[mikl_plkcc]

Using complicated systems, you get to bid games and slams with more than 80% accuracy in uncontested auctions, and even make slams that nobody else can bid, but give away so much information that you can't hope the opponents to get a wrong defence and make a percentage game (at IMPs), or get an overtrick that nobody else can (at MPs) and also you lose so many natural bids that signing off at 1 or 2-level while finding a 5-3 fit is nearly impossible. All these conventions like Jacoby 2NT, Bergen raises, checkback Stayman, etc., either take up possible useful jump responses or make simple things complicated (like losing the natural 2NT response), which give away information to opponents.

Using simple systems, you just bid games and slams by your first impression and simple hand evaluation using HCPs and distributional points, which results in only 45% of the games made (at IMPs) or 50% of the games made (at MPs), but you just give so little information away that the opponents need to guess which suit to lead, and once they get the wrong lead, you can make otherwise unmakeable games or get an overtrick at makeable games. You just use natural bids all the way through, even after interference, you just continue with all your natural bids to the number of trumps you hold in total. You also don't risk the opener pushing you to game when you respond with 0 HCPs, using natural weak jump shifts.

Which way of bidding do you prefer?

[aguahombre]

What I see is a combination. Scientific methods of exploration are being modified to reduce unnecessary information leaked to the opponents by the hand which is likely to be the declarer. Transfer responses, revisions of Jacoby continuations, altering the diamond response to Puppet, etc., seem to be for that purpose.

Sometimes "simple" means one player masterminding based on sims he produces in his head when he could have involved partner.

Sometimes "complicated" means torturing partner unnecessarily.

[nigel_k]

I essentially agree with aguahombre.

I like to have a scientific approach available, but will often choose not to use it, especially if doing so will reveal information about the declaring hand. Often you can arrange things so that dummy is describing instead of declarer. I haven't often wished I had a natural 2NT, 3♣ or 3♦ response.

With Jacoby 2NT, it's unfortunate that opener will always be declarer but you have the same problem with any strong balanced hand with support because it's more effective for the unbalanced hand (i.e. opener) to describe. Only transfer openings can really avoid this.

[mgoetze]

Are you trying to be the next 32519?

[han]

Maybe it is a different perspective, but I thought that standard Jacoby 2NT was a simple but unscientific method and one of the drawbacks of this method is that you often give away information on hands where you aren't going to slam anyway. It's also pretty bad for bidding slams. A little science seems better in all regards except memory load.

[Fluffy]

if you think jacoby its the complicated way you have a lot to learn .

The defence thing is not as you think. For example last year a complicated auction of 13 rounds led to me explaiaing everyone that I had 5134 with ♠AK and ♣AJ ♦K or something like. The real problem was that the final contract became 7 spades, and the guy on lead at our table was the only guy to underlead ♥Q10xxx into declarer's AKJ98x wich never were mentioned on the bidding, and we were the only pair to make the contract. The fact that one hand explains doesn't make the defence double dummy. Specially on lead, and specially when the explained hand becomes dummy.

[ggwhiz]

I voted simple before I fully read the post. A better description would be that I am a naturalist.

The standardish tools mentioned involve BOTH partners in the decision and you have options as to when to use them.

Always and never are not part of my system, ie. p - 1♥ to you holding 5-5 in the blacks and 1♠ is often a better choice than a revealing Michaels bid. If I choose the wrong strategic option it's just my ongoing battle to find consistency.

[Statto]

Andrew Robson is currently advocating 'simple' for MPs, because if you discover slam is not on, the information leaked may cost your overtrick in game. I'm not so sure.

[Cthulhu D]

Statto, on 2012-June-11, 16:38, said:

Andrew Robson is currently advocating 'simple' for MPs, because if you discover slam is not on, the information leaked may cost your overtrick in game. I'm not so sure.

I'm not sure complex and information leakage are a given pairing though. Compare the information disclosed in the 1C= clubs or balanced auction 1C!-1NT (to play opposite a weak NT), and the corresponding better minor auction (1C/D-1NT).

Similarly playing 1H-2NT(limit+)-3C (Any minimum) discloses more information when partner is minimum and you only have a limit raise, but discloses less information the rest of the time.

However, I've been tracking this particular (2NT = limit+ with 3C as a minimum) auction, and while 1H-2NT-3C-4H is reasonably frequent, it doesn't seem to make a difference compared to what tables playing standard methods are doing. That said, my sample size is 12 and it might have made a difference only once but didn't. Conversely when we disclose more information after 1H-2NT-3C-3H-4H it doesn't make a difference either.

[Siegmund]

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

A bidding system is supposed to exchange enough information for you to correctly place the contract, and no more. It may well do that by being "simple" and just blasting, or it may do that by being complicated -- spiral-scan cuebids until you have enough information for a go/no-go decision on a slam, or even purely artificial sequences so that dummy's hand is completely described and declarer's hand is not revealed at all.

But the question of whether a system seeks to maximize information transfer or not is NOT the same as the question of whether a system is simple or not. "Complete" natural systems can still transfer lots of information, sometimes more than necessary, as in a game-try and counter-try auction.

[Mbodell]

Yeah there are several distinctions being mixed up here (that are related and correlated, but not fully the same). There is a choice of:

Extensive partnership agreements versus seat of the pants, concealed understanding, and/or no understanding. Some partnerships generally know what their partner's bids mean even on the third, fourth, and fifth round of the auction - even in competition. Others never agree past the opening bid/response or some named convention (and often they both don't understand the same details of a convention despite the same name).

Exchange as much information with partner in the bidding to reach the optimal dd result versus guess in the bidding and hide information to end up in the wrong spot more often but also to be far harder on opening leader and on defenders and on opps sac decisions.

Scientific/artificial agreements that are more technically accurate versus natural agreements that are more what they sound like and easier on the memory.

Play what conventions I'm used to (and I'll call that stuff some variation of "standard" to make my common conventions sound better) versus play a mish-mash of different conventions that is neither partner's first choice but some reasonable compromise.

Play something that is different than everyone else (either because it is fun, an experiment, something different, because opponents aren't prepared for it, or some combination of many of the above) or play what everyone else is playing. I play against one semi-local pair that plays strong 2's across the board, 4 card majors, penalty doubles, etc. - a totally natural and straight forward system that is still unexpected and different than what opponents expect.

I prefer to play with complete agreements because I think it leads to better disclosure, and it leads to better judgements of what is this worth rather than what do I think partner will think this bid means in light of what do I think partner thought his last bid meant. I prefer to have the choice to blast, versus have only one partner completely share (and hopefully become dummy), versus both opponents share depending on the hand and what I judge best. Relay auctions to slam are great. So is 1M-4M in precision. I prefer science bids that have an underlying rationality that makes it easy to figure why the agreement works that way as long as my memory can take it. Most people understand rkc 1430 even though it is a completely artificial scientific bid. Many other less familiar scientific conventions are no more complicated, once you know the structure/rules/logic. I prefer to play my partner's card with pickups, but I prefer to come to a compromise with a serious and/or regular partnership. Depending on field strength, there can be good reasons to play something different or something not-different. I usually like to play something that is fun and that I think is theoretically better, but playing something less different leads to more consistent results (not necessarily better results, depends on field strength).

[mike777]

justin and Bob won on what?


simple or complicated?

They won top MP event


Disect this guys and post

---------------------


OTOH if you want to tell how we(less than 48%) can do better....ok that is another thread.

[Cthulhu D]

mike777, on 2012-June-12, 01:30, said:

justin and Bob won on what?
simple or complicated?
They won top MP event
Disect this guys and post
---------------------
OTOH if you want to tell how we(less than 48%) can do better....ok that is another thread.

Frances Hinden made the point in another thread that scratch partnerships win MP events all the time, but never win IMP games. Why is this? It probably points to the reason that science is useful - it's good for finding close games and slams. At IMPs choosing between 3NT and 5D is a decision on which at a lot swings. At MPs unless you know 3NT is a sure loser you are going to bid it anyway. Pairs without science can just blast the most likely contract and hope to make it up in the play. If they don't, it's only a bottom (infact even this is unlikely because you're not the only person playing matchpoints in the field). Whereas at IMPs bidding 5D when 3NT makes is 1 or 2 imps out, but going off in 3NT when 5D makes can easily win a match.

[mike777]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-June-12, 02:30, said:

Frances Hinden made the point in another thread that scratch partnerships win MP events all the time, but never win IMP games. Why is this? It probably points to the reason that science is useful - it's good for finding close games and slams. At IMPs choosing between 3NT and 5D is a decision on which at a lot swings. At MPs unless you know 3NT is a sure loser you are going to bid it anyway. Pairs without science can just blast the most likely contract and hope to make it up in the play. If they don't, it's only a bottom (infact even this is unlikely because you're not the only person playing matchpoints in the field). Whereas at IMPs bidding 5D when 3NT makes is 1 or 2 imps out, but going off in 3NT when 5D makes can easily win a match.

and so?


We are tld this 50 years ago?

I am old.

[chasetb]

I think JLall said in an earlier thread that "system made no difference on ANY of the deals" in his Platinum Pairs win with Bob Hamman. Look at past NABC results, and you will see quite a few scratch partnerships winning these pairs events, as well as a few players whom you have never heard of. Don't forget that luck plays a role in pairs events as well, though with Justin and Bob, they don't need nearly as much luck as most of us in order to win.

[aguahombre]

chasetb, on 2012-June-12, 11:02, said:

I think JLall said in an earlier thread that "system made no difference on ANY of the deals" in his Platinum Pairs win with Bob Hamman....

I will bet the fact that the opponents screwed up their system once or twice, and/or their less complex methods did not get screwed up actually did make a difference here and there. It makes a difference for us mere mortals.

[Mbodell]

aguahombre, on 2012-June-12, 11:23, said:

I will bet the fact that the opponents screwed up their system once or twice, and/or their less complex methods did not get screwed up actually did make a difference here and there. It makes a difference for us mere mortals.

I think their opponents likely screwed up some simple, no agreement situations (complex or simple) and some bad judgement (that wouldn't have even been a judgement with good system). It cuts both ways. The obvious "ha ha you went off the rails" can be seen by all, but the more subtle "you were put in a tough spot by lack of system and judged wrong, unlucky" is likely to be much less noticed.

Obviously playing good tough defense, accurate declarer line, trusting partner, and not making mistakes is most important.

[aguahombre]

Not to mention, those two play a lot of Bridge and were bound to win something sometime by shear attendance record.

[han]

Well said Aqua, the fact that they only won one platinum pairs so far probably means they are pretty bad. I feel better now.

[helene_t]

In India I spoke to a guy who said that he couldn't understand why westerners are so obsessed with complex systems like Acol and SA when playing simple vanilla precision is just as effective.

I don't want to single this particular guy (or India, or Precision) out. Just a general observation. Most people see simplicity as a virtue but what we see as "simple" may be more about familiarity than inate properties of the system.