Bob Hamman's assertion

[glen1]

I do disagree with this. Yes, if you want to become a good player, there is nothing more important than developing good judgement and learning to play well. But you can't completely ignore the aspect of making agreements with partner, and for most people this process will tend to make their bidding more complicated. {goes on the provide excellent reasons to play a system}

 

You provide 5+ good reasons how system can have a positive impact on results, and these are all valid. However system can also hinder the development of a bridge player, as the very same reasons become a crutch, and the players don't learn to run.

 

While I would not go so far as Fred's '99%' of players, I would suggest that developing players avoid the crutch, and don't rely on the positive impacts of bidding systems while trying to get better. Then later, when they are ready to take on the world (and/or Fred), they can pick a system or two to beat up Hamman and rest of the bridge mob.

 

fred and brad, for instance, honestly believe (at this point in time) that a 5 card major system will give them a competitive advantage, i.e. that this system is "better" than others...

I don't know about Brad, but I think that Fred may believe that his system is not any "better" or worse than the other systems employed at the highest levels, and that his competitive advantage comes from always knowing what they are doing - that is trying to play error-free bridge.

 

Fred's teammates Eric Greco and Geoff Hampson likely believe that system is important in some way, as they switched from 2/1 to Meckwell strong club. They might have done this because they believe it is more effective, or they might have done it because they like opening 11 counts. Perhaps they could lend Fred their notes.

[fred]

I do disagree with this. Yes, if you want to become a good player, there is nothing more important than developing good judgement and learning to play well. But you can't completely ignore the aspect of making agreements with partner, and for most people this process will tend to make their bidding more complicated. {goes on the provide excellent reasons to play a system}

 

You provide 5+ good reasons how system can have a positive impact on results, and these are all valid. However system can also hinder the development of a bridge player, as the very same reasons become a crutch, and the players don't learn to run.

 

While I would not go so far as Fred's '99%' of players, I would suggest that developing players avoid the crutch, and don't rely on the positive impacts of bidding systems while trying to get better. Then later, when they are ready to take on the world (and/or Fred), they can pick a system or two to beat up Hamman and rest of the bridge mob.

 

fred and brad, for instance, honestly believe (at this point in time) that a 5 card major system will give them a competitive advantage, i.e. that this system is "better" than others...

I don't know about Brad, but I think that Fred may believe that his system is not any "better" or worse than the other systems employed at the highest levels, and that his competitive advantage comes from always knowing what they are doing - that is trying to play error-free bridge.

 

Fred's teammates Eric Greco and Geoff Hampson likely believe that system is important in some way, as they switched from 2/1 to Meckwell strong club. They might have done this because they believe it is more effective, or they might have done it because they like opening 11 counts. Perhaps they could lend Fred their notes.

I agree with almost all of this post.

 

I have absolutely no idea if the basic system (5-card majors, 2/1 GF, strong notrumps) is "better" or "worse" than any other basic system. Furthermore I have no idea how one would even try to go about demonstrating something like this. I choose play this system, not because I think it gives me a competitive advantage in and of itself, but because I am comfortable with it (and I believe that this is far more important than what methods we actually use).

 

Hampson and Greco switched from 2/1 to Precision a couple of years ago for a strange reason: they felt their partnership was getting stale and wanted to try something new. As with Brad and myself, the reason they play the methods they do are more personal than related to any strong conviction that their system is "better" than a natural system.

 

A story:

 

Some time during the past year I played a team of young players during the first round of a Spingold or Vanderbilt. One of the pairs on this team showed up at the table with a thick binder filled with hundreds of pages of system notes that described their highly artificial and complex system. They had plenty of "pre-alerts" and used several conventions that I had never heard of. Although I had never met these 2 before, they were obviously very bright and had put a great deal of time and effort into developing their bidding system.

 

I played 48 of the 64 boards of this match against this pair.

 

The approximate number of IMPs they won through "system truimphs": 0

 

The approximate number of boards in which they forgot their system, had misunderstandings in auctions in which their system was not in play, or learned the hard way that their were massive holes in their system: 10

 

The approximate number of IMPs they lost as a result: 100

 

The approximate number of IMPs they lost through stupid mistakes and poor judgment: 150

 

I have seen this sort of thing happen time and time again. Talented young players who devote their time and energy to developing systems and do not know how to win a trick lose and lose and lose. Most of these people are so emotionally attached to their systems that they never see why they are losing. They are almost always Flight-B players for life.

 

The other class of talented young players include the Jlall's of the world. These people understand what is important. They focus on learning to play. They eventually become superstars, but well before they do that, it is not rare for them to beat teams like mine in the Vanderbilt or Spingold (rather than losing by 300 IMPs as the mad scientists typically do).

 

Those of you who continue to argue with me are probably not going to be convinced regardless of what I say. For those of you have not decided yet, I hope you will at least believe me about my experiences (which strongly suggest that I am right). In my view we do not know enough about bridge to answer an abstract question like: "Which system results in the most success?" However, we can learn a lot of listening to experienced and successful players.

 

I do understand that many players find it fun to experiment with systems. If fun is what you are after, do whatever turns you on, but if success is what you want I strongly suggest that you keep the bidding simple (at least until the time comes that you are a VERY good player).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[MickyB]

As per the system debate, I think it's pretty interesting. The president of our university club really wants all of improving players to just stick to simple Acol and focus on learning it well. Of course most of the students start to learn it and then play some online and end up adding tons and tons of different gadgets and conventions.

 

My argument to him was that although I agreed that their bridge would improve if they just stuck with simple system and improved their cardplay, defense, and bridge judment, that their bridge INTEREST may suffer.

I agree Matt. I spent a lot of time on system when I first started, expecting it to improve my results. Of course, it didn't, but it kept me interested in bridge at a time when I had no patience for books on cardplay. Also, I got to blame any bad results on our forgetting the constantly changing system :D

 

When I'm asked about system by members of our uni club, I usually mention that they should play Asptro or whatever because they want to, not because it will improve their results drastically. That's when I'm not getting ranting on about my own pet theories...

[Walddk]

I totally agree with Fred. Play what you like, do whatever you and your partner are comfortable with, add 919 conventions and relays, but accept the fact that this doesn't make you a better bridge player.

 

This is the issue in a nutshell.

 

Roland

[Trumpace]

I agree that _non-expert_ players should first develop card play and then think about improving the bidding system. What is the use when you bid to a game accurately only to go down because of poor play? I agree with Fred that card play and judgement should be developed first. I know I might get some heat by my following statement, but I would say that people without a good judgement are the first ones to rant about the need for a 'better' system. (Note that I am only talking about non-expert players).

 

I have seen many declarers arguing with their partners about the _bidding_ after they have gone down in a cold contract. (I have done that many times myself). They never realise (want to realise) that their partner's bidding is probably reasonable and the contract could have been made.

 

At the highest levels of the game where most are equal in terms of card play and (probably) judgement, the system would (should) come into the picture. But I don't see how we can say one system is better than the other... there will always be hands where one system fails and the other suceeds.

[luke warm]

absolutely true, a system can't teach anyone to count or teach judgment... but like it or not, hamman said what he said... now he may be wrong, or he may be just kidding, or he may have some other motivation... i don't know him so i can't say

 

it's also just possible he meant what he said.. it appears that a lot of folks are saying that if he *did* mean what he said, he's just plain wrong... talented folks who play 5 card majors and forcing no trump *wouldn't* get better results playing another system...

 

But I don't see how we can say one system is better than the other... there will always be hands where one system fails and the other suceeds

 

that's true, but remember hamman is just giving his opinion.. and in that opinion, a certain style is clearly inferior... but that's just one man's view

[Walddk]

I have been teaching bridge for over 30 years, and (not only) my conclusion is:

 

In most cases you can teach people to bid, but you can't teach them to play or defend, let alone make judgements, if they have no flair whatsoever.

[csdenmark]

..

[Walddk]

This looks to me not the right way for arguments by Fred and Roland. As I read you your arguments are based on blaming persons who tries to invent their own systems based on a little bit from this and a little bit from that.

 

I wonder why you may be proud that a professional standard system is superior to a rag-carpet system. In my view no wonder!

 

But thats not the way for a comparison set-up. You have to compare professional systems against each other - fx. Meckwell versus Nickell-Fremann or Gitelman-Moss versus Balicki-Zmudzinski. Thats the way for a debate.

 

I feel very sorry each time I here on BBO Forum see any new post asking for opinions about all kind of strange bidding sequences.  No arguments - no continuations - no interference handle - never defense. Strong systems are based on different kind of philosophy - but such basic elements are very rare discussed. I think it is because such are rules(restrictions) to be applied in order to be successful using the right tools.

 

In that way proponents of strong systems are just offering all too obvious and easy arguments.

 

Trace the footsteps of Hamman then you will be beating Gitelman. - Thats for sure!

 

-----------------

No offence intended Fred  :D

You seem to be missing our point completely, Claus. Go ahead and play all kinds of systems, all kinds of gadgets, all kinds of relays. Take a little from this, a little from that and a little more from there.

 

Fine, then you have a system. The problem is, however, that the more you add of funny things, the more there is to forget for a start, and when that happens you are headed for a disaster (you = one). We have all seen that on numerous occasions.

 

Now, let's assume that your complicated system finally does get you to the right contract, then you will have to play it too. Too many system freaks seem to forget all about playing a hand correctly. No system makes up for that, no matter how good a system you have.

 

The same applies to defence. Do you think that your spectacular system helps you to defend properly? Of course it doesn't. If you can't play, if you can't defend, it doesn't matter which system you have.

 

My, and Fred's for that matter as you see, suggestion is that you actually learn to play bridge first, that you learn the basics first, that you read books for hours and hours, that you study article after article with analasyses. And that you practice your play for hundreds of hours.

 

I never understood why so many players want to run before they can even crawl, but that's unfortunately how it is. They add gadget upon gadget, relay upon relay before they even know how to master the basics.

 

Forget about Smolen, Drury, Hamway, Gitmoss, whatever. Just play bridge, and the best way to do that is to keep it as simple as possible.

 

Finally, I hope you are up for a challenge. You choose any system you like, any gadget you like. You find a partner who plays exactly the same and you sit down on BBO and play against Fred and me. We have no system, so we agree on Goren, Stayman and Blackwood, negative doubles, reverse attitude and count. Nothing more.

 

Do you think that whichever system you choose will make the difference in your favour? I bet against!

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

 

>You seem to be missing our point completely, Claus. Go ahead and play all kinds of

>systems, all kinds of gadgets, all kinds of relays. Take a little from this, a little from >that and a little more from there.

 

>Fine, then you have a system. The problem is, however, that the more you add of

>funny things, the more there is to forget for a start, and when that happens you are

>headed for a disaster (you = one). We have all seen that on numerous occasions.

 

Quick comment here...

 

From my perspective, highly "artificial" systems actually feature significantly less memory load than supposedly natural ones...

 

>Finally, I hope you are up for a challenge. You choose any system you like, any

>gadget you like. You find a partner who plays exactly the same and you sit down

>on BBO and play against Fred and me. We have no system, so we agree on Goren,

>Stayman and Blackwood, negative doubles, reverse attitude and count. Nothing >more.

 

I'll note in passing that there was a similar discussion here on BBO roughly 2 years ago, leading to a match called "Swatting the MOSCITO's". The MOSCITO team fielded two highly experienced pairs (Paul Marston and Sartaj Hans and Luis and Ana Bloom) versus team of solid BBO players playing a simple natural system.

 

As I recall, the main conclusion was that the partnership experience of the MOSCITO team gave them a pretty big advantage...

[Walddk]

I'll note in passing that there was a similar discussion here on BBO roughly 2 years ago, leading to a match called "Swatting the MOSCITO's".  The MOSCITO team fielded two highly experienced pairs (Paul Marston and Sartaj Hans and Luis and Ana Bloom) versus team of solid BBO players playing a simple natural system.

 

As I recall, the main conclusion was that the partnership experience of the MOSCITO team gave them a pretty big advantage...

Richard, the four persons you mention can actually play and defend too. My point is that many system freaks concentrate too much on the system, and forget the other, and in my opinion the more important part: play, defence and judgement.

 

I am sure that Claus (csdenmark) knows more about odd systems than I do, but I am not worried about it. I can do pretty well with less.

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

Richard, the four persons you mention can actually play and defend too. My point is that many system freaks concentrate too much on the system, and forget the other, and in my opinion the more important part: play, defence and judgement.

 

I am sure that Claus (csdenmark) knows more about odd systems than I do, but I am not worried about it. I can do pretty well with less.

I don't have an informed opinion regarding Claus's defense or play, however, I've never been accussed of any great skill in either of those areas... I'm certainly not within a mile of you or Fred with regards to ability...

 

With this said and done, I suspect that given the conditions of contest you describe , I and a partner of my chosing could put on a presentable showing...

[keylime]

I agree with Fred completely, but for a very different set of reasons.

 

When I started KLP, we used the Meckwell WBF CC, with a lot of simplifications to make it GCC legal and memory sufficient. Had a lot of success in the first few events we played using this.

 

As we started to add "refinements" and "tweaks" and "modifications" and "structure", our results started to sink. We thought it was lack of field protection or hands didn't fit or some other absurd reason. What we didn't realize was that conventions and treatments should be used IN CONCERT with hand evaluation, not as purely a secondary concern.

 

We used to have a lot of stuff and notes and "goodies", but due to dramatic health issues with both of us, we realized that we couldn't model ourselves after the Meckwell model, but to find our own model. To do that, we had to find that "convention limiter", in essence the max threshold that we both could stomach. Then, we started backing down - WAY down - until we found the right mixture so that the play of the hands became easier.

 

I firmly believe that the great players know their limit in terms of artificiality. I also believe that my play as a bridge player has significantly improved since I dropped about 80 pages of notes. I wanted a compact method that in my eyes make enough sense to make the declaring the major area of my game (this is the region I was suffering the most with).

 

I'm happy with what I have. I'm also happy that I have in a partner someone who's willing to say "no". That's a biggie. Our system notes have in unopposed auctions been reduced by 2/3'rds - it's the comp. auctions where we have made detailed agreements.

 

The most important thing for us right now is continuing to educate ourselves and challenge ourselves. Being the ex-system nuts we are, we rather win by tactics now.

[Gerardo]

I'll note in passing that there was a similar discussion here on BBO roughly 2 years ago, leading to a match called "Swatting the MOSCITO's". The MOSCITO team fielded two highly experienced pairs (Paul Marston and Sartaj Hans and Luis and Ana Bloom) versus team of solid BBO players playing a simple natural system.

Ana Alonso (AnaA on BBO, Luis' mother) not Ana Blum.

[helene_t]

First of all, Hamman's assertion sounds like a sarcasm. I can believe he's a little bit serious, I can't believe he's 100% serious.

 

I agree with Fred, Roland and Ron that you're much better of concentrating on judgement and card play instead of inventing and adopting complex conventions. But I also agree with Richard that artificial systems are not inherently more complex or difficult than "natural" systems (whatever that is supposed to mean).

 

One (not necesarily the only) advantage of playing standard systems is the mere fact that they are standard. You can discuss bidding problems with peers who play similar or even identical systems, and you can read about bidding problems in hundreds of books. If you choose a non-standard system, you are left with a very few textbook authors to learn from.

 

I agree with Claus that it's unfair to compare a professional standard system to some incoherent patchwork relay system. But sometimes reality just isn't fair. If you want to augment a standard system with some funny conventions, there are plenty of conventions out there that have been developed, discussed and tested in the context of standard systems. Think of the discussions we have had about check-back relays, notrump structure, Inverted Minors and New Suit Invitational. All those conventions would work differently (if at all) in an exotic system so you would be less able to benefit from the discussions.

[EricK]

The key question as far as I am concerned is not "Will the correct system allow a weak pair to beat a strong pair?" but "Will the correct system allow a weak pair to beat another weak pair?" and "Will the correct system allow a strong pair to beat another strong pair?"

 

Certainly a lot of weak pairs would improve their results if they simply had more agreements, especially in competitive auctions.

 

Another point is that matches are generally too short to determine if one system is better than another - the victory is overwhelmingly likely to be due to the short term distribution of errors between the two teams. I know that when Matt Ginsberg was changing the bidding database on his GIB software he would run very long matches between the new version and the old version. This demonstrates that given equal playing skill, bidding will make the difference in the long run (just as given equal bidding skill, play and defense will make the difference!).

 

Eric

[Chamaco]

Hamman was provoking, as he does- quite unpleasantly, IMO - throughout the entire book.

[awm]

Some points others may have missed:

 

(1) Sometimes, playing a nonstandard system can help to develop judgement. As an example, many American players (even at fairly high levels of competition) do poorly against weak notrump. They simply have not played enough hands against the weak notrump to be able to properly judge what to do, in part because it's not popular in the US. Outside of moving to Great Britain, the best way to become experienced in defending weak notrump is by playing it yourself. This is also true of other treatments and conventions, like four card majors, precision 2♣, or the multi 2♦. Of course, it doesn't apply to more "weird" homegrown treatments, but it's useful to experiment with popular conventions that you are likely to see in top flight competition. Playing a system based around losing trick count rather than high card points (for example) can help develop bidding judgement.

 

(2) It's very important to have good agreements. Being on the same page with partner is more valuable than playing some theoretically best methods. Because of this, it's important to have discussed a lot of auctions, and what bids mean in various sequences. This is true regardless of what the basic system structure is. Pretty much every top pair has spent a great deal of time on this (including Fred and Brad I'm sure, even though they play a relatively "standard" system). There is some strange benefit to playing a nonstandard system, because such a structure FORCES you to discuss a lot of auctions, whereas it is easy to fall into the trap of assuming that just because you play "standard american" or "two-over-one" you can get away with not talking about a lot of things. Agreements about treatments like raising major suit responses on three cards, and whether reverses in game-forcing auctions show extras, can swing a lot of IMPs and are important to discuss.

 

(3) Memory load is an important constraint in bidding. I know people like the "scientists" Fred describes. In fact, I've played with some of them... it's not enough to be playing a relay system, they want to have a different relay structure after each opening bid, flipping things around to optimize their structures in very minute ways, with the net effect of making things almost impossible to remember. If you have agreements that come up less than once every couple weeks, they're going to be pretty tough to remember (note that this means pairs who play all the time like Meckstroth-Rodwell are probably better able to play complex agreements than those of us who have other full time jobs). On the other hand, it can be easier to remember methods over a precision 1♣ (which comes up a couple times a session), than it is to remember methods over a strong 2♣ (which comes up a couple times a week at most).

 

(4) Comfort level is really the most important thing. Better bidding can certainly swing a few imps, but playing the cards (and especially defending!) tend to be more valuable. Even at the highest levels, a quite surprising number of boards are misdefended. Of course, some people have an easier time than others remembering complex agreements, and for those people it may be worth the edge they get.

 

I suspect that Fred's teammates (Rubin + Ekeblad) would tend not to agree with his statements about the relative value of methods. But then again, they too can play the cards. ;)

[csdenmark]

..

[Fluffy]

absolutely true, a system can't teach anyone to count or teach judgment...

This is obviously true but...

 

A very good friend of mine played last european championship for Spain (very long competition), he was using a viking club system, wich is a highly artificial one full of relays everywhere.

 

He pointed to me that one of the best issues of the system was that the system was actually bidding for him, once he was familiar with all relays, he had to apply no judgement at all on uncontested biddings, wich meant they were a lot less tired than any other in the team after first week.

[csdenmark]

..

[hrothgar]

Viking is to be assessed as a fairly poor tool. Very many and deep relays difficult to remember. After any simple interference the system is off. Then you no longer have a Precision system as Glen has completely refrained any kind of interference handle. The remain is a simple standard system with limit openings and a strong duspin. Thats all!

 

It looks to me on Vugraph that Aa/Groetheim don't apply their system themselves.

To quote another Dane, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

 

Bridge Systems evolve over time. Even if your System Files are perfectly accurate today is no guaruntee that they will be so tomorrow. In this case, Viking Club is Groetheim and Aa's system, I think that they get to determine what is and is not systemic.

 

Equally significant, Groetheim and Aa have a damn good track record with Viking Club... The Norweigan's have a great record in both international play and in bidding contests like Challenge the Champs. Many of the best results are with part-scre hands. Hard to understand how such a poor tool performs so well for them...

[Walddk]

To quote another Dane, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

Quote from "Hamlet" (Shakespeare), where philosophy in this context means "science". Although Hamlet may have been a viking, I don't think he played Viking Club.

 

But I do know that he and Ophelia were in contention in all mixed events at the time. Maybe they played a simple system? :)

 

Roland

[EricK]

To quote another Dane, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

Quote from "Hamlet" (Shakespeare), where philosophy in this context means "science". Although Hamlet may have been a viking, I don't think he played Viking Club.

 

But I do know that he and Ophelia were in contention in all mixed events at the time. Maybe they played a simple system? :)

They played a very complicated system but used rosemary (that's for remembrance) Act IV Scene 5

 

Eric

[luis]

Well

I'm in the middle of both sides. I think that from a theoretical point of view there're systems that are better than others. Which ones are better and how better they are is one of the unsolved misteries of bridge. I don't know the answer. I'm based in the simple fact that systems are different so if you put identical "clones" to play all the bridge hands in the world using two different systems in a team match one of them will win. That's why I like naturalist vs scientists matches and similar, because I'm intrigued by the question.

 

Having said that I also think that bridge judgement is the #1 factor to become a good player and that how confortable the partnership is with the system is more important than the system itself. I play different systems with different pds and I'm quite happy with all of them, for one of my partnerships we switched from precision to an ad-hoc strong club then to 2/1 and now we play fantunes style, we failed with strong club systems, we failed with 2/1 and now we are doing fine with fantunes. A story that I think should be similar to what Greco and Hampson experienced.

When I was 19 or 20 I was very excited about the system now maybe I'm getting older but I care less and less about the system and more and more about bridge things, like style, competitive agreements and carding.

 

Luis.