[Walddk]

Jlall, on Aug 22 2005, 11:05 PM, said:

2/1 is almost unplayable. No world championships or nationals have ever been won playing 2/1. No good players play it. It sucks.

Spoiler

SARCASMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Glad you have some hidden text there, Justin. Congratulations on becoming a World Champion playing 2/1 GF!

http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files...l-greenberg.pdf

Roland

[Elianna]

inquiry, on Aug 22 2005, 11:50 AM, said:

Sayc is unplayable, 2/1 is almost unplayable.

Funny. Adam and I used to play 2/1. Then we played half-2/1, half SA (don't ask). Now we play SA (with gadgets). We find it playable.

[awm]

The best partnerships in the world have discussed virtually every sequence, and have many special agreements and little "gadgets" to fix various problems. This applies regardless of the basic "system" they are using. It's easy to argue that 2/1 has a lot of holes (in fact any system that can be succinctly specified has a lot of holes).

In the long run I think the major advantage of 2/1 is that it's fairly easy to play without detailed discussion. Are you going to win against people who have discussed every sequence? Not unless your cardplay is substantially better. But you're not likely to have the sorts of horrible accidents that tend to occur when a pair sits down and agrees to play "standard" or even "precision" without discussing in detail. This is what gives 2/1 its place as de facto "expert standard."

As for Polish club, until recently it hasn't been easy to sit down and play polish club without a lot of discussion. Perhaps WJ2005 is changing this, we shall see.

[the hog]

Walddk, on Aug 23 2005, 06:11 AM, said:

david_c, on Aug 22 2005, 09:40 PM, said:

I think it's fair to say that there is a gradual movement in the direction of Polish Club at the moment, and if Polish Club really is an improvement over 2/1 it seems unlikely that this is going to be reversed. However, I really can't see 2/1 losing its grip for a very long time.

All systems have flaws. If there had been a flawless system, we would all be playing it! Add zillions of gadgets, and the system will still have flaws. The worst of all is of course that there is much more to forget.

Give the bridge players of the world a system they can comprehend and remember, and let the remaining tiny percentage have fun with various quibbles.

Roland

No thats not quite true Roland. Some players are simply too lazy to learn anything complex, some players don't want to learn anything remotely complex, and others still have a philosophical objection to complexity in the bidding and want to retain the "purity of the game" through card play. If a whizz bang system could be invented but it was complex, lots would not play it because of the aforementioned reasons. That's fine, that's their prerogative, and long may they continue to do this.

Every serious partnership, with one or two exceptions, plays a system layered with conventions designed to solve bidding problems, or else because they like that particular set of conventions.

I agree with Ben, stock standard Sayc is badly designed, stock standard 2/1 is better, but still not in the class of a well designed total package system such as say Matula's Polish club. You could read and learn Matula's book with a partner and play an excellent system. From my experience you cannot do the same with 2/1 unless you have heaps more discussion with partner. (I am NOT saying PC requires only a little discussion, far from it, but it is a total package). Look at what some players have done to soup up 2/1 - Walsh, transfer walsh, xyz etc etc.

The reality of the situation is that most bidding systems will cope with at least 90% of the hands you get. Most players probably don't care much about the remaining small percentage unless they are really very keen.

Quote AWM
"In the long run I think the major advantage of 2/1 is that it's fairly easy to play without detailed discussion. Are you going to win against people who have discussed every sequence?"

This comment is totally incorrect. Look at the interpretations put on sequences in these forums for example. Just to mention one - some think that reverses carry extra weight, others think the should not. Reverse with a pick up partner at your peril.

[inquiry]

Walddk, on Aug 22 2005, 04:43 PM, said:

You started by stating that sayc is unplayable and 2/1 almost unplayable, did you not? That is what I call narrow-minded and totally unfair! I give every system a chance, with or without the loads of gadgets you want to add.

Roland, I hope none of my fellow moderators zap this thread or any of our post. Rest assured, if it happens, it will not be by my hand.

Did I start by saying negative things about 2/1 (and SAYC)? Of course I did, but let me start by reminding you the TITLE of this thread, which was:Karen McCallum knocks 2/1, likes Polish Club, why? Let me also follow this up with the first of two questions the original poster posed in this thread (the second dealt with Polish club itself, for which I lack the experience to answer, and now a third one has been added to the original post). That question was:

Quote

1) What is so terrible about 2/1?     

In response to this request, I did what the poster asked. I explained what I think is wrong with 2/1, in my view, including giving some examples, and hinted at (but did not give all) of I modify 2/1 to handle these deficiencies within 2/1. I made it clear that I didn’t think my modifications were the only way, but whatever modifications you choose you have to deal with the defects with 2/1 to be competitive.

Of course, no one has to agree anything is wrong with 2/1. That is their (and your) right. Mikeh disagreed with me without being personally insulting (unlike you I might add), and in final analysis I view his post more agreeing with me than disagreeing. He did so by stating “no one uses off the shelf 2/1” and discussing that each partnership has to customize the system they play. That was, in fact, the point I was making, only I tried to answer the QUESTION asked by pointing out where I think 2/1 is handicapped against systems like polish club, and some of the solutions I use to "customize" my 2 over 1 (yes, I call my system Inquiry 2-over-1 as it is posted on the web for what it is worth). It would have been more helpful for the original poster if Mikeh had listed a few of his favorite modifications to 2/1 and why he feels these are necessary (in other words, what he thinks is missing from off-the-shelf 2/1).

So the major difference between my post and yours, is I pointed out what I considered weaknesses of 2/1 specifically, and suggested my own solutions to these weaknesses (but agreeing other solutions are possible). Mike while disagreeing that 2/1 is playable, he agreed NO-ONE (top pairs) plays the vanilla version. I think my approach of discussing the problems with 2/1 is of more useful to people trying to follow the topic of this thread to know what the problems are perceive with 2/1 (or else people would play vanilla).

Now for your reply. In essences, your positition is that answering a question in (NOTE: the NON-NATURAL SYSTEM discussion forum) with “SAYC and 2/1 are playable and ben is narrow-minded” for suggesting otherwise is hardly moving the discussion forward. Your reply generates attacks on you for your attack on me, rather than adding materially to the discussion at hand. What of course you should have done (imo) if you think 2/1 and/or SAYC is superior to polish club, is say so and tell us why. If you think they are equal in design and quality, say so and be done. If you think 2/1 is “great” but it is better if you play Roland inverted minor raises or reverse Bergen or anything else, tell us so and why this tweak to 2/1 fixes problems with it. After all, discussion forums are here to discuss the merits of ideas, good and bad and indifferent. I doubt discussing the narrow-mindness of some who is answering a question posed in a thread is doing any good whatsoever.

I will remind you what I see as the major advantage of polish club (and other forcing club systems) over 2/1 (and SAYC for that matter). It is that all the opening bids in these forcing club systems other than 1♣ are narrowly limited. That allows distributional light jump rebids, and opening bids with “light” hands (the WBF “king” less than average, meaning 7 or 8 hcp). 2/1 is already under a lot of pressure because of the wide range of opening bids, if you extend that to 7 or 8 hcp, you only amplify the problem in my view. My “solutions” to this problem are:

1) Roman 2M opening bids
2) Multi 2D – including acol 2 in minor, and very strong 2NT type hands 22-24
3) Riton 2C (similar to gadzilla or however it is spelled)
4) Drury 2C even after 1st or 2nd seat opening
5) Semi-forcing 1NT
6) new minor forcing by opener (but 1M-1any-2D is weak and not forcing, see Riton 2C)
7) 2C opening includes acol 2 in major and strong 3 suiters, with 2H/2S double negative and non-forcing.
8) MisIry Transfers (including really strong two suits)
9) xyz responses by response

Option 1 allows for Riton 2C so that jump shifts are never needed with 5M+ major without second suit. Option 8 also adds definition to the new suit jump rebid by opener (the jump HAS to be a real suit, and the strength is limited by not opening #8)
Item 4 helps with item 5 and the light opening hands I like.

While I didn’t put together all these in the original post, my approach is to keep a natural 1C, 1D, 1H, and 1S but limiting what the hand can be by failure to open one of the stronger bids (one suiters with 2D – for minors, 2C for majors, or 2C true GF one suiter, Misiry with any strong 2 suiter, 2C with any really strong 3 suiter, and 2D/2C with really strong balanced hands). Riton 2C and new minor forcing by opener solves the need to “Create” a false jumpshift to establish a force while keeping the bidding low at the cost of not being able to bid 2C (if you opened anything but 1C) or 2D if you open 1C to show a weak opening hand.

Where 2/1 has advantage over polish club, is the strong bid(s) are harder to preempt than 1♣. In fact, I think 1♣ is the weakest (figuratively) of any forcing club system.

So why don’t YOU try to add to the discussion by telling us why by discussing analytically what you like about sayc or 2/1 rather than attacking others and stating dogmatically how good these systems without supporting statements.

Quote

This is what I call being generous, the direct opposite of what you are. I am happy to see that MikeH and Fred agree with me. Ben, you are a system freak and I respect you for it, but you can't just discard sayc and 2/1 as unplayable and almost unplayable.

I doubt that Fred or mikeh agreed with you as much as you think. For instance, I would be surprised if either meant that my view was narrow-minded. Fred, in particular has always embraced the concept of sharing ideas and not calling other systems/methods lacking. For instance see his post on four card majors from about a year ago. And, if your generosity is to call people names, then your view is quite different from mine. And note, I said 2/1 was "almost unplayable. People who are nearly dead are not dead, systems that are almost unplayable are playable. It is the addition of gadgets, like xyz, like Ingberman, like multi 2D, like gadzilla, like kokish relays, like 1S/1NT invererson, like serious 3NT, like LTTC, that makes 2/1 competitive with advanced artificial systems. Which was my point, exactly.

Quote

They are indeed both playable if particular partnerships prefer that system. We have no right to tell them that they must play something different in order to bid properly. That is simply not true.

I certainly never told anyone they couldn't play sayc or 2/1, but I am absolutely certain SAYC is not competitive system at world class level. And neither is a vanilla 2/1 system. Simply look at the WBF convention card of the top players. However, what I did with my comments, was introduce the reasons why I view these systems disadvantaged to polish club, and given that this is within the "non-natural system discussion" group, this is exaclty the place for this discussoin. After all, this is what this discussion group is intended for, and I discussed an issue raised by a member with attention to his question.

I remain highly disappoint in your response.

[hrothgar]

Interesting thread. Given that my biases are so well know, I'll refrain from the usual pontification...

With this said and done, there's one point that I think is worth making:

Inquiry notes that "standard" 2/1 systems are at a competitive disadvantage versus Polish Club because Polish Club is designed to support a light opening style. I disagree quite strongly with this statement. Polish club is designed to support limited openings (for example, 1M openings are typically limited to ~17 HCP), however, traditionally this is combined with a sound opening style. I'll note in passing that Matula is VERY emphatic about this same point.

Folks who have listened to my rants about 2/1 GF requiring sound openings shouldn't be surprised about this point. Polish Club employes a very "vanilla" 2/1 GF structure. The system as been optimized for memory load/efficiency (lots of sequences are based around steps rather than specific bids - for example, 2♠ is used as a GF raise over 1♥). However, there's very little strucure designed to support a light opening style.

[Walddk]

inquiry, on Aug 22 2005, 10:29 PM, said:

So to each his own. I am sorry if I said your beloved SAYC or beloved 2/1 are bad systems. I say this as I call what I play 2/1. But the truth is, polish club or some other artificial variation will run over those systems if they are not adapted to allow allow lighter openings, and to allow more bidding on distributional hands without forcing the auction too high.

I never said that sayc and 2/1 are my beloved systems. I said that all systems have flaws, Polish Club included. I also said that that we haven't seen everything yet.

However, I strongly disagree with you (and Karen McCallum for that matter) when you claim that Polish Club or some other artificial system will run over natural systems if they are not adapted to allow lighter openings. In my world it is not a must to open 8 or 9 counts just for the sake of opening. I do not agree with your "in-and-out" theory.

2/1 is a fine system, Polish Club is a fine system, and even Standard American is a fine system if handled with care. Unlike you I am not a fan of adding convention upon convention. I think it's much more important to have systems that are widely understood by the vast majority of bridge players.

For that purpose I think a natural approach like 2/1 is better suited than any artificial system. The average bridge player can only grasp *that* much. It does not help their cause if you add loads of conventions and relays.

What good is it if you teach them to bid "correctly", if they can't play the hand? What good is it if you have a super system, if you can't defend? I am not concerned about the tiny percentage of world championship players. They will figure out what is best for them and act accordingly.

I am concerned about Mrs. Jones and Mr. Smith. For a start, I think it's imperative that they play a natural system. The more artificial it is, the more complicated it gets. I am not saying that 2/1 is easy, and I am not saying it is the best. All I am saying is that it is playable, even without hundreds of gadgets.

Consider yourself lucky if you can remember all of the gadgets you like to play, but be realistic and accept that this is not the case for 99% of the world's bridge players. They are much better off if only they can remember the basics.

You can teach most people to bid adequately, but you can't teach anyone to declare and defend if they have no flair whatsoever. Then it doesn't matter one bit if your preferred system is sayc, 2/1, Polish Club, Precision, Acol, West Bengal Standard, Moscito or Viking Club. What matters is what you and your partner are comfortable with.

Bridge is not a science, and you can't create rules for everything. That is what makes the game so exciting. Even world class players have their frequent post-mortem discussions, but these discussions are more about judgement in a particular situation rather than a system flaw.

Fred is one who repeatedly has stated that the system is not really that important. Partnership understanding and judgement are the key elements. I couldn't agree more.

Roland

[inquiry]

Walddk, on Aug 22 2005, 11:19 PM, said:

inquiry, on Aug 22 2005, 10:29 PM, said:

So to each his own. I am sorry if I said your beloved SAYC or beloved 2/1 are bad systems. I say this as I call what I play 2/1. But the truth is, polish club or some other artificial variation will run over those systems if they are not adapted to allow allow lighter openings, and to allow more bidding on distributional hands without forcing the auction too high.

I never said that sayc and 2/1 are my beloved systems. I said that all systems have flaws, Polish Club included. I also said that that we haven't seen everything yet.

However, I strongly disagree with you (and Karen McCallum for that matter) when you claim that Polish Club or some other artificial system will run over natural systems if they are not adapted to allow lighter openings. In my world it is not a must to open 8 or 9 counts just for the sake of opening. I do not agree with your "in-and-out" theory.

2/1 is a fine system, Polish Club is a fine system, and even Standard American is a fine system if handled with care. Unlike you I am not a fan of adding convention upon convention. I think it's much more important to have systems that are widely understood by the vast majority of bridge players.

For that purpose I think a natural approach like 2/1 is better suited than any artificial system. The average bridge player can only grasp *that* much. It does not help their cause if you add loads of conventions and relays.

What good is it if you teach them to bid "correctly", if they can't play the hand? What good is it if you have a super system, if you can't defend? I am not concerned about the tiny percentage of world championship players. They will figure out what is best for them and act accordingly.

I am concerned about Mrs. Jones and Mr. Smith. For a start, I think it's imperative that they play a natural system. The more artificial it is, the more complicated it gets. I am not saying that 2/1 is easy, and I am not saying it is the best. All I am saying is that it is playable, even without hundreds of gadgets.

Consider yourself lucky if you can remember all of the gadgets you like to play, but be realistic and accept that this is not the case for 99% of the world's bridge players. They are much better off if only they can remember the basics.

You can teach most people to bid adequately, but you can't teach anyone to declare and defend if they have no flair whatsoever. Then it doesn't matter one bit if your preferred system is sayc, 2/1, Polish Club, Precision, Acol, West Bengal Standard, Moscito or Viking Club. What matters is what you and your partner are comfortable with.

Bridge is not a science, and you can't create rules for everything. That is what makes the game so exciting. Even world class players have their frequent post-mortem discussions, but these discussions are more about judgement in a particular situation rather than a system flaw.

Fred is one who repeatedly has stated that the system is not really that important. Partnership understanding and judgement are the key elements. I couldn't agree more.

Roland

Further disappointed in your reply, or lack of it.

This is a discussion group "Non-natural System discusson" group, that deals with systems and bidding systems. Your discussion of "why teach people artificial systems when they cann't play. ("What good is it if you teach them to bid "correctly", if they can't play the hand? What good is it if you have a super system, if you can't defend? I am not concerned about the tiny percentage of world championship players. They will figure out what is best for them and act accordingly.")

This view is such a non-sequitor in a discussion thread dealing with bidding system question (not with playing question) as to be laughable. Who cares what you think people should learn before they learn bidding? Further, your post totally ignores the purpose of this thread, as begun by the original poster, which was to discuss why people might view 2/1 as being disadvantaged to systems like polish club. So it is unresponsive as well to that as well. But worse of all, imho, is the attitude that comes through in your post, which is that his question should have never been asked by the original poster in the first place... your view seems to be he should just go learn how to play bridge, and not worry about system... and, as you said, "I think it's much more important to have systems that are widely understood by the vast majority of bridge players." While you may feel that way, discussion bidding forums are for people who feel differently. And they have a right to explore as complicated, as rare, systems as they like. That is why there is this discussion thread in the first place.

Also your comments that "You can teach most people to bid adequately, but you can't teach anyone to declare and defend if they have no flair whatsoever." is also unrelated to the issue. As is, in fact your view about 99% people can't remember the gadgets, and the comment "I am concerned about Mrs. Jones and Mr. Smith. For a start, I think it's imperative that they play a natural system. The more artificial it is, the more complicated it gets. "

For goodness sake Roland, I remind you again this is the Non-natural system discussion. This isn't meant for Mr Smith or Mrs. Jones, it is meant for those interesting in ARTIFICAL SYSTEMS. I wonder what people would say about your response to artificial system fans who post here that come here and tell them how wrong it is for them to be interested in artificial systems, after all they can't even defend or declare?

This also isn't about 99% of the world players, this isn't about world class players. Nor is this thread about the average bridge player and concerns over loading them or oveloading them with conventions and/or relays. This thread is about a question by one member, who is curious. His post should decide the direction this thread goes, and its topic. If you want to post on why no one should ever learn anything but a natural system, then go start a thread on that.

Your latest post had only one, single concept related to the issue. Your view that the ability to open freely with 8 hcp is no big deal. Fine, that is certainly an acceptable view, and thanks for finally posting something on topic. In fact, the major problem is the wide range of one bids (even without worrying about opening with 8 hcp). Set the limit at 10, or 11, or 12. the range of opening bids is still too large. That is the problem, the ability to open lighter is a bonus (should you like to do so) if you can limit your other bids/rebids.

So let's summarize,
1) You were personally insulting to me, violation of the Rule of the site that forbids "conduct or post any material that is defamatory, abusive,... to others"
2) You post in this thread are generally off topic, with the one exception, which violates the rule of this site that says. "Keep posts on-topic"
3) Your "preaching" about people should not play artificial systems is TERRIBLY out of place in this discussion group, which is SOLEY FOR people who want to use and discusss such systems, and your posting probably violates the rule that says "Keep posts in the correct boards"

That is my third long post surround your calling me narrow-minded. I will take my narrow-mind home now and try my best to ignore further replies from you on this subject. After all, there is no room for a narrow minded person like me and presumably the other people interested in artificial bidding systems who are reading this discussion group to interact with such broad minded people like yourself who can come here and tell us we all need to learn how to play cards and bid a simple convention free natural system than worry our little minds with trying to remember terribly complex things like xyz, multi, and who knows what else. And we should listen, because your view is clearly very wide-minded.

[Walddk]

inquiry, on Aug 23 2005, 06:16 AM, said:

1) You were personally insulting to me, violation of the Rule of the site that forbids "conduct or post any material that is defamatory, abusive

I do not consider "narrow-minded" defamatory or abusive. If you think it is, feel free to delete my posts. I am not sensitive. However, since you seem offended, I apologise for hurting your feelings. That was never my intention.

Roland

[sceptic]

well, I think best way to sort out this debate is for you lads, to pick your system and favorite partner and play a 100 or 2 x 50 board match against each other and let us watch and the loser, can have a big dose of humble pie and the spectators can have a bit of fun watching and cheering on our favorite forum experts

[cf_John0]

Very well threads!

[sartaj1]

Have really enjoyed reading this thread.
Reminds me of Edward De Bono quote
"In an argument, both sides are right".

I'd like to introduce a tangent that strong club systems, in the context of highly marketed light openers, have their share of problems. For example , in Moscito, a few things i've observed

- Getting to game with balanced hands. say 12 opposite 12. The relayer makes
one strong call and then signs off. Opener doesnt always do the right thing

- Semipositives structure. Unlike natural bidding , where the semi-positive is equivalanet to a 1-over-1 response, giving a good getout cheaply.
In MOS, the resolution often occurs at the 2-level and direction and strain can get somewhat tricky

- good 19/20 opp 5 HCP or bad 6 games. There are those who will argue that
not getting to game with ordinary 19/20HCP opposite bad 6 is no big deal. But the "lets get to game every hand , if possible" school disciples , me included, will differ

[mikeh]

Ben, I have a great deal of respect for you, but I am still in Roland's camp. I am not going to address all of the points you raise, but I do want to add to my earlier post, since I think that I must have expressed myself badly, given that you claim that I support your position on 2/1.

There are many reasons why I think that any discussion of the weaknesses of 2/1, and its fate to be overtaken by another method, are erroneous. The simplest is that there is no such system as 2/1: not in the sense of a polish club, version WJ 2000 or WJ2005.

Oh, there are systems called BBO 2/1 or OKbridge 2/1: which are barebones outlines intended for pickup partnerships. There is an increasingly complex BWS, which is not really a 2/1 method anyway. And, 30 years ago, one could reasonably agree to play '2/1' based on Max Hardy's book: 5 card majors, western style. But I do not believe that there is currently a defined 2/1 system.

You expressed regret that I did not set out my preferred modifications to 2/1. That is because I do not have any!

I have not begun any serious partnership in many years by stating: 'let's play 2/1 but with these modifications'. Nor do I think that any two experts would have such a discussion when starting a serious partnership.

My discussions are always along the lines of :what nt ranges do you like? What notrump structure do you like? What is your preferred major suit structure? Do you like 1♣ or 1♦ on 4=4=3=2 hands out of range for 1N? And so on, for many hours. We exchange notes, and talk about adopting one partner or the other's pet treatments, and maybe I will accept his idea, and suggest a tweak, or vice versa. We do NOT consider our method to be 2/1: our method, or our system, is what we have agreed to play through detailed discussion. It so happens that I am a strong believer in the benefits of playing a 2/1 response by an unpassed hand as game force, but that is a tiny part of my agreed methods with serious partners.

Now, it may well be that less popular approaches are still narrowly defined, and that the great majority of Polish Club players (for example) play either WJ 2000 or WJ2005. But I am very confident that long before PC overtakes 2/1 in popularity, it will no longer be possible to sit down with the average user of the 'system' and have any clue what is going on in many auctions. The more popular the approach, the more varied will be the application. Before too long, PC will mean only that 1♣ shows various handtypes, including weak NT and 18+. Some will use light openings with it, others will insist that real PC requires ound openings. Some will fiddle with the 2-bid structure. Many will opt for differing notrump response structures, and various meanings of doubles and so on.

I am running out of time for this post: but let me echo Roland on another point. I understand that this thread deals with non-standard methods, but surely some of the users want to know reasons for NOT adopting such methods. I am (or used to be) a 'mad scientist': a systems freak. I have spent an enormous amount of time working on systems. But my advice to 80% of players who try to do the same, is that their energy would far better be spent learning the game, rather than an esoteric method. Unless you can already play and defend at a true expert level (and few can, notwithstanding the number of on-line experts), don't worry about methods too much. Find one that your partner can learn and that neither of you forget, and learn to play better. It is always astounding to see how many players play fancy methods while revealing, through their choice of bids and cards, how little they know of the basics.

[luis]

kvetcher, on Aug 22 2005, 09:57 PM, said:

Quote

2/1 is better than SAYC so it's not horrible, just bad.
Among the many problems of 2/1 is the "Luis endplay" situation that no single 2/1 lover ever solved.

1♠ - 2♦
3♦ -

Where have you been Luis?

This "problem" was solved a long time ago - stick around for the miracle cure to the "Luis Endplay" situation

BTW did you invent this "situation?"

Over 3♦

a) With ♥ stop Responder bids 3♥ with ♥ stop but NO ♣ stop
(else 3NT)

b)With NO ♥ stop Resp bids 3♠ showing EITHER

1) 3 card Spade support
OR
2) ♣ stop but NO ♥ stop

Opener assumes 2) and bids 3NT with ♥ stop

Responder either passes with 2) or corrects to 4♠ with 1)

Quote

I will agree this is not the worst problem of 2/1, 

Its not exclusively a 2/1 Problem!

ALL systems including Polish ♣ have a problem when, by virtue of the suit ranks or opposition intervention, bidding space is curtailed

Quote

Just some quick thoughts, I can be right I can be wrong

I can even change my mind soon.

there's hope for us all then!



kvetcher

Do you recognize that what you say is a complete nonsense?
If 3♥ asks for a heart stopper then what about clubs? Are you going to play 3NT with xxx and xx in clubs or are you going to play 4♠ in the 5-2 fit with AKx and Qx of clubs ? You just can't do it, invent whatever you want but you are trully endplayed in the bidding.

Luis

[the hog]

This has been a most interesting thread, and I hope no one finds the need to censor it.

My take:

Where Roland is making a HUGE error is divorcing bidding from play. Bridge is a game where you bid to a contract and then try to play the spots off the cards. You cannot divorce bidding from play. For some of us, eg Richard, Ben, myself, bidding is as much a part of the game as the actual play. Yes most systems will get you to the righ tcontract on 90% of the hands. It is the other 10% that interest many of us.
There is also the enjoyment factor - many of us enjoy bidding to an excellent game or slam unable to be reached by standard methods.

To Sartaj.
You have more experience in playing Moscito than anyon here with the exception of Hrothgar and myself. Justin and I have found that we gain huge amounts by auctions such as 1C (P) semi pos (P) 4M
Sure, we lose on a number of partscores where we play in a 5-2 M suit fit when we have a 9 card m suit fit.
Most people don't keep records, some do. I KNOW that we gain. It is also interesting that in the latest Oz Bridge Tony, (Nunn), hankers after playing Suspensor. (For those that don't know, Sartaj and Tony are members of the current Oz open team). Why? I guess because it was fun to play, as it is!

To Mikeh:

Why continually say "with a pick up pd...." Serious players play in a regular pd with a large number of agreements - and again this is where Roland is wrong. This is not about Mr & Mrs Jones. Sure you might play in a pick up partnership if you are bored. However do you play with a pup in a state selection event? I doubt it! Don't talk about methods played in a random or semi random partnership.

Roland and I had a big argument some time ago about an auction
1C (P) 1x (P)
1S
I stated that this shows an unbalanced hand - (well at least 4-4 in the blacks, probably 5-4) - and to bid otherwise labels you as a beginner. Roland took great umbridge at that comment, incidentally a comment by which I still stand. The fact is that not one good pair that I know of would play it that way, yes, pups might. What does all this prove? Not much apart from the fact that a good partnership has heaps of agreements - agreements that work for THEM. Do any of you know any top partnesrhip that plays vanilla 2/1 or sayc? In fact, what is vanilla 2/1?

Roland is also wrong when looking at trends in strong events. Itis a fact that lobs are becoming more and more common. Bridge is increasingly a bidder's game. The problem arises with how to deal with these lobs as a responder.

Ron

[Walddk]

inquiry, on Aug 23 2005, 06:16 AM, said:

Further, your post totally ignores the purpose of this thread, as begun by the original poster, which was to discuss why people might view 2/1 as being disadvantaged to systems like polish club. So it is unresponsive as well to that as well. But worse of all, imho, is the attitude that comes through in your post, which is that his question should have never been asked by the original poster in the first place... your view seems to be he should just go learn how to play bridge, and not worry about system.

They are your words, not mine. I actually find the discussion natural vs. artificial systems very interesting, otherwise I wouldn't have responded in the first place. Never did I say that this question should never have been asked.

"There is no right and there is no wrong in my opinion. The simplest of system may be superior to some, because the risk of a major disaster is bigger the more complicated your system is. You can bid to the right contract by using simplified methods too".

This is how I started even before your first post appeared, and I haven't changed my mind since. I prefer natural methods to artificial systems, but I am not saying that any system is unplayable or almost unplayable.

That is your conclusion regarding sayc and 2/1. Perhaps not the best approach before you sit down to play one of those systems (which you play quite frequently online according to yourself). Feel free to disagree with me. That is why we are having this debate. If we all agreed, there would be no need for this Forum.

Roland

[awm]

"Simplicity" is an interesting thing.

In fact, standard american is a very complicated system. You're frequently forced to make artificial temporizing bids in order to create a forcing auction. There are many very simple sequences where it's unclear whether the auction is even forcing, such as 1♠-2♣-3♣ or 1♠-2♥-2NT. Of course some of this is that the "system" is not well defined, but even among expert partnerships playing standard (go back 20 years and there were a bunch, there are fewer now) you see some very interesting auctions where responder refused to support opener until the third or fourth round of bidding because of the necessity of creating a force. Playing standard also requires understanding a lot of basically "artificial" concepts like fourth suit forcing and reverses (including reverses into three card suits).

Two-over-one is in some ways a simpler system. Yes, there are disagreements about things like whether 1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠ shows two spades or three, and whether 1♥-2♣-2♥ shows six. But you're not likely to find 2/1 game force players disagreeing that both those auctions are forcing! Among "standard" players you will get a number of opinions on the first sequence, ranging from "nonforcing preference on doubleton" to "three-card limit raise" to "game forcing agreement of suit." This is why I stand by my statement that while delicate slam investigations are often impossible in a pickup partnership, at least 2/1 GF (with no further discussion) will generally save you from the embarrasment of playing a partscore with 28 hcp.

Precision is in some sense a simpler system yet. You don't have to worry about how to show the big hand, because you show it at bid one. In many cases you can produce auctions that are more natural, because you don't need to make up bids in order to create a force. There are actually a number of people (okay mostly math/science-oriented people) who found bridge very confusing until someone showed them precision!

Anyways, it's interesting that some people want to classify systems as "simple and natural" versus "artificial and complicated." Thousands of Polish players play polish club, and seem to consider it a "natural" system. I'm not really sure how a strong artificial 2♣ opening became the "simple, natural" way!

[Free]

sceptic, on Aug 23 2005, 06:31 AM, said:

well, I think best way to sort out this debate is for you lads, to pick your system and favorite partner and play a 100 or 2 x 50 board match against each other and let us watch and the loser, can have a big dose of humble pie and the spectators can have a bit of fun watching and cheering on our favorite forum experts

This is not a good way to sort out this debate. Most matches aren't won because of the system, but sometimes the system can help a lot. If it was all about the system, every top pair would be playing Fantunes: field protection and a worldchampion system . So putting 2 pairs on a 100 board match won't sort out which system is better, but on the given boards it will usually bring out the best playing/defending pair. Just on some occasions one system will just beat the other pair, and it's always nice to have these moments and cruise along when they don't occur.

This is one of the reasons why I love MOSCITO: when you have exceptional hands together, you'll be able to find it out with lots of accuracy (it wouldn't be the first time we bid 7♥ with 26HCP together). When you get normal hands, you'll end up in playable contracts, maybe losing and winning an imp from time to time. But it's not a system for beginners: it will get you in 'playable partscores' a lot, which means you still have to play good to get your results. If you screw up, you'll lose at least 5 imps...

To get back to topic (and keep the list short):
- Sayc is a standard system, created for the masses. Jump with strong hands, stay low with weak, pass with nothing,...
- To have a better system, you'll need to bid more/better slams. Bidding games is easy, but slams is sometimes a challenge. 2/1 has a lot of advantages towards slam, so it's an improvement.
- Imo Polish Club is even more designed towards slambidding, so yes it might be better.
- Relay systems are perfect for slambidding

From sayc to relays, you get better slamtools, but the systems become more complicated as well. So I think it's just a tradeoff between quality and complexity. The way the masses will play, will depend on how complex they allow the system to be...

[Echognome]

Agree that a match would not be a good way to compare systems, but a bidding challenge might be. It would have to be over a lot of boards and with some competitive bidding thrown in on a large percentage of the boards, but would be interesting. Of course, it would be better if you had roughly equally skilled players so that the bidding judgments were close enough.


As per Free's comments that "relay systems are perfect" for slam bidding, I will have to disagree with the 'perfect' part of that statement for the following reasons:

1) In the uncontested auction, you may find on some hands that certain asking bids work better than relays. I know that denial cuebids and slam points etc work well, but sometimes you run out of room. Perhaps it's just a matter of definition and you might consider asking bids to be a type of relay, so fair enough.

2) In the contested auction, you may find that beginning with a strong club will leave you at a disadvantage to finding a slam than playing a more natural system.

Note that I'm not saying that relays are inferior in any way, just that I disagree that they are necessarily the epitome of slam bidding.