[glen]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 23 2005, 07:16 PM, said:

"My brain hurts!" Professor Gumby

Just give it a little tweak and it will be fine

[Al_U_Card]

officeglen, on Aug 23 2005, 02:30 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Aug 23 2005, 07:16 PM, said:

"My brain hurts!"  Professor Gumby

Just give it a little tweak and it will be fine

"A tweak? In my brain? o-o-o-o-h-h-h-h" P.G.

[keylime]

Here's what I'm saying gang.

For most casual p'ships, KISS is highly underrated. For the serious p'ships (i.e. system notes, tourneys, etc) you can break out something exotic. I've seen more unhappy players come hollering at me after the game for having me set up someone that also professed to 2/1, and they didn't have a great game.

2/1 is delicate at spots and many decent p'ships don't discuss sequences until one blows up in their face.

Case 1:

I watched these two world class players on BBO have this auction:

1S-2C
2D-3S

Opener thought that responder was showing a strong hand with concentrated values in spades and clubs. Responder thought their 3S bid was showing a hand driving to slam but general values for such. They landed in the wrong slam - six spades. Down 1. Were these two players "fakes"? Nope, both of them have won multiple NABC's and are accomplished players.

Case 2:

This example of one of my favorites on why I'm not a fan of 4NT being KC for last suit bid.

1S-2H
3D-4C
4NT

Opener meant 4NT as a place to play, mildly inviting six NT. Responder took it as KC for clubs. Off two cashing aces, down 1.

My point is: if you want to play 2/1, be willing to invest hundreds of hours in practice and system notes writing. There are many sequences where if not discussed you're going to land in subpar contracts, no matter how good the players are.

On further note, I'm going to say 8 out of 100 play 2/1 competently.

[cherdano]

Hi Ben, two comments:
1) I don't understand what your claim "2/1 needs more gadgets to become playable than other systems" has to do with the topic of this thread: Whether Polish Club (+gadgets I assume) is a better system than 2/1 (+gadgets I assume). I don't think McCallum was commenting on WJ2005 vs your vanilla 2/1.

2) I am not sure I agree with your claim that 2/1 needs more gadgets than, say, precision. In precision, after 1♣-(3♠), what does pass show, what does double show? Surely you need agreements here (more than "all doubles are takeout until we have found a fit", as works rather well in 2/1), and if you don't consider nmf part of 2/1, then I don't think you can consider agreements here to be part of precision.

I don't get your point about no world class pair playing vanilla 2/1, until you show me a top class polish club player who doesn't play some gadgets after 1x-1y-1z.

Arend

[whereagles]

I don't care about systems. I can win with any system

[inquiry]

cherdano, on Aug 23 2005, 03:44 PM, said:

1) I don't understand what your claim "2/1 needs more gadgets to become playable than other systems" has to do with the topic of this thread: Whether Polish Club (+gadgets I assume) is a better system than 2/1 (+gadgets I assume). I don't think McCallum was commenting on WJ2005 vs your vanilla 2/1.

Well this isn't exaclty my quote. What I said was "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. "

This has to deal with issues like artifical jump shifts by opener in suits he doesnt hold, reversing into non-existant suits, and responder using thing like 2NT after a reverse as an artificial way to ask opener if he REALLY had a strong hand and if not, lets stop short. In fact, jump shifts and reverses are not even forcing (at least in theory).

And the fact taht 2/1 NEEDS gadgets has everything to do with this thread. 2/1 without them is not competitive. Mikeh disagreed with me that 2/1 is almost unplayable, but then calls his and almost everyone elses 2/1 not really 2/1 but their "own system" because of the gadgets. What I did was point out the biggest flaw (imho) with 2/1 (the wide range one of suit opener) and the need for gadgets to follow help unravel. Mikeh uses Ingberman over reverses, and artifical 3♣ as magic elixir to deal with just this problem. I use Ingberman over reverses and artificial 2♣, and I throw in some additional multi-openers to remove some of the hand types as well. This is the kind of gadgets I was talking about.

Quote

2) I am not sure I agree with your claim that 2/1 needs more gadgets than, say, precision. In precision, after 1♣-(3♠), what does pass show, what does double show? Surely you need agreements here (more than "all doubles are takeout until we have found a fit", as works rather well in 2/1), and if you don't consider nmf part of 2/1, then I don't think you can consider agreements here to be part of precision.

If you note, I limited my conversation to 1♦, 1♥, 1♠ opening bid for 2/1 as it relates to gadgets. And if you read my replies in this thread, you will see I look on the 1♣ forcing bid in strong systems with some distain. I think that one bid is the weakest part of those systems. So whatever gagdets they need to deal with the weakness of their system is up to them to figure out. But you will not drag me into that one, that is one of the reason I abandoned strong club systems. But I was addressing what I view as wrong with 2/1 reply to the original question not what is wrong with Polish or other 1♣ systems (known as blue systems I think.

Quote

I don't get your point about no world class pair playing vanilla 2/1, until you show me a top class polish club player who doesn't play some gadgets after 1x-1y-1z.

Well, the point was that 2/1 has problems. These are no secret. And in fact, as several people have pointed out, a properly done up 2/1 "system" is more complicated and more expanded than most forcing club systems. Take a look at what Mikeh posted he plays, you already are familiar with some of the stuff I use. I repeat for those not paying attention, I play 2/1 modified, maybe not as much as Mikeh's btw, and I find it fine. But I thought (and still think) the point was to discuss what is wrong with 2/1 (and presumably ways to fix it). That is what the discussion about no world class pair playing vanilla 2/1 had to do with the discussion.

[mike777]

cherdano, on Aug 23 2005, 02:44 PM, said:

2) I am not sure I agree with your claim that 2/1 needs more gadgets than, say, precision. In precision, after 1♣-(3♠), what does pass show, what does double show? Surely you need agreements here (more than "all doubles are takeout until we have found a fit", as works rather well in 2/1), and if you don't consider nmf part of 2/1, then I don't think you can consider agreements here to be part of precision.

I don't get your point about no world class pair playing vanilla 2/1, until you show me a top class polish club player who doesn't play some gadgets after 1x-1y-1z.

Arend

My guess is 75% of the auctions have the opp bidding something. Judgement in,

Turns out 95% of our needed system is contested auctions, not sure if that is a bidding system or if it would be more descriptive to call it CONTESTED AUCTION BIDDING AGREEMENTS.

Most of the time we get one bid out, 1nt, strong club, etc..and we are off to the races. Perhaps call our system "ONE bid and then contested auction bidding"

[Free]

whereagles, on Aug 23 2005, 08:57 PM, said:

I don't care about systems. I can win with any system

Everyone can win with any system against a bunch of worldclass losers... Perhaps try to win at international level for once

[glen]

For Polish Club, lets compare it to the Lauria-Versace system (LV) on this sequence:

1♣ opening - 3♦ overcall - Pass - Pass - ?

In LV, we have 1♣ showing 12-14 balanced with 3+♣s or unbalanced ♣s, opening to just under game force values. So now over 3♦ followed by two passes, opener can bid:

Pass: All balanced hands

Double: Unbalanced with ♣s, short ♦s, extras

3♥/♠: Natural with longer ♣s, extras in values and/or shape, non-forcing

3NT: Long ♣s as source of tricks, ♦ stopper
etc.

---

In Polish ♣ the opening can be 18+ any, or 15+ with ♣s, or weak notrump. So now over 3♦ followed by two passes, opener can bid:

Double: Hands with no other good bid, might not have ♣s as main suit, might have hand with major or majors too strong to bid 3 of a major - how does responder know when to pass and when to bid?

3♥/♠: Natural, non-forcing, but wide ranging from 18+ - how much does responder need to bid?

3NT: To play with a variety of hands, so is system on (Stayman, transfers) and should responder bid over 3NT?

I think the LV methods are far more playable in this scenario.

[mgoetze]

Sure, 1♣-(3♠) is a problem for a casual Strong Club partnership. For an experienced partnership, not so much. Sure, sometimes you will lose out, but sometimes you will be able to punish the opponents. Say you lose out a bit more often - that's fine, it's more than adequately compensated by the gains you get when they compete over your limited openings. After a highly-defined opening like a standard precision 2♦, responder is very well placed to make accurate penalty doubles, for instance.

So, indeed, the better-defined your opening is, the better your prospects of judging accurately in competition. Strong clubbers accept one ill-defined opening (1♣) in order to improve the accuracy of all their other openings. It's simply a matter of what comes up more often - 12 HCP hands are common, 17 HCP hands not so. So you gain more often than you lose.

Incidentally, Ben stated that he considers the 22+ HCP hands a strong point for the standard systems. Well perhaps in his highly customized system, but I have found 2♣ openings a PITA in casual partnerships, because the methods are so primitive that they waste additional bidding space on top of the whole level of bidding that opening 2♣ has already taken away. 2♣-2♦-3♦-4♣ - oops, both have shown just one suit and we're already past 3NT... whereas in some relay-based strong club you'll likely have one partner's exact shape relayed out by now...

And may I point out that 2/1 GF is not a system, it's just a conventional method... I mean Meckwell Precision uses it too...

[whereagles]

I think 2/1 is very playable and precise enough, provided you discuss a couple of things with pard. (Which nobody does, which is why 2/1 gained a bad reputation...)

[kvetcher]

luis, on Aug 23 2005, 02:45 AM, said:

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)





Do you recognize that what you say is a complete nonsense?

If 3♥ asks for a heart stopper then what about clubs?



Luis

Luis

That's NOT what I wrote. (see above)

I wrote that after 1♠ - 2 ♦ ; 3♦ - ??


3♥ SHOWED a ♥ stop but denied a ♣ stop otherwise Responder would
bid 3NT

I then went on to propose what Responder bids with a ♣ stop but NO ♥ stop
( a much more difficult problem)

Perhaps you should re-read the "complete nonesense" a little more dispassionately


Kvetcher

[luis]

kvetcher, on Aug 24 2005, 02:10 PM, said:

luis, on Aug 23 2005, 02:45 AM, said:

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)





Do you recognize that what you say is a complete nonsense?

If 3♥ asks  for a heart stopper then what about clubs?



Luis

Luis

That's NOT what I wrote. (see above)

I wrote that after 1♠ - 2 ♦ ; 3♦ - ??


3♥ SHOWED a ♥ stop but denied a ♣ stop otherwise Responder would
bid 3NT

I then went on to propose what Responder bids with a ♣ stop but NO ♥ stop
( a much more difficult problem)

Perhaps you should re-read the "complete nonesense" a little more dispassionately


Kvetcher

It's the same you don't have bidding space to know if you can play 3NT or not. It's very simple.

[inquiry]

kvetcher, on Aug 24 2005, 10:10 AM, said:

luis, on Aug 23 2005, 02:45 AM, said:

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)





Do you recognize that what you say is a complete nonsense?

If 3♥ asks  for a heart stopper then what about clubs?



Luis

Luis

That's NOT what I wrote. (see above)

I wrote that after 1♠ - 2 ♦ ; 3♦ - ??


3♥ SHOWED a ♥ stop but denied a ♣ stop otherwise Responder would
bid 3NT

I then went on to propose what Responder bids with a ♣ stop but NO ♥ stop
( a much more difficult problem)

Perhaps you should re-read the "complete nonesense" a little more dispassionately


Kvetcher

I really don't like your solution to the "3NT" problem kvetcher. If I understand your view, it is that,

1S - 2D - 3D - 3S

Is either a club stopper wtihout a heart stopper, or spade support. Opener is to bid 3NT with a club stopper and beyond 3NT without one.

While this might work to seperate 3NT from 5D (or 6D) based on the lack of a club stopper, it screws up all auctions where you ahve diamonds and spade support by responder. For me, 3S is "two suit agreement" so that six keycard blackwood could apply, and responder is showing five plus diamonds, and three plus spades and game forcing hand. In addition, for me, responder also is promising a control in either clubs or hearts, and the heart control is not a singleton or void (or if it is, he lacks a club control). But forge that last little part, that is a person preference not shared by others.

If you just have to have some odd way to check for one of the others stopped, you could (I guess) use the throw away 3H here to show doubt about 3NT. Opener bids 3NT with clubs stopped over 3H, and 3S over 3NT with hearts stopped (working assumption, with spdes and diamonds, opener will have only one stopper in the side suit for NT). If opener lacks either stopper, he bids 4C with short club, and 4Didamonds otherwise. At least that way you don't screw up you hands with spade support and diamonds, and you might actually find a useful card side suit card in partners hand based upon his response. Not that I necessarily think this solution is playable, nor does it translate well to 1H-2D-3D where the bid would have to be 3S and there is not enough room for opener to give differential responses.

On the otherhand I do not view this as a amjor problem. Responder showed GF values with 2/1. Opener showed extra values with 3D raise. If 4M is not playable and if responder is balanced, he might as well shoot 3NT on most hands. They may not lead the right suit, the suit might be blocked, partner for his extra values might have a needed stopper after all, or the unstopped suit might break favoribly. And if partner is wildly distributional? He will bid again. Dont' tell anyone I said this, but science in bidding isn't everything.

[han]

Luis,

I believe that Meckwell plays 1S-2D-3C as the diamond raise, while 1S-2D-3D shows spades and clubs (similarly ovber 1S-2H and 1H-2D). You can use 3D to ask for opener's complete pattern, and use the next two steps to show stoppers in clubs/hearts (while 3NT shows both).

This is of course unrelated to the general discussion, but I thought that you might like it. I usually call it "Rodwell raise", but I don't know if he really invented it.

[Gerben42]

All this yelling about 2/1 as a system. There is no 2/1 system. There are a number of systems that use the treatment that 2/1 is GF after 1-of-a-major.

Anyway, I think that the opening structure in PC is better than in "Standard" (with this I mean a system where 1m shows 3, 1M shows 5 and 1NT is strong , this includes SAYC, BWS, Eastern Scientific, SEF, etc.)

A first improvement to the standard structure is to promise 4 cards for 1♦ (see Bocchi/Duboin or Lauria/Versace for example).

Then it seems most agree that for "standard" 2/1 GF works better than 2/1 not GF. With the Polish limited opening bids this advantage is not as large which must be why in Poland people don't play 2/1 as GF.

Another reason for the popularity increase of PC is that for ages the rest of the world didn't have much exposure to it, now with Internet bridge booming and internationalization it is bound to catch on. Also, because it is easier to play than "standard" because both players are more limited by their 1-bids, I think for most people it would be an improvement over their current methods.

P.S. I don't believe that you can look at "success of a system" by looking at what prizes were won with it. Bermuda Bowls have been won with systems that are nowadays considered bad.

[FrancesHinden]

mike777, on Aug 23 2005, 11:06 AM, said:

"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.

I don't know the full answer to this question.
However, if I look at the entry list for this year's English Trials I see that 13 teams have entered, containing

19 regular partnerships
4 non-regular partnerships (3 of them involving a sponsor)
3 pairs whose normal partnerships I personally don't know

If I look at the results from the Brighton Swiss Pairs just held, I see that of the top 10 places

7 were regular partnerships (including the winners for the second year running)
2 were pairs of experts who don't usually play with each other
1 was a pair I don't know

I'm not looking at the big teams events, because by the time you've got to the final of, say, the Gold Cup you'll be a partnership with a lot of agreements even if you didn't start out that way!

I think it possible that more fuss is made when a pickup partnership wins an event because that is considered notable. If Meckwell win the Spingold/Vanderbilt/Rosumblum that isn't considered news.

As for how many there are worldwide, I don't know. There are pairs at my club who've been playing together for 20 years, but they don't have a large number of explicit agreements.

[mike777]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 30 2005, 07:18 AM, said:

mike777, on Aug 23 2005, 11:06 AM, said:

"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.

I don't know the full answer to this question.
However, if I look at the entry list for this year's English Trials I see that 13 teams have entered, containing

19 regular partnerships
4 non-regular partnerships (3 of them involving a sponsor)
3 pairs whose normal partnerships I personally don't know

If I look at the results from the Brighton Swiss Pairs just held, I see that of the top 10 places

7 were regular partnerships (including the winners for the second year running)
2 were pairs of experts who don't usually play with each other
1 was a pair I don't know

I'm not looking at the big teams events, because by the time you've got to the final of, say, the Gold Cup you'll be a partnership with a lot of agreements even if you didn't start out that way!

I think it possible that more fuss is made when a pickup partnership wins an event because that is considered notable. If Meckwell win the Spingold/Vanderbilt/Rosumblum that isn't considered news.

As for how many there are worldwide, I don't know. There are pairs at my club who've been playing together for 20 years, but they don't have a large number of explicit agreements.

thanks for response, 26 long term pairs in 2 of the UK major events seems like a very small number if we extrapolate around the world.

A guess of 500 long term pairs in top team matches and a different 500 pairs in top pair games for USA seems on the high side. A lot of the top players play more pick up style in the pair games.

[FrancesHinden]

mike777, on Aug 31 2005, 12:01 PM, said:

Quote

I don't know the full answer to this question.
However, if I look at the entry list for this year's English Trials I see that 13 teams have entered, containing

19 regular partnerships
4 non-regular partnerships (3 of them involving a sponsor)
3 pairs whose normal partnerships I personally don't know

If I look at the results from the Brighton Swiss Pairs just held, I see that of the top 10 places

7 were regular partnerships (including the winners for the second year running)
2 were pairs of experts who don't usually play with each other
1 was a pair I don't know

I'm not looking at the big teams events, because by the time you've got to the final of, say, the Gold Cup you'll be a partnership with a lot of agreements even if you didn't start out that way!

I think it possible that more fuss is made when a pickup partnership wins an event because that is considered notable. If Meckwell win the Spingold/Vanderbilt/Rosumblum that isn't considered news.

As for how many there are worldwide, I don't know. There are pairs at my club who've been playing together for 20 years, but they don't have a large number of explicit agreements.

thanks for response, 26 long term pairs in 2 of the UK major events seems like a very small number if we extrapolate around the world.

A guess of 500 long term pairs in top team matches and a different 500 pairs in top pair games for USA seems on the high side. A lot of the top players play more pick up style in the pair games.

A very small number?
Let me re-interpret the figures I just gave you.

At least 19/26 (over 70%) of the pairs entering the trials are regular partnerships
At least 70% of the top 10 places in the Brighton Swiss pairs are regular partnerships

If we extrapolate round the world then...

I don't know what percentage of everyone playing at Brighton was a regular partnership, because after the top 50 or so places the percentage of people I don't know starts getting quite high.

I would say from my figures that a large proportion of the top UK pairs are regular partnerships (don't tell me entering the trials doesn't make you a top pair, I know it doesn't, but I think a majority of the top pairs enter).

[mikeh]

I confess I am unsure of the relevance of 'new' v 'experienced' partnerships to this thread (not intended as a criticism of any posts, but a confession that I have lost focus). However, one point that seems to be overlooked when we discuss the success of 'new partnerships' in big events, is that such 'new partnerships' are often not entirely new.

Yes, the players may never have played together before. But they may well have had partners in common, or played on the same teams, or drunk beer after the game together, while all concerned post-mortemed various hands.

An illustration, albeit at a modest level, arose in my experience a few years ago. My then regular partner and I had enjoyed a good run in the Sectionals in his home city. Thus we were neck and neck for a trophy going into the last weekend. We were committed to the team game, but decided to break up for the pairs in order that one of us would win. I played with Dan, a former regular partner of my then partner, and my partner played with Maks, a regular member of our team and, at the time, one of Dan's regular partners. I had not played with Dan for many, many years, and Maks was a new partner to my partner.

We finished, if memory serves, one-two, having spent no more than 20 minutes pre game discussing bidding methods. Why? Because we all knew each other's style, likes and dislikes and thinking process from having played with (as teammates) and against each other for years.

This is a far cry from a truly 'new partnership', and my suspicion is that most of the successful 'new pairs' have at least some of this familarity in their background.