[f0rdy]

awm, on 2011-May-03, 17:18, said:

This is not really a valid comparison though. First, when he says "matchpoints" he really means "pairs." His complaint is basically that in a large pairs field including a wide range of skill levels, beating up on the bad players becomes key to a good result. This is somewhat random and less a test of skill than beating up on good players.

That's fine as far as it goes, but IMP pairs are still way more random than MP pairs. Further, when you look at a top-class pairs event like the World Open Pairs or the Platinum Pairs or the Cavendish, there aren't really a lot of "bad pairs" (at least in the late stages of the event). In fact a short IMP Swiss teams event has a lot of the same problems that Hamman complains about too.

I agree that knockout teams with really long matches and a strong field are a better test of skill than any pairs event. But it's not because of IMP scoring... if anything a really long BAM KO (no such thing exists, to my knowledge) would be an even better test of skill. The Reisinger (BAM event) is known as the toughest event on the ACBL calendar; I don't think Hamman would argue that the Reisinger is substantially easier or more about "luck" than the big IMP KOs of the Spingold or Vanderbilt.

I would certainly agree that in a fairly mixed ability pairs field, (which every field I've seen certainly is) the one decision which will have the most effect on your result is which table slip you pick up/where you sit down. The effect of playing a few flat boards against the best pairs in the room and some difficult boards against the LOLs, versus playing them the other way round, is huge. Moreover, a lot of the time the top or bottom you get has nothing to do with your skill; everyone in the room would get 10% if they play the difficult to find 6D against the good pair while everyone else happily scores up 3N+2.
Then you come to beating up the bad pairs, as you say; that certainly rewards skill, but can be pretty random precisely because they behave so unpredictably (assuming you're unlikely to know the foibles of all the pairs).

As to scoring systems, does anyone even play IMP pairs under a sensible scoring system like cross-imps, or is everything under something obviously flawed like Butler?
We have very little BAM in the UK (as far as I know?) so I don't know how that behaves with mixed fields.

[jdeegan]

The 6♠ hand is a good example of why the duplicate game has restrictions on what conventions are allowed, esp. in pair games and short Swiss matches. If your defenses to the weak F convention are well prepared and up to speed, then missing 6♠ is your fault. More likely this convention I never heard of was, or should have been, illegal.

[Free]

jdeegan, on 2011-May-06, 21:34, said:

The 6♠ hand is a good example of why the duplicate game has restrictions on what conventions are allowed, esp. in pair games and short Swiss matches. If your defenses to the weak F convention are well prepared and up to speed, then missing 6♠ is your fault. More likely this convention I never heard of was, or should have been, illegal.

Sorry but this is total bull to me. If you've never heard of a weak Flannery, then it's your own fault for not being prepared. Moreover, if it would be something really exotic, then your opps should pre-alert and you can quickly discuss some agreement based on similar conventions you do know (this will do for sure, and what are the chances they'll actually use that weapon against you the first time you encounter this pair?). If you don't know anything similar (like the normal Flannery), then it's probably your fault again... There's absolutely no reason to ban such a method just because people don't know it. Systems change, conventions change, and most of the time new stuff is a modification of existing stuff. It's part of the game.

I'm not saying we should allow everything in a 2-board a table pairs game. For example, BSC are more likely to be more exotic, even without any similar conventions known to opps, so perhaps one should ban these. Similar to HUM. But what on earth can you have against a convention that shows 9 cards? If you show 6♥ it's ok, but if you show 5+♥ and 4♠ it's not. Where's the logic in that?

[kenberg]

In the Cavendish I see that each pair plays four boards against each of the other pairs. I looked up the rules:

Quote

Systems and Conventions: All methods approved for the Cavendish Invitational Pairs are allowed, but no others. In general,
any convention that would require a pre-alert and suggested written defenses, including Multi, preemptive opening bids that do
not specify the suit or suits held, and other artificial bids that cannot be explained to an average player within 10 seconds, are
barred. If there is any question about the acceptability of your system, it must be approved by a member of the Tournament Committee
prior to the start of play.

I am not particularly advocating these rules, or agitating against them either. Usually my main stipulations are that the rules should be clear, the directors should understand them, and they should be enforced equally.

Sometimes it helps to come at things from an entirely different perspective, so I have a story. Recently I, my wife, and another woman constituted a team in a spelling bee at a fund raiser. Toward the end we were leading with two words left to go and I thought it would be gentlemanly to let the two women each take one of the last two words. Uh oh. It turned out that we were supposed to respond in our proper turn, and I was up. We were penalized. I sort of lost my usual(?) cool and announced "That's idiotic". Justice prevailed and we won anyway. (A motorcycle group took second place, beating out the librarians, much to my pleasure.) The point here, if I have one, is along the lines of "The setting matters". People play bridge, or enter spelling bees, with varying expectations. In some settings people should be prepared for weak flannery, but maybe not in other settings.

[jdeegan]

Free, on 2011-May-07, 01:19, said:

Sorry but this is total bull to me. If you've never heard of a weak Flannery, then it's your own fault for not being prepared. Moreover, if it would be something really exotic, then your opps should pre-alert and you can quickly discuss some agreement based on similar conventions you do know (this will do for sure, and what are the chances they'll actually use that weapon against you the first time you encounter this pair?). If you don't know anything similar (like the normal Flannery), then it's probably your fault again... There's absolutely no reason to ban such a method just because people don't know it. Systems change, conventions change, and most of the time new stuff is a modification of existing stuff. It's part of the game.

I'm not saying we should allow everything in a 2-board a table pairs game. For example, BSC are more likely to be more exotic, even without any similar conventions known to opps, so perhaps one should ban these. Similar to HUM. But what on earth can you have against a convention that shows 9 cards? If you show 6♥ it's ok, but if you show 5+♥ and 4♠ it's not. Where's the logic in that?

Fortunately, the bridge authorities in each country tend to allow the conventions favored by the more successful local bridge politicians. This aids and abets the evolution of the game, but it does mean that the allowable conventions for pair games differs from place to place. (There was a time when the Woodson two way one no trump opener (10-12) or (16-18) HCP was legal in US pair games because of Mr. Woodson.) Generally speaking, the ACBL seems to be more restrictive these days than most jurisdictions.

That said, the current US rule is that Flannery openers must have a minimum of 10 HCP. Personally, it wouldn't bother me to change that or to allow the 2♦ multi or a few other successful conventions popular on the other side of the Pond. BBO is a great forum for this since it is so multi-national. I do notice that in BBO indies everyone seems to play a standard SAYC card.

[Quantumcat]

jdeegan, on 2011-May-06, 21:34, said:

The 6♠ hand is a good example of why the duplicate game has restrictions on what conventions are allowed, esp. in pair games and short Swiss matches. If your defenses to the weak F convention are well prepared and up to speed, then missing 6♠ is your fault. More likely this convention I never heard of was, or should have been, illegal.

Flannery is something you associate with little old ladies in the seventies. It is funny to think of banning a convention like that.

A while ago I played Brad Twos which are every 2-opening shows that and spades, usually 5/4 either way or better. This is slightly harder to defend against than Flannery. Even so, the usual discussion of defense was in 2 sentences or less: "X takeout of opened suit, their suits natural?" "Sure, partner."

Why are Americans so afraid of playing against something they haven't seen before? If the defence to it isn't immediately obvious and resolvable in 2 sentences or less, it might require a recommended defence be given to opponents, but to be actually banned below Table 10 of a Swiss, it should need to be something you'd need to practice against for a few boards, for example a forcing pass system. If Sam Stayman hadn't been American, Stayman would probably be banned in America too.

[mike777]

"Flannery is something you associate with little old ladies in the seventies."




btw I think Bob Hamman and Martel/Stansby and other wc players play Flannery.