Non-Natural Systems

[Charlie Yu]

You are allowed. Unless you are in the ACBL; you didn't specify.

ACBL is not the only one. I live in another country, but they still follow ACBL restrictions.

[Vampyr]

ACBL is not the only one. I live in another country, but they still follow ACBL restrictions.

 

Maybe you could write to the committee in charge of regulations and suggest that they use the Orange Book instead, or use the ACBL regs but reserve the GCC for novice events?

 

If they are using ACBL regulations only for convenience, they may not be intractable.

[mgoetze]

Maybe you could write to the committee in charge of regulations and suggest that they use the Orange Book instead,

 

I feel there's been some misunderstanding, but do tell me, what level is Wilkosz allowed at in the EBU?

[Vampyr]

I thought it was allowed. I was mistaken:

 

But it is not permitted to play [a 2♦opening] as

‘Spades or Clubs with a second suit of Hearts or Diamonds’, since length in

Diamonds is part of the specification.

 

Pity.

[Charlie Yu]

Weird restrictons, but are myxo twos allowed?

[Vampyr]

Weird restrictons, but are myxo twos allowed?

Trying to work this out has given me a headache, but as far as I could tell the 2-of-a-suit openers are allowed but not the 2NT opening.

[32519]

Weird restrictons, but are myxo twos allowed?

 

This is the first time ever I have heard about myxo twos. I looked it up via a Google search and found this http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/Myxomatosis2Bids.html

 

Now I have the following questions:

1. How many contributers to these forums play myxo 2s?

2. How effective have you found them:

...a) Offensively?

...b) Defensively?

 

Will really appreciate feedback here.

[FM75]

Just some random comments on this thread:

• The ratio of US to World Bermuda Cup wins very closely approximates the ratio of the two populations. (not sure what the "bridge playing" populations are.)
  
• The rules of the Bermuda Cup allow two US teams, but are prejudiced against them winning by preventing both from reaching the final.
  
• The number of wins by China and India supports the professional hypothesis.
  
• The "got better results after switching from x to y" should be expected regardless of x and y. The fact that a change was made suggests a player intent upon improvement. That player would likely improve if he continued x. :)
  
• Perhaps discussion of systems' tolerance for errors (severity of the failure) and the probability of errors is under-discussed.
  

[32519]

I was the loudmouth who queried the reason for NNS. And then I went on to design my own NNS.

 

This I can say: they’re fun to play and fun to play against. You need to think “out of the box” during the bidding if you aren’t prepared for whatever NNS you may meet. Weaker opponents more often than not don’t know how to deal with them.

[phil_20686]

These kind of discussions are always pointless, as they are so poorly defined.

 

What is a NNS? I tend to think precision and polish club are fairly natural. Even transfer openings are basically natural. Only relay systems are truly "non natural".

 

There are lots of trade-offs and cross overs in bidding. You want to work out what kind of style you like to play before you think about what kind of system. It is my observation that limited systems like precision favour a very aggressive style. I think standard 2/1 type systems favour a more conservative style, particularly in competition. If you like to open light and force to game on minimal hands, 2/1 is not for you imo. Similarly, if opening Axxxx Axx Qxx xx concerns you you probably arent making best use of the freedom precision allows you.

 

Regardless of your opening bid structure, there is a lot of mileage in having good/complex agreements for constructive auctions. I think all expert players know this and have those agreements within their expert partnerships. Thats why they say it takes 3-5 years for a professional pair to reach their peak.

 

If you think that a particular NNS is significantly better than, say, 2/1+expert level continuations, you are definitely just wrong. For one thing, if it were true, experts would know it by now, and it would be come close to uniform in a short space of time. Gaining half an imp a board is a winning margin for most BB teams. Enough that your favoured system would be dominating World competitions. Instead there is diversity, which is a clear indication that there is no pancea. Even within the 2/1 community there is a clear division between those who bid shape first, and those who prefer strength first.

 

Finally, it has been my observation that those who are most strident in proclaiming that their system is better than, say, 2/1, tend to be strongly correlated with those who dont understand how to bid in 2/1 very well, and do not appreciate the large number of off the shelf system that most experts have to go with their general agreements for dealing with difficult hands.

[Zelandakh]

What is a NNS? I tend to think precision and polish club are fairly natural. Even transfer openings are basically natural. Only relay systems are truly "non natural".

 

There are lots of trade-offs and cross overs in bidding. You want to work out what kind of style you like to play before you think about what kind of system. It is my observation that limited systems like precision favour a very aggressive style. I think standard 2/1 type systems favour a more conservative style, particularly in competition. If you like to open light and force to game on minimal hands, 2/1 is not for you imo. Similarly, if opening Axxxx Axx Qxx xx concerns you you probably arent making best use of the freedom precision allows you.

 

If you think that a particular NNS is significantly better than, say, 2/1+expert level continuations, you are definitely just wrong. For one thing, if it were true, experts would know it by now, and it would be come close to uniform in a short space of time.

 

Or you could have just *1ed my post on page 1 Phil!

 

For me the main advantage of playing relays as opposed to natural bidding is that it suits the way my brain works. The types of decisions change. It is not necessarily that these decisions are any easier than with natural but they are easier for me. I also find that the system is more consistent as there tends to be less guessing. Of course there are bad hands for the system as well as good ones. With world class players playing on both sides I doubt the system would be worth very much compared with, say, expert level 2/1. But I am not world class and at the level I play it is worth something.

 

<snip>

 

Most modern "natural" systems have codified sequences that resemble non-natural ones, and similarly most non-natural systems use natural bidding in some situations. Where do you draw the line for what is "natural" in this context?

 

I think we are agreeing on just about everything. Perhaps a better term here is Non-Standard system. My experience of most NSSs is that they are generally rather poor. When I see one that I think has merit I try to take some notice of it to see where it is doing well and where not. That occasionally gives me ideas on how to improve my own methods. I daresay that most other posters think the same way (that it is rather poor) about my NSS too.