You like using artificial systems because...

[bluecalm]

Where is the most obvious option : "Because i think they are better than "standard"" ?

[aguahombre]

Where is the most obvious option : "Because i think they are better than "standard"" ?

you could shorten it to "just because", and it would be equally useful.

[helene_t]

Hanoi, I think you posed your question in a confusing way.

 

First, I don't see the difference between 1) and 2). Maybe you intended one of them as "playing against the field" while the other as "playing an unusual system". But it is not clear which one is 1) and which one is 2) in your poll.

 

Second, your options sound as more about non-standard than non-natural. This is very different. Some of us probably like to play some natural treatment in situations where artificial is standard, maybe in order to be different:

 

- Natural weak two-openings (while living in an area where multi/muid is standard)

- Natural minor suit openings (while living in an area where more or less nebolous 1♣ and/or ♦ is standard)

- A natural 2♣ opening

- Natural responses to 1NT.

- Frequent use of quantitative raises (also in suits) while the ordinary suckers always use RKC and/or cuebids.

[bluecalm]

you could shorten it to "just because", and it would be equally useful.

 

Why ? It's quite reasonable assumption than advanced partnerships play the systems they think are the best choice for them. One obvious reason for the system to be the best choice is that it leads to better contracts and make opponents lives more difficult simply it's better overall bidding system. It has nothing to do with : "being different" or "going against the tide" or "messing someone's head" or any other option in the poll.

 

I for example think that all wide range 5card major systems are a LOT worse than strong/mixed club systems (precision/polish club). This is why I don't play "natural". Which option should I choose in that pool ?

[mikeh]

I played a highly complex method in a serious partnership for several years. it took a huge amount of work, but the biggest thing I noticed was after that partnership ended and I had to go back to playing 2/1, with gadgets. I found that many aspects of the auction now lacked definition...we were guessing (albeit with some prospect of getting it right) rather than knowing what partner held, in many situations. I really missed the sense of assurance I had with the complex, artificial methods. It had little to do with messing with the opps, altho that was sometimes a byproduct.

 

I've adjusted, and I doubt that I'd be prepared to work that hard ever again.

[Phil]

Agreements are good; conventions and artificiality - not so.

 

Unless you are one of the top 20 pairs in your country, I believe that serious partnerships that spend at least 10 hours / week on system are better off working on more important things like signaling on defense, competitive bidding and most importantly, their own game.

 

I think, as a whole, partnerships that have a lot of artificiality are ignoring the most important parts of bridge. The 'system' becomes more important than winning, which is unfortunate.

 

Search old posts for "the Uncluttered Mind" - references to Larry Cohen's article in the BW.

[Vampyr]

I think, as a whole, partnerships that have a lot of artificiality are ignoring the most important parts of bridge. The 'system' becomes more important than winning, which is unfortunate.

Why is this unfortunate? People's opinions about the "most important parts" may differ.

[aguahombre]

I think, as a whole, partnerships that have a lot of artificiality are ignoring the most important parts of bridge. The 'system' becomes more important than winning, which is unfortunate.

Why is this unfortunate? People's opinions about the "most important parts" may differ.

No, Phil's point is valid. There is nothing more important than winning (within the rules), and if a pair over-focuses on one aspect of the game to the exclusion of others which are important to winning, then that would be "unfortunate" for that pair.

[Vampyr]

No, Phil's point is valid.  There is nothing more important than winning (within the rules), and if a pair over-focuses on one aspect of the game to the exclusion of others which are important to winning, then that would be "unfortunate" for that pair.

I think that the most important thing is that people enjoy themselves. Otherwise they wouldn't bother showing up and the rest of us wouldn't have a game. And I don't think that winning is necessarily the most important aspect; people spend a lot of money travelling to tournaments that they haven't a dream of winning.

 

It is not up to me or to anybody to say that someone "should" care more about winning than about their system, the social aspect, the quality of the coffee at the venue, etc...

[Phil]

I think, as a whole, partnerships that have a lot of artificiality are ignoring the most important parts of bridge. The 'system' becomes more important than winning, which is unfortunate.

Why is this unfortunate? People's opinions about the "most important parts" may differ.

If you want to 'system tinker', do so to your heart's content.

 

Unfortunately, many pairs think this is the path to the promised land of winning, when in fact they are putting up their own roadblocks, as well as wasting otherwise productive time.

[Codo]

you could shorten it to "just because", and it would be equally useful.

 

Why ? It's quite reasonable assumption than advanced partnerships play the systems they think are the best choice for them. One obvious reason for the system to be the best choice is that it leads to better contracts and make opponents lives more difficult simply it's better overall bidding system. It has nothing to do with : "being different" or "going against the tide" or "messing someone's head" or any other option in the poll.

 

I for example think that all wide range 5card major systems are a LOT worse than strong/mixed club systems (precision/polish club). This is why I don't play "natural". Which option should I choose in that pool ?

Funnily your opinion differs completely from the facts.

 

Look at the ko-round of the Bermuda Bowl and other tournements with the best players: An overwhelming majority plays 5 card majors and strong NT without a very nebolous or strong 1 Club opening.

 

So if you are right, that players choose the system which gives them the best results, you and anybody else should abbandon precision, 4 card majors etc. After all, if the majority of the worlds best play natural systems, why shouldn't they be best for you?

 

But you are wrong. Most People do not choose the system that fits them best. They are limited in their choices because of their partner, their nbos regulations and the fasion in their country. This is why most Americans play 2/1, most polish players polis club and most French FES.

 

But anyway, for all of us this issue is totally overrated. As Justin wrote elsewhere: We lose all tournements in card play, not because of our bidding system.

[bluecalm]

Funnily your opinion differs completely from the facts.

 

It may differ or not. It's not the point. The thread is about why some people play artificial systems. I think many of them (me including) just think that those systems are better bidding systems. Maybe we are right, maybe we are wrong. It's not the point here. The point is it's our reason to choose them.

 

But you are wrong. Most People do not choose the system that fits them best.

 

I didn't state anywhere that most people choose bidding system which they think is the best. I only stated that SOME people do that. I hope you can see that's quite obvious.

 

But anyway, for all of us this issue is totally overrated. As Justin wrote elsewhere: We lose all tournements in card play, not because of our bidding system.

 

Well for one thing I know quite well why I lose tournaments. My estimation is that about half of loses is from bidding. It's true that vast majority of them are not caused by system but by lack of agreements or bad judgement decisions. Bidding is quite important though and once you reach higher level more important than cardplay in my opinion. Justin differs in his opinion. I am convinced he has a point when it comes to matchpoint tournaments with weakish field or maybe even strong field but I am also sure it doesn't apply to imps, especially high level.

[bluecalm]

Funnily your opinion differs completely from the facts.

 

I think you really should be more open minded and accept that maybe your opinion is not obvious truth. Do you have any way to rate bidding systems ?

As for your argument about pairs playing at Bermuda Bowl. I am too lazy to do analysis but I just looked at butler scores from 2009BB. And out of 20 top pairs 10 played artificial systems (strong clubs mainly).

So if that's true that most pairs play natural 5card majors and in top 20 50% of them don't play that you can see what that suggests. Not that I believe this to be strong argument. I am just pointing out that your reasoning is wrong and your hypothesis about my opinion "funnily differing from the facts" needs some more work to gain some credibility...

 

Cheers :)

[gwnn]

OK but why do you really play them? What's your real reason? Everyone is lying and it's a great conspiracy.

[helene_t]

If you want to 'system tinker', do so to your heart's content.

 

Unfortunately, many pairs think this is the path to the promised land of winning, when in fact they are putting up their own roadblocks, as well as wasting otherwise productive time.

I was confused about whether the q of this thread was

- why do you play nonstandard?

or

- why do you play artificial?

and now you are addressing

- why do you play a system that requires more discussions and memorization than a standard system would?

which is a 3rd question altogether.

 

Many if not most of the non-standard and/or artificial-system players I know made their choice because they believe their system is easier for them to learn than a standard system would be. OK I am not in the top circuits but Muller/deWijs chose relay precision because they found it easier than a standard system, and Rob Helle gave the same reason.

 

As for my own answers to the three questions:

- Why nonstandard?

I like to be a nonconformist. Like I try to avoid fashionable clothes, microsoft products etc I also try to avoid standard bidding systems. That said I don't consider it a big deal and with limited time for system discussions I will usually go for some standard system with which we are both familiar. Especially if we are not just playing for the gag but actually care about the results.

- Why artificial?

Not really. Other things being equal I think natural methods have more pros than cons, but of course artificial methods are better in many situations. I like to have firm agreements and I like to play a system without holes. Artificiality is not much an argument by itself.

- Why difficult?

Not at all. I strongly prefer easy-to-remember agreements.

[Codo]

Funnily your opinion differs completely from the facts.

 

I think you really should be more open minded and accept that maybe your opinion is not obvious truth. Do you have any way to rate bidding systems ?

Please read your first statement:

 

You did rate bidding systems, not me. I did not express any opinion about the pros and cons of any system at all.

You claimed that artifical systems are a LOT better then mama papa 5 card majors. If you are right, why are the 50 % you talked about do something so wrong? Most of them are pros, so I guess they will know what is good for them.

Your opinion about bidding systems is not the reality, but just your opinion.

 

If partnerships really choose the best fitting bidding system, why is there a majority of 2/1 players in America but a majority of WJ2005 players in Poland?

Why do nobody plays mosquito in the ACBL?

(These are rhetorical questions, no need to answer them..)

 

That all partnerships think/hope that they have the bidding system that fits them best is sure, so what is your point of claiming now that just some really do so? (But we agree here, nice to see your agreement)?

 

And we agree too about the judgement part in bidding. Bad judgment is a common way to lose at bridge.

[bluecalm]

I did not express any opinion about the pros and cons of any system at all.

 

You said that opinion about artificial systems being better is contrary to FACTS which is the sam as saying that those system are not better and that you it's obvious because some facts prove it.

 

Your opinion about bidding systems is not the reality, but just your opinion.

 

Exactly that. It's my opinion based on my experience and thinking about bridge in general. I didn't claim to have any hard evidence in favor of it. I stated my opinion which is that those systems are a lot better and that's my reason to choose them.

 

Anyway, I hope you agree there are many people who think artificial sysetms are better than natural ? For many of them the choice of the system is matter of what is better and what is worse. Why do you think Meckwell chose precision ? Or Larry Cohen ? Or Greco - Hampson ? They are from ACBL land and they chose artificial systems. FOr sure at least for some of them it's better than standard. I think Larry Cohen expressed his opinion about it quite clearly for example.

[helene_t]

I wouldn't call the system Larry Cohen played (plays?) with David Berkowitz "artificial". Non-standard (in a North-American context), yes, but few top pairs bid as natural as they do.

 

Anyway, although I would personally think that it doesn't matter much which bidding system one uses as long as one is comfortable with it, I don't think there is strong evidence either way. Most World class writers (who write in a Latin-based script) use the qwerty keyboard layout but that doesn't prove that qwerty is as good as anything.

 

Bluecalm, how much is "much" better? How many MPs or IMPs do you expect to gain over what you would have got playing some vanilla Standard American? Yeah I know that's impossible to estimate, just wondering of the order of magnitude. If one subscribes to the idea that choice of system doesn't matter much compared to general skills and partnership harmony, then maybe an average gain of 0.02% (or 0.0005 IMP per board) would count as "much". Relatively speaking.

[bluecalm]

I wouldn't call the system Larry Cohen played (plays?) with David Berkowitz "artificial". Non-standard (in a North-American context), yes, but few top pairs bid as natural as they do.

 

Yeah, by "artificial" I meant other than standard structure with 5card majors and wide range 11-21(22-23) openings and strong 2C opening.

I agree taht most strong club systems feel more natural an easy once you learn them than most popular 2/1 varietes.

 

I didn't try to quantify how much better I think strong club systems are. My feeling is that in almost every tournament I would have loss or potential loss if I played sayc or standard 2/1.

One example is strong hands opposite weakish hands. It's about impossible to bid reasonably without conventions like gazilli but when you start using it you start producing long informative auctions on what should be easy bash the game and let them guess hands.

In BBO tournaments every time the sequence 1c (polish) - 1d(negative) 1nt (18-21balanced) comes up I can count on 70+% score just from playing better system.

Same goes for 1D - 1S - 3C and other jump rebids by opener which really doesn't tell much in standard. The habit of standard bidders of not passing any 5hcp to openers is another source of matchpoints but if you pass those hands you risk losing boards without any chance and fight. In "standard" you basically have to open 15-17hands with 5card major with 1NT. I think it's big big loser at matchpoints. Gazilli solves this problem but it introduces a lot of artificiality and complications in subsequent bidding.

 

In contrary to popular belief I think those are less of a problem at imps. At imps you can play worse partscores if they make anyway. Or you can overbid here and there and still you don't lose much expected value.

[Free]

I played artificial systems because they're more efficient when opponents stay quiet. If they intervene, in many cases we're no worse off than the rest of the field, sometimes we are still better off!

 

Artificial doesn't necessarily mean more complex to remember. Moscito for example is extremely simple, the relaystructures which are considered difficult are actually very easy. It's just a different mindset: playing natural, you remember calls (3♦ means ...). Playing relays, you use steps (step 1 shows 5422, step 2 shows 5431,... step 2 is represented by 3♦, so that's our call). So while an auction may seem very complicated, it's built up using simple and logical steps, and these steps are used throughout the entire system for simplicity. Some people ask how you can remember all this, how many pages this system is. Well, I never had to study the entire system, and an entire relayscheme can fit on half a page!

 

These days I don't play purely artificial methods anymore, because I got tired of prealerting an entire system, alerting and explaining every call, people messing up my judgement by intervening just because we play something "strange", all the reactions and TD calls,... Now I play some sort of 2/1, but sometimes with artificial continuations. It's a balance between natural and artificial which I quite like.

[Fluffy]

I am learning viking club nowadays, because I want to try the effectiveness of a strong club system before I get too old.