Is there a hole in this logic?

[foo]

OMG. I did not think there was another crazy still alive who had played Churchhill style.

 

Great way to develop bidding judgement.

 

Interesting thing from my POV about Churchill was how easily it evolves into KS or Acol.

 

Another was that even when you were "light", you were light in terms of HCP, not necessarily in terms of playing strength.

[Robert]

Hi foo

 

I do not understand. Do you think that the FN system 'limits' their choice of bids and Churchill natural using much the same methods 'is a great way to develop bidding judgement?'

 

My view of Churchill Natural is that after the 'strange'(different?) methods were adopted, the bidding would often require less judgement compared to almost any other system.

 

Churchill Natural had a great many safe guards that allowed you to bid a hand and still 'limit' the range of the bid. Just responding with a simple one over one bid showed 8+HCP and started a very solid auction. Partner would rebid 1NT with a strong NT and we could take all of that bidding spade to invite game/slam.

 

Try defending a 1M-2M(8+)-4M bid and see how little information you have to defend.

 

ell our period of agreement was short lived but a happy time. :P

 

I never played Churchill natural, I have bid many hands using 'the' methods, but finding a partner that wanted to play a 40s type system just never happened. :)

 

My library has 400+ bridge books, many on systems and I have played nearly everything from forcing pass to natural bidding methods. I currently favor a Big Club system, however, I have played lots of Acol, KS, Precision, assorted Italian methods.

 

You see something in Churchill natural that it 'easily evolves into' KS or Acol?

 

Not light in playing strength? A10xxx A10xx xxx x is a Churchill one bid in 1st seat vul. all 8HCP and eight(8!) count them losers.

 

KS minor openings were very sound. The also played 99.9% five card majors. Churchill normally opened 4 card majors and opened both majors and minors with 8+HCP and a singleton.

 

Acol opened(almost always 7 or less losers if unbalanced) almost as light as Churchill, however, they limited their one bids using Acol Two bids. Churchill had no forcing opening bid in his system.

 

Acol bidding used a 'style' of bid what you think that you can make bidding style. Churchill Natural created a lot of forcing auctions at very low levels. You did not have to force to game after 1 over one suit bid plus a reverse. The one over one bid showed 8+HCP so the reverse was game forcing.

 

The utility NT would never(ever) be made in a KS/Acol style system.

Qxxxxx xx xxx xx

1C-1NT with two HCP and a six card 'unbid major' bids a non forcing 1NT in Churchill Natural.

 

Regards,

Robert

[foo]

I think F & N designed F-N to have very constructive 1 openings. Which meant something had to be done with hands that were not good enough for their 1 openings. The unusual choice they made was to preempt with them.

 

This means that systemically they preempt with hands that have lower, sometimes much lower, ODR than most preempting styles use.

 

 

It's been a long time, but I do not recall Churchill preempts, or any other systems preempts for that matter, having such low ODR, or "heavy" at times, hands being used for preempts as in F-N.

 

Churchill was great for developing bidding judgement for other reasons.

[Robert]

Hi foo

 

Since you are a Churchill Natural player, would you mind typing the first three words that appear on page 200 in his book?

 

Regards,

Robert

[goodwintr]

"would be proper"

 

Those are the first three words on p. 200 of the 1979 edition. I don't have the 1936 edition, but I have a partner who does.

 

"Churchill preempts" were virtually non-existent. Somewhere in this thread it says he played weak two-bids, but that is incorrect: he didn't play any two-bids at all. (If partner insisted on playing some kind of two-bids, he would play game-forcing strong two-bids.)

 

And yes, A10xxx A10xx xxx x was an opening bid in Churchill style, but not because it had "eight points." It was an opening bid because it had two "essential tricks" (which were really just quick-tricks), plus favorable 5-4-3-1 shape, plus good intermediates (the major-suit tens), plus length in both majors. I don't believe he would have opened Axxxx Axxx xxx x (without the tens) or xxx x A10xxx A10xx (without the majors) or KJxxx KJxx xxx x (without the essential tricks).

 

Church disdained artificial counting methods, including "points." He also hated artificial bidding conventions, and didn't play (for example) Stayman or Blackwood.

 

The Churchill style had little affinity with Acol (which was developing at pretty much the same time on the other side of the pond): many bids that are "limit" (and non-forcing) in Acol were unlimited (and forcing to game) in the Churchill style.

 

T.L.Goodwin

[TimG]

"would be proper"

 

Those are the first three words on p. 200 of the 1979 edition.

"Subject matter: BALANCE" are the first three word on page 200 of the 1936 edition.

 

Churchill did not advocate preempts in 1936, either. In fact, the "Treatise", written by Albert Ferguson, says "There is no opening two bid in Churchill methods. All bidding starts with a one bid except very rare preemptive bids made after partner has passed."

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

I posted the comment about weak two bids in Churchill Natural. Sorry, my mistake. I have not read the book since the 80s is my guess.

 

Churchill often talked about 'whiskers'(body or spot cards) Note that my example of A10xxx A10xx xxx x has two 'ten' spots in the long suits.

 

He also used the term 'essential tricks' meaning honor tricks.

 

His methods appear quite different from modern methods, however, he could and often did bid difficult hands with extreme accuracy.

 

Regards,

Robert

[foo]

Hi foo

 

Since you are a Churchill Natural player, would you mind typing the first three words that appear on page 200 in his book?

 

Regards,

Robert

Sorry,

I have not been to BBOF in a few days.

 

When I played Churchill, it at the request of someone else. I no longer have any documentation on the system.

 

Systemically Opening 1S with ATxx.ATxx.xxx.x because the pluses of opening outweigh those of passing in the opinion of Churchill was the sort of thing I meant when I talked about it helping you develop bidding judgement.

 

Of course Churchill did not have Weak Twos. Weak Twos were invented by Howard Schenken, a player of a later era.

 

Cheers.