[ArcLight]

I just finished reading "At the Table" by Bobby Hamman. He dislikes the 5 card major system thats generally popular in the USA prefering a 4 card major. Also, he describes the effectiveness of the Italian Blue team (and their Precision system) when he faced them in the 70's.

Why would one use Precision, or SAYC, or ACOL, over any of the others?
Meckwell use their RP Prececion system, Mike Lawrence seems to advocate the 2 over 1. Hamman the 4 card major. All these people are top flight experts, yet all use different systems.


The other question is how important is the system one uses?
Are they all roughly equivilent, with slight strengths and weaknesses, that for most players wont impact them? [i.e. the experts win becaus ethey are experts, not becaus ethey have a ton of systems, even thouse those systems give them an edge]

[luke warm]

based on results, i'd say some form of a big club is the best, followed by some form of 4 card majors... i'm not sure but i think 2/1 hasn't had very good results in world championship play (hate to admit it, i'm a fan)

it's hard to discount hamman's comments, he's (i think) the top masterpoint winner in history, and he's won more than his share of titles... i also think he's the #1 ranked player in the world

and, of course, he plays flannery but then, i'm sure it's cuz he's so old and stuck in his ways (the same 'ways' that typically beats experts half his age)

[whereagles]

All systems are bad, but some are less bad than others

[bearmum]

whereagles, on Jul 3 2004, 02:06 PM, said:

All systems are bad, but some are less bad than others 

LOL

the TOP players will do well NO MATTER what system they play

As for the rest of us I guess that with a regular partner - AGREE what system+conventions +carding you play and STICK to it

Here in Australia there are rules as to what TYPE of system you can play against opps system ( on a colour scale) so some of the top players have to modify their system if they play in less than "TOP" tourneys ---- BUT because they can count the hand -- remember ALL the cards -- and play them SO well they will ALWAYS do better than average (but MAYBE get a bad score on an occasional board because the "inexperienced" opps land in an "IMPOSSIBLE" contract making for a TOP)

[Flame]

There are many factors that effects the success of a system, some systems are better for one and worse for others, one example could be of system A which takes lots of memory with underards of sequences to remember while system B is very simple and depend more on the players skills.
I don't think current systems are exctly as effecitve but the differences arent that big, also i don't think the best system was developed yet. Systems arent the main factor of success, if you watch 100 boards in a world championship you will not see many results effected by system, more is about evaluation which lead to good decisions, the second factor is diffence play.

[Free]

Ofcourse, for worldclass players the system isn't extremely important. They just know what contract to play even before the bidding starts...

But for normal players who will never reach the Bermuda Bowl, there's a difference imo. Some players have more skill than others, but the big difference is made in slam bidding imo. Sometimes you see scoresheets where nobody except 1 bids a laydown slam, where some bid 7 instead of 6 with the trump queen outside,... Also partscore battles are important, you have to win these in MP-tourneys!
That's why strong ♣ systems are the best imo, since you can bid sooooo relax when you or your p opened! Both players know that you have max 14-15 HCP, so they won't go crazy, and you can preempt bigtime! The 1♣ opening itself is a disadvantage since it's vulnerable to preemptive and psychic bids, but that's about the only real disadvantage imo. And usually when you have game you'll reach it, partscores however are more difficult...

Some say that kinds of polish club are better because the preemptive bids opposite their 1♣ is a lot less, but I disagree since opener still has to be able to show his strong hand when opps intervene, while with a strong ♣ opening p knows that already.

However, both systems are quite close imo. Big advantage of both systems is that you have 2♦+ openings as pure weak, even the 2NT, and you don't need to make special bids to show strong 55+ hands for example. Natural systems usually use 2♣ and/or 2♦ with strong hands as well (like multi), use 2NT as a strong balanced hand, and have troubles with strong 55+ hands after a 2♣ opening...

[Gerben47]

Quote

Some say that kinds of polish club are better because the preemptive bids opposite their 1♣ is a lot less, but I disagree since opener still has to be able to show his strong hand when opps intervene, while with a strong ♣ opening p knows that already.

The point is that in Polish Club the opponents don't know if it's their hand and need constructive calls as an addition to destructive calls.

I think that a good system is still an advantage even at the highest levels, but less so than on lower levels. However, it is clear that in the 21st century standard 5-card majors is no longer the way to go.

Or if you do play a natural system, with lots of gadgets and fixes to make it work (Gazzilli, Transfers in many situations, etc.)

Gerben

[Trpltrbl]

2/1 with variable weak NT's.

Mike