[Cascade]

Rob F, on Jul 6 2007, 05:05 PM, said:

Natural openings (defined as 3+ for minors or 4+ for majors) at the 2 level and higher are not the ACBL's jurisdiction to regulate. Natural bids are always allowed, subject only to the rule of needing 8+ points at the 1 level. Conventional responses and defenses may be restricted however.

Technically not 8+ but not a King or more below average.

There is nothing in the laws that enshrines high card points as the basis on which to measure average.

[rbforster]

Cascade, on Jul 6 2007, 12:26 AM, said:

Rob F, on Jul 6 2007, 05:05 PM, said:

... the rule of needing 8+ points at the 1 level.

Technically not 8+ but not a King or more below average. There is nothing in the laws that enshrines high card points as the basis on which to measure average.

True enough regarding other point count systems, hence I introduce to you...

Rob's Fearless (Over)Bidding Point Count System
After a bunch of drunken statistics calculations, I have concluded that rather than High Card Points or Zar Points or Binky Points, we should have King Points as follows:

a King - 10 points!
Not a King- no points!

This shares the nice properties that the deck still has 40 points, and that an average hand has 10 points (for its one King). It further has the property that a hand "a King or more below average strength" is a zero point hand. Watch out for our "light" one level openers that may have only 3 hcp, but full values in terms of King Points. Also watch out for our heavy passes, which have many other face cards but no Kings. These we might have to open at the 2 level since they are "weak" .

now back to your regularly scheduled discussion of set theory and logic...

[skjaeran]

Cascade, on Jul 6 2007, 03:54 AM, said:

There is something wrong when I play a system that according to WBF classification is GREEN - Natural - but would not be allowed on the GCC (as suggested in this thread).

While the GCC allows conventional one-level openings (1C and 1D - any meaning but even a 'short as two' 1C in an otherwise natural system is conventional) are allowed. In fact strictly according to the WBF systems policy a short 1C opening in a standard system seems to meet the definition of HUM.

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit". Length is defined as three or more card and Shortage as Two or fewer.

I play a 5cM system where the 1♣ opening is either natural or balanced 11-14/18-19. 1♦ shows an unbalanced hand (5+ or 4-4-4-1, normally a singleton, but 5422/6322 is possible).

Thus the 1♣ opening shows 2+♣'s - (only a doubleton with any (443)-2 or 3-3-5-2). But I disagree that the opening shows either shortness or lenght - that would be true for suspensorlike openings (where 1♠ = 0-1/2 or 5+ ♠'s). I'm classifying my system as red. Except for the 1♣ opeing it would be green.

Showing shortage means showing a length <3. Shortage in ♣'s include void and singleton.

The Vienna system (still used by a few in Norway) where you open 1♣ on a singleton on 4441 (other suit openings at 1-level show 5c) is explicitly defined as red by the NBFLC.

[Cascade]

skaeran, on Jul 6 2007, 07:41 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 6 2007, 03:54 AM, said:

There is something wrong when I play a system that according to WBF classification is GREEN - Natural - but would not be allowed on the GCC (as suggested in this thread). 

While the GCC allows conventional one-level openings (1C and 1D - any meaning but even a 'short as two' 1C in an otherwise natural system is conventional) are allowed. In fact strictly according to the WBF systems policy a short 1C opening in a standard system seems to meet the definition of HUM.

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit".  Length is defined as three or more card and Shortage as Two or fewer.

I play a 5cM system where the 1♣ opening is either natural or balanced 11-14/18-19. 1♦ shows an unbalanced hand (5+ or 4-4-4-1, normally a singleton, but 5422/6322 is possible).

Thus the 1♣ opening shows 2+♣'s - (only a doubleton with any (443)-2 or 3-3-5-2). But I disagree that the opening shows either shortness or lenght - that would be true for suspensorlike openings (where 1♠ = 0-1/2 or 5+ ♠'s). I'm classifying my system as red. Except for the 1♣ opeing it would be green.

Showing shortage means showing a length <3. Shortage in ♣'s include void and singleton.

The Vienna system (still used by a few in Norway) where you open 1♣ on a singleton on 4441 (other suit openings at 1-level show 5c) is explicitly defined as red by the NBFLC.

Often an exception is made for a short minor opening.

Shortage is defined as 2 or fewer. Exactly two certainly fits in that category. Or would you argue that a bid that showed exactly one club did not show shortage?

[paulg]

Cascade, on Jul 6 2007, 02:54 AM, said:

There is something wrong when I play a system that according to WBF classification is GREEN - Natural - but would not be allowed on the GCC (as suggested in this thread). 

While the GCC allows conventional one-level openings (1C and 1D - any meaning but even a 'short as two' 1C in an otherwise natural system is conventional) are allowed. In fact strictly according to the WBF systems policy a short 1C opening in a standard system seems to meet the definition of HUM.

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit".  Length is defined as three or more card and Shortage as Two or fewer.

Bocchi-Duboin play a Short Club that is non-forcing with 2+♣. Their CC for Warsaw (Euro 2006) was marked as GREEN.

I guess the argument is that 1♣ shows clubs or a balanced hand.

Under this 'strict' interpretation of the HUM definitions, is not the standard 1NT opener a HUM? After all, it shows either 2 clubs or 3+ clubs?

And some people permit opening 1NT with a singleton, so it is 1-2 clubs or 3+ clubs!

[foo]

So, an idea based on a suggestion of Cascade:

"If the opening is systemically 'light' enough that it has less than a 75% chance of resulting in a makable contract (example: Frelling Two's with a low enough HCP range), then the pair using it
a= must play the opening strictly within it's stated shape and value range
(IOW, they may pass hands they consider poor in the stated range, but they may not use this opening with hands that have more or less HCP than the stated range; nor with hands that are off-shape for the stated description.)
AND
b= every time a pair uses such an opening the hand is declared XX."

Thus there will be a built-in dis-incentive against being more "random" than Usual Practice.

75% may not be the correct value. The mathematicians can figure out where the cut-off should exist such that people playing too Destructive a method end up having a large negative overall expectation on the scoring table.
Certainly any methods having a 55% or less expectation of leading to a making contract should end up being long term losers if this idea is adopted, but I'm not mathematically adept enough to figure out what the optimal exact percentage should be in the proposed regulation above.

EDIT: it may be a more effective disincentive to change "b" above to
"Every time a pair uses such an opening and does not make their contract, the board is scored as if they played XX'd."

[Cascade]

foo, on Jul 6 2007, 09:47 PM, said:

So, an idea based on a suggestion of Cascade:

"If the opening is systemically 'light' enough that it has less than a 75% chance of resulting in a makable contract (example: Frelling Two's with a low enough HCP range), then the pair using it
a= must play the opening strictly within it's stated shape and value range
(IOW, they may pass hands they consider poor in the stated range, but they may not use this opening with hands that have more or less HCP than the stated range; nor with hands that are off-shape for the stated description.)
AND
b= every time a pair uses such an opening the hand is declared XX."

Thus there will be a built-in dis-incentive against being more "random" than Usual Practice.

75% may not be the correct value. The mathematicians can figure out where the cut-off should exist such that people playing too Destructive a method end up having a large negative overall expectation on the scoring table.
Certainly any methods having a 55% or less expectation of leading to a making contract should end up being long term losers if this idea is adopted, but I'm not mathematically adept enough to figure out what the optimal exact percentage should be in the proposed regulation above.

I'm not sure how this is based on any suggestion that I made.

[foo]

Quote

If so-called disruptive bidding was not part of the game then it would be easily fixed without artificial system regulations. Simply increase the penalties for failing in a contract.

Some methods at some levels are deemed too disruptive. So...

It may be a more in the spirit of the above as well as more effective disincentive to change "b" in my suggestion to
"Every time a pair uses such an opening and does not make their contract, the board is scored as if they played XX'd."

[helene_t]

Adam's suggestion is very clear.

Sounds as if one couldn't play Short Club, or Strong Club with a nebulous diamond. Or did I miss something? I don't think that's desirable although I can see the bad logic of defining certain 1♦ either as blue or brown depending on the meaning of 1♣ (as the WBF definitions have it, as I understand them).

How is it now? Can one play Precision with nebulous diamond under GCC? Can one play 5542? 5551 (Vienna)?

[foo]

helene_t, on Jul 6 2007, 05:25 AM, said:

Adam's suggestion is very clear.

Sounds as if one couldn't play Short Club, or Strong Club with a nebulous diamond. Or did I miss something? I don't think that's desirable although I can see the bad logic of defining certain 1♦ either as blue or brown depending on the meaning of 1♣ (as the WBF definitions have it, as I understand them).

How is it now? Can one play Precision with nebulous diamond under GCC? Can one play 5542? 5551 (Vienna)?

After reading all these recent threads on this and similar topics, I'm beginning to think that any set of regulations based on allowing or disallowing any methods using HCP or suit length or having "n" cards in a suit is likely going to either
a= end up being "gamed" or
b= being perceived as arbitrary by some group.

Cascade has in effect suggested what IMHO is a whole new approach, and possibly a better one, to the issue.

What makes a method Constructive or Destructive is how much it helps you get to the right spot rather than how much it is based on scoring well by making it difficult or impossible for the opponents to evaluate their own cards.

That means the best way to regulate such methods is to see to it that there is a scoring disincentive for using methods that randomize board results by too much rather than playing whatever is defined as Bridge.

This IMHO, is much better than the current regulatory morass:
a= it's objective. No accusations or worries about politics leading to certain decisions.
b= it puts the focus of the primary goal of the game: getting good scores.
c= any hierto unknown method can be tested by a TD on the spot at a tourney just by asking someone with the correct math background to do the calculation.
d= it's "fair" in the sense that it can be tuned to represent the majority views of the playing membership being regulated.
e= it's a "meta-rule" that simplifies the approval process for new methods enormously.

[Gerben42]

Quote

It may be a more in the spirit of the above as well as more effective disincentive to change "b" in my suggestion to
"Every time a pair uses such an opening and does not make their contract, the board is scored as if they played XX'd."

So in short you would like to not play bridge but some other game. How sad.

Quote

a= must play the opening strictly within it's stated shape and value range
(IOW, they may pass hands they consider poor in the stated range, but they may not use this opening with hands that have more or less HCP than the stated range; nor with hands that are off-shape for the stated description.)

In that case my range is 0 - 11. This way you force people to give an explanation that is not really full disclosure, it's like having to declare your 15-17 NT as 13 - 18 because there might exist one 13 HCP hand worth a 15-17 NT.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 6 2007, 01:09 PM, said:

Quote

If so-called disruptive bidding was not part of the game then it would be easily fixed without artificial system regulations. Simply increase the penalties for failing in a contract.

Some methods at some levels are deemed too disruptive. So...

It may be a more in the spirit of the above as well as more effective disincentive to change "b" in my suggestion to
"Every time a pair uses such an opening and does not make their contract, the board is scored as if they played XX'd."

As I read things, Cascade was suggesting that the scores for doubled undertricks be adjusted.

Currently, doubled non-vulnerable undertricks are scored at

100
300
500
800
1100
...

In theory, there is no reason why they shouldn't be scored

200
500
800
1100
...

A similar adjustment could be put in place for doubled vulnerable undertricks. (BTW, I am not claiming that this schedule is, by an means, optimal. I am simply suggesting it as an illustration)

The powers that be adjusted the scoring once before a few years back to dissuade folks from taking sacrifices over small slams. If you really want to stop folks from preempting, the same tactics can be used once more.

Please note: Foo's suggestion is very different. Foo is suggesting that different rules sets be applied to different classes of bids.

[Gerben42]

How about each next undertrick costs 100 more than the previous one?

1. 100
2. 300
3. 600
4. 1000
5. 1500
6. 2100
7. 2800
8. 3600
9. 4500
10. 5400

Vulnerable:

1. 200
2. 500
3. 900
4. 1400
5. 2000
6. 2700
7. 3500
8. 4400
9. 5400
10. 6500

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Jul 6 2007, 03:02 PM, said:

How about each next undertrick costs 100 more than the previous one?

1. 100
2. 300

Vulnerable:

1. 200
2. 500

I think that its a mistake to immediately focus on the precise shape of the scoring table. Rather, I think that you need to achieve (rough) consensus about whats wrong with the existing table.

For example, do we want to make marginal doubles more lucrative by significantly increasing the penalty for down one or down two doubled? Alternatively, do we want to dissuade folks from taking a three trick NV sac versus a vulnerable game?

For what its worth, I don't think that any changes are necessary. However, if you believes that we need to emphasize constructive bidding, then I would argue that adjusting the various scoring tables is the best way to achieve this end.

[helene_t]

richard said:

if you believes that we need to emphasize constructive bidding, then I would argue that adjusting the various scoring tables is the best way to achieve this end.

Yes. Personally I'm ok with the curent downtrick penalties. I'd like to have the scoring simplified (the IMP and VP tables drive me nuts, and I don't care for vulnerability either) but that's another discussion.

[skjaeran]

Cascade, on Jul 6 2007, 09:56 AM, said:

skaeran, on Jul 6 2007, 07:41 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 6 2007, 03:54 AM, said:

There is something wrong when I play a system that according to WBF classification is GREEN - Natural - but would not be allowed on the GCC (as suggested in this thread). 

While the GCC allows conventional one-level openings (1C and 1D - any meaning but even a 'short as two' 1C in an otherwise natural system is conventional) are allowed. In fact strictly according to the WBF systems policy a short 1C opening in a standard system seems to meet the definition of HUM.

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit".  Length is defined as three or more card and Shortage as Two or fewer.

I play a 5cM system where the 1♣ opening is either natural or balanced 11-14/18-19. 1♦ shows an unbalanced hand (5+ or 4-4-4-1, normally a singleton, but 5422/6322 is possible).

Thus the 1♣ opening shows 2+♣'s - (only a doubleton with any (443)-2 or 3-3-5-2). But I disagree that the opening shows either shortness or lenght - that would be true for suspensorlike openings (where 1♠ = 0-1/2 or 5+ ♠'s). I'm classifying my system as red. Except for the 1♣ opeing it would be green.

Showing shortage means showing a length <3. Shortage in ♣'s include void and singleton.

The Vienna system (still used by a few in Norway) where you open 1♣ on a singleton on 4441 (other suit openings at 1-level show 5c) is explicitly defined as red by the NBFLC.

Often an exception is made for a short minor opening.

Shortage is defined as 2 or fewer. Exactly two certainly fits in that category. Or would you argue that a bid that showed exactly one club did not show shortage?

I know perfectly well that both a void, a singleton and a doubleton are all "shortage" by the definition.

However, having an opening containing a continuous interval of length of a suit, is not the same as showing shortage or length in the suit. By that definition all strong conventional openings at the 1-level and all 1NT openings allowing semibalanced shapes would make a system HUM. And we all know that's not true. In fact, the same goes for a natural 1♠ opening, which we all know can show any number of ♣'s from 0 to 6 (or even 7 for some).

I accept that you "might" read the definition to mean what you say (bad wording IMO), but I'm quite confident that's not what it's supposed to mean.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Jul 6 2007, 06:44 AM, said:

The powers that be adjusted the scoring once before a few years back to dissuade folks from taking sacrifices over small slams.

That wasn't the first time the scoring rules were changed. Somewhere I have an old book (I believe it describes the Vanderbilt Club) that includes a scoring table in which each trick at NT is worth 35 points.

There have been others, including the change in bonus for making a redoubled contract (I think that one came at the same time as the NV doubled undertrick change).

[skjaeran]

hrothgar, on Jul 6 2007, 06:44 AM, said:

There have been others, including the change in bonus for making a redoubled contract (I think that one came at the same time as the NV doubled undertrick change).

Correct. Those scoring changes were made in the 1987 laws edition.
I remember scoring 1030 in 4♠xx one week and 1080 the next week in October 1987, when the Norwegian edition of those laws where enforced.

[foo]

Gerben42, on Jul 6 2007, 06:24 AM, said:

Quote

It may be a more in the spirit of the above as well as more effective disincentive to change "b" in my suggestion to
"Every time a pair uses such an opening and does not make their contract, the board is scored as if they played XX'd."

So in short you would like to not play bridge but some other game. How sad.

Quote

a= must play the opening strictly within it's stated shape and value range
(IOW, they may pass hands they consider poor in the stated range, but they may not use this opening with hands that have more or less HCP than the stated range; nor with hands that are off-shape for the stated description.)

In that case my range is 0 - 11. This way you force people to give an explanation that is not really full disclosure, it's like having to declare your 15-17 NT as 13 - 18 because there might exist one 13 HCP hand worth a 15-17 NT.

1= It has been argued that those playing systemic methods that are basically designed to gain all or the vast majority of their good results from making it impossible for the opponents to use Bridge skills are not playing Bridge.
That's why the technical terms "Destructive" and "Dominant" have come into being.
This is the dominant meme within the Bridge community. It is never going away.

Unfortunately, the current way these situations is handled involves enough personal judgement, usually unexplained and undocumented personal judgement, on the part of regulating officials that many players attempting to be innovative with regards to bidding are crying "foul!"

There =will= always be regulations where some methods are deemed unacceptable at some levels of play. Therefore the best thing to do to protect those who want to innovate is to make rules that are as objective and as understandable as possible.
By using an objective mathematical basis based on what is now consider acceptable bidding, we get a objective "dial" that innovators can guarantee will not be set too stringently nor can be used to "single out" or prejudice against any specific method.

It's a heck of a lot better than the current situation.


2= Please note that the regulation I proposed explicitly states that it is only valid for bids that do not pass the mathematical test for being adequately Constructive.
Clearly =all= of the present 1N opening ranges, the Kamikaze included, pass that test. Therefore example based on a Strong NT is a red herring designed more to incite flames than to objectively evaluate the suggestion.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 6 2007, 06:31 PM, said:

>1= It has been argued that those playing systemic methods that are basically
>designed to gain all or the vast majority of their good results from making it
>impossible for the opponents to use Bridge skills are not playing Bridge.
>
>That's why the technical terms "Destructive" and "Dominant" have come into being.

The expressions "Destructive" and "Dominant" were introduced for much the same reason that the "Estate Tax" was rebranded as the "Death Tax". This is a cynical attempt to cause people engage with the debate on an emotional level.

BTW, its been a fews days now. Still waiting for you to show where the expression "Destructive" was formally defined in the regulatory structure.

>Unfortunately, the current way these situations is handled involves enough
>personal judgement, usually unexplained and undocumented personal
>judgement, on the part of regulating officials that many players attempting to
>be innovative with regards to bidding are crying "foul!"

>There =will= always be regulations where some methods are deemed
>unacceptable at some levels of play. Therefore the best thing to do to protect
>those who want to innovate is to make rules that are as objective and
>as understandable as possible.

>By using an objective mathematical basis based on what is now consider
>acceptable bidding, we get a objective "dial" that innovators can guarantee
>will not be set too stringently nor can be used to "single out" or prejudice against
>any specific method.

The system that you suggest is ever bit as subjective as the other proposals. It simply hides under a veneer of techno-babble.

There is NOTHING in the laws of bridge that differentiates between a good score that is achieved by making a difficult 3NT contract and a good score that achieved by going down 7 tricks (Non vulnerable) in 3NT when the opponents have a cold game. You, however, are imposing an external set of aesthetics to label one of these results to be "good" and the other as "evil".

In a similar vein, there is no reason why a 2♦ opening showing 4+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major should be considered "Destructive" if its used an an opening, but it suddenly becomes constructive when it is used as an overcall of a strong NT or a strong club opening. Here, once again, you are imposing a highly subjective set of criteria.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not in favor of adjusting the scoring tables for undertricks. However, I think that its a much more obvious way to accomplish a similar end.