[blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card)

[Adam Beneschan]

Richard Willey wrote:
 
> On 7/19/06, Adam Beneschan <adam at irvine.com> wrote:
> 
> > Its inherent potential to do what?
> >
> >                                 -- Adam
> 
> Converge onto equilibirum
> 
> I agree with your "ends".  If bridge is going to survive as a game,
> players need to be presented with an enjoyable environment in which
> they can socialize and compete.  I'd even go so far as to agree that
> players have a comfort zone.  They like the familiar and look with
> disdain on that which is new and unexpected.  With this said and done,
> I very much disagree with your "means".

They are not *my* means.  I don't have any "means".  Figuring out what
will provide the most enjoyment for players requires a lot more
knowledge of players, and of the realities of putting on bridge
tournaments, than I have.  I think that judgments like this need to be
made by people who have been around the bridge world for a long time,
and probably who have been very active as player and possibly
volunteering in other ways.  I accept that those who are currently
charge have much more of this needed kind of knowledge than I do, and
that they're in a position to make better judgments about what's
needed.  This doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually making
better judgments---only that they're in a position to.

Your arguments below don't give me any reason to believe that you have
the necessary understanding at all.  They seem to all come from
abstract mathematical reasoning and a philosophical view of the
world---not from any real understanding of either players or of the
business of bridge.  

 
> There are two different ways in which one can guarantee that players
> face a predictable playing environment.  One option is to allow nature
> to take its course.  Strong methods will survive, weak methods will go
> the way of the dodo.  

So what?  

You seem to be assuming that if one "best" system is found, then
everyone will start playing it and will know how to defend against it,
then this will increase everybody's level of fun because players won't
have to be learning new systems all the time.  I think there are a
number of serious flaws.

First, you're assuming that there will be an equilibrium.  There may
not be.  One reason I think this is that there seems a pendulum with
regard to how weak to preempt.  Back when preempts were mostly sound,
players found that there was no great need for penalty doubles, so
defenses to preempts were adjusted to provide more ways to bid
constructively.  Then preemptors started figuring out that they
weren't going to get penalized, so they started preempting on trash.
Then defenses to preempts got adjusted to make the preemptors pay for
lunch more often.  So now it seems like players are being a bit more
careful about preempts, particularly vulnerable.  (At least I am.  I'm
not so sure about my partner.)  So does this mean that players are
going to be less interested in penalizing preemptors and using the
bidding room for more constructive purposes, and then preemptors are
going to start lightening up again, and so on?  I don't see any
particular reason to believe that there must be an equilibrium point. 

Second, suppose one "best" system is found: will that necessarily lead
to providing a game that's more enjoyable?  One of the complaints I
hear from people trying to learn bridge is that there's just too much
to learn.  When it comes to play of the hand, that's very simple to
learn (but hard to master).  Similarly, the rules of bidding aren't
that difficult.  But while you can play and defend a hand using
nothing more than the rules, logic, and perhaps a very simple
knowledge of signals, you can't bid intelligently without some sort of
language on which to base your bids.  So that has to be learned, and
that's what I think is hardest for new players.  If the "best" system
is a very complex one, is requiring players to learn it going to be
conducive to the end of providing an entertaining game for people,
even if everyone plays the same system?  For some, yes.  For most, I
suspect not.  I think it would even cut into my enjoyment of the game,
although learning complex bidding structures is probably a lot easier
for me than most other people.  I'm just more interested in play and
defense. 

Third, you say that the system will converge "over time".  What will
happen until then?  You seem to be quite comfortable with the idea
that many people might be driven away from the game, based on your
theory that eventually, at some undetermined point in the future, the
game would stabilize to a point that it would attract huge numbers of
players because its equilibrium would make it more enjoyable.  Or
something like that.  But I certainly hope that those in charge of
bridge organizations do not see things this way!  I hope that they
care more about their customers than that.

This leads me to believe that you don't really agree with the ends I
describe, even though you say you do.  Bridge organizations try, or
should try, to provide a form of entertainment for their customers;
your attitude appears to be incompatible with that.


> Over time, the system will converge onto some
> form of equilibrium.  I can't predict what that equilibrium will look
> like.  In theory, one dominant system might arise (The Estonian Club
> might be so much better than anything else out there that all other
> bidding systems get condemned to the dustbin).  Alternatively, its
> entirely possible that the equilibrium is a stable population of
> bidding systems distributed using some golden ratio.  You might even
> have a cyclical equilibrium in which this optimal ratio changes over
> time.  In any case, the system will (eventually) converge on some
> thing.  Once the system converges, people will know what to expect.
> 
> The second option is to try to achieve the same end through the
> legislative process.  Pass a series of laws intended to make the world
> safe for bad bidding systems.  There are two problems with this
> approach:  First, I'd argue that this destroys the much of the
> aesthetics of the game.

So what?  Once again, when you make arguments like this, it leads me
to believe that you do *not* agree with the purposes of providing an
enjoyable form of entertainment.  I just don't think that's your
priority. 


> Equally significant - and much less subject -
> People aren't good at writing comprehensive legal systems.  In
> particular, if you go and protect a set of suboptimal bidding methods
> you create a powerful incentive for folks to screw with the system.
> In theory, all the folks out there are trying to win.  In turn, this
> means that there are a lot of folks who are going to be picking over
> your legal system trying to find flaws that they can exploit.

That's not true in my experience.  There may be a handful of people
who do this.  But not a lot.  So your theory seems to be just wrong
here. 

                                -- Adam