Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good strategy?
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but something just occurred to me:

In theory, the expression relay system could be interpreted in one of two ways

1. A bidding system that makes extensive use of relays (Blue Club is a bidding system. Meckwell Lite is another bidding system)

2. A series of relays over a single bid.

For example, many strong club variants use relays over the 1C opening.
Stayman is a relay response over a 1NT opening.

It had always been my impression that the ACBL prohibition against relay systems was directed at the former, but not the latter.

Michael, can you confirm this?

More over, I will go further and assert that the ACBL's restrictions around relay systems have always focused on the use of relays over 1D/1H/1S opening bids. No one cares if folks use relays over 1C, 1N, 2C, 2M, …

If this is the case, then it might make sense to drop the prohibit against relay systems altogether and, instead, simply ban people from playing a relay response to the openings in question. (You'll need to special case a forcing NT over 1M, but that's easy enough to do)
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“This inclination is contrary to law. Not that I expect that would stop the ACBL.”

Sorry, would you prefer “If Zia does it, it is a tactical bid. If you do it…”
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Once you have a built in an asking bid for “did you psyche”
> haven't you really defined the previous call as a two-way bid?

Yes

Its almost as if there is something fundamentally flawed with the definition that we use for psyches…
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ACBL provided a fairly detailed description of the pseudo random number generator being used.

There wasn't much detail about the actual dealing program, however, this isn't viewed as being difficult to “crack”.
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The USBF is (theoretically) a separate organization. Why should they pay any attention to what the ACBL does?

FWIW, I have long argued that the conditions of contest for USBF events should be consistent with those for the event that they are selecting for. In particular, I believe that the convention charts should be identical.

The USBF does not seem to share these views. Most of the complaints have focused around some combination of

1. The difficulty in filling out the WBF convention cards
2. Concerns about high variance methods
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> We might be inclined to bar relay systems from novice games.

In all seriousness, how many people are clamoring to play Ultimate Club or some weird extended puppet Stayman variant in novice games?

This sounds like a solution in search of a problem…
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I very much applaud any attempt to liberalize what conventions players are able to play at regionals, Nationals, and the like.

With this said and done, I am surprised that the C&C would bother concern themselves with what is played at the level of local clubs. (In my experience, clubs owners are going to do whatever they damn well please, regulations be damned). I don't see the value in trying to regulate this. I can point to a number of examples in which Districts have chosen to amend Convention Charts because they don't agree with regulations established by the ACBL. (At the end of the day, the ACBL is much more concerned about collecting its sanction fees than it is about trying to enforce convention regulations)

We're getting somewhat far afield here, but at the end of the day, the only events that the ACBL is really able to control at those held at Nationals. I think that your best course of action is to recognize this and explicitly state:

1. Here are the regulations that will apply in the events that the ACBL is running

2. The ACBL is interested in ensuring that its members enjoy consistency across events, so we recommend the following…
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed.

What is wrong with this definition?
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for clarifying this provides a somewhat better idea where you are coming from.

With this said and done, I wonder whether or not it would be better to change the regulation to discuss “destructive methods” rather than a destructive “bid”.

In the case of your 1S example, the set of hands that the 1S bid shows does not seem to be central to the discussion. To me at least, the key distinction would appear to be that the 1S bid is forcing.

If the definition of continuations over bid “foo” are crucial to the discussion, it might be better to treat the methods as a whole rather than labeled the bid itself.

With this said and done, I don't think that anyone has a god given right to an unobstructed auction and remain unconvinced that this 1S bid should be considered destructive.

If a definition of “destructive” is actually require, I would prefer to see this based around adequacy of disclosure.

For example: If a hand can not be concisely described in any way other than “the set of hands excluded from all other calls” this is might plausibly be deemed to be destructive.
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For what its worth, if I were forced to define the expression “Psychic Control”, here's what I'd suggest.

A psychic control is an asking bid. The codified answers to the asking bid reveal whether or not a previous bid matches its “systemic” meaning.
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In all seriousness, I think that:

A “tactical bid” is a random act that the ACBL is unwilling to punish.

A “psyche” is a random act the ACBL is inclined to punish.

Both describe the same type of action, however, in one case you have a pejorative label and the other you have a neutral label.

While I appreciate the desire to change this this, I am quite skeptical whether this will prove effective.

In particular, until the ACBL is willing to start applying concepts like precedence I think that efforts at providing more concrete definitions are doomed to fail. I genuinely believe that the ACBL prefers as much ambiguity and contradiction as possible as to provide themselves with the maximum wriggle room (and this dates all the way back to Kaplan if not before]

Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW, here's the email that I sent to Steve after the other thread was closed

Hi Steve,

Just to clarify, this thread was a poor attempt at humor.

(Obviously) I am not going into the business of selling hand records for ACBL tournaments. I think the best evidence that I can provide is that over the weekend I notified Jan Martel, the ACBL C&C committee, and a few other folks that there are major security flaws with the ACBL's system for generating hands.

Speaking of which… There are major security flaws with the ACBL's system of generating hands. (Severe enough that some one could have easily hacked a major tournament in real time). I'm not just blowing smoke out my ass. One of my co-workers decided to run with this idea and posted a description of the problem to one of the major academic crypto mailing lists. A few heavyweights have weighed in, stating that the system is badly flawed in multiple ways.

I am attaching a link to what I believe to be the best response (even if (0x5DEECE68F) is prime)

http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2016-August/029969.html

Please let me emphasize once again: If someone is willing to invest a bit of time and money, they can crack all the hands for the Vanderbilt or the USBF team trials in real time. I know that you are a serious poker player. I'm sure you're aware that folks have been able to break the hand generators that were used on several online poker sites. The system that the ACBL is using is significantly worse.

regards.

Richard
Aug. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's use this 1S bid as an example:

It is clearly legal to use a 1NT overcall of a strong club opening to show a balanced hand. (Its probably not a good idea to use a 1NT overcall to show 8-11 balanced or some such, however, I think that you'd have a hard time banning a natural bid)

Why is should a 1S overcall be considered inherently destructive while a 1NT overcall is acceptable?
Aug. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let me offer an example from my own experience…

Well over 10 years ago, I attempted to get the ACBL's C&C to approve a suggested defense to an Ekrens style 2D where 2D showed a preemptive hand with (4+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major).

The defenses that I submitted were based on penalty doubles in direct seat. Chip Martel insisted that any direct seat double needed to be for take out. When I showed him that all of the defenses to this type of method in Europe were based on penalty doubles he the stated that this was too complicated to be played in North America. Shortly thereafter, assumed fit methods that could have 4-4 in the two suits were banned as “purely destructive”.
Aug. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we do want to jump into minutia, I think that the defining characteristic of a relay system is the notion of a relay captain and a relay responder.

Relay systems are designed to facilitate an asymmetrical exchange of information.

Relay systems MAY swap who is captain and who is responder
Relay systems MAY transition to using descriptive bids by both players

However, any relay systems must provide SOME sequences in which one player can do all the asking and the other player does all the telling. (And I still believe that you only want these restrictions in place over 1D/1H/1S opening bids)
Aug. 22, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment Aug. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After some thought, I think that any definition of “invitational” bid needs to be tied to a bid being descriptive in some.

Tautologically, a game invitational bid needs to offer a good chance of making game against some set of hands that opener has. However, I would extend this such that the invitational bid needs to provide some information about the type of hands that would offer a good chance of game.

For example, a game invitational hand might show a “range”. If opener is stronger than X, opener should be game. Alternatively, a game invitational bid might show shape “If opener has a fitting value opposite suit Y, opener should bid game”.

If this can't be described relatively precisely, then I think that the bid should be described in some other way than “invitational”

I think that I could also be convinced that (by definition) an invitational bid should establish a forcing pass up to the level of 2NT.
Aug. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a question about the notion of a relay system.

It is my impression that the C&C does not object to players using multiple relays after strong club openings and after 1NT opening. However, they don't want players to be able to use relays after 1M openings and 1D openings.

It's probably worthwhile to focus on this type of broad principle before getting bogged down in minutia.
Aug. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that the concept of a “psych” is fundamentally flawed and should be replaced with the concept of a “mixed strategy”. This has the benefit of more precisely aligning the regulatory structure with players actual behavior.

(See also “Psychic control”)
Aug. 22, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment Aug. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not believe that the expression “Purely Destructive bid” can be objectively defined. I think that this is nothing more than a pejorative and should be dropped from the regulatory system.
Aug. 22, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top