Help
kenrexford, on 2015-August-19, 20:26, said:
Just for fun, imagine bridge with no alerts, and not even a duty to explain what any bid meant, with no convention charts. While this might seem like chaos, it seems to me that this would open up a fascinating world of unique bidding theory.
As a simple start, overcall structures would need to cater to more possibilities. Granted, some preemptive action would likely be curtailed. One would need more space for description of sound values hands, which would probably reduce interference. That problem, however, might be balanced with a limited disclosure requirement to state strength only, but perhaps allowing for multi bids as to strength.
Where this would be really cool is in encrypting methods to avoid the opponents learning your secrets. There would be an incentive, for example, to play multiple systems at once, perhaps switched based on seat, vulnerability, board numbrr, or whatever else.
In that context, some normally inferior methods might gain traction as diversion systems, with useful space principles forfeit to prediction elimination gains. For example, opening 1S with spades and values is nearly universal. Opening 1S with hearts is bizarre and ineffective, unless you want to force 1S overcall structures to cater to spade holdings.
It is not the chaos that intrigues me. It is the theory elements that would emerge that intrigue me.
As a simple start, overcall structures would need to cater to more possibilities. Granted, some preemptive action would likely be curtailed. One would need more space for description of sound values hands, which would probably reduce interference. That problem, however, might be balanced with a limited disclosure requirement to state strength only, but perhaps allowing for multi bids as to strength.
Where this would be really cool is in encrypting methods to avoid the opponents learning your secrets. There would be an incentive, for example, to play multiple systems at once, perhaps switched based on seat, vulnerability, board numbrr, or whatever else.
In that context, some normally inferior methods might gain traction as diversion systems, with useful space principles forfeit to prediction elimination gains. For example, opening 1S with spades and values is nearly universal. Opening 1S with hearts is bizarre and ineffective, unless you want to force 1S overcall structures to cater to spade holdings.
It is not the chaos that intrigues me. It is the theory elements that would emerge that intrigue me.
The short of it would be
a. very elaborate
b. narrow the size of a club to 4 members and a limited number of subs- as the effort expended in deciphering the opponents' methods would be immense and to be a member of more than one club could get you mixed up- and be a security risk to the other clubs you belong to.