Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No I can't

But, the same holds true for most any pair playing 5 card majors and a weak NT…
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Pretty tacky next time send him his request and than
> post here an article but the way did it I
> dont think showed much respect for Robb.

Comment 1: Robb is obligated to follow up on complaints that get levied to the recorders office. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to Sam to have an objection to the original complaint without this being any kind of criticism of Robb.

If anyone if cast aspersions at Robb is you and your insinuations.

> Why post it here is it to gain public support of players?

I suspect that the reason that Sam posted this publicly is

A. To inform people of the way in which the Recorder's office is being misused
B. To generate support for players

What's wrong with this?
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Two immediate reactions

1. Consider an old fashioned standard American 1 opening.

For some, it denies 15-17 HCP in a balanced hand. FOr others, it doesn't…
For some it denies 5-5 in the blancs unless you have enough strength of a high reverse. For others it doesn't.

There are all sorts of ambiguities with respect to the definition of opening bids. The issue here is that you don't approve of the system that Sam is playing so you are applying more scrutiny to what he is doing that you do to others.

2. The standard that you propose has absolutely no relationship to the way in which conventions are licensed. Its cute that you have invented an arbitrary new standard, but it's ultimately meaningless.

Case in point:

I am allowed to play a Majors first 1 opening that shows

“4+ Hearts, ~ 9 -14 HCP, ight have a longer minor. Denies 11+ - 12 HCPs and a balanced hand.”

However, if I want to use a 1 opening to show the same hand, this is deemed too difficult to defend against and banned at all levels of play in the ACBL.
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> The game is greatest ever to most on here does this
> make it even greater, not to me. The declaring and
> defending is the true beauty bidding not so much.

This is precisely the attitude that killed the game…

It's good enough now…
Why should I need to learn anything new or different…
You kids get off my lawn!
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> What is great about this for bridge?

Someone is thinking, being creative, and advancing the state of the art…
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's assume that the answer is “no” . That the actual boundary is fuzzy and that there are some 8 counts that don't get opened

1. What material impact would this have on your decision making?
2. How is this any different from the fuzzy boundary that would exist if Sam were playing Acol or Precision and chose to open 1?
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Experts may have meta-agreements and not
> need to much discussion. We don't, and
> probably never will

Fair enough, however, my expectation is that people who play against Sam's system either

1. Play at his local club in which it is reasonable for them to be expected to invest time in a defense

2. Are playing in expert level events

As a practical example you state that

> At the club where we play, pretty much everyone plays
> close to the same system.

So it doesn't sound like Sam's choice of system will affect you in any way
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marty, you seem to be introducing a number of rather controversial claims. I'd like to understand what brave new world that we are heading towards: It would appear that either

A. Convention licensing is now operating at the level of individuals and that people who practice poor disclosure can be banned from playing methods that are legal for other's to employ. To me, at least, this represents a dramatic turn however potentially a welcome one because there are a whole bunch of people out there who are grossly incompetent with respect to their disclosure obligations and I welcome the chance to use this new tool to improve the game.

B. If one individual fails to provide adequate disclosure about the methods that he is using then this justifies draconian revisions on what methods can be played across the the country.

I look forward to understanding which world we're heading towards
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The big problem with this argument is that NO ONE is able to adequately disclose their methods. I am quite sure that if we spent a bit of time looking at all the style and nuance that pairs playing so-called natural systems use to color their decisions we'd quickly find that the amount of disclosure is grossly inadequate.

The issue here is not whether or not Sam the amount of disclosure that Sam provides is appropriate or not, but rather, that he is playing stuff that looks weird and folks are using this as an excuse to bitch and moan.

With respect to disclosure, I would far rather sit down opposite Sam than one of those Gold Flight pairs who regularly reverse on a 3424 12 count…
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Edgar mentioned, the convention charts committee also
> could revisit the issue of giving the directors discretion
> to prohibit a pair from playing any system that IN ITS
> TOTALITY is too complex for the opponents to grasp

If the typical ACBL director is competent to make these sorts of decisions, why is this being addressed by the recorder's office?
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm also a bit confused by Marty's comment

As I understand matters, the ACBL convention regulation process is based on licensing individual conventions, not entire systems.

What does it even mean to ban a “system”….

Moreover, as I understand matters, what Sam is playing today is very different than way he played just a short while ago… Are all these complaints that you received about what Sam is playing today or what he was playing back when you were drafting the new Convention Charts?

My guess is that almost regardless of what set of charts that you create, people are going to find a way to exploit the rules. And, quite honestly, if you start targeting individuals you're going to start incentivizing them to find legal ways to make your life really miserable.
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
this feels like something that should be sorted out by at a director when an event is in progress rather than the recorder after the fact
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> They're simply not good enough bridge players to work
> out a good defense to this, and especially not on the fly.

Q1. When are these Gold Rush graduates ever going to become “good enough bridge players”? I don't see anything wrong with creating a ghetto where the Gold Rush pairs and congregate and fling cards at random. However, part of playing in the Open Game is dealing with stuff that you haven't seen before

Q2. Do you honestly believe that these pairs will do any better playing against Acol or Blue Club or Polish Club or even stone age standard American? In my experience, they won't and they'll get every bit as upset about that 4 card major opening / weak NT opening / Polish club opening as they will against this.

Folks either have the stomach for the game or they don't… Trying to delay the inevitable is just a waste of people's time.
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> It does seem a shame, and a tad unfair, if their system
> gives them and us all this information and we're can't
> use it because we don't have experience processing
> this information and have to play not too slowly.

The fact that you are unable to think as quickly as you might like is hardly unfair

> They have a couple decades of experience of how their
> system works. We have to try to understand their system
> at 7.5 minutes a board.

Yes. People who work and practice at something tend to have advantages in competitive arenas. If it is any consolation, you probably know your own system better than the opponents do.
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As soon as you put regulations into effect, folks are going to start to optimize around them
July 25
Richard Willey edited this comment July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is vaguely reminiscent of Magic Diamond (An attempt to modify the a forcing pass system called Carotti - or perhaps ocarrot - into something that could be played in more events)
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sure that this would be possible, however, I am also quite sure that the size of the dataset would shrink enormously
July 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. This is more a question about Bots in general. However, I was think of a standard MP tournament format.

2. The bots are playing out a complete hand. The “effectiveness” of a lead is reflected in the MP score that is realized. The bots that are cheating ARE playing double dummy.

3. Ideally, you'd have comprehensive records.
July 23
Richard Willey edited this comment July 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a simple suggestion: Rather spinning our wheels repeating the same complaints that Nic isn't releasing his algorithm, why don't we try something a bit more constructive… Can all the folks who are pontificating come up with a methodology that we can use to validate his system…

I propose the following:

Generate a series of virtual tournaments in which bot are competing against one another.

One set of bots with play legitimately. They'll use simulation based methods to bid / play / defend. However, they won't have a wire. To make things interesting, we can have a variety of different bots competing at different skill levels by constraining the length of the simulation runs that they are using.

A second set of bots will be provided with partner's hand when they are defending (perhaps when they are bidding as well if Nic has tests that look at this). Here once again, we can play some games by tweaking the frequency with which a cheating bot has a wire during the tournament.

In both cases, we can do something similar to cross validation and run multiple permutations with the various cheating frequencies hand strengths for a given set of hands to make sure that there aren't any weird cross effects.

At the end of the day we should be able to draw some conclusions regarding how reliable Nic's system is…

So, this is my proposal.
Any suggestions how this can be improved upon?
Alternatively, do folks see any major flaws?
July 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Nics analysis will provoke lawsuits when taken to
> the expected conclusion. I don’t want that to happen.

Maybe, maybe not…
But that's something for Nic and the layers to work out

> Nor do I want organizations to adopt this without serious V&V discipline.

What does “adopt” mean? I'd be shocked if any zonal authority ever attempted to use this system to bring charges of cheating. (At least not publically). Even if they system worked perfectly, I doubt that you'd ever be able to win a case in court.

The value of this system is to make administrators aware that cheating was pervasive and is most likely widespread.

If you want to have any hope of controlling cheating then you need to switch to an electronic playing environment. Anything else is shoving your head into the sand…
July 22
.

Bottom Home Top