The best system

[the hog]

Ok Flame, you want a serious answer to the question of what is the best system?

 

The best system is the one which you and your partner feel most comfortable with. Some players like the security of 5 card majors and a Strong NT. Others prefer getting in and out of the auction fast.

 

Look it really doesn't matter that much as long as you are on the same wavelength as a partner and are having fun.

 

Personally I would not have fun if you forced me to play sayc or vanilla 2/1. I used to love big C systems, still do actually, but it seems to encourage any sort of silly intervention and quite frankly I could not be bothered with all the director calls. Director calls by me against the opps, not vice versa. You get 1C (Hesitation + Pass), - a hand too good for a destructive intervention, or else someone continuously bids a supposed 2 suiter on a 4333). Or you get a fast overcall obviously showing a hand with dreck. And don't tell me all opps are ethical enough not to take advantage of this. Yes, big C systems are undoubtedly better, but its not worth the hassle. Or you get some idiot in a bbo or ftf tournament complaining about Moscito transfer openings. It really isn't worth the aggravation.

 

Partner's predilections also come into it; can your partner remember relays - (You have no such problems of course). Does your partner like artificialities or is he a simple soul. Is your partner's card play good enough to make skinny slams requiring excellent technique? If not, then don't play a system that may get you there. Is there someone you can ask for help and advice? Eg there is little point playing Nightmare in Australia as no one else plays it and how are you going to work out all the intricacies of convoluted auctions. Believe me a book, no matter how well written can only go so far.

 

So the best system? The one you enjoy playing most and that gives you decent results.

 

Ron

[Flame]

OK

Thanks everyone, it was an intresting thread.

I think i made my decision, its going to be a mix of two cool systems of world class players, the bulgarian kalin-rumen and the italian bocchi-duboin.

Now i "only" have to guess the systems out of their convention cards.

Anyway i think its going to be fun, and hopefully my new partner will be happy with it too.

btw if anyone who have access to any part of those systems (or to the nightmare system) beside the ccs on ecat, i will be very happy to get it.

[helene_t]

When most players use the expression "Natural", they - in fact - mean "What I Play".  The expression "Natural" is mainly used for rhetorical effect in an attempt to frame the conversation.

I'm surprised to hear this - I thought everybody agreed that a natural bid is a suggestion to play in that denomination. So the two-suited 2M-openings(Muiderberg/Polish), DONT and Gambling 3NT are natural, take-out doubles are artificial and "4-card-minor-proceeds-4card-major"-openings are at best semi-natural. Operationally, we could define naturalness of a bid as the probability that the end-contract will be in that denomination, or that the optimal contract is in that denomination.

So SAYC is not a natural system, since balanced hands are often opened in the denomination that ranks 3rd or 4th in terms of probability of becoming the end-contract. Colonial Acol comes somewhat closer.

[hrothgar]

>I'm surprised to hear this - I thought everybody agreed that a natural bid is a >suggestion to play in that denomination. So the two-suited >2M-openings(Muiderberg/Polish), DONT and Gambling 3NT are natural, take-out >doubles are artificial and "4-card-minor-proceeds-4card-major"-openings are at best >semi-natural.

 

The definition of natural needs to be able to encompass canape bidding styles.

In many bidding systems, players will chose to show their shorter suit first. For example, playing Blue Club, the following hand would be opened 1S. Opener would then rebid two Diamonds on the following round.

 

AK45

K42

QJ852

3

 

The decision whether to show longest suits first or shortest suits first has long been considered a treatment rather than a convention. I agree with this decision.

 

>Operationally, we could define naturalness of a bid as the probability

>that the end-contract will be in that denomination, or that the optimal

>contract is in that denomination.

 

I don't think that this is workable.

 

I play many systems that are deliberately designed to play in Moysian major suit fits at the 2 level. The definition of conventional should not depend on the bidding approach used by individual pairs.

[Chamaco]

btw if anyone who have access to any part of those systems (or to the nightmare system) beside the ccs on ecat, i will be very happy to get it.

I have the book on Nightmare, however it is long and 90% of the book is just tables with sequences.

It is unthinkable for me right now to translate it all, but if you ever need a specific sequence, I can help. :rolleyes:

 

Nightmare has been invented and played (and the book written) by Buratti/Lanzarotti, so perhaps you can get several info from their CC.

[Flame]

Ty chamaco.

And Richard i agree with you that there is no connection between what we call natural and the world natural, but natural doesnt mean what im playing, it mean what most are playing. in israel that is 5 card major better minor, but i bet in poland natural mean polish club.

[1eyedjack]

I thought everybody agreed that a natural bid is a suggestion to play in that denomination. ... <and> ... Operationally, we could define naturalness of a bid as the probability that the end-contract will be in that denomination, or that the optimal contract is in that denomination.

You could go further, and insist that a bid can only be natural if it suggests that the call made should be the final contract, for which purpose it must (in addition to suggesting the denomination) be non-forcing.

[helene_t]

[....] The definition of conventional [my emphasis,h-t] should not depend on the bidding approach used by individual pairs.[....]

You are right, that was a mistake of mine.

 

But conventional and artificial (i.e., non-natural) are different things. Part of the confusion may be that "natural" has a positive sound. One can market drugs, food and bidding conventions on the basis of their naturalness, because "natural" means "the way it was meant to be by (God/Mother Earth/Doctrine of Adaptism/whatever)". If somebody says that (GM foods/capitalism/Inverted Minors/whatever) is un-natural, it sounds as if he is against it. The assertion that a weak 1NT-opening is not natural is an extreme case of this. IMHO, "artificial" is a clearer term than "conventional", but "convetional" is more popular, probably because it sounds more value-neutral.

[mikestar]

The Laws do not currently define the term "natural", but they do contain this definition:

 

Convention

1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.

2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference.

 

Two suiter methods are by definiton conventional, though something like 2H showing both majors is also arguably natural as it suggests playing in hearts--it is conventional because it also suggests playing in spades.

 

The converse of "conventional" is "non-conventional", not "natural".