[Free]

Well actually I oversimplified the list Relays give you a very relaxed and controlled bidding, but we know why we use 2 slam methods (denial cues is one, low level RKC with CAB's is the other) instead of 1...

[hrothgar]

I'd like to point out that the proposed challenge match between different bidding systems has already happened (and I'm NOT talking about the "Swatting the MOSCITOs" match)

Requirements for a minimum strength opening bid have been progressively lighter over the course of decades. Consider the minimum strength required for 1 level openings playing Roth-Stone or Blue Club and compare this with modern Precision styles. Equally significant, the regulatory authorities are contiually forced to intervene to "protect" standard methods. I can't recall many strong pass pairs claiming that Romex needs to be banned because the system disrupts their style of play...

As I noted before, I don't think that there is a transative relationship between bidding systems. I beleive that the long term equilibirum is a hodge-podge consisting of multiple systems balancing each other (think of the bridge equivalent to the human digestive system). With this said and done, I do think that the existing state is highly unstable and that many of the problems that regulators are encountering is occuring because theyare trying to shield an unstable mono-culture from necessary change.

[geller]

In all of the example auctions cited above on this page the opponents were silent. If the opponents never bid the best system is probably precision, or something like that. But what happens when you open 1♣ (16+, any) and next hand bids 4♠? Now you'd better have pretty good judgment!

I don't really think you can decide which system is "best" (a pretty silly argument anyway in view of all the different systems that have been used over the years by champions) anyway. What seems more important is, whatever system you do use, to have well-worked out agreements with your partner about as many sequences (especially competitive ones) as possible.

[inquiry]

geller, on Aug 23 2005, 08:14 AM, said:

I don't really think you can decide which system is "best" (a pretty silly argument anyway in view of all the different systems that have been used over the years by champions) anyway. What seems more important is, whatever system you do use, to have well-worked out agreements with your partner about as many sequences (especially competitive ones) as possible.

This is very true. But the question posed was "what is wrong with 2/1?" In deciding what system is best for yourself, a listing of the advantages and disadvantages of "systems" is important. You hit on the main flow with strong club systems, 1♣ doesn't do much towards expressing where your values are on the vast majority of the 16-20 point hands (do you have long spades? Long hearts? Some two suiter? balanced?). This is why I suggested the advantage of these systems over 2/1 is when they don't open 1♣.

2/1 is hampered by the wide range one bids, this is why people have invent kludges (ok, conventions) to deal with the strong hands. Things like Ingberman over reverses where opener can issue a "game forcing" reverse that is not game forcing because responder can try to cancel this game force using 2NT. And opener if he likes (with a really strong hand), can void his partner's cancellation of the "game force" of the reverse and conventionally insist upon game.

Things like xzy convention so responder cand force to game without jumping in a non-existent suit, at the cost of being able to signoff in two clubs.

I don't consider Ingberman over reverses or xyz as part of 2/1. People who play these (and artificial additions) are not playing 2/1, they are playing what Mikeh called in his reply to me in this thread above "their own system". (His actual words were "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."

And he is right, the experts tweak "their system" based upon 2/1, with such additions as Ingbermann, xyz, Good/bad 2NT, jacoby 2NT, Bergen raises, fit jumps without competition, and many more. The reason is because an agreement to play 2/1 and that is it, is as I stated, is almost unplayable. It is the choice of the tweaks (the personal preferences if you like) that allow it to become competetive. And it is the identification of "holes" (things you don't like) in any system, that allows you to pick not only between systems, but also between 'tweaks" to add to solve defects you view that exist in the systems. So while Mike again states he disagrees with me, I take his reply as agreeing with me, we just are using different semantics to express a similar view.

Even if Mike disagrees with this my view that there is more agreement than disagreemeint between our two positions, his post are done without being insulting and by moving the discussion of weakness/streths of 2/1 forward n a positive way. This after all, is the topic of this thread (compare polish to 2/1, and possible reasons why in one experts opinions --- not mine, bur rahter Karen McCallum) that 2/1 is lacking. My assault on 2/1 has to be taken in perspective, I play 2/1, I call my system 2/1, I use a (semi-) forcing response of 1NT, and my 2/1's are GF (other than drury). But I think there is one big advantage of limited opening systems over 2/1 and I addressed what I thought it was, and why. So people could stop and say, yes, this is a problem, or no, I like the wide range of opening bids of 2/1, what the heck is he talking about.

And your point about competitive auctions is also right on the money. The wide ranging opening bids in 2/1 cause even more problems in competitive auctions than when opponents are passing.

[david_c]

ArcLight, on Aug 22 2005, 06:48 PM, said:

1) What is so terrible about 2/1?  Why is it good that it die off?

2) Or is Polish Club a wonderful system?

Ben makes the point that light opening bids work better with Polish Club than with 2/1. While this is certainly true, I don't think this is the main benefit of Polish Club.

First of all, I don't think 2/1 is a terrible system at all. If Polish Club does have an edge over 2/1, then the difference is only very small - certainly much smaller than other factors which determine the outcome of a bridge match. Nevertheless, if there is a slight advantage for one system over then other, then you would expect the better system to gain in popularity, at least at expert level.

The reason I like Polish Club is that I think "short club" methods have an edge over "better minor". The most obvious place where this gains is that the 1♦ opening bid can promise 4 cards. But personally I think the most important gain is when opener has a balanced hand too strong for a 1NT opening. Polish Club opens these 1♣, even if they contain 4 diamonds. This handles these strong balanced hands very well. For example, if partner responds in a major suit, we have the useful 1♣:1M,2♦ sequence. Also the bidding will often go 1♣:1♦,1NT in Polish Club, compared to 1x:1y,2NT in 2/1 which is dangerous if the response was a stretch. Finally, if opener has 20 HCP or more, then you would open 2NT or 2♣ in 2/1, but you can open 1♣ in Polish Club, which is vastly superior. [Another benefit of opening 1♣ with 18+ balanced is that you free up the sequence 1♦:1M,2NT, which helps to deal with various hand types that cause problems in 2/1.]

Once you have added strong balanced hands to 1♣, it then makes a lot of sense to play 1♣ as forcing. Having done that, you can then consider whether you want to add other strong hands into 1♣. But even if you don't do this, the system is still an improvement on 2/1 in my opinion.

[glen]

inquiry, on Aug 23 2005, 12:57 PM, said:

I don't consider Ingberman over reverses or xyz as part of 2/1. People who play these (and artificial additions) are not playing 2/1 ... the experts tweak "their system" based upon 2/1, with such additions as Ingbermann, xyz, Good/bad 2NT, jacoby 2NT, Bergen raises, fit jumps without competition, and many more. The reason is because an agreement to play 2/1 and that is it, is as I stated, is almost unplayable. It is the choice of the tweaks (the personal preferences if you like) that allow it to become competetive. And it is the identification of "holes" (things you don't like) in any system, that allows you to pick not only between systems, but also between 'tweaks" to add to solve defects you view that exist in the systems.

One also needs "tweaks", or follow-up conventions, in Polish Club, Precision, Canape, etc. Try playing all natural responses and rebids to 1♣ Polish Club or Precision - that is no more negative 1♦ response to 1♣ etc. - one would be writing that these systems are "almost unplayable". All systems need some tweaks, and comparing a tweak-less framework to other tweaked systems is not a fair comparison.

So assuming one is allowed a fair share of tweaks, 2/1 is not "almost unplayable", or even anywhere close to that statement.

Somewhat repeating from previous threads covering much the same ground, partnerships are best to play the methods they are most comfortable with, tweaking over time as it works for them. Most commonly used methods are playable (as proven by common use), and the possible gains from theoretically better methods and/or complex tweaks do not provide sufficient compensation for taking a partnership out of its comfort zone.

[inquiry]

officeglen, on Aug 23 2005, 10:17 AM, said:

inquiry, on Aug 23 2005, 12:57 PM, said:

I don't consider Ingberman over reverses or xyz as part of 2/1. People who play these (and artificial additions) are not playing 2/1 ... the experts tweak "their system" based upon 2/1, with such additions as Ingbermann, xyz, Good/bad 2NT, jacoby 2NT, Bergen raises, fit jumps without competition, and many more. The reason is because an agreement to play 2/1 and that is it, is as I stated, is almost unplayable. It is the choice of the tweaks (the personal preferences if  you like) that allow it to become competetive. And it is the identification of "holes" (things you don't like) in any system, that allows you to pick not only between systems, but also between 'tweaks" to add to solve defects you view that exist in the systems.

One also needs "tweaks", or follow-up conventions, in Polish Club, Precision, Canape, etc. Try playing all natural responses and rebids to 1♣ Polish Club or Precision - that is no more negative 1♦ response to 1♣ etc. - one would be writing that these systems are "almost unplayable". All systems need some tweaks, and comparing a tweak-less framework to other tweaked systems is not a fair comparison.

So assuming one is allowed a fair share of tweaks, 2/1 is not "almost unplayable", or even anywhere close to that statement.

Somewhat repeating from previous threads covering much the same ground, partnerships are best to play the methods they are most comfortable with, tweaking over time as it works for them. Most commonly used methods are playable (as proven by common use), and the possible gains from theoretically better methods and/or complex tweaks do not provide sufficient compensation for taking a partnership out of its comfort zone.

I think we can agree that

1C - 1D negative is part of most strong club systems (yes some use 1H as real negative, others use 1D as only positive), but the meaning of 1D is defined.

In precision and polish club, the natural rebids that flow after 1S/1H/1D are much easier and need little real tweaking. The reason being these opening bids are very narrowly defined. Now do people start tweaking, well sure. But when playing "2/1" your auction'


1D - 1H
1NT - 2D

and responder has a diamond void, that is not 2/1. Nor is,

1D - 1H
2S - 2NT

Where 2NT rebidder is very weak plans on passing 3D if given a chance.

Now, Mikeh calls such "tweaks" not really 2/1, but "own system". Indeed such tweaks is what I do to 2/1 (as many as partner can stand). It is the necessity of these tweaks that make 2/1 "almost unplayable" (try to find a world class top pair that does not have at least three or more such artificial tweaks). My dicussion in this thread deals with what I view as the problem with "2/1" that makes it almost unplayable and the tweaks I use to compensate for this weakness. I DO in fact play 2/1, my preferred system is 2/1 (having given up precision and others), but I have tweaked it to make it "fully playable", at least to my taste. I think what you and others are saying 2/1 is tweaked too, without admitting that the basic system that would be defined as two over one if you looked it up in Bridge Encyclopedia is flawed. Call it special auction discussion and agreements, call it added on conventions, call it "what the pro;s play", 2/1 has to have cutomization, to make it "sexy" and fully functional.

In fact, your statement, "So assuming one is allowed a fair share of tweaks, 2/1 is not "almost unplayable", or even anywhere close to that statement." is exactly my point. Once Tweaked to fix with specialized agreements, 2/1 is fine.... that is exactly what I do (maybe to a larger extent than most). And that is what mikeh says he does, and now you too. I consider us in agreement on this issue, as this is entirely the point of 2/1 is almost unplayable... you have to "fix" it to suit your style. While apparently few (other than luis and me and mike777 to a degree) seem unable or unwilling to discuss what tweeks might be useful and what problems these tweaks fix.

I find it amazing people are willing to defend 2/1 by taking issue with my statement that it is almost unplayable, then turn around and say things like they customize 2/1, but never address what types of customization they use and why it is necessary. How can a useful exhange of ideas move forward without a discussioin of the basics? Take Roland, he quoted fred as favoring a natural system, but ignored freds choices for 1m-2m and 1D-2C follow ups. Clearly fred must think the normal 2/1 schedule after these bids is insufficient, so he "tweaked" those auctions. I know why he did, I know the problems he is addressing, and I know his solution is better. So I adopted his version (which was slightly different from what I was playing). How useful would it have been to have replied to the question about inverted minors or 1D-2C with some non-specific response like, "the normal methods are lacking, but you could modify it them if you want". Or, 2/1 is fine, although with some partners I ahve non-traditional agreements.

Who could challenge their own views and consider new ideas when people will not discuss the issues?

[glen]

inquiry, on Aug 23 2005, 03:16 PM, said:

But when playing "2/1" your auction'


1D - 1H
1NT - 2D

and responder has a diamond void, that is not 2/1.

So using 1xyz cannot be considered to be part of 2/1, but

1C - 1D
1NT - 2D

and responder has a diamond void, that is Precision (1♦ is negative, 2♦ is a transfer)?

Its not fair to compare tweak-less with the tweaked just to try to establish an "almost unplayable" argument.

[mike777]

"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."

I see this sort of post all the time but is it really true?
I have asked this before but never gotten a clear answer.

If we assume 25 million bridge players, or pick some other number if you have better stats then:

1) How many long term, over one year "regular pd with a large number of agreements" play in a state selection event?
2) How many under one year pards win them?

A*We hear in USA often hear of new partnerships winning
B* We hear in USA often hear of pickup expert partnerships winning
c* Just how many long term partnerships wih large number of agreements are there? 2000 pairs? 5000 pairs worldwide?

It seems I hear more often about long term partnerships not playing with each at many Nat events then playing together but I am only speculating.

[Walddk]

inquiry, on Aug 23 2005, 05:16 PM, said:

I find it amazing people are willing to defend 2/1 by taking issue with my statement that it is almost unplayable, then turn around and say things like they customize 2/1, but never address what types of customization they use and why it is necessary. How can a useful exhange of ideas move forward without a discussioin of the basics? Take Roland, he quoted fred as favoring a natural system, but ignored freds choices for 1m-2m and 1D-2C follow ups. and consider new ideas when people will not discuss the issues?

I don't ignore anything Fred is saying, because I (also) respect him as a world class bridge player. I think it's fair to say that you are a systems freak, Ben, and I have no problems with whatever gadget you prefer to play in your favourite system (with Misho if my memory serves me correctly).

One thing is that you don't care about what my views are (I can live with that), but what I did hope, however, was that Fred's posts make an impression. Let me give you this quote from a post of his on May 29, 2005:


I have absolutely no idea if the basic system (5-card majors, 2/1 GF, strong notrumps) is "better" or "worse" than any other basic system. Furthermore I have no idea how one would even try to go about demonstrating something like this. I choose play this system, not because I think it gives me a competitive advantage in and of itself, but because I am comfortable with it (and I believe that this is far more important than what methods we actually use).

<snip>

Some time during the past year I played a team of young players during the first round of a Spingold or Vanderbilt. One of the pairs on this team showed up at the table with a thick binder filled with hundreds of pages of system notes that described their highly artificial and complex system. They had plenty of "pre-alerts" and used several conventions that I had never heard of. Although I had never met these 2 before, they were obviously very bright and had put a great deal of time and effort into developing their bidding system.

I played 48 of the 64 boards of this match against this pair.

The approximate number of IMPs they won through "system truimphs": 0

The approximate number of boards in which they forgot their system, had misunderstandings in auctions in which their system was not in play, or learned the hard way that their were massive holes in their system: 10

The approximate number of IMPs they lost as a result: 100

The approximate number of IMPs they lost through stupid mistakes and poor judgment: 150

I have seen this sort of thing happen time and time again. Talented young players who devote their time and energy to developing systems and do not know how to win a trick lose and lose and lose. Most of these people are so emotionally attached to their systems that they never see why they are losing. They are almost always Flight-B players for life.

And just to make it clear so that no misunderstanding should be possible. No offence intended!

Roland

[mike777]

officeglen, on Aug 23 2005, 10:38 AM, said:

inquiry, on Aug 23 2005, 03:16 PM, said:

But when playing "2/1" your auction'


1D - 1H
1NT - 2D

and responder has a diamond void, that is not 2/1.

So using 1xyz cannot be considered to be part of 2/1, but

1C - 1D
1NT - 2D

and responder has a diamond void, that is Precision (1♦ is negative, 2♦ is a transfer)?

Its not fair to compare tweak-less with the tweaked just to try to establish an "almost unplayable" argument.

XYZ is written up in every major 2/1 book.

In fact most of these conventions discussed in this forum are written up only in 2/1 books in English World.

Of course I can ask what the heck is 2/1 system but in USA it has basically become what ever someone calls Standard.
Including KS or eastern Scientific or Western Scientific or elements of Roth Stone. Weak nt, strong nt, 14-16 nt etc etc?

KS players please do not write me.....I know KS is KS but how many of top 1000 pairs play it and call it that?

[luis]

I love the topic, it's complex and it has many many facets.
We'll never reach a settlement about what system is best or about how good each system is.
For every partnership there's one base system that is best for them and the longer they work in their agreements, style and treatments the better they are. The best pairs in the world can play very different systems but they all have a great amount of work in their system: competitive auctions, special sequences, dealing with intervention, forcing pass situations etc etc. So even if it's not written I think there is a huge book of system for every good pair even if the base is 2/1
Polish club, SAYC or 2/1 are not really bidding systems but "base systems" that you can adopt to build over them. The longer you work on what you build the more chances you have to get an edge in some auction over your opponents that haven't worked as hard as you.
If your opponents play a strange system then their system becomes part of your system since you have to deal with the auctions where they open the bidding before you or when they enter the auction with some special treatment, so as more systems are played you need more hours of work to deal with them.
It's more about how much you work than what base system you use.

[inquiry]

Mike777, to be fair to officeglen, he was quoting me... on the xyz...

I consider xyz a tweak to 2/1 not part of 2/1. If you play xyz, then you play a modified (not off the shelf) 2/1. IF you consider mike Lawrences 2/1 off the shelf (well you can buy the CD from Fred, so it could be sitting on your shelf), that is not the system I am talking about being almost unplayable. It is a well thought out group of gadgets and gizzmo;s. Perhaps if you read it, you might think it was unplayable (too taxing on the brain), but that is not what I meant when I said unplayable. The most complicated system in the world, that no one can remember would be "unplayable" from a memory stand point, but isn't what i meant. What I meant was the need the add gidgets and gadgets to make the system palatablle. Mike Lawrence does a fine job.

Some of the gadgets are becoming standard, xyz or at least nmf. But who decides standard. If you sat down with this agreement "2 over 1", would you assume xyz with no futher discussion? I assure you on BBO, you had better not.

But it is the addition of such things that make 2/1 playable. Since others like to add convention cards, take a look at Zia's and Rosenburgs.. they don't bother callign theirs 2/1 (naming it 5 card majors with semi-force 1NT) http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files...nberg+notes.pdf but this is tweaking to the extreme, the cc runs 7 pages. Note this isn't their system, just their convention card.

[keylime]

Now that I am here in Baltimore and playing in a reg. 2/1 style p'ship, I can appreciate Ms. McCallum's comments in the full.

Not only do I agree with her wholeheartedly, but strongly feel that 2/1 is hurting more than helping most players. Just from this weekend's slate of three games (2 of which I won) I had so many accidents it wasn't funny.

Case 1:

1H-1S
2D-3C* (FSF)
3D-3NT
4H

You're playing with a great partner, highly skilled. She has expertly bid her hand to show the x-6-5-x shape. You hold the following cards:

AQxxxx KT QTx Kx.

Hmmmm slam looks sharp on the double fit. You trot out 5NT and this train wreck happens:

...-5NT (meant as pick-a-slam)
7H! all pass

Oops, off 3. 6D is ice. 5NT to lovely pard was GSF. Eek.

Case 2:

Different game, same pard. You're struggling to get out of the blocks and then get dealt a weak two in hearts. It goes:

2H-2NT*(Ogust)
3D*(good suit, bad hand)-6H

Oops. Down 1. 6C is ice cold even with the 4-2 heart break (A oppo KQ9xxx). Pard's hand was: A KJT9 Axx AKQxx. Tough when new suits are NF.

Does that mean pard was not on the ball? No. Pard is a 4000mp GLM with Blue Ribbon Quals. What it does mean is there are many different flavors of 2/1 instead of a unified standard like WJ2005.

I've noticed that living now on both coasts of the continent that the regionalized favorites are very prevalent. In Nanaimo (Vancouver Island) Brozel was popular. Here in Maryland, a lot of Flannery users.

I actually like SAYC better than 2/1 for most partnerships, just because maybe 12 out of 100 actually play 2/1 correctly most of the time.

[glen]

Keylime, in Cases 1 and 2, are you saying the blame is on 2/1, and these problems would not happen if playing sayc, or are you saying that partnership agreements are necessary if playing any system?

[glen]

keylime, on Aug 23 2005, 04:29 PM, said:

What it does mean is there are many different flavors of 2/1 instead of a unified standard like WJ2005.

There are also many flavors of Polish Club, WJ2005 being just one of them, and there are unified standards of 2/1 like Bridge World Standard and Kokish/Kraft's Modern American Bidding.

[Walddk]

I honestly can't see how this has anything to do with which system you play. Blame the disasters on 2/1? I don't buy that. In both cases the approach is a matter of agreements within the system, not the system itself.

Why a new suit by responder in "case 2" is non-forcing after a weak two I don't understand. Then there is something wrong with your agreements, not the 2/1 system.

Roland

[mikeh]

Okay, while I still argue that we are talking apples and oranges here, I will set out some of the tweaks I use to customize my preferred method. I am only touching on the tip of the iceberg here, since proper system construction requires discussion of many, many sequences.

My most preferred methods incorporate extensive and complex relays. They are amazingly effective but only one partner of mine ever wanted toplay them (he invented them, so that explains his interest). He has (temporarily, I hope) retired from bridge.

Leaving that aside (and it requires a rethink of virtually all aspects of the method, because of the inferences arising from NOT relaying), my preferred tweaks include but are not limited to:

1. Opening 1♣ on 4=4=3=2
2. Variable NT openings, based on position and vulnerability: currently 11-13 1st and 2nd nv and 14-16 otherwise
3. Not up the line: thus 1♣ 1♦ 1Major promises unbalanced hand: 1N rebid may have major length: merely confirms balanced hand pattern
4. Modified puppet over 2N openings (as per Kokish: combines smolen and puppet)
5. 5 card majors 1st and 2nd, 4 card majors 3rd and 4th
6. 1♥ response to 1♦ opening may be 3 cards
7. two way drury, with detailed followups
8. rubensohl over interference of our 1N
9. Transfer weak/strong jump shifts over 1♣ opening: 1♣ - 2♦ shows ♥, either weak or strong, with detailed followups (2♥ is same, in ♠)
10. detailed agreement on a major weakness in 2/1 or SAYC (or any natural system): the sequence 1♦ 2♣.. what do opener's rebids show?
11. lots of specialized doubles
12. suction over notrump by opps or strong openings
13. Kickback, and exclusion and 2-suit keycard
14. Ingerberman over reverses
15. after a 1Major opening, if opener jumpshifts to 3♣, it is multi-purpose (Jeff's magic elixir)
16. two way new minor, with detailed structure
17. transfers after constructive 2N rebids
18. bad-good 2N
19. transfer advances of our overcalls
20. transfer responses after they make a takeout double of our 1 of a suit opening
21. modified jacoby 2N major raise
22. detailed minor raise structure
23. asking bids in some specific sequences
24. 2♥ opener is multi if nv
25. 2♠ opener, nv, is weak, 5+♠ and 4+ minor
26. Kokish relay after 2♣ 2♦
27. 2♥ immediate second negative over 2♣: specialized positive responses


I have spent almost no time on this list, despite its length, and you will see almost no detail. I would expect that just these topics would take hours to discuss before one could comfortably play them: indeed I have notes on all of them: many pages.

And this ignores style discussion: hand evaluation principles such as losing trick count; who stretches ( for me, the player making an invitational bid should have full values, and partner should accept on any excuse), defensive carding and tendencies, captaincy issues, especially in competitive auctions where we may anticipate the opps taking a save, and on and on.

But many of these topics have nothing to do with a named, specified system. They are matters that would have to be discussed whether I claimed to play 2/1, Polish Club, Precision, Acol etc.

The problem is, as I have tried to say earlier, that we are confusing the concept of '2/1' with the notion that there is some kind of 'vanilla 2/1'. 2/1 is a catchall phrase, which covers a multitude of possible methods. Polish Club, on the other hand, is (from what I can gather, having opposed it many times but never having studied it) a fairly well-defined method, with (so far) few variants. But even in PC, as it becomes more developed, we are seeing distinct variants: hence we now have WJ2005 whereas until recently I was seeing reference to WJ2000.

As basic approaches become more developed, and more widely used, so will they become more subject to partnership discussion, to the point that two experts sitting down together for the first time will not be able simply to say: let's play 'insert name of system'. 2/1 has been around for 30+ years and it is a sign of its basic strength (as well as of its flaws) that it is both the most common method in online bridge, and in North American events, and the most difficult to define.

Finally, as to why I refer to pick up partnerships: that seems to me to be the norm in online bridge:)

I do have a binder of notes that make up an extremely complex and fully defined 'system': it is hundreds of pages in length and discusses just about everything, starting with basic philosophy issues. I suspect that many expert partnerships have similar material, to one degree or another. I gather, for instance, that Meckwell Precision comprises more than 600 pages of notes.

[mycroft]

1) Primarily because of the "what is 2/1" issue - not only does nobody play it "out of the book", there's two "books" at least, and who knows Book Hardy well enough to play it anyway (I know I certainly don't, and I've read it a number of times, and that's the style of 2/1 I am comfortable with) - I would prefer to play Basic Precision to Basic 2/1 with a pickup partner, provided I could find one who can play it. Not because it's any better, just that I have a lot less to discuss (pretty much anyone who plays Precision could play out-of-the-box Wei/Goren or Wei/Reese Precision just by saying those words; questions of 4=3=1=5 is 2C or 2D and 1NT is 13-15 or 14-16 are quick, "yes/no" ones).

It used to be - before I started playing 2/1 - that you could go to the partnership desk, agree 2/1, and pretty much know what you were doing. Now, you can't (as keylime showed above); agreeing 2/1 just opens up the number of questions you have to ask.

I played Precision with a pickup partner one night, and a moderate player asked me how I could explain, with such clarity, auctions like 1C-1D; 1H-2H; (then I bid 4H) and 2C-2D; 2S-3S. After all, the man was Chinese with very limited English (and I have *no* Cantonese), and we'd had 5 minutes to discuss system. Simple - all the agreements are there in the Book, and I can count on him to have read the Book.

So for pickups, I agree with the people who believe that playing a well-promoted "standard" system, totally (or 5-minutes-ally) untweaked, will pay off, and there just isn't one for 2/1. SAYC is a minefield, as nobody actually plays it, either (but they think they do - they think it's modern Standard American, which it very much isn't). But (assuming I could actually play it) WJ2000, Wei Precision (or even Berkowitz's book, if you're modern), even EHAA (if anybody else plays it) will do better for me with a pickup than 2/1. I may have to rely on judgement a lot more than I would with my regular partners, but at least the judgement won't be "so, which of the two standard meanings will he think this means?"

2) No serious partnership plays an "out-of-the-box" system, no matter what system that is. Even my regular Precision partnership (where the goal was to play "out-of-the-book Berkowitz, the complicated version") have tweaked it where we're uncomfortable.

Now, a properly tweaked 2/1 is very playable. But I actually think my regular 2/1 card is *more complicated and artificial* than my Precision card, because of all the tweaks we have had to make, and chose to make. Yeah, my "strong system" is a few lines in 2/1 instead of half the system notes (Precision), and requires a *lot* less memory work, but only 1/4 or so of non-preeemptive openers are Precision club openers, whereas 3/4 of them are 1D/1M/1NT/2m, and my systems over those are miles shorter than 1x/1NT/2NT agreements in my 2/1.

For practiced partnerships, it's a matter of three things: a) how effectively do you handle the wide-ranging standard openings (versus how effectively do you handle the strong/multi-meaning 1C); b) how much damage putting all the non-fit, invitational responses into 1NT gets you, versus the benefits of your 2/1 auctions; c) you get your choice of light 1M openers and playing the spots off lots of shaky game contracts the field isn't in or sound 1M openers and wide-ranging your weak 2M openers *as well* (or keeping them sound, constructive and traditional, and paying off to the preempters in the field).

And, of course, at MPs, 1NT is the dream contract. *And nobody can play it anymore* after a 1M opener (this is a serious advantage of "Standard" standard systems; 2/1ers say that it's better to play the 6HCP 1=3=(36) in the minor, but my 2/1 partners *never* respond in a way to let me bid 2m after a forcing NT (gazilli makes it impossible to play 2m); 3m on a misfit 18 anyone?). As I said, it's no better for the K/Sers, the Precision pairs, or anyone else for that matter; which is why my regular partner in Ontario and I played "Standard Canadian, weak NTs and sound 1m bids" instead of "K/S".

As for Mr. and Mrs. J. Q. LittleOld - who we *have* to protect in the ACBL; we should protect everywhere, but not at the risk of turning Bridge into 13-card Euchre - I believe strongly that I could teach "Club Series Precision" with at least equal success to "Club Series Standard American". I don't - because they won't find anybody else to play with. Not because it's "harder" or "more complicated" or "more artificial", or because there's "more to forget"; because bridge is a social game for LOL&G, and it's not social if you can't play with anybody you want to. I would try to introduce to the Club Series information that we *are* teaching them a system that most people can play, but it isn't the only way to bid; if we taught off the top the Perl Mantra (TMTOWTDI - There's More Than One Way To Do It[1]), we'd find there's a lot fewer LOL's needing "protection from the weird stuff" in future years.

Interesting ideas, and I'm glad this has been a rational discussion.

Michael.

[1] I ran across a hand in an Appeals book a couple of days ago that amused me; with my four different regular partnerships (current and ex-) I would open 1C, 1D, 1S, and 1NT. And I would have been systemically "right" each time (guess the hand)!

[Al_U_Card]

"My brain hurts!" Professor Gumby