[jogs]

Where do tricks come from?

When you are a child you ask your parents, "where do babies come from?" If you wish to design a better valuation system, "you should ask yourself, where do tricks come from?" Which parameters have the greatest effects on tricks.
Every current valuation system is making assumptions which aren't true. Why are each of the suits treated as equals? Examine the hand histories. Final contracts are in the majors more than twice as often as in the minors. Why is the CA worth the same as the SA? If the CA is worth 4, the SA should be worth 8. More tricks are made by trumps than in the other suits.
Why do aces, kings, queens and jacks have fixed values?
S A5432 H A432 D A32 C A
Those four aces can't each be responsible from the same number of tricks. The honors are variables. Its value is dependent on other parameters.
S K5432 H K432 D K32 C K
Those four kings can't each be responsible from the same number of tricks. The value of the club king is a mystery.
evolin, if you truly wish to design a better, a more accurate valuation system, you must seek the answers to these questions. Solve those and many other questions will come later.
Of course all current valuation systems really only evaluate my own hand. The initial summing of the points in my hand should be treated as the prologue. It is the initial value of my hand, used for the early bids. This valuation has a high variance of possible outcomes. Still it is perfectly adequate for determining the opening bid. Normally only valuations on the boundaries need to be exact. Should I open or should I pass? With all hands in the middle of the range the exact value does not matter for the opening bid.
The next phase should be attempting to evaluate how well partner's hand fit with my hand. On this next phase we should attempt to determine how partner's 13 cards fit with my 13 cards. Now use this information to attempt to measure our partnership tricks. The original valuation should be used on a interim basis. Once the trump suit is identified, switch to estimating partnership tricks.
Our Tricks
E(Tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + e
Our expected tricks is equal to our combined trumps plus a HCP displacement. e is the error of the estimates. This equation is only the first two parameters. It is for the general case. Notice that our tricks is dependent of the strain.
This equation can be expanded to include the effects of all 2 times 13 cards of the partnership. Each of the 4 suits will have effects on the estimates. The configuration of the honors in each suit will have effects on the estimates. During the auction one should attempt to visualize the effects of these other parameters and continually revise the count of our tricks. This is for the specific case.

[Stefan_O]

jogs, on 2016-August-05, 10:11, said:

evolin, if you truly wish to design a better, a more accurate valuation system, you must seek the answers to these questions.

Nyah... not necessarily -- there's more than one way to do it...
Using statistical methods, you can certainly discover patterns and relationships without answering any "whys" at all.
Apparently, that is more the approach Tim has taken...

The crucial question here: Does it give you an advantage over other, existing methods?
This we will not know until it's been tested in practical play, of course.

That said --- if we find one workable method to improve evaluation, obviously, it does not exclude that other approaches even more workable might be discovered in the future...

[jogs]

Stefan_O, on 2016-August-05, 10:57, said:

Nyah... not necessarily -- there's more than one way to do it...
Using statistical methods, you can certainly discover patterns and relationships without answering any "whys" at all.
Apparently, that is more the approach Tim has taken...

The crucial question here: Does it give you an advantage over other, existing methods?
This we will not know until it's been tested in practical play, of course.

That said --- if we find one workable method to improve evaluation, obviously, it does not exclude that other approaches even more workable might be discovered in the future...

Not so easy. But I'm not the one trying to design a new system. Am only interested in improving bidding judgment.

[tnevolin]

Stefan_O, on 2016-August-05, 05:57, said:

Hi Tim,

In your Chart, when you say "No 5 major, no 6 minor, no singlets"

What means "singlet" here?
Not familiar with that term...

Sorry, typo. Should read "singleton".

[tnevolin]

Stefan_O, on 2016-August-05, 06:08, said:

I actually get a lot of questions re your notation...

In Chart.docx, pg2, Response, it says:
+1 suit 6-11 4+ (major preference)
+1 major (free bid) 6-11 5+

What exactly does "+1" mean?
Does this table apply to normal 1-over-1?
And what is the difference between tables "Response" and "Advance"?

Clarifications needed

Yep, I've already added terms description at the top. Sorry, I didn't do this earlier. That's why I appreciate all comments.
+X means bidding at X available level for this denomination. I.e. +1 is cheapest bid in this denomination, +2 - jump, +3 - double jump, etc.

[tnevolin]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-05, 06:13, said:

The usual difference is that response refers to the partner of Opener and advance to the partner of Overcaller. I assume it is the same here but I agree this ought to be cleaned up with defensive bidding moved to a separate section.

That's correct. I used these terms since all bridge dictionaries explain them the same. So I assumed they are standard.

Regarding whether to separate defensive bidding from non-defensive one. This is a huge topic by itself. In short, I tried to standardize non-competitive and competitive sequences as much as possible. IMHO that is a big oversight all bidding system designer allow. Obviously, designing competitive part of the system is much harder as it allows for more variations and it has to account to opponents' holding as well. Naturally, this part requires more description and more analysis and more guidance from system designers. Yet they spend 99% of efforts to perfect the easiest part of it leaving the rest undeveloped. I believe this is irresponsible and selfish attitude. Competitive bidding is much harder to navigate and it occurs in 2/3 of the auctions. This is where players need most help from system designer but they are abandoned and on their own.
I think the right approach to bidding system design is to establish a general principles those would guide player through auction regardless of whether opponents dare to say anything. Only after that is settled, designer can spend more time on perfecting specific auction branches like one side bidding or slam bidding, etc.

[tnevolin]

Stefan_O, on 2016-August-05, 06:31, said:

I really like your work on improving hand-evaluation

I fail, however, to see how that is related to the bidding-system you present here?
Maybe I am missing some context...?

Wouldn't it be more efficient to just start out from a familiar and proven system,
like SAYC or 2/1 (or some existing proven strong-1C system, if such is preferred)
and make the bidding-structure more systematic by (re)defining bids and ranges in
"Evolin points" scale?

Would be interesting to hear you motivation behind this new bidding-system.

Good point, Stefan. Indeed it would. And this is exactly what I pointed out in my article and in words anywhere else this question pops up. See comments regarding bidding system at the end of the article.

Here are methods of applying evaluation model to bidding system in order of ease:

• Use them in existing system without modifying system at all.
  
• Use them in existing system slightly modifying it to avoid very distributional descriptive bids.
  
• Create new system that may resemble existing one but redone completely to utilize full benefits of evaluation model.

I don't need a topic for #1 and #2, obviously. #3 deserves a topic to gather people opinion. That doesn't mean it is the best way to go.


(edited)
By the way, I would greatly appreciate anyone's help in trying #1 and/or #2 out! I believe it would bring more practical results than just this theoretical discussion.
Anyone is up to it?

[tnevolin]

Stefan_O, on 2016-August-05, 06:35, said:

I was considering that option, but then I find no suitable opening bid at all when you have, for example, 5-card minor + 4-3-1 (12-15), which does not make sense...
Maybe better to let Tim clarify himself...

There are few concepts described in "Guidelines". This is essentially part of system description. I recommend to start reading it first. Unfortunately, there are quite a few concepts there. I couldn't possibly include them all in written form into the bidding chart. Sorry about that. In web publication both these part would probably go together: guidelines first, then chart. I've separated them in word documents for ease of navigating and updating.

In short, one of the major concepts is that the suit length is not a strict requirement. It is specified for matching bid selection guidance only. Bidder is allowed to loosen this restriction by 1 card in exchange for other compensating features (distribution, suit strength). Yes, your partner will be uncertain about exact number of cards in your trump suit and you may end up with 7 card fit only, but the point is - it is irrelevant as long as they know your hand strength which incorporates your trump length already. With slight variation in suit length it is up to bidders to prefer one trump suit over another.

Your example can be bid in two ways.
1345 - Generally open clubs even if you have only five. The singleton makes your hand sharper and, therefore, more desirable to play clubs versus NT.
4315 - Either clubs or spades depending which one is stronger. If you have pretty strong hand and expect to bid twice, the clubs - spades sequence is better because your second bid of spades shows exact length.

[tnevolin]

jogs, on 2016-August-05, 10:11, said:

Where do tricks come from?

When you are a child you ask your parents, "where do babies come from?" If you wish to design a better valuation system, "you should ask yourself, where do tricks come from?" Which parameters have the greatest effects on tricks.
Every current valuation system is making assumptions which aren't true. Why are each of the suits treated as equals? Examine the hand histories. Final contracts are in the majors more than twice as often as in the minors. Why is the CA worth the same as the SA? If the CA is worth 4, the SA should be worth 8. More tricks are made by trumps than in the other suits.
Why do aces, kings, queens and jacks have fixed values?
S A5432 H A432 D A32 C A
Those four aces can't each be responsible from the same number of tricks. The honors are variables. Its value is dependent on other parameters.
S K5432 H K432 D K32 C K
Those four kings can't each be responsible from the same number of tricks. The value of the club king is a mystery.
evolin, if you truly wish to design a better, a more accurate valuation system, you must seek the answers to these questions. Solve those and many other questions will come later.
Of course all current valuation systems really only evaluate my own hand. The initial summing of the points in my hand should be treated as the prologue. It is the initial value of my hand, used for the early bids. This valuation has a high variance of possible outcomes. Still it is perfectly adequate for determining the opening bid. Normally only valuations on the boundaries need to be exact. Should I open or should I pass? With all hands in the middle of the range the exact value does not matter for the opening bid.
The next phase should be attempting to evaluate how well partner's hand fit with my hand. On this next phase we should attempt to determine how partner's 13 cards fit with my 13 cards. Now use this information to attempt to measure our partnership tricks. The original valuation should be used on a interim basis. Once the trump suit is identified, switch to estimating partnership tricks.
Our Tricks
E(Tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + e
Our expected tricks is equal to our combined trumps plus a HCP displacement. e is the error of the estimates. This equation is only the first two parameters. It is for the general case. Notice that our tricks is dependent of the strain.
This equation can be expanded to include the effects of all 2 times 13 cards of the partnership. Each of the 4 suits will have effects on the estimates. The configuration of the honors in each suit will have effects on the estimates. During the auction one should attempt to visualize the effects of these other parameters and continually revise the count of our tricks. This is for the specific case.

Thanks for posting these important questions here. Not in attempt to discard your points but to bring our discussion up to speed, I'd recommend you read my article and corresponding valuation model topic on this forum. Also, this is a perfect question for valuation model topic as well.

In short, these are EXACTLY questions I had in mind while I was working on my method. I did not play to solve them all in entirety. However, I can proudly say that I solved them much better than other contemporary methods do. If you look at hand evaluation document, you'll see that many factors you mentioned above are accounted there already. Like different price for high cards in trump and side suits, different price for high cards for NT vs. trump contract, even such factors as interference between yours and your partner hands are there!


In addition, I analyzed the famous "Which parameters have the greatest effects on tricks?" question during few years trying tons of various factor combinations. Some of them are much more complex than those you touched in your post. I can surely say that the resulting valuation method I present is the answer to your questions.

[tnevolin]

jogs, on 2016-August-06, 13:36, said:

Not so easy. But I'm not the one trying to design a new system. Am only interested in improving bidding judgment.

Gentlemen, I am sad that you keep beating me on my head for the "attempt to create another system".


Let me reiterate that this is merely and attempt to illustrate how bidding system can use the full strength of said valuation method. This being said, besides of just wrapping valuation method in the bidding system, I tried to make such system as workable and elegant as possible to make it potentially usable too. However, the small details in the bidding system are irrelevant. They could be changed any time.

[Stefan_O]

Hi Tim,
Thanks for clarifications!

tnevolin, on 2016-August-08, 07:22, said:

Your example can be bid in two ways.
1345 - Generally open clubs even if you have only five. The singleton makes your hand sharper and, therefore, more desirable to play clubs versus NT.

I just didnt follow you here...
I was referring to your Chart document.
It defines openings:
1C = 16+, and
2C = 12-15, 6+clubs

So with 1345 (12-15), how can I "open clubs"?

EDIT:

Reading your reply again, I think you suggest I should open 1345 with 2C?
And, for example, 3451 with 2D then...?

Or sometimes open 1H/1S with only 4 cards in the suit...?

[jogs]

Hardy's 2/1 red book and CC Wei's precision book were written over forty years ago. Yet I have no quarrel with the basic structure of either book. Both systems are quite powerful if only opponents stop interfering with our auctions.
Robson and Segal's book can easily be incorporated into either system for contested auctions. The problem is interference against the forcing 1C. Has anyone written the complete book on counter measures against all defenses against a forcing 1C?

[Stefan_O]

tnevolin, on 2016-August-08, 07:42, said:

Gentlemen, I am sad that you keep beating me on my head for the "attempt to create another system".

Hi Tim,

I just say, I certainly think it is an IMPRESSIVE piece of work you have done with all that data-crunching, analysis and codification!

No reason to be sad, and I really doubt anyone has an interest in trying to beat your head

Disagreements/conflicting-opinions, I tend to think, may come from specific sources:
- Lack of understanding
- Different experiences from the past
- (...anything else...?)

So, if two individuals have different opinions --- which source(s) is it? : )

[tnevolin]

Stefan_O, on 2016-August-08, 07:52, said:

Hi Tim,
Thanks for clarifications!


I just didnt follow you here...
I was referring to your Chart document.
It defines openings:
1C = 16+, and
2C = 12-15, 6+clubs

So with 1345 (12-15), how can I "open clubs"?

EDIT:

Reading your reply again, I think you suggest I should open 1345 with 2C?
And, for example, 3451 with 2D then...?

Or sometimes open 1H/1S with only 4 cards in the suit...?

That's correct.
I'm not sure I am in line with the mainstream bidding theory here. Most of them try to be very exact on distribution description simplifying opening rules. Unfortunately, this never works well. There are always "awkward" distributions those do not fit in a simplifying rules but still need to be shovel somewhere. That produces monsters like 1 minor openings in SAYC or 1D in precision or 2D (multi) in Polish system, etc. Those openings are pretty hard to follow, they require a specialized bidding sequence to eventually uncover their complex meaning.
In my system I favor integral hand evaluation to specific distribution description. Therefore, it is allowed to make your own judgement on suit bid selection. Your goal is to find better fit as soon as possible rather than pass an exact hand shape to partner.

[tnevolin]

Stefan_O, on 2016-August-08, 08:32, said:

Hi Tim,

I just say, I certainly think it is an IMPRESSIVE piece of work you have done with all that data-crunching, analysis and codification!

No reason to be sad, and I really doubt anyone has an interest in trying to beat your head

Disagreements/conflicting-opinions, I tend to think, may come from specific sources:
- Lack of understanding
- Different experiences from the past
- (...anything else...?)

So, if two individuals have different opinions --- which source(s) is it? : )

Oh, I like disagreements and opinions. That's why I opened this discussion!!!
What I meant is quite often this discussion steers toward "this new system is no better than existing ones". I didn't plan it to be better. I planned it be special. It is based on principles I never saw in others. This is sort of experiment to see if these principles are viable or just bullshit. The most important part of it is a Guidelines with principles description not the bidding chart.