[gurushane]

I have done some reserch into artificial systems but cannot find information about the pros and cons of the different types of artificial systems. Any help is appreciated, thanks

[Flame]

when i tried to invent a system this is what i wanted.
1C and 1D = both forcing and artificial.
1H to 2S = showing types of hand with a major suit, NF constructive (no weak 2 two).
Unlike other 1C/1D systems (magic diamond like) i dont want 1H/1S narrow ranged.

[helene_t]

If I were to develop a new system just for the sake of it, I would prefer artificial 1♣/♦, if only because of non-conformism.

If I were to settle on some workable agreements quickly in a new partnership, I would prefer strong club because I happen to know some reasonably playable strong-club systems already.

[dake50]

Artificial 1C+1D lets me break down my NT ladder twice more.
And lets me partition strong unbal by start 1D v start 1C. 2S rebid after start 1C is Sx+zz; after 1D start is Sy+ww.
Uncapping 1M (letting top hcp be high) seems to hobble responder. Whereas low cap allows low hcp opener and fit found 2M,3M,4M all likely good. Responding to limited 1-bids is a big advantage part-no game; game-no slam; slam try refused likely right =not fitting, since fear on a minimum is out.

[andy_h]

Welcome to the Forums! XÐ

[awm]

There are obviously some types of systems you've left off the list.

My take is, whenever you make a call that "just shows/denies points" without telling partner about shape, you're at a disadvantage. Good opponents will often get the first "shape-showing" call in and a head start on a competitive auction. On the other hand, making a bid that can have a very wide range of point values is also awkward, since partner will often be at a loss as to how high to bid and whether or not to double.

While opening a strong/artificial bid is just showing/denying points, so is an initial pass! And if you open almost all shapely hands without playing limited openings then you end up with an opening range of something like 8-22 which is unwieldy to say the least. So a major advantage of strong club methods is that you get to open the lousy hands with shape without having a huge opening range that partner can't deal with.

When comparing strong club to multi-way club, the strong club generally fares better in competition assuming opponents will make the same bids. It's true that strong club sometimes acts as "bait" for opponents to get wild and crazy, but a lot of opponents will also go overboard with this and go for numbers for no real reason. Strong club also works a bit better in slam auctions because opener's second call doesn't need to clarify range (i.e. in polish club after 1♣-1M you have both 1N/2M showing weaker hand types giving you fewer options with the big hands). The main advantage of multi-way club is that you handle some of the awkward hands, letting you play 1♦ as "real diamonds" and use 2♦ as a preempt of some variety (whereas most strong clubbers need to use 1♦ "could be short" and 2♦ as a constructive opening, or to play a "super-nebulous" 1♦ that could be virtually anything without a 5M, or to go to a four card major and canape style that reduces the effectiveness of their major suit openers). The multi-way club may also induce opponents to bid more rationally since they could easily have game on values, but the "wild and crazy" opponent bidding actually sometimes wins for the strong club, and when opponents do manage to preempt over your multi-way club it is much more difficult to land on your feet.

My preferred "strong club" method is 1♣ strong/artificial (not multi-way) with both 2♣/2♦ intermediate with six card suits. This leaves 1♦ as basically "balanced or three-suited, no 5M" which while artificial seems quite manageable in competition. I prefer 1M openings to be somewhat wide ranging in order to include weak and shapely hands, something like 8-15 hcp (okay rule of 18 so I don't open that many 8s).

On the other hand, I also like a wide variety of other methods such as "standard plus gazzilli" (gazzilli is a great convention that recovers a lot of the benefits of playing limited openings while still letting you open your suits naturally). I think Fantoni-Nunes system (sound one level openings, constructive two bids) is nice too, and I'm interested in experimenting with a transfer based system (i.e. 1♦ = 5+♥ unlimited). So there are many possibilities that didn't make your poll that still aren't really close to "SAYC or 2/1."

[Hilver]

gurushane, on Mar 7 2008, 07:57 PM, said:

I have done some reserch into artificial systems but cannot find information about the pros and cons of the different types of artificial systems. Any help is appreciated, thanks

Take a look at Daniels 'System Page http://www.geocities...neill_2000/sys/ and download Revison Club. At least Foreword and Introduction are worthwile reading.
Revison Club is a well documented system.

[EarlPurple]

I play with my partner 1♣ promises a 4-card major and 1♦ denies a 4 card major

There is a French-based system that is very similar.

[kenrexford]

My heart is and will always be with canape.

[effervesce]

Precision is my precious. I've also tried magic diamond; seems to work decently but I dont like the 1C/1D continuations.

[bhall]

I already play an artificial 1♣/1♦ system that does not significantly narrow the HCP range of the 1M openings. It narrows their shapes to unbalanced when 4 cards, possibly balanced when 5, and never 6+.

[rbforster]

Don't forget Forcing Pass!

Pros - even more space for low-level relay auctions than if you start 1♣ strong. Fert bid annoys opponents.
Cons - annoys regulators, except Australian ones.

[Flameous]

Magic Diamond is mostly the way I want to go apart from some wacky HUM systems. Aggressive and narrow through 1♥ - 2♣. Of course 1♣ opening is bit awkward but I just love everything else in it.
Now I'm working on something that's trying to combine some methods of magic-D and Moscito. 1♦ and 1♥ transfers to majors, 4+ and canape, either 8-11 or 17+ HCP. 1♠ both majors, 8-16HCP. 1♣ For all 12-16 hands without both majors or 17+ without majors. 2s the magic style.

[effervesce]

Flameous, on Mar 20 2008, 01:59 AM, said:

Magic Diamond is mostly the way I want to go apart from some wacky HUM systems. Aggressive and narrow through 1♥ - 2♣. Of course 1♣ opening is bit awkward but I just love everything else in it.
Now I'm working on something that's trying to combine some methods of magic-D and Moscito. 1♦ and 1♥ transfers to majors, 4+ and canape, either 8-11 or 17+ HCP. 1♠ both majors, 8-16HCP. 1♣ For all 12-16 hands without both majors or 17+ without majors. 2s the magic style.

Wouldnt more different hands be easier to bid/distinguish?
Make 1C as 12-16 without a major or 17+ with. Make 1D/1H as 8-11 4+H/4+S respectively or 17+ club/diamond hands.

[FrancesHinden]

I've only toyed with systems that are legal in the UK, so haven't tried medium or forcing pass systems.

We spent a while once writing a system that was
5 card majors, limited openings c. 8-15
1D strong (20+ balanced, 16+ unbalanced) with lots of relays/transfers
strong NT (but possibly mini NT 1st NV for a laugh)
2C/2D natural
1C everything else, (including 18-19 balanced), transfer responses
2H/2S/2NT varied according to position/vul and permitted methods (I can't remember what we landed on now)

We never got to the point of playing it very seriously, because when trying it out we reaslied that we didn't understand how to bid in competition after the 1C opening, and it was going to take a lot of time and practice, which we didn't have, to get the hand of it.

[Flameous]

Effervesce, that was the way I played until people wanted bids to actually promise some suits. If I'm right, how this system is turning out it wouldn't even categorize as HUM.

[SteelWheel]

Quote

Take a look at Daniels 'System Page http://www.geocities...neill_2000/sys/ and download Revison Club. At least Foreword and Introduction are worthwile reading.
Revison Club is a well documented system.

So has anyone actually tried the "Revision" ideas out, either on BBO or IRL tournaments? Some of the system does seem interesting--if anyone wants to give it a try on BBO one night, send me a PM.

More generally: I'm gonna be in Vegas for most of the summer, primarily for the World Series of Poker. But the NABCs start the day after the Series ends..I'd love to find a pard (or three or five similarly insane folks for team games) to mess around with through a good chunk of the tournament events.

As my posts on here and my online profile show, I like anything other than "The People's System"--K/S is good, Precision is good, Revision seems interesting, either/or club systems seem like fun (Unassuming Club or wj/Polish), EHAA would be fun (for sure it would be ok for MP events). Overcall Structure for the truly insane. If someone can come up with a reasonable Fantunes type system that would fly in mid-chart events, I'd be up for that, too.

I'm worth four seeding points for nationally-rated events, with lots of regional wins. I don't play nearly as much bridge as I used to because of the poker boom, so I may be a little shaky at first, but I figure I can't resist it if an NABC is going to be held in my home-away-from-home-city.

Similarly minded insane-os are invited to PM me, if this is of interest..thanks..

[Gerben42]

Quote

If someone can come up with a reasonable Fantunes type system that would fly in mid-chart events, I'd be up for that, too.

www.geocities.com/gerben47/bridge/fantunes145.pdf

I think that'd be Midchart-ok. I don't know about Kaplan Inversion but the Italians do without it so that's possible.

To-do-list: Update PDF file to version 1.8 of the system

[Hilver]

SteelWheel, on Apr 1 2008, 03:46 AM, said:

Quote

Take a look at Daniels 'System Page http://www.geocities...neill_2000/sys/ and download Revison Club. At least Foreword and Introduction are worthwile reading.
Revison Club is a well documented system.

So has anyone actually tried the "Revision" ideas out, either on BBO or IRL tournaments?

Rewvision was released in October 2005. Since June 2006 my pard and I use a modified version of Revision. We do use the basic principles of Revision. These basic principles are okay. We are just average players but we score satisfying results. If things go wrong, it's not the systems fault but ours :-(
Why we don't play the full version of the original Revision? Very simple, we are as stubborn as one can be :-)

[rbforster]

I'm a few hours late in posting this, but here's a new system suggestion based on how much fun everyone has playing 2♥ multi...

The two-way Non-forcing Bidding Principle:

1. All bids are Non-forcing!
2. All first bids and responses show one of two different hand types (not both usually)

For example,

1. Opening bids show either the suit bid OR the next higher suit (1♣=♣ or ♦, 1♠=♠ or bal).
2. Responses show either a raise of partner's suit bid OR a natural suit

You must guess what your partner has by looking at your hand and your opponent's actions (and bewildered faces)!

If you want to make a "forcing" bid like a strong raise of partner, bid your shortest suit so he'll likely have length and assume you're making a raise.

If you actually have both of the hand types implied by a bid, you must make a different bid! If you have both minors, don't open 1♣ which could be either; open 1♦ instead.