[TimG]

foo, on Jul 6 2007, 05:50 AM, said:

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.

Sometimes the right spot results in a negative score, sometimes this negative score means going down in a contract.

But, even if it didn't, wouldn't making it difficult for the opponents to find their best spot be considered good? We already employ such methods -- a natural opening bid at the three level based upon a weak hand and a long suit is an example. When we open with such a preempt, we are hoping that the hand belongs to the opponents and that they will have difficulty reaching their best spot. (I don't have a citation, but this is not just my opinion, I have read, or heard, experts who expressed this idea.)

Quote

c= any [hitherto] 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.

I'm sorry if I have missed it, but have you proposed what this calculation will be? I think you have spoken about destructive:constructive ratio, but I haven't seen how either of these can be quantified.

Quote

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.

It has also been argued that coping with methods which make the auction uncomfortable is a bridge skill. Sometimes preempts present us with impossible problems, that is they make us guess. We've all heard the bidding mantra "force the opponents make the last guess".

Quote

That's why the technical terms "Destructive" and "Dominant" have come into being.

You'd think such a technical term would have a very specific definition, wouldn't you? Yet, you'll get different definitions depending upon which official you ask. As you say: "the current way these situations [are] handled involves enough personal judgement, usually unexplained and undocumented personal judgement."

Quote

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.

Seems a decent goal. But, doesn't appear easy to me. In part because:

Quote

we get a objective "dial" that innovators can guarantee will not be set too stringently

How can innovators guarantee the resulting regulations won't be "too stringent"? We can't agree on what is "too stringent" in the first place. You're not suggesting that the mathematically objective measurement of "destructiveness" will be agreed upon by all, are you?

Quote

By using an objective mathematical basis based on what is now consider acceptable bidding

Considered acceptable bidding by whom? I think you're running in circles here. What you propose to be a mathematically objective evaluation will come with a subjective determination of threshold between constructive and destructive.

[awm]

A few points here.

The set of regulations I proposed does allow short club or diamond. It's number 8 under openings or overcalls "an opening or overcall of 1♣ or 1♦ is allowed, with any agreed meaning" with the additional requirement (for opening bids only) that the call show an average hand or better (10+ points). This allows precision diamond, short club, etc. They are also allowed on the current general chart, with the same restriction that they guarantee at least 10 points. I believe jtfanclub's rules allow them as well.

As for Foo's suggestion, this seems rather silly to me. I don't understand how these computations are to be performed (who knows how often a bid leads to a making contract? does it have to be a making contract of the bid itself or is it enough that the bid leads you to later get to a making contract? what if, in general, the bid usually doesn't make, but partner only passes when he has a hand such that it will make? this just seems very arbitrary). In general bridge is not about making all your contracts, much as people would like it to be. Quite often the goal is to obtain your smallest possible negative score by taking a good sacrifice. Any time I bid something expecting down one or two opposite a making game or slam I have to play redoubled? This seems rather crazy to me.

A better idea might be to change the scoring table for undoubled failing contracts. One of the really annoying things (banned in most events) is chimera preempts where you bid a suit you may or may not hold, figuring that if you are passed out and play in some 2-2 fit it will still be a good score because opponents have game. One reasonable approach might be to keep things the same for down one or down two (after all you might have "thought" you were making when you bid it) and increase the penalty for down three or more. This wouldn't be a big change for most folks -- usually if you go down more than two or maybe three it's a bad result anyway, but it prevents the "undoubled down a zillion, good sacrifice" approach to the game.

[Echognome]

hrothgar, on Jul 6 2007, 03:44 AM, said:

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

The way I read it is that Wayne is saying that changing the scoring would have the effect, not suggesting one should implement it. But, I'll of course let Wayne speak for himself.

It was interesting reading about some hands before the last scoring change. Unfortunately, I can't cite any specific hands for you (without going home to search my bridge shelves), but I remember a hand where the opponents had an uncontested auction to slam and just about when it was going to pass out, John Collings decided it would be a good time to sacrifice. He had obviously been listening to the bidding and could impute some length from his partner. Under the old scoring rules, his sacrifice was profitable. I believe this is the type of situation the score changers were trying to avoid.

[foo]

TimG, on Jul 6 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

I'm sorry if I have missed it, but have you proposed what this calculation will be?  I think you have spoken about destructive:constructive ratio, but I haven't seen how either of these can be quantified.

I have not suggested anything resembling a "destructive:constructive ratio". I'm not even sure what that term means.

The metric I presented was based on the chance that your opening bid has a "foo" % chance of resulting in a makable contract: 8+ trumps and appropriate values for the degree of trump fit and level to which one has bid.

My initial 75% number came from the mathematical calculations of a traditional 6 card long single suited Weak Two having a fit of at least 8 cards.
Clearly, that is not all there is to calculating the odds of a traditional Weak Two resulting in a reasonable contract.
That's why I suggest those more mathematically adept than I should do the calculation that goes into the actual proposed regulation.

The protection this gives bidding innovators is that, regardless of whatever a regulator's personal prejudices are, if a bid is as "sound" as other accepted methods by this metric, this regulation guarantees that whatever the new method is it will be accepted as equally valid Bridge.

On the "other side of the aisle", players are protected from methods that are too "outrageous" by the simple fact that if a pair plays unsound methods the scoring table will mete out appropriate justice regardless of the players involved.

[jtfanclub]

pclayton, on Jul 5 2007, 03:58 PM, said:

I like Adam's approach better.

I do too. I haven't looked at it closely enough yet to determine what specifically would be a problem, but generally I think it's easier to read and understand, and yet remains as consistent.

I'll take a closer look this weekend, should I have time.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jul 6 2007, 11:11 AM, said:

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.

That's your POV. You are welcome to it. It is not supported by =any= TD or regulating official I've had discourse with.

What =has= been agreed is that there is evidence that the current process is too inexplicable, too undisclosed, and that there have been actions taken that could be construed as being based on personal bias rather than objective judgement.

Therefore I am trying to make suggestions that fix the problems that seem to be substantiated.

[Echognome]

foo, on Jul 6 2007, 08:38 AM, said:

The metric I presented was based on the chance that your opening bid has a "foo" % chance of resulting in a makable contract: 8+ trumps and appropriate values for the degree of trump fit and level to which one has bid.

My initial 75% number came from the mathematical calculations of a traditional 6 card long single suited Weak Two having a fit of at least 8 cards.
Clearly, that is not all there is to calculating the odds of a traditional Weak Two resulting in a reasonable contract.
That's why I suggest those more mathematically adept than I should do the calculation that goes into the actual proposed regulation.

The protection this gives bidding innovators is that, regardless of whatever a regulator's personal prejudices are, if a bid is as "sound" as other accepted methods, this regulation guarantees that whatever the new method is it will be accepted as equally valid Bridge.

On the "other side of the aisle", players are protected from methods that are too "outrageous" by the simple fact that if a pair plays unsound methods the scoring table will mete out appropriate justice regardless of the players involved.

Wow. How silly would that metric be? I would be much more restricted with methods after partner has passed.

[TimG]

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

The metric I presented was based on the chance that your opening bid has a "foo" % chance of resulting in a makable contract: 8+ trumps and appropriate values for the degree of trump fit and level to which one has bid.

Why must the contract be makable?

[awm]

So here's a concrete suggestion for changing the scoring table.

(1) Scores for doubled or redoubled undertricks remain the same.
(2) Scores for undoubled failing contracts remain the same if down one or two.
(3) If undoubled and down two or more, score as if we were doubled and failed one trick less.

So NV undoubled:

Down one -50
Down two -100
Down three -300
Down four -500
Down five -800

Vulnerable undoubled:

Down one -100
Down two -200
Down three -500
Down four -800

This makes it less appealing to use tactics like:

(1) Passing partner's 2♦ multi on a weak hand without many diamonds, figuring that it may confuse the opponents.
(2) Playing chimera preempts like 2♥ multi, where you will fairly often play in a non-fit and hope that it's a good sacrifice against opponents game.
(3) Psychs such as a raise of a kamikaze 1NT to 3NT on a zero-count hoping you buy it undoubled.
(4) Playing transfer openings, then passing them whenever you have a weak hand.

On the other hand, because the score for down two or less has not changed nor has the doubled undertrick table, legitimate attempts to "sacrifice" in the best strain for our side will not be penalized.

[DrTodd13]

I don't know if anyone else mentioned it but the regulation about a bid showing either length or shortness was meant to affect _disjoint_ length ranges, not something with a contiguous range that spanned from something considered short to something considered long. For example, a bid showing 2-4♣ should be ok but one showing "0-1♣ or 4+♣" would be included in the regulation. This is another example of poorly written regulations where they know what they mean but they completely fail to express it correctly and end up with some other possible interpretation.

So, Foo, when trying to determine the "soundness" of a system, are you going to look at every single sequence individually or are you going to look at the system as a whole? It is just my observation that your thinking is very fuzzy and naive. First off, computing soundness is not just a matter of mathematics. If there is a formula for calculating the likelihood of making a contract based on your cards and an average hand from pd then it is far beyond our abilities. All we have are heuristics and trying to define an official heuristic would be an exercise in futility. The best we can do now is take a bunch of random sample hands from partner and do a double dummy analysis but is this really fair? People make mistakes and poor players make more mistakes so wouldn't some bids be sound against bad players and unsound against good players? Why do I have to assume that my opponents are going to bid and defend perfectly? This whole notion of soundness is attractive but ultimately undefinable. Second, like it or not, a strong opening pass is certainly sound! So, you'll have to have more than soundness to define allowed versus not allowed. Even a 1♥ fert non-vul is probably sound so "soundness" is going to allow some pretty bizarre stuff.

[foo]

awm,

I think the problem with changing the scoring table for all methods is that there =is= a substantial and quantifiable difference in the approach to the game in the two different classes of bids.

Methods designed to make the most of your bridge skills to obtain a good score are inherently different from methods designed to obtain a good score by making it impossible for the opponents to use bridge skills.

I don't think a scoring system that overly punishes those that use perfectly reasonable methods but simply get unlucky on a board; or a scoring system that does not recognize the fundamental differences in the approach to the game epitimized by the two different classes of methods, has any chance of being fair.

IMHO any fair regulations should take this difference in approach into account.

[foo]

TimG, on Jul 6 2007, 11:48 AM, said:

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

The metric I presented was based on the chance that your opening bid has a "foo" % chance of resulting in a makable contract: 8+ trumps and appropriate values for the degree of trump fit and level to which one has bid.

Why must the contract be makable?

I did not say it had to be makable. I did not even say it had to be makable in the specific circumstances that an instance of the opening was used.

I said the method had to have a reasonable chance of finding a contract that has play according to basic bridge logic.

We all know the rules of thumb here. Examples
a= it takes ~21 playing points to make 1N w/o a fit.
b= the LoTT (modified by the excellent work on shortness In _I Fought The Law_)
c= The modern Losing Trick count
etc

If you are knowingly using a method that =systemically= (not in a spcific case, overall systemically) has too poor a chance of reaching any reasonable contract, then you are essentially trying to get a good score by making it impossible for your opponents to use bridge skills, not by using your own.

That appears to be the core of the definition of "Destructive".

[DrTodd13]

Please name several "destructive" conventions that have limited chance of reaching a reasonable contract. There are tons of banned conventions that are constructive and almost always reach reasonable contracts. What would be your reason for banning a forcing pass system?

[TimG]

foo, on Jul 6 2007, 02:51 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 6 2007, 11:48 AM, said:

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

The metric I presented was based on the chance that your opening bid has a "foo" % chance of resulting in a makable contract: 8+ trumps and appropriate values for the degree of trump fit and level to which one has bid.

Why must the contract be makable?

I did not say it had to be makable. I did not even say it had to be makable in the specific circumstances that an instance of the opening was used.

I said the method had to have a reasonable chance of finding a contract that has play according to basic bridge logic.

Well, you said "foo% chance of resulting in a makable contract".

But, aiming for an unmakable contract should be OK as long as the contract is not down too much.

[DrTodd13]

Define "has play." Does that mean I have to think I have some chance of making every contract I bid. You don't mean to include intentional sacs do you? This seems to be turning into a let's ban psyches discussion rather than a system discussion. What system doesn't have the goal of reaching good contracts? Take the case of 2M-3N with support for the major and a 3 count. What system does this systemically? Isn't this always a psyche?

[foo]

DrTodd13, on Jul 6 2007, 02:57 PM, said:

Please name several "destructive" conventions that have limited chance of reaching a reasonable contract. There are tons of banned conventions that are constructive and almost always reach reasonable contracts. What would be your reason for banning a forcing pass system?

Actually, I would !not! ban Strong Pass systems or WOS or HUMs. I'd apply the regulation I'm describing to the =openings= or =responses= that qualified on a case by case basis.

So in your example using a SP system, the only opening that would routinely get "nailed" is the Fert. (my 1st chosen example of a Destructive convention with a "limited chance of reaching a reasonable contract" in your words.)

Everything else has at least a chance of being mathematically proven to be Constructive.

...and those that want to play FP systems would be able to far more than they can now. (In short, I'm trying to =help= you bidding innovators out there.)

I suspect that there will always be a class of player that must be protected from everything beyond a certain complexity level.
That's a separate issue. We can always keep a "wading pool" or "bunny hill" available for those not up to real swimming or real skiing yet.

[Echognome]

foo, on Jul 6 2007, 11:51 AM, said:

I said the method had to have a reasonable chance of finding a contract that has play according to basic bridge logic.

I'd rather go for the argument "this idea won't work." Next.

I mean, here you are in third seat at W/R and it has gone P - (P) - ? and you hold:

a) xxx xx xxxx AKJx

Under the Foo system, don't open 1♣. It's illegal by all measures you mentioned.

AKT9x xx xxxx xx

Under the Foo system, don't open any number of spades. It's illegal by all measures.

[jtfanclub]

foo, on Jul 6 2007, 02:51 PM, said:

a= it takes ~21 playing points to make 1N w/o a fit.

Wow, I must be a darned good player. I only need 18 points, on the average, to make 1NT.

Quote

If you are knowingly using a method that =systemically= (not in a spcific case, overall systemically) has too poor a chance of reaching any reasonable contract, then you are essentially trying to get a good score by making it impossible for your opponents to use bridge skills, not by using your own.

That appears to be the core of the definition of "Destructive".

If my RHO opens a monster 2♣ bid and I overcall, I'm not doing it because I think I'm capable of reaching a reasonable contract. I'm doing it to interfere, or to direct the lead.

In fact, the bids that you mention are, in my humble opinion, ESSENTIAL to bridge.

If you play S.J. Simon style four card majors, solid openings, Acol 2s, 16-19 1NT, etc., you are pretty much freakin' immune to destructive overcalls. You are a freakin' rock, and anybody who thinks they can break you down is going to find themselves smashed to pieces. People playing Simon's method will slap the Futile Willy's out of the way unless they want to slow down on occassion to pick up an 800.

The cuter you try to get, the more vulnerable to destructive methods you become. 2♠ on a 4 card suit shuts down a 1 diamond opening with 3+ a lot better than it does a 4+, and it shuts down a Polish club far better than 4+ In particular, the version of the 1 diamond opener in Precision which shows 11-15 hcp and can have as few as 1 diamond is ridiculously vulnerable to random, stupid, destructive bids. I won't go so far as to say that a 2nd hand 1 diamond opening like that should be forcing for the next opponent, but I'll just think it really, really hard.

'Destructive' bids are the great equalizer. If your bids are solid and natural, destruction is pointless. If your opening shows a good hand and 13 cards, then my overcall can show a bad hand and 13 cards. You want to use relays to show your hand? Then we can use doubles to show ours without ever being danger. Non-constructive calls are the pushback on artificial systems. If they were made illegal, the only people who would still play SAYC or 2/1 would be kids just learning the game.

[foo]

DrTodd13, on Jul 6 2007, 03:10 PM, said:

Does that mean I have to think I have some chance of making every contract I bid.  You don't mean to include intentional sacs do you?  This seems to be turning into a let's ban psyches discussion rather than a system discussion.  What system doesn't have the goal of reaching good contracts?  Take the case of 2M-3N with support for the major and a 3 count.  What system does this systemically?  Isn't this always a psyche?

No. I'm drawing a explicit and significant distinction between
a= tactical bidding with "ordinary methods"
VS
b= bids that =systemically= and =by design= have little or no chance of scoring well based on the side using them's cards but rather rely on their ability to make it impossible for the opponents to use bridge skills in order to obtain good results.

The 1st is based on using your own bridge skills.
The 2nd is based on, as one member of the ACBL C&C was quoted as saying in a thread I was pointed to, "f*cking the opponents".

Bids =systemically designed= solely or primarily for the 2nd goal are Destructive.

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on Jul 6 2007, 11:44 PM, said:

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

Exactly and that is not my 'suggestion' if in fact it is a 'suggestion'.

What I said was pretty much the opposite of what Foo says.

Rather than have some subjective criteria (or even objective criteria) applied as to what is destructive simply allow the laws of the game to self-regulate. If light pre-empts/openings or so called destructive methods are effective it is because the cost of using them (penalities) is too low compared with the benefit accruing from disrupting the opponents.

If we want a game where the side with the preponderance of strength is disrupted less often then by simply increasing the penalties for everyone will automatically catch the so-called destructive methods more often.

Personally I do not think this needs to be changed. I think we have a good balance at the moment.

I also think that this is all an application of the 2-handed versus 4-handed game that Cathy Chua writes about in her book "Fair Play or Foul". The 2-handed players want to make accurate inferences from their opponents bidding and play and expect their opponents to cooperate in this endevour whilst the 4-handed players whilst endevouring to get to and make their own contracts and defeat the opponents also want to make it as hard as possible for their opponents to make accurate inferences and have easy auctions.

I am for the 4-handed approach to the game - what's bad for them is good for me and what's good for me is bad for them.