[han]

Definitely agree with that Helene.

[antonylee]

Even Larry Cohen mentioned that if Precision was more mainstream he'd teach it to beginners because it's much simpler...
Disclaimer: I do not play Precision but Polish, but in any case (for once) I agree with him :-)

[JLOGIC]

lol, since my name has been brought up fwiw I think having lots of agreements is important, but it rarely matters what those agreements are as long as they are reasonable. You talk about my partnership with Bob, we play standard carding, 4th best leads, standard honor leads vs NT, K from AK vs suits, no smith, so basically 100 % standard. Do I think this is best? No. But it probably doesn't matter as long as we know what we play since it's a reasonable agreement.

In some partnerships I play strong club, with bob natural, some partnerships weak NT, some strong, some medium, some variable. Some partnerships I open with all 11s, some I open sounder, with kevin I open lighter. In some partnerships I play kickback, in others I play normal keycard. It just really doesn't matter which reasonable agreements you have, as long as you can remember them and know what you're doing it's fine.

It is extremely important to have thorough and solid agreements in as many situations as possible though. It is also important to use your judgement wrt information leakage and what your overall strategy is. Meckwell is a good example of this, they play many complicated things but they often choose to just blast instead. They are criticized for missing easy slams when they do this, but they also make many extra games by doing this.

This can even be as basic as whether or not to stayman. You have the machinery to find a 4-4 fit, but maybe you don't want to look because your hand is NTy, and you you have minimum values and think it will be a close 3N so you don't want to squeal on partner and your holding. It is very reasonable to not stayman, as I frequently choose, in that case, even if a 4-4 fit would probably be slightly better even if it were assured.

Knowing that you're playing MP vs imps and adjusting accordingly is important. Sometimes your system forces you to squeal, in which case I would recommend changing your system.

[Statto]

JLOGIC, on 2012-June-15, 13:04, said:

Sometimes your system forces you to squeal, in which case I would recommend changing your system.

I wouldn't normally disagree with you, but surely almost if not all systems have cases where you squeal? I wouldn't recommend changing system on the basis of one awkward hand.

[ggwhiz]

Statto, on 2012-June-17, 21:40, said:

I wouldn't normally disagree with you, but surely almost if not all systems have cases where you squeal? I wouldn't recommend changing system on the basis of one awkward hand.

I can't think of any situation where you are FORCED to squeel. By partnership agreement, "Sorry I thought that small heart was a spade" is an acceptable apology.

[JLOGIC]

Statto, on 2012-June-17, 21:40, said:

I wouldn't normally disagree with you, but surely almost if not all systems have cases where you squeal? I wouldn't recommend changing system on the basis of one awkward hand.

I don't think there are that many auctions where you are forced into it (unless you relay), but I am sure there are some. Regular jacoby forces you to do so, and I think that is a large part of why modern experts are changing the responses to jacoby.

[Zelandakh]

My view on this is probably a little warped. I think it would be easier for beginners and intermediates to play a complex system (if they could understand it) since complexity tends to make judgement decisions easier by limiting partner's hand more effectively. On the other hand experts are likely to get most of these decisions right regardless of the system complexity providing they have reasonable agreements.

I like complexity because it allows me to trade a little memory use for "better" judgement which would otherwise take years to develop. On the other hand, if you are not going to have a decision, or, better yet, you know the opponents have a decision to make, then why would anyone not bid directly to the right spot immediately regardless of system complexity? In other words, even the most complex system should (almost) always have the option for a simple auction available.

Also, what Helene wrote is to some extent the crux of it. If you play a completely artificial system with the same number of "rules" as natural, is this more complicated? How about in comparison with a completely natural system with agreements for almost every situation which, therefore, has many many more rules in place? What is complicated for the way I think may be simple for another and vice versa. I find relay rules are often (much) simpler than the equivalent natural auctions. Yet this appears not to be true for the majority of bridge players. That leads me to think that what most players see as "complexity" is really just "unfamiliarity". That probable leads back to system regulations too - if something is unfamiliar it is not allowed to be played; if it is not played it stays unfamiliar. A good example is that the first bridge system I played against regularly (at university) was a forcing pass method. This seemed completely normal to me because I had not played against anything else. I did not find the system "complex" at all even though I was a complete beginner in terms of playing real bridge.

So, before I vote, tell us what you mean by complex. Why is a 2NT response to show a GF raise any more complex than a 2NT response to show a balanced invite?

[32519]

How about a completely natural system where the only forcing bid is a change of suit by an unpassed hand? This implies that whenever a NT bid is made, or a suit repeated, the auction is no longer forcing.

[han]

What about always opening 6NT?

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2012-June-19, 09:19, said:

How about a completely natural system where the only forcing bid is a change of suit by an unpassed hand? This implies that whenever a NT bid is made, or a suit repeated, the auction is no longer forcing.

You'd still need very detailed agreements, the only difference is that they be about hitches rather than bids.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on 2012-June-19, 09:30, said:

You'd still need very detailed agreements, the only difference is that they be about hitches rather than bids.

I think you are wrong, or that you overstate the case.

An almost entirely natural system, something like Churchill, can be very effective without reliance on that old black magic.

I'm not saying it will match a big club/relay system, or even detailed eastern scientific, but it can be quite adequate at many levels.

[Zelandakh]

32519, on 2012-June-19, 09:19, said:

How about a completely natural system

What is a completely natural system? Are 5 card majors natural? What is a natural range for a 1NT opening? There are many occasions playing "natural" where conventional wisdom says you improvise by bidding a 3 card suit - is this natural? What about cue bids, ace asking conventions and the like? The point is that what most people describe as natural means what they have been taught and find familiar. To me "natural" means Acol, to most Americans it seems to mean some form of Standard American. In France anything other than SEF is probably "unnatural" - "3 card raises? Yuck!". Natural is really just a set of conventions following certain (relatively) simple rules. An artificial system based on a set of equally simple rules (if that were possible at least) would not be more complex. It would, on the other hand, be much less familiar and therefore people would call it complex.

A truly natural system would be to open 1 of a suit where you had 7 tricks, 2 with 8 tricks, etc and similarly for NT where you had no good suit - so 1NT around 19hcp and so on. Does anyone genuinely believe this would be adequate at any level?

[han]

TimG, on 2012-June-19, 10:29, said:

I think you are wrong, or that you overstate the case.

I don't know what Churchill is and I am not sure it is relevant. The OP gave a few very simple rules for a system. I agree with hrothgar that playing the system outlined by the OP would give you a huge disadvantage, especially on slam hands. Basically the partnership could make two to four somewhat descriptive bids after which one partner would have to guess the final contract. You'd have to be one heck of a card player to overcome such odds!

[blackshoe]

It's always seemed strange to me that SA and the like are "natural" (with a 2♣ forcing opening) and Precision and the like are "not natural" (because the forcing opening is 1♣). And I started out as a Goren player (four card majors, even!) Romex, which is basically 2/1, has four strong forcing openings, one of which is a "natural" 2NT. I suppose that makes it "not natural", or perhaps "unnatural".

[32519]

32519, on 2012-June-19, 09:19, said:

How about a completely natural system where the only forcing bid is a change of suit by an unpassed hand? This implies that whenever a NT bid is made, or a suit repeated, the auction is no longer forcing.

hrothgar, on 2012-June-19, 09:30, said:

You'd still need very detailed agreements, the only difference is that they be about hitches rather than bids.

TimG, on 2012-June-19, 10:29, said:

I think you are wrong, or that you overstate the case.An almost entirely natural system, something like Churchill, can be very effective without reliance on that old black magic.I'm not saying it will match a big club/relay system, or even detailed eastern scientific, but it can be quite adequate at many levels.

I managed to find Modern Churchill on the Bridge Guys website. No matter how natural one tries to keep a system, artificial bids will inevitably creep in. This one is no different. On page 5 there is a link to something called the Karate Structure to show two-suited hands. The link appears to be broken. If anyone else knows another link to the Karate Structure, posting it here will be appreciated.

[TimG]

han, on 2012-June-20, 02:25, said:

I don't know what Churchill is and I am not sure it is relevant. The OP gave a few very simple rules for a system. I agree with hrothgar that playing the system outlined by the OP would give you a huge disadvantage, especially on slam hands. Basically the partnership could make two to four somewhat descriptive bids after which one partner would have to guess the final contract. You'd have to be one heck of a card player to overcome such odds!

Churchill devised his methods in the 20s and 30s and published them (along with Albert Furguson) in 1936. Churchill later (in 1976) published virtually the same methods in a much larger book. I may have the dates wrong, my copies are apparently in a box rather than on the bookshelf and I don't want to dig them out at the moment.

The only artificiality that Churchill includes are a "utility 1NT" response to an opening bid (basically a catchall negative response to nearly, but not quite, forcing one bids) and I believe takeout doubles of opponents' opening bids.

Churchill enjoyed much success with the methods. For a long time he held the record for highest percentage in the finals (or overall) in a National LM Pairs event. Playing with mostly inferior partners and teammates, he competed quite well with the name players of his generation. Of course, that does not mean he, or his methods, would stand up to the top competition of today.

In the introduction to the 1976 book, Kaplan said that he was sure that "none of the top pairs in the world at that time could match Church's efficiency in slam bidding." Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but Kaplan's statement should mean something. Churchill surely had more agreements and understandings than the two rules that the OP set forth, but really not a whole lot more.

I stand by my contention that hrothgar's "You'd still need very detailed agreements, the only difference is that they be about hitches rather than bids" is an overstatement. In capable hands, Churchill's methods would still serve well in today's world without the need to rely upon hitches. I'm not talking about Spingold or Bermuda Bowl, but capable players could use Churchill in a regional event and not be at much of a handicap, might even be at an advantage over some small samples.

32519, on 2012-June-20, 07:13, said:

I managed to find Modern Churchill on the Bridge Guys website. No matter how natural one tries to keep a system, artificial bids will inevitably creep in. This one is no different. On page 5 there is a link to something called the Karate Structure to show two-suited hands. The link appears to be broken. If anyone else knows another link to the Karate Structure, posting it here will be appreciated.

"Modern Churchill" is an oxymoron. In my brief look at the linked page, it seems that the Karate Structure is meant to handle competitive bidding. That is, I admit, an area where Churchill might suffer in today's hyper-aggressive world. Then again, the honor trick requirements for certain opening bids means that speeding opponents can be caught with more frequency that against modern methods.

[32519]

Having kibitzed much of the 51st European Championships and the 2012 USBC, some observations:
1. The USBC had enough pre-dealt hands to cater for some US favourites e.g. Flannery, Puppet Stayman and DON’T.
2. Despite the number of players with Multi on their CCs, the frequency of the bid occurring thus far in the European Championships wasn’t that much.
3. The same can be said for 2-suited openings below opening value strength.
4. I’ve seen a couple of Gazzilli hands to cater for the Italians.
5. Overall the pre-dealt hands have provided limited opportunities for using conventional bids (either in opening or defence). Having a zillion conventions on your CC doesn’t help much with the sort of hands appearing.

So maybe Churchill (or any other system with limited artificial bids) still has a place in modern bridge?

Adopting your methods for any given tournament (country / level of tournament) could possibly improve your results e.g. using the 2♦ bid for something expected to occur more frequently during the tournament.

[gwnn]

It's the freemasons! When they are having a break from planning world domination and the outcome of some football draws, they are controlling the dealing machines!

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2012-June-22, 02:52, said:

Adopting your methods for any given tournament (country / level of tournament) could possibly improve your results e.g. using the 2♦ bid for something expected to occur more frequently during the tournament.

I know that the frequency of my Ekrens 2♦ opening is much higher when I play in Massachusetts than when I play in CT...

[32519]

gwnn, on 2012-June-22, 03:41, said:

It's the freemasons! When they are having a break from planning world domination and the outcome of some football draws, they are controlling the dealing machines!

Listening to the voice commentary (Roland Wald, David Bird and Graham Osborne) for match 23: England versus Italy, one of them stated that the European Championships was considered to be the toughest tournament to win. Tougher than the Bermuda Bowl or anything the USA has to offer.

If Italy ends up as the winners, it must be the Mafia controlling the dealing machines (not the Free Masons, unless the Mafia are also Free Masons).