You like using artificial systems because...

[Hanoi5]

I've often wondered what's the real reason behind playing an artificial system. I bet it differs from person to person.

[shevek]

I guess by artificial, you mean stuff like Stayman & transfers, Bergen raises, 4th suit forcing, support doubles. Well, bridge attracts tinkerers and dedicated followers of fashion, so we're in for more of the same.

[hrothgar]

All bidding systems are intended to do "something". (The precise something varies from system to system)

 

Natural bidding systems impose an additional set of constraints. Your bids are supposed to show length in a given suit. I feel that this constraint leads to suboptimal designs. As a practical example, why does (essentially) everyone play artificial responses to their 1NT openings? The answer is quite simple: Stayman + transfers is dramatically easier to play and more effective than natural responses.

 

The sample basic principle applies when constructing a bidding system. Adopting artificial methods allows you to create bidding systems that are

 

Easier to remember

More effective

[Hanoi5]

SAYC and 2/1 or ACOL would be what I consider natural. Yes, you can have some gadgets but you mostly bid what you have naturally. Over 1NT systems are artificial but they're so universal that you could consider stayman and transfers to have become 'natural'.

 

But when I open 1♣ showing 16+ any hand, 1♦ 2+ diamonds 11-15, 2♦ multi, etc that's artificial. I don't think anyone plays totally natural anymore in some places but what I want to know is what makes people play abnormal systems when compared to the standards in their countries or plainly artificial systems like precision.

[gwnn]

Maybe I'm misreading some of your options but I see no positive choice except the "better communications with partner", which means that you actually think it's a good system. I like strong club because I can open lighter and I can play weak NT. Also, slam bidding is greatly enhanced. It has nothing to do with messing with my head or my opponents or wanting to go against the tide or any of your other slanderous alternatives.

[hrothgar]

SAYC and 2/1 or ACOL would be what I consider natural. Yes, you can have some gadgets but you mostly bid what you have naturally. Over 1NT systems are artificial but they're so universal that you could consider stayman and transfers to have become 'natural'.

This comment is inane.

 

Systems don't miraculously become natural because they are popular. If you want to understand why people play artificial methods, NT response structures are the prototypical example.

 

Its perfectly reasonable to ask why (some) people choose to play non standard methods. However, this has nothing to do with the demarcation between natural and artificial.

[hotShot]

Bidding space is a rare good and the most economic use is to put the most frequent followup's into the lowest possible bid. In theory this will allow you to exchange more information with your partner and to find better contracts.

 

Implementing e.g. one bid to cover all strong hands (as in Precision) limits all other opening bids and allows responder a better judgment in the partscore battle.

 

The advantages of an artificial system have a price:

- more complexity (esp. dealing with interference)

- higher memory load

 

But these disadvantages can be overcome through training.

 

In most boards the edge you gain will not make a difference, but in close team matches winning on 1 in 10 boards through a systemic advantage will make you more successful.

[TimG]

SAYC and 2/1 or ACOL would be what I consider natural. Yes, you can have some gadgets but you mostly bid what you have naturally. Over 1NT systems are artificial but they're so universal that you could consider stayman and transfers to have become 'natural'.

This, along with the poll options, suggests to me that you're not really asking about artificial methods but rather non-standard methods.

 

By your reasoning, a Polish Club system would be "natural" in Poland.

[suokko]

You forgot to include one of the most common reasons: "Because my partner is a system freak!" :) There just wasn't enough option to say no.

 

Reason for complex artificial systems is that they are easier to learn to bid well than pure natural system where judgment plays large role in choices of bids.

 

There is also systems where you get to bid a lot and not always to the best contracts wins a lot when opponents are doing defensive errors. So there might be many reasons to play some systems depending on what level you play at.

[blackshoe]

The comments about systems over 1NT brought to mind last night's game.

 

LHO is a decent player. RHO is either new to bridge, or hasn't played in a very long time. The unopposed auction, LHO dealer, goes 1NT-2D!-2H-3D-3NT. 2D was alerted: transfer. Everyone is aware that RHO forgot. 3NT goes down 3. LHO says "well, you won't forget again". RHO agrees. Next hand, partner passes, 1NT from RHO, 2D from LHO, 2 spades from RHO, 3C, tank, 3NT. Down 3. RHO forgot again. :)

 

I like Precision. It's fun to play. Played well, it gets us to more winning contracts. I had fun (but made a lot of dumb mistakes) the one time I played (a variant on) Blue Club. I like EHAA. I like Romex. Haven't tried Forcing Pass, or Moscito, or any of dozens of other intriguing, and in some cases highly artificial, systems. So I guess I like "non-mainstream" systems, for a variety of reasons, rather than "artificial" systems per se.

[mtvesuvius]

I play a lot of Artificial Systems, and my main reason is that I like having much more defined auctions, and better communications with partner. The other aspect of it is that I enjoy playing more complicated stuff, it makes the game more interesting, and adds a lot of theory and other things to think about.

 

I've found that I have a limit to what I can remember, so I'm trying to limit myself, but I mostly play precision of some sort.

[aguahombre]

Thank you, Suokko, Black, and Adam for bringing the question back into focus and trying to answer what I think was intended.

 

I think we can all agree what the difference is between a basically natural system and a system which has several specialized and/or artificial starting calls.

 

For us, Suokko hit it well. Terry (before being spouse) started out bridge by reading Sontag; then she and her partner virtually memorized every sequence of Power Precision, so they would not have to involve any judgement -- which they had not yet developed.

 

There was no intent to confuse or baffle the opponents, although a byproduct was confusion to all four players on occasion. Later on, because she wanted to be able to play with a lot of different partners and had developed more ability to make judgements in natural auctions she switched to Standard and then to 2/1.

 

My first regular partner and I chose the old (new at the time) C.C. Wei Precision for pretty much the same reasons. Then, we fell in with a group who were working on different ways of plugging up the holes in the infantile 2/1 and switched over.

 

This just answers why we played an "artificial system" as asked. It does not imply that everyone else uses these methods as a substitute for thinking. Some of the most brilliant minds in bridge use, and improve upon, artificial opening bid systems.

[awm]

Making things difficult for opponents is certainly a factor for me, but I don't think it's because they "don't understand." For example:

 

(1) An aggressive opening style puts a lot of pressure on the opponents. They can't assume that just because we opened and responded, they can't make game on power. This means either they will have to accept missing some games, or they will have to re-allocate a lot of calls that most people use as competitive (pre-balancing, 2NT "pick a suit" etc) to show actual values.

 

(2) Playing a notrump range which (I think anyway) is in-between "strong" and "weak" forces opponents to decide whether or not to play penalty doubles. Our range is just light enough that they might miss out by not having a bid to show cards, but yet strong enough that much of the time the field is opening a strong notrump too (i.e. good 13 to 16).

 

(3) Intermediate two bids in the minors help us bid a lot of light 3NT games and also let us up the preempt on hands where standard bidders have trouble (can't raise opener's minor aggressively because it's usually a weak notrump). It also prevents opponents from competing on some of the hands where they'd overcall at the one-level (or they run into trouble when they make lousy two level overcalls).

 

None of these are really "science" -- they're just tough calls to deal with. The main reason behind playing a strong club and such is that these actions work a lot better when you have an upper limit. Playing 1M openings as "good eight to twenty-one" is unwieldy and will lose us more boards in constructive bidding than we gain from the light openings (in my opinion anyway, some people obviously disagree).

 

There's also some aspect of "better communication with partner" or just better constructive bidding in general, but for me the main purpose is to get a leg up in the very frequent competitive scenarios.

[mtvesuvius]

Another interesting aspect is like #2 of Adam's post. I play a 13-15NT with a couple people, which is a very interesting range. Not only is it between weak and strong, but it offers some advantages offensively, the biggest being if you are willing to pass 11 and 12 HCP balanced hands, since now the 1D opening is always unbalanced. The disruptive aspect of it is also nice of course.

 

Another one is the "very light" 1M opening. It seems to have an amazing pre-emptive effect on the opponents, and also a very interesting psychological effect on them also. Just the fact that we *could* open 1M light is enough to get them to overbid very often, and overcall hands that people normally never would. They feel they are getting cheated, and therefore overcompensate.

 

All in all, I think that messing with the opponents is a very small part of the advantages of most systems, but there are clearly some that disrupt more than others.

[1eyedjack]

The poll I think suffers from a common flaw: the omission of "other" as an alternative option, the poser of the question assuming usually without justification that he must have thought of all possible motivations.

 

For me, the question should be turned on its head: Except for bids which are non-forcing contract suggestions, there needs to be a justification for a "natural" definition rather than the opposite, given that "natural" covers a very small proportion of the possibilities. Furthermore, "natural" usually belies a codified definition.

 

Ease of memory is a reasonable justification for natural bidding.

 

Some would argue that natural methods are also less vulnerable to opposition intervention, but that is flawed. Certainly it is less vulnerable than some artificial methods, but that does not mean that artificiality is necessarily more vulnerable - it depends entirely on the specific definition.

[Hanoi5]

I probably hurt some feelings with the poll. I didn't mean any wrong, though. In fact I support the use of artificial systems in many situations/tournaments (but not all of them).

 

In certain contexts/countries you could say that artificial=non-standard and natural=standard. The other way around is also possible, how many people play 2/1 in Poland?

 

One of the reasons for making this poll is that in certain countries playing an artificial/non-standard system will make you a villain/hero. You'll be the hero to those who don't have the guts/memory/time to play such a system and a villain to those who your system 'damage' in some way.

 

So, in ACBL land you're very restricted in what you can play, but I bet you can use some sort of precision in any event (except probably at a rubber bridge table, in which an artificial system becomes a nuisance, right?), so why would you want to use a 'more' artificial or less standard system?

 

In my country at this moment NO ONE plays an artificial system. There are some people with lots of gadgets for their 2/1 but no one play a strong club, for example. Some of my students told me they were interested in learning precision and I'm gonna teach/learn with them but I'm wondering what's the real motive behind their interest.

 

I was very surprised when someone mentioned the fact that using an artificial system allowed you not to use your judgement, I had thought the exact opposite. Would you recommend teaching precision to beginning students?

[suokko]

More structured biding in strong club systems will make it easier to learn to bid most of hands well. Of course here is some biding that is definitely hard to memorize but simple precision system can have a lot fewer rules to remember than natural system.

 

It is often problem in natural that beginners don't remember all the different details of 2nd or 3rd round when opener and responder are limiting strength and shape same time.

 

More structured systems with less rules are easier to master after people start to play actively. But of course best system to learn first is what is local standard system which helps beginners to understand what opponents are doing at the table.

[PrecisionL]

I am an artificial system nut.

 

Even when I play Goren (pre 1985), SA or 2/1, I add artificialities to bring it up to the precision of a Strong Club System.

 

I like having better communications with my partner!

[the hog]

snipped

 

But when I open snipped, 1♦ 2+ diamonds 11-15, 2♦ multi, etc that's artificial. I don't think anyone plays totally natural anymore in some places but what I want to know is what makes people play abnormal systems when compared to the standards in their countries or plainly artificial systems like precision.

Sorry, that is a hugely funny comment. No doubt you think Blackers and Stayman are artificial as well?

[Vampyr]

I was very surprised when someone mentioned the fact that using an artificial system allowed you not to use your judgement, I had thought the exact opposite. Would you recommend teaching precision to beginning students?

I agree with the idea that systems such as strong club require less judgment; I have, a number of times, encountered the notion that Precision should be taught to beginners for this reason.

 

Of course, the problem is that if they know only Precision, they will have trouble going out into the wider world, because most players at their level will have learnt a natural-based system.

[PeterGill]

because

(1) my partner forces me to, and

(2) we get better overall results when I play a complex system

[gnasher]

what I want to know is what makes people play abnormal systems when compared to the standards in their countries

So you want to know what makes me play 5-card majors? My partners, mainly.

[shevek]

because

(1) my partner forces me to, and

(2) we get better overall results when I play a complex system

Here's some rhetoric. Why do some people get better results playing a complex system? Because a certain level of complexity requires a greater commitment from the players. The effort required to learn the method involves bidding boards & longish discussions on the merits of various additions. That has to be worthwhile. There is also the opportunity to discard some dead wood from decades old natural bidding theory. Then, having invested a deal of time and effort, the partnership is likely to stick at it. That's the clicher IMO.

[nige1]

What is a natural bid?

• A bid that, that the bidder suggests as a possible final contract? Then, obviously, only the last bid in the auction need be natural. Nevertheless, prior bids in early systems had many natural bids, where you opened your longest suit, and 2♠ was stronger than 1♠. Acol limit-bids were all natural in this sense.
  
• A bid that has some relation to its strain? Then many systems have lots of natural bids. Under such a definition, even trial-bids, cue-bids, and canapé are natural.
  
• A bid that simply and logically fits into the basic structure and philosophy of a system? System-mongers sometimes claim such a bid to be natural, although to everybody else, it is manifestly artificial.
  
• A bid that is natural to its user? The most popular usage. For example, many Americans regard a SAYC 1♣ or 1♦ opener as natural. Administrators, the world over, responsible for system-restriction, tend to regard the methods with which they are familiar, as natural; and other methods as beyond the pale. For example, some jurisdictions ban a 9-11 1N opening, although it is hard imagine a more natural bid, since the bidder would usually be happy if it were the final contract.
  

Many of us who like artificial systems are fascinated by their efficient and mnemonic design. Bridge is almost unique in being a true partnership game, relying on partnership rapport. Thus, communication is an essential part of game. Success depends largely on communicating effectively with partner and disrupting the communications of opponents. Artificial methods are a means to that end.

[Vampyr]

Here's some rhetoric. Why do some people get better results playing a complex system? Because a certain level of complexity requires a greater commitment from the players. The effort required to learn the method involves bidding boards & longish discussions on the merits of various additions. That has to be worthwhile. There is also the opportunity to discard some dead wood from decades old natural bidding theory. Then, having invested a deal of  time and effort, the partnership is likely to stick at it. That's the clicher IMO.

There is a chance, however, that in this argument the causality is reversed. Maybe it is the commitment and effort and not the actual system that is responsible for the better results.