is important. They focus on learning to play. They eventually become superstars, but well before they do that, it is not rare for them to beat teams like mine in the Vanderbilt or Spingold (rather than losing by 300 IMPs as the mad scientists typically do).

Those of you who continue to argue with me are probably not going to be convinced regardless of what I say. For those of you have not decided yet, I hope you will at least believe me about my experiences (which strongly suggest that I am right). In my view we do not know enough about bridge to answer an abstract question like: "Which system results in the most success?" However, we can learn a lot of listening to experienced and successful players.

I do understand that many players find it fun to experiment with systems. If fun is what you are after, do whatever turns you on, but if success is what you want I strongly suggest that you keep the bidding simple (at least until the time comes that you are a VERY good player).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[MickyB]

Echognome, on May 29 2005, 02:10 PM, said:

As per the system debate, I think it's pretty interesting. The president of our university club really wants all of improving players to just stick to simple Acol and focus on learning it well. Of course most of the students start to learn it and then play some online and end up adding tons and tons of different gadgets and conventions.

My argument to him was that although I agreed that their bridge would improve if they just stuck with simple system and improved their cardplay, defense, and bridge judment, that their bridge INTEREST may suffer.

I agree Matt. I spent a lot of time on system when I first started, expecting it to improve my results. Of course, it didn't, but it kept me interested in bridge at a time when I had no patience for books on cardplay. Also, I got to blame any bad results on our forgetting the constantly changing system

When I'm asked about system by members of our uni club, I usually mention that they should play Asptro or whatever because they want to, not because it will improve their results drastically. That's when I'm not getting ranting on about my own pet theories...

[Walddk]

I totally agree with Fred. Play what you like, do whatever you and your partner are comfortable with, add 919 conventions and relays, but accept the fact that this doesn't make you a better bridge player.

This is the issue in a nutshell.

Roland

[Trumpace]

I agree that _non-expert_ players should first develop card play and then think about improving the bidding system. What is the use when you bid to a game accurately only to go down because of poor play? I agree with Fred that card play and judgement should be developed first. I know I might get some heat by my following statement, but I would say that people without a good judgement are the first ones to rant about the need for a 'better' system. (Note that I am only talking about non-expert players).

I have seen many declarers arguing with their partners about the _bidding_ after they have gone down in a cold contract. (I have done that many times myself). They never realise (want to realise) that their partner's bidding is probably reasonable and the contract could have been made.

At the highest levels of the game where most are equal in terms of card play and (probably) judgement, the system would (should) come into the picture. But I don't see how we can say one system is better than the other... there will always be hands where one system fails and the other suceeds.

[luke warm]

absolutely true, a system can't teach anyone to count or teach judgment... but like it or not, hamman said what he said... now he may be wrong, or he may be just kidding, or he may have some other motivation... i don't know him so i can't say

it's also just possible he meant what he said.. it appears that a lot of folks are saying that if he *did* mean what he said, he's just plain wrong... talented folks who play 5 card majors and forcing no trump *wouldn't* get better results playing another system...

Trumpace said:

But I don't see how we can say one system is better than the other... there will always be hands where one system fails and the other suceeds

that's true, but remember hamman is just giving his opinion.. and in that opinion, a certain style is clearly inferior... but that's just one man's view

[Walddk]

I have been teaching bridge for over 30 years, and (not only) my conclusion is:

In most cases you can teach people to bid, but you can't teach them to play or defend, let alone make judgements, if they have no flair whatsoever.

[csdenmark]

..

[Walddk]

csdenmark, on May 29 2005, 06:07 PM, said:

This looks to me not the right way for arguments by Fred and Roland. As I read you your arguments are based on blaming persons who tries to invent their own systems based on a little bit from this and a little bit from that.

I wonder why you may be proud that a professional standard system is superior to a rag-carpet system. In my view no wonder!

But thats not the way for a comparison set-up. You have to compare professional systems against each other - fx. Meckwell versus Nickell-Fremann or Gitelman-Moss versus Balicki-Zmudzinski. Thats the way for a debate.

I feel very sorry each time I here on BBO Forum see any new post asking for opinions about all kind of strange bidding sequences.  No arguments - no continuations - no interference handle - never defense. Strong systems are based on different kind of philosophy - but such basic elements are very rare discussed. I think it is because such are rules(restrictions) to be applied in order to be successful using the right tools.

In that way proponents of strong systems are just offering all too obvious and easy arguments.

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

-----------------
No offence intended Fred 

You seem to be missing our point completely, Claus. Go ahead and play all kinds of systems, all kinds of gadgets, all kinds of relays. Take a little from this, a little from that and a little more from there.

Fine, then you have a system. The problem is, however, that the more you add of funny things, the more there is to forget for a start, and when that happens you are headed for a disaster (you = one). We have all seen that on numerous occasions.

Now, let's assume that your complicated system finally does get you to the right contract, then you will have to play it too. Too many system freaks seem to forget all about playing a hand correctly. No system makes up for that, no matter how good a system you have.

The same applies to defence. Do you think that your spectacular system helps you to defend properly? Of course it doesn't. If you can't play, if you can't defend, it doesn't matter which system you have.

My, and Fred's for that matter as you see, suggestion is that you actually learn to play bridge first, that you learn the basics first, that you read books for hours and hours, that you study article after article with analasyses. And that you practice your play for hundreds of hours.

I never understood why so many players want to run before they can even crawl, but that's unfortunately how it is. They add gadget upon gadget, relay upon relay before they even know how to master the basics.

Forget about Smolen, Drury, Hamway, Gitmoss, whatever. Just play bridge, and the best way to do that is to keep it as simple as possible.

Finally, I hope you are up for a challenge. You choose any system you like, any gadget you like. You find a partner who plays exactly the same and you sit down on BBO and play against Fred and me. We have no system, so we agree on Goren, Stayman and Blackwood, negative doubles, reverse attitude and count. Nothing more.

Do you think that whichever system you choose will make the difference in your favour? I bet against!

Roland

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on May 30 2005, 02:38 AM, said:

 

>You seem to be missing our point completely, Claus. Go ahead and play all kinds of
>systems, all kinds of gadgets, all kinds of relays. Take a little from this, a little from >that and a little more from there.

>Fine, then you have a system. The problem is, however, that the more you add of
>funny things, the more there is to forget for a start, and when that happens you are
>headed for a disaster (you = one). We have all seen that on numerous occasions.

Quick comment here...

From my perspective, highly "artificial" systems actually feature significantly less memory load than supposedly natural ones...

>Finally, I hope you are up for a challenge. You choose any system you like, any
>gadget you like. You find a partner who plays exactly the same and you sit down
>on BBO and play against Fred and me. We have no system, so we agree on Goren,
>Stayman and Blackwood, negative doubles, reverse attitude and count. Nothing >more.

I'll note in passing that there was a similar discussion here on BBO roughly 2 years ago, leading to a match called "Swatting the MOSCITO's". The MOSCITO team fielded two highly experienced pairs (Paul Marston and Sartaj Hans and Luis and Ana Bloom) versus team of solid BBO players playing a simple natural system.

As I recall, the main conclusion was that the partnership experience of the MOSCITO team gave them a pretty big advantage...

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on May 29 2005, 07:55 PM, said:

I'll note in passing that there was a similar discussion here on BBO roughly 2 years ago, leading to a match called "Swatting the MOSCITO's".  The MOSCITO team fielded two highly experienced pairs (Paul Marston and Sartaj Hans and Luis and Ana Bloom) versus team of solid BBO players playing a simple natural system.

As I recall, the main conclusion was that the partnership experience of the MOSCITO team gave them a pretty big advantage...

Richard, the four persons you mention can actually play and defend too. My point is that many system freaks concentrate too much on the system, and forget the other, and in my opinion the more important part: play, defence and judgement.

I am sure that Claus (csdenmark) knows more about odd systems than I do, but I am not worried about it. I can do pretty well with less.

Roland

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on May 30 2005, 04:13 AM, said:

Richard, the four persons you mention can actually play and defend too. My point is that many system freaks concentrate too much on the system, and forget the other, and in my opinion the more important part: play, defence and judgement.

I am sure that Claus (csdenmark) knows more about odd systems than I do, but I am not worried about it. I can do pretty well with less.

I don't have an informed opinion regarding Claus's defense or play, however, I've never been accussed of any great skill in either of those areas... I'm certainly not within a mile of you or Fred with regards to ability...

With this said and done, I suspect that given the conditions of contest you describe , I and a partner of my chosing could put on a presentable showing...

[keylime]

I agree with Fred completely, but for a very different set of reasons.

When I started KLP, we used the Meckwell WBF CC, with a lot of simplifications to make it GCC legal and memory sufficient. Had a lot of success in the first few events we played using this.

As we started to add "refinements" and "tweaks" and "modifications" and "structure", our results started to sink. We thought it was lack of field protection or hands didn't fit or some other absurd reason. What we didn't realize was that conventions and treatments should be used IN CONCERT with hand evaluation, not as purely a secondary concern.

We used to have a lot of stuff and notes and "goodies", but due to dramatic health issues with both of us, we realized that we couldn't model ourselves after the Meckwell model, but to find our own model. To do that, we had to find that "convention limiter", in essence the max threshold that we both could stomach. Then, we started backing down - WAY down - until we found the right mixture so that the play of the hands became easier.

I firmly believe that the great players know their limit in terms of artificiality. I also believe that my play as a bridge player has significantly improved since I dropped about 80 pages of notes. I wanted a compact method that in my eyes make enough sense to make the declaring the major area of my game (this is the region I was suffering the most with).

I'm happy with what I have. I'm also happy that I have in a partner someone who's willing to say "no". That's a biggie. Our system notes have in unopposed auctions been reduced by 2/3'rds - it's the comp. auctions where we have made detailed agreements.

The most important thing for us right now is continuing to educate ourselves and challenge ourselves. Being the ex-system nuts we are, we rather win by tactics now.

[Gerardo]

hrothgar, on May 29 2005, 09:55 PM, said:

I'll note in passing that there was a similar discussion here on BBO roughly 2 years ago, leading to a match called "Swatting the MOSCITO's". The MOSCITO team fielded two highly experienced pairs (Paul Marston and Sartaj Hans and Luis and Ana Bloom) versus team of solid BBO players playing a simple natural system.

Ana Alonso (AnaA on BBO, Luis' mother) not Ana Blum.

[helene_t]

First of all, Hamman's assertion sounds like a sarcasm. I can believe he's a little bit serious, I can't believe he's 100% serious.

I agree with Fred, Roland and Ron that you're much better of concentrating on judgement and card play instead of inventing and adopting complex conventions. But I also agree with Richard that artificial systems are not inherently more complex or difficult than "natural" systems (whatever that is supposed to mean).

One (not necesarily the only) advantage of playing standard systems is the mere fact that they are standard. You can discuss bidding problems with peers who play similar or even identical systems, and you can read about bidding problems in hundreds of books. If you choose a non-standard system, you are left with a very few textbook authors to learn from.

I agree with Claus that it's unfair to compare a professional standard system to some incoherent patchwork relay system. But sometimes reality just isn't fair. If you want to augment a standard system with some funny conventions, there are plenty of conventions out there that have been developed, discussed and tested in the context of standard systems. Think of the discussions we have had about check-back relays, notrump structure, Inverted Minors and New Suit Invitational. All those conventions would work differently (if at all) in an exotic system so you would be less able to benefit from the discussions.