Simple systems

[EricK]

My usual F2F partner is an excellent player with good judgement, but does not like "science" or system discussions, and sometimes forgets conventions (either forgets that we are playing them, or if he remembers we are playing them he forgets exactly what the bids or follow-ups mean). He is especially apt to forget conventions which sound natural. To give you some idea, he would remember fourth suit forcing, but probably not 2-way checkback; he might be able to recall Muideburg 2s, but probably not Multi 2♦ (especially weak/strong versions); he wouldn't remember Raptor 1NT overcall and so on.

 

So, I am interested in your opinions as to what system base needs fewest conventional add-ons to be competitive at a reasonably advanced level.

 

So what would you recommend as regards e.g. 4 card or 5 card majors; weak or strong or other NT; strength of 2/1 bids; Strong club v "Natural"; style of 2-bids; etc etc

 

Any input appreciated!

 

Thanks

 

Eric

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, systems based on 4 card majors require more judgement and less memorization that 5 card major based systems.

 

Personally, I would recommend Acol or potentially EHAA.

Both systems stress judgement and have relatively few codified sequences.

[MickyB]

I agree with Richard. Playing Acol with a 12-14 NT, if you open the major from 4432s with 15-19 HCP then you have no need for Walsh (Bypassing 1♦ when responding to 1♣), Checkback, etc. When I'm playing any other system I'm a convention freak, playing this the only thing I want to add on is 1M:2N as an invitational plus raise.

[helene_t]

Lawrence's 2/1 is a very natural system. You might simplify the system by removing Gerber and the follow-ups to strong jump shifts. (Actually, for my part, abandon the strong jump shifts alltogether). Maybe you could formulate some simple rules for when splinter raises apply and when they do not. One further advantage of that system is that Lawrence has written excellent books you can use.

 

I agree that Acol is a good alternative. Ideally, I would prefer Precission, but it seems to me that all books on Precission are either outdated or very scientific. (Anybody please tell me if I overlooked something).

 

In general, scientific methods are over-rated when it comes to efficiency. You should play Multi/Muiderberg and Raptor for the fun of it, not in order to win. So your F2F partner will do just fine.

[EricK]

OK.

 

Acol it is.

 

Now should we play original Acol where one only needs a reasonable 8 count for a 2/1 (so 1x 2y 2NT is non-forcing), or a more modern style where you need say 10+ to respond at the 2 level (so 1x 2y 2NT is forcing)? Or maybe play 1NT as 12.5-15 and so make 2/1 bids 9+.

 

And what about 2 level bids? Acol 2s? Strong 2C plus 3 weak 2s? 4 weak 2s? something else?

 

Thanks again for any help.

 

Eric

[helene_t]

The sounder the 2/1 response the less problems you have defining the forcing character of rebids.

 

Playing a 12-14 1NT, it's nice to limit the 1NT response so that opener can pass with a ballanced 15-16 points. Thus, 1NT is 6-8 and 2/1 is 9+. After a 2/1, a rebid of the opening suit or a raise of responders suit are the only nonforcing rebids. It's a little scarry to play the 2NT rebid as forcing if it shows only 15+9 HCPs. So you may stretch the 1NT opening to a modest 15 and the 1NT response to a modest 9.

 

Alternatively, play 1NT as 14-16 and a 2/1 response as GF. But then I'm afraid you can't call it Acol anymore.

[DenisO]

It might be worth looking at the simple system played by world class players in the Generali Masters.

 

Denis