[Codo]

I think there are two questions for the price of one:

1. What is the best system?
Like Ulven said: Everybody must play the system that helps him most.
But the most frequent system in the knock out phase of the BB is still 5 card major, strong NT. Polish club and precision are used often too, but significant less.
Acol is an strong outsider, the rest more or less non existent.
So this method should be better then most want to accept.

Most put a lot of effort into the later bidding, with relays and other gadgets, maybe this will spread even further, or it will die after the defence is able to develop good counters.

2. What is my personal preferred system?

I played several difficult systems in earlier times (difficult for me), but now I am happy to have anything said on 10 pages. This frees up so much memory that I play better and I need to use more judgement then memory, which works better then expected too.

So for me SEF is better then any brand new toy like Fantunes etc. I grew up with it, it is in my flesh and blood, it is logical and sturdily.

However, there is one system I prefer even more (despite it needs some more pages...): Wj2005. It is theoretically sound, logical, sturdily and has limited openers.

[H_KARLUK]

Bridge game partners may sentimentally disposed to harmony no matter the bidding language they use; the matter is they really capable of a tune or not.
So the question is resulting from reason or realism.

[dake50]

Forcing pass. Simply because the choosing of which hands are IN forcing pass(not just a moronic 'all 13+) fascinates me. The hands not IN forcing pass are freed for any nefarious mind --maybe simmed to justify a particular type.
Try to choose moderately easy to reveal shapes assuming forcing pass and opponents barrage.
I try S-one suiters, 16+ IN Pass; 9-15 open 1S; H-one suiter, 14-18 in 2H; 9-15 open 1H; 19+ in Pass.
Even consider a second forcing opening. Say 1C force/ Pass force/ 1D fert.


The mind reels --- if only allowed by sanctioning bodies.

[HeavyDluxe]

olien, on Dec 16 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

I am wondering what system people would prefer to play if given an infinite amount of time to practice and learn it and with any partner they desire.

Bah! Systems!

I'd play everything natural... The rest of these gadgets are a blight on the purity of bridge.

[han]

Cascade, on Dec 17 2008, 04:01 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Dec 17 2008, 04:28 PM, said:

han, on Dec 17 2008, 09:10 AM, said:

If I had an infinite amount of time I wouldn't waste it thinking about bridge systems. I'd probably play some form of precision.

But Han if your time is infinite, how would you be wasting it?

That was a favourite saying of one my school mates when a teacher told him he was wasting time (which seemed to happen frequently) he would respond "you can't waste time it is infinite"

Did the teacher accept the premise that time is infinite?

[Cascade]

han, on Dec 19 2008, 08:42 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 17 2008, 04:01 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Dec 17 2008, 04:28 PM, said:

han, on Dec 17 2008, 09:10 AM, said:

If I had an infinite amount of time I wouldn't waste it thinking about bridge systems. I'd probably play some form of precision.

But Han if your time is infinite, how would you be wasting it?

That was a favourite saying of one my school mates when a teacher told him he was wasting time (which seemed to happen frequently) he would respond "you can't waste time it is infinite"

Did the teacher accept the premise that time is infinite?

Not for the purpose of excusing him of wasting it.

[the hog]

Actually when I posted, I forgot about NZ international Andy Braithwaite's T-Rex. Now THAT is what I would like to play.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Dec 18 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

Actually when I posted, I forgot about NZ international Andy Braithwaite's T-Rex. Now THAT is what I would like to play.

Can you summarize it pls?

[effervesce]

jdonn, on Dec 18 2008, 11:31 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Dec 18 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

Actually when I posted, I forgot about NZ international Andy Braithwaite's T-Rex. Now THAT is what I would like to play.

Can you summarize it pls?

A summary would probably take dozens of pages. Just the opening bids below (as played by Michael Ware and Andy Braithwaite in Maastricht in 2000):


OPENING BIDS

1st & 2nd Seat
Pass 0-4 HCP Any, or 5-6 HCP (not vul) or 5-7 HCP Bal (vul), or 15-20(21) HCP
Bal or Minor(s) with no biddable 5 card Major
1C (10)11-20 HCP 5 Hearts or 4/4 Maj 3 suited, or Any Game Force
1D (10)11-20 HCP 5+ Spades, or (21)22-23 HCP Bal (May be any 5332)
1H 5-10 HCP Hearts or Diamonds Unbalanced, or 7-10 HCP (not vul) or 8-10
HCP (vul) Balanced or any 4441
1S 5-10 HCP Spades or Clubs Unbalanced but not 4441
1NT 11-14 HCP Balanced (May be any 5332). Occasionally singleton or off-shape

2C (10)11-14 HCP 5+ Clubs Unbalanced (Can be 4 if 1444 or 4144)
2D (10)11-14 HCP 5+ Diamonds Unbalanced
2H (3)4-7 HCP 5+/5+ S&D or H&C (Odd)
2S (3)4-7 HCP 5+/5+ S&C or H&D (Colour)
2NT (3)4-7 HCP 5+/5+ S&H or (5)6-9(10) HCP D&C (Rank)

3C/3D Std Preempt – may be a six card suit with good suit quality
3D/3H Std Preempt – may be a six card suit with good suit quality
3NT 4 Level minor Preempt

4C Namyats - A good 4H opening (8/9 PT)
4D Namyats - A good 4S opening (8/9 PT)
4H Preemptive
4S Preemptive
4NT Specific Ace ask

3rd / 4th Seat
P 0-4 HCP
1C 5-17 HCP Unbalanced (can be 8-10 HCP with a 6 card suit or a 5/5 with stuff
Outside suits)
1D 5-17 HCP Balanced (may have any 5332)
1H (3)4-7 HCP “Comic” Either 6+ card suit, or any 5+/5+ Unbalanced
1S 17+ HCP, Either a) Any GF (9+PT), Strong Two Suiter
1NT (17)18-20 HCP Balanced (May be any 5332). Occas. Singleton or off-shape

2C “Benji” 8 PT in any Suit or 21-23 Bal
2D (7)8-10 HCP Six card suit in either major (non-forcing – esp nv)
2H 8-10 HCP 5+/5+ Odd (S&D or H&C)
2S 8-10 HCP 5+/5+ Colour (S&C or H&D)
2NT 8-10 HCP 5+/5+ Rank (S&H or D&C)

3C/D 6-9 HCP, 7 card suit or 8-10 HCP Good 6 card suit
3H/S 6-9 HCP, 7 card suit or 8-10 HCP Good 6 card suit
3NT 4 Level minor Preempt

4C Namyats - A good 4H opening (8/9 PT)
4D Namyats - A good 4S opening (8/9 PT)
4H Preemptive – Good Suit
4S Preemptive – Good Suit

[whereagles]

I like the one I'm playing right now. Has 5-cards weak 2s in all suits and a 9-11 1NT.

You can't get more preemptive than that

[wclass___]

Mine too. I use it NV with strong C and nebulous 1D, 2m=either 6m or 5m4om(denies 4M).

(about 1D)
"I thought that the lack of definition in minor-suit
auctions would be costly. Eventually, I learned otherwise. I also learned something else, as
is stated in other places in this book: it is not necessary to understand the underlying reason
or reasons for the existence of a fact in order for it to be true. The fact still exists,
regardless of whether you know why it is a fact or not."
>>>The Revision Club System
>>>3rd Ed. © 2008 by John Montgomery

Hate me

[Free]

whereagles, on Dec 19 2008, 12:57 PM, said:

I like the one I'm playing right now. Has 5-cards weak 2s in all suits and a 9-11 1NT.

You can't get more preemptive than that

Yes you can: Lorenzo two's

[Cascade]

effervesce, on Dec 19 2008, 05:40 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 18 2008, 11:31 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Dec 18 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

Actually when I posted, I forgot about NZ international Andy Braithwaite's T-Rex. Now THAT is what I would like to play.

Can you summarize it pls?

A summary would probably take dozens of pages. Just the opening bids below (as played by Michael Ware and Andy Braithwaite in Maastricht in 2000):


OPENING BIDS

1st & 2nd Seat
Pass 0-4 HCP Any, or 5-6 HCP (not vul) or 5-7 HCP Bal (vul), or 15-20(21) HCP
Bal or Minor(s) with no biddable 5 card Major
1C (10)11-20 HCP 5 Hearts or 4/4 Maj 3 suited, or Any Game Force
1D (10)11-20 HCP 5+ Spades, or (21)22-23 HCP Bal (May be any 5332)
1H 5-10 HCP Hearts or Diamonds Unbalanced, or 7-10 HCP (not vul) or 8-10
HCP (vul) Balanced or any 4441
1S 5-10 HCP Spades or Clubs Unbalanced but not 4441
1NT 11-14 HCP Balanced (May be any 5332). Occasionally singleton or off-shape

2C (10)11-14 HCP 5+ Clubs Unbalanced (Can be 4 if 1444 or 4144)
2D (10)11-14 HCP 5+ Diamonds Unbalanced
2H (3)4-7 HCP 5+/5+ S&D or H&C (Odd)
2S (3)4-7 HCP 5+/5+ S&C or H&D (Colour)
2NT (3)4-7 HCP 5+/5+ S&H or (5)6-9(10) HCP D&C (Rank)

3C/3D Std Preempt – may be a six card suit with good suit quality
3D/3H Std Preempt – may be a six card suit with good suit quality
3NT 4 Level minor Preempt

4C Namyats - A good 4H opening (8/9 PT)
4D Namyats - A good 4S opening (8/9 PT)
4H Preemptive
4S Preemptive
4NT Specific Ace ask

3rd / 4th Seat
P 0-4 HCP
1C 5-17 HCP Unbalanced (can be 8-10 HCP with a 6 card suit or a 5/5 with stuff
Outside suits)
1D 5-17 HCP Balanced (may have any 5332)
1H (3)4-7 HCP “Comic” Either 6+ card suit, or any 5+/5+ Unbalanced
1S 17+ HCP, Either a) Any GF (9+PT), Strong Two Suiter
1NT (17)18-20 HCP Balanced (May be any 5332). Occas. Singleton or off-shape

2C “Benji” 8 PT in any Suit or 21-23 Bal
2D (7)8-10 HCP Six card suit in either major (non-forcing – esp nv)
2H 8-10 HCP 5+/5+ Odd (S&D or H&C)
2S 8-10 HCP 5+/5+ Colour (S&C or H&D)
2NT 8-10 HCP 5+/5+ Rank (S&H or D&C)

3C/D 6-9 HCP, 7 card suit or 8-10 HCP Good 6 card suit
3H/S 6-9 HCP, 7 card suit or 8-10 HCP Good 6 card suit
3NT 4 Level minor Preempt

4C Namyats - A good 4H opening (8/9 PT)
4D Namyats - A good 4S opening (8/9 PT)
4H Preemptive – Good Suit
4S Preemptive – Good Suit

This was a fun system to play against.

Andy Braithwaite last I knew was playing a Fantunes type system with transfer openings.

Something like

1♣ 8+ 4+ hearts

1♦ 8+ 4+ spades

1♥ 13+ clubs or balanced

1♠ 13+ diamonds

1NT - not sure of the NT range probably weak

2♣ 8-12 clubs

2♦ 8-12 diamonds

2♥/♠ not completely sure but maybe just weaker pre-empts

[Apollo81]

The best system in the real world is not necessarily the same one that should be played given infinite practice time. It's impossible to disentangle bidding systems from human existence.

[han]

Apollo81, on Dec 19 2008, 07:07 PM, said:

It's impossible to disentangle bidding systems from human existence.

I'm going to save this quote and look at it again later when I've forgotten all about this thread. I suspect I won't have a clue about what you are saying when it isn't clear from the context. But it will still sound great!

[PeterGill]

Wayne wrote: Andy Braithwaite last I knew was playing
a Fantunes type system with transfer openings.

Now that he has moved from New Zealand to Australia, Andy has been playing Standard with Bill Haughie (with Multi Twos) and his bridge results are much improved - 2nd in the Butler 5 months ago, won the Spring National Open
Teams 2 months ago - his best results for many years.

Peter Gill.

[Tcyk]

I kind of agree with Drtodd, a system that is fun to play.

There are a lot of new systems out there, some of which I have studied. I would have to have a regular partner for any of them. How about MULTOS, or Janus, or Diamond Major, or Revision?. Revision could be played in any ACBL tournament. With a few changes, Diamond Major could also be played with no problems. I would hate to alert a MULTOS opening bid and have to explain its multiple possible meanings to the opponents but I would still like to try playing it. The Janus 1D opening reminds me of the complex diamond opening bid used in Oliver Clarke's Precision Club. I also tend to like Polish Club because I find it difficult to bid against. I've played it a few times and it seems like at least 65 percent of the hands were opened 1C, maybe even more. It's like Precision and the 1D opening.

[matmat]

there;s a distinction to be drawn between infinite amount of time an, d a sufficient mental capacity or memory to learn and remember a system.

also, if i had indefinite time to use on bridge would sominexing the opponents be a permitted tactic?

[awm]

MickyB, on Dec 17 2008, 01:02 AM, said:

SAYC and Acol having one vote between them is one vote too many. SAYC has literally no advantages when compared with 2/1 GF except rebid.

Some advantages for SAYC over 2/1 GF except rebid:

(1) In SAYC you can play in 1NT with two balanced hands facing each other and no fit after 1M-1NT.

(2) In SAYC after opener's jump shift, you do not have to deal with the limit raise hand. For example, 1♠-1NT-3♥. In SAYC 3♠ is a simple preference. In 2/1 GF except rebid, what is your call with the 3-card limit raise? If 3♠ then this call is very ambiguous; if 4♠ you have eliminated all your cuebidding space on a likely slam hand.

(3) In SAYC, responder's 2NT rebid is undefined. You can use this for something handy like 5-5 in the unbids or a strong raise of opener's rebid. In 2/1 GF except rebid this call is needed as natural. I'm referring to 1♠-1NT-2♥-2NT here, and similar.

(4) In SAYC, you can play in 2M sometimes when responder has invitational values. For example 1♠-2♣-2Red-2♠-Pass and responder has shown his 11 or so points yet you can still get out. In 2/1 GF except rebid responder starts 1NT and a major suit preference could be garbage, so you have to play at least 2NT.

(5) In SAYC, you are better able to deal with opponents who crash the auction when responder has invite values. For example compare 1♥-P-1NT-2♠ (2/1 GF) 1♥-P-2♣-2♠ (SAYC). In the second auction we have shown two suits, responder has shown values, double is penalty... it is easy to "catch" frisky opponents. In the first auction we have only shown one suit, responder could have garbage, double is takeout. We are an awful lot better placed in the SAYC sequence.

(6) After a 1♠ opening, responder has 5♥ and invitational values. In SAYC we find the 5-3 heart fit via 1♠-2♥; in 2/1 GF except rebid we bid 1♠-1NT(f)-2m-2NT-Pass.

Obviously there are some advantages to 2/1 GF except rebid too (mostly when responder has a balanced slammish hand) but to say "SAYC has literally no advantages" is simply not true.

[han]

PeterGill, on Dec 20 2008, 09:22 AM, said:

Wayne wrote: Andy Braithwaite last I knew was playing
a Fantunes type system with transfer openings.

Now that he has moved from New Zealand to Australia, Andy has been playing Standard with Bill Haughie (with Multi Twos) and his bridge results are much improved - 2nd in the Butler 5 months ago, won the Spring National Open
Teams 2 months ago - his best results for many years.

Peter Gill.

Must be the fresh New Zealand air.