What is best system

[wclass___]

Mine too. I use it NV with strong C and nebulous 1D, 2m=either 6m or 5m4om(denies 4M).

 

(about 1D)

"I thought that the lack of definition in minor-suit

auctions would be costly. Eventually, I learned otherwise. I also learned something else, as

is stated in other places in this book: it is not necessary to understand the underlying reason

or reasons for the existence of a fact in order for it to be true. The fact still exists,

regardless of whether you know why it is a fact or not."

>>>The Revision Club System

>>>3rd Ed. © 2008 by John Montgomery

 

Hate me :(

[Free]

I like the one I'm playing right now. Has 5-cards weak 2s in all suits and a 9-11 1NT.

 

You can't get more preemptive than that :)

Yes you can: Lorenzo two's :(

[Cascade]

Actually when I posted, I forgot about NZ international Andy Braithwaite's T-Rex. Now THAT is what I would like to play.

Can you summarize it pls?

 

A summary would probably take dozens of pages. Just the opening bids below (as played by Michael Ware and Andy Braithwaite in Maastricht in 2000):

 

 

OPENING BIDS

 

1st & 2nd Seat

Pass 0-4 HCP Any, or 5-6 HCP (not vul) or 5-7 HCP Bal (vul), or 15-20(21) HCP

Bal or Minor(s) with no biddable 5 card Major

1C (10)11-20 HCP 5 Hearts or 4/4 Maj 3 suited, or Any Game Force

1D (10)11-20 HCP 5+ Spades, or (21)22-23 HCP Bal (May be any 5332)

1H 5-10 HCP Hearts or Diamonds Unbalanced, or 7-10 HCP (not vul) or 8-10

HCP (vul) Balanced or any 4441

1S 5-10 HCP Spades or Clubs Unbalanced but not 4441

1NT 11-14 HCP Balanced (May be any 5332). Occasionally singleton or off-shape

 

2C (10)11-14 HCP 5+ Clubs Unbalanced (Can be 4 if 1444 or 4144)

2D (10)11-14 HCP 5+ Diamonds Unbalanced

2H (3)4-7 HCP 5+/5+ S&D or H&C (Odd)

2S (3)4-7 HCP 5+/5+ S&C or H&D (Colour)

2NT (3)4-7 HCP 5+/5+ S&H or (5)6-9(10) HCP D&C (Rank)

 

3C/3D Std Preempt – may be a six card suit with good suit quality

3D/3H Std Preempt – may be a six card suit with good suit quality

3NT 4 Level minor Preempt

 

4C Namyats - A good 4H opening (8/9 PT)

4D Namyats - A good 4S opening (8/9 PT)

4H Preemptive

4S Preemptive

4NT Specific Ace ask

 

3rd / 4th Seat

P 0-4 HCP

1C 5-17 HCP Unbalanced (can be 8-10 HCP with a 6 card suit or a 5/5 with stuff

Outside suits)

1D 5-17 HCP Balanced (may have any 5332)

1H (3)4-7 HCP “Comic” Either 6+ card suit, or any 5+/5+ Unbalanced

1S 17+ HCP, Either a) Any GF (9+PT), :( Strong Two Suiter

1NT (17)18-20 HCP Balanced (May be any 5332). Occas. Singleton or off-shape

 

2C “Benji” 8 PT in any Suit or 21-23 Bal

2D (7)8-10 HCP Six card suit in either major (non-forcing – esp nv)

2H 8-10 HCP 5+/5+ Odd (S&D or H&C)

2S 8-10 HCP 5+/5+ Colour (S&C or H&D)

2NT 8-10 HCP 5+/5+ Rank (S&H or D&C)

 

3C/D 6-9 HCP, 7 card suit or 8-10 HCP Good 6 card suit

3H/S 6-9 HCP, 7 card suit or 8-10 HCP Good 6 card suit

3NT 4 Level minor Preempt

 

4C Namyats - A good 4H opening (8/9 PT)

4D Namyats - A good 4S opening (8/9 PT)

4H Preemptive – Good Suit

4S Preemptive – Good Suit

This was a fun system to play against.

 

Andy Braithwaite last I knew was playing a Fantunes type system with transfer openings.

 

Something like

 

1♣ 8+ 4+ hearts

 

1♦ 8+ 4+ spades

 

1♥ 13+ clubs or balanced

 

1♠ 13+ diamonds

 

1NT - not sure of the NT range probably weak

 

2♣ 8-12 clubs

 

2♦ 8-12 diamonds

 

2♥/♠ not completely sure but maybe just weaker pre-empts

[Apollo81]

The best system in the real world is not necessarily the same one that should be played given infinite practice time. It's impossible to disentangle bidding systems from human existence.

[han]

It's impossible to disentangle bidding systems from human existence.

I'm going to save this quote and look at it again later when I've forgotten all about this thread. I suspect I won't have a clue about what you are saying when it isn't clear from the context. But it will still sound great!

[PeterGill]

Wayne wrote: Andy Braithwaite last I knew was playing

a Fantunes type system with transfer openings.

 

Now that he has moved from New Zealand to Australia, Andy has been playing Standard with Bill Haughie (with Multi Twos) and his bridge results are much improved - 2nd in the Butler 5 months ago, won the Spring National Open

Teams 2 months ago - his best results for many years.

 

Peter Gill.

[Tcyk]

I kind of agree with Drtodd, a system that is fun to play.

 

There are a lot of new systems out there, some of which I have studied. I would have to have a regular partner for any of them. How about MULTOS, or Janus, or Diamond Major, or Revision?. Revision could be played in any ACBL tournament. With a few changes, Diamond Major could also be played with no problems. I would hate to alert a MULTOS opening bid and have to explain its multiple possible meanings to the opponents but I would still like to try playing it. The Janus 1D opening reminds me of the complex diamond opening bid used in Oliver Clarke's Precision Club. I also tend to like Polish Club because I find it difficult to bid against. I've played it a few times and it seems like at least 65 percent of the hands were opened 1C, maybe even more. It's like Precision and the 1D opening.

[matmat]

there;s a distinction to be drawn between infinite amount of time an, d a sufficient mental capacity or memory to learn and remember a system.

 

also, if i had indefinite time to use on bridge would sominexing the opponents be a permitted tactic?

[awm]

SAYC and Acol having one vote between them is one vote too many. SAYC has literally no advantages when compared with 2/1 GF except rebid.

Some advantages for SAYC over 2/1 GF except rebid:

 

(1) In SAYC you can play in 1NT with two balanced hands facing each other and no fit after 1M-1NT.

 

(2) In SAYC after opener's jump shift, you do not have to deal with the limit raise hand. For example, 1♠-1NT-3♥. In SAYC 3♠ is a simple preference. In 2/1 GF except rebid, what is your call with the 3-card limit raise? If 3♠ then this call is very ambiguous; if 4♠ you have eliminated all your cuebidding space on a likely slam hand.

 

(3) In SAYC, responder's 2NT rebid is undefined. You can use this for something handy like 5-5 in the unbids or a strong raise of opener's rebid. In 2/1 GF except rebid this call is needed as natural. I'm referring to 1♠-1NT-2♥-2NT here, and similar.

 

(4) In SAYC, you can play in 2M sometimes when responder has invitational values. For example 1♠-2♣-2Red-2♠-Pass and responder has shown his 11 or so points yet you can still get out. In 2/1 GF except rebid responder starts 1NT and a major suit preference could be garbage, so you have to play at least 2NT.

 

(5) In SAYC, you are better able to deal with opponents who crash the auction when responder has invite values. For example compare 1♥-P-1NT-2♠ (2/1 GF) 1♥-P-2♣-2♠ (SAYC). In the second auction we have shown two suits, responder has shown values, double is penalty... it is easy to "catch" frisky opponents. In the first auction we have only shown one suit, responder could have garbage, double is takeout. We are an awful lot better placed in the SAYC sequence.

 

(6) After a 1♠ opening, responder has 5♥ and invitational values. In SAYC we find the 5-3 heart fit via 1♠-2♥; in 2/1 GF except rebid we bid 1♠-1NT(f)-2m-2NT-Pass.

 

Obviously there are some advantages to 2/1 GF except rebid too (mostly when responder has a balanced slammish hand) but to say "SAYC has literally no advantages" is simply not true.

[han]

Wayne wrote: Andy Braithwaite last I knew was playing

a Fantunes type system with transfer openings.

 

Now that he has moved from New Zealand to Australia, Andy has been playing Standard with Bill Haughie (with Multi Twos) and his bridge results are much improved - 2nd in the Butler 5 months ago, won the Spring National Open

Teams 2 months ago - his best results for many years.

 

Peter Gill.

Must be the fresh New Zealand air.

[cherdano]

Wow you really hate the forcing 1N, Adam :)

[MickyB]

SAYC and Acol having one vote between them is one vote too many. SAYC has literally no advantages when compared with 2/1 GF except rebid.

Some advantages for SAYC over 2/1 GF except rebid:

 

[snip]

 

(4) In SAYC, you can play in 2M sometimes when responder has invitational values. For example 1♠-2♣-2Red-2♠-Pass and responder has shown his 11 or so points yet you can still get out. In 2/1 GF except rebid responder starts 1NT and a major suit preference could be garbage, so you have to play at least 2NT.

Ok, maybe my original statement was perhaps, um, overzealous :) But is 1♠-2♣-2Red-2♠ actually NF in SAYC? I was under the impression that this is forcing as standard on the other side of the pond, if it is NF then my opinion of SAYC has just gone up...a little :P

[cherdano]

SAYC and Acol having one vote between them is one vote too many. SAYC has literally no advantages when compared with 2/1 GF except rebid.

Some advantages for SAYC over 2/1 GF except rebid:

 

[snip]

 

(4) In SAYC, you can play in 2M sometimes when responder has invitational values. For example 1♠-2♣-2Red-2♠-Pass and responder has shown his 11 or so points yet you can still get out. In 2/1 GF except rebid responder starts 1NT and a major suit preference could be garbage, so you have to play at least 2NT.

Ok, maybe my original statement was perhaps, um, overzealous :) But is 1♠-2♣-2Red-2♠ actually NF in SAYC? I was under the impression that this is forcing as standard on the other side of the pond, if it is NF then my opinion of SAYC has just gone up...a little :P

It is non-forcing in SAYC and shows 2 spades (there is a debate whether it shows 2 or 3, but Adam always wins that debate). It is non-forcing and shows 3 spades in "Standard American".

It is forcing in expert standard (as that is 2/1) and there is a debate whether it shows 2 or 3, in particular in the auction 1S 2C 2H 2S.

 

Cleared that up for you?

[awm]

But is 1♠-2♣-2Red-2♠ actually NF in SAYC? I was under the impression that this is forcing as standard on the other side of the pond, if it is NF then my opinion of SAYC has just gone up...a little :P

The auction that gets discussed sometimes, which is forcing in SAYC but NF in Acol is 1M-2X-2M. This is because SAYC has a rule that responder promises a second call after making a 2/1 bid (barring opener's rebid being at game level). This allows SAYC to use 2M as a waiting rebid on a wide variety of hands to hear more about what partner holds. It's a substantial advantage when opener has a good hand with six in the major (you don't have to rebid 3M and crowd your own auction) in exchange for a disadvantage when responder's 2/1 bid is very light and 2M is your last making spot.

 

Note that Acol 2/1 bids are lighter than SAYC ones -- SAYC 2/1 promises a good ten hcp or more (about two points shy of a game force) whereas Acol bidders seem to routinely make 2/1 bids about a queen lighter than this on a shapely hand.

[jdonn]

How does a thread called "What is best system" become a debate between SAYC and ACOL? Next think you know, I'll be the subject of a debate about the best looking bridge players.

[awm]

How does a thread called "What is best system" become a debate between SAYC and ACOL? Next think you know, I'll be the subject of a debate about the best looking bridge players.

Clearly because SAYC or Acol is the best system, depending which side of the ocean you live on? :P

[Codo]

How does a thread called "What is best system" become a debate between SAYC and ACOL? Next think you know, I'll be the subject of a debate about the best looking bridge players.

All good looking bridge players play Acol or Sayc.

Do you want to be an ugly nerd and play something different?