[32519]

The BBO Forums are littered with all sorts of systems. Some deal with improvements on existing already widely recognised systems. Others deal with the development of new systems. The Non-Natural System Forum in particular is crammed with all sorts of interesting ideas for building new systems around. However at the end of the day, how much of your results at the table can be ascribed to the system you are playing?

Consider the following –
1.) In top flight tournaments you have to provide your opponents with a copy of your CC. They normally are given sufficient time to study it before the commencement of the actual match itself.
2.) Top flight players inevitably have agreements on how to deal with strange systems or they are able to reach agreement quickly after studying their opponents CC’s.
3.) During play all artificial bids still need to be alerted. So how much was the gain for using a fancy system? Inevitably a huge amount of effort was dispensed in developing a new system.
4.) There was a thread recently where the majority seemed to agree that good declarer play and good defensive play will ensure above average results in any tournament.
5.) Bidding wasn’t regarded as important as point 4 above.
6.) Many controlling bodies e.g. ACBL outlaw many of these fancy systems anyway.

Which brings me back to this threads primary question: How much did you gain from developing your own unique Non-Natural System?

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2012-January-03, 13:25, said:

Which brings me back to this threads primary question: How much did you gain from developing your own unique Non-Natural System?

I was able to think rather merely memorize...
To me, the difference is significant.

[straube]

I think it matters a lot. An obvious example is how strong club/forcing pass systems separate strength ranges and how this permits light openings vs standard systems. Notice how strong club systems make more frequent use of 1C-1D sequences than standard systems. My partner and I invest heavily in being able to show distributional patterns to each other and this allows us to reach slams that standard systems might miss.

I get the impression that you feel like the main point in having a "fancy system" is that it is confusing to the opponents. We got lambasted just yesterday after we opened an artificial 1D P 1S P 2S P 2N asking about my hand. They called the director on us! So some folks get more easily confused about such things and that's their problem as far as I'm concerned. We're building our system to hopefully get an edge against folks who play and defend better than us.

[32519]

straube, on 2012-January-03, 14:06, said:

We're building our system to hopefully get an edge against folks who play and defend better than us.

Great answer!! Topic closed.

Thank you.

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2012-January-03, 14:30, said:

Great answer!! Topic closed.

Thank you.

I'd be curious to understand what dramatic insight you've suddenly gained...

FWIW, the answer that Straube gives isn't necessarily the one that I, or any number of players might provide.

For me, the the primary reason that I prefer to play MOSCITO is that

1. I can concisely state the assumptions on which the bidding system is based
2. I agree with these design goals

I can't do the same for 2/1 GF

(I'd be surprise if you, or anyone else on this forum can give a reasonable summation)

[whereagles]

In my younger days I used to play relays over a strong 1♣. These methods are clearly superior to standard ones if you're left alone bidding. They're a little bit more vulnerable to overcalls than a natural 1x opening, but that's not a big deal.

The major downside lies in the nebulous opening of 1♦ and, to a lesser extent, to the 2♣ too. And since 1♦ is a rather common bidding, you'd need a lot of judgement and experience to deal with it, especially if opps butt-in.

[straube]

32519, on 2012-January-03, 14:30, said:

Great answer!! Topic closed.

Thank you.

Well, I wish I hadn't ended with that sentence because now 32519 seems to think he's won some sort of victory. The fact is that card play has never been my strong suit but bidding and system has. So if I'm going to play against the local experts, I'm going to play to my strengths. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Most of our local experts play standard/natural systems with a few gadgets and only one pair has invested heavily in a strong club relay system. I think playing a natural system is handicapping oneself, because natural bids don't occur in the optimum sequence for getting to the right contract. As I touched on, the suit of least importance is the one that is the lowest bid. The suit of second least importance is the second bid. When one opens a natural club, the suit one wants least to know about is diamonds. Hence Walsh style of bidding where diamonds are by-passed. 1C-1M sequences are far more common than 1C-1D sequences and 1C-1D, 1N sequences are more common than 1C-1D, 1M sequences. These sequences are just an example of how standard/natural bidding lags. There are many others.

[FrancesHinden]

I agree with straube but in the way he means, rather than how you seem to have taken it (I think). There are many ways to do well at bridge. Playing well and defending well are two of them. Having detailed and well-understood bidding agreements is another, whether it's a natural system with a lot of gadgets or a 'non-natural' system (the boundary becomes blurred after a while). My partnership spends a lot of time working on partnership agreements, even in our (more-or-less) natural base, because we know that if we understand what all auctions, including all competitive ones, mean then we have an advantage over pairs that don't.

It's nothing to do with confusing the opponents, which is not the aim.

Quote

4.) There was a thread recently where the majority seemed to agree that good declarer play and good defensive play will ensure above average results in any tournament.

That's quite true.

But I don't just want 'above average' results. I want to win.

[dake50]

4.) There was a thread recently where the majority seemed to agree that good declarer play and good defensive play will ensure above average results in any tournament.
5.) Bidding wasn’t regarded as important as point 4 above.
6.) Many controlling bodies e.g. ACBL outlaw many of these fancy systems anyway.

*** 6.) I play a totally General Convention Chart
system per ACBL. Does that make my system "fancy"?
Or does GCC imply not "fancy"? Conditions of Contest
allowing GCC means opponents are to be prepared for
GCC-allowed, don't they? Does that gain by their
unfamiliar with GCC? Not by the sanctioning rules.
*** 5.) Play your extra-trick-winning best in 2NT.
Our system judged 3NT - making. The very essence of
system agreements - make better/finer decisions.
*** 4.) Do you not see a point of diminishing returns
for better - better - better yet in play and defense?

[32519]

The Bermuda Bowl has been dominated by two countries. Past winners are –
• USA (18 wins)
• Italy (14 wins)
• France (2 wins)
• The Netherlands (2 wins)
• Brazil (1 win)
• Great Britain (1 win)
• Iceland (1 win)
• Norway (1 win)

During the knockout stages of the BB “anything goes.” The BBO forums have plenty of posts (posters) slamming the ACBL regulators for what many consider as overregulation. Yet in spite of this the USA has produced more BB winners than any other country. So how do they achieve this if they have limited opportunities for either playing or playing against a HUM system? Examining the CCs for many of the USA players, the most radical thing appearing on their cards is Flannery.

On a more serious note though. The actual system used doesn’t appear at the top of my list for the USA’s successes. I would rate the following higher than the system itself –
1.) Mental toughness. These guys seem to be able to cope with the pressure of extended tournaments longer than their opponents. Their concentration levels must be incredible.
2.) Better declarer play and defensive play. Again, once mental fatigue sets in, the number of errors made starts increasing.
3.) Innovation. I don’t have any stats here, but I believe that more conventional bids have originated in the USA than anywhere else. Many players (even top players no doubt) use the “copycat” approach to whatever system/conventional bid brought success to someone else. They end up adopting the same methods for themselves. Unfortunately there is a major flaw in this approach. The game of bridge continues to evolve. It isn’t long before these players are facing new innovation which leaves them lagging behind their (USA) opponents again.

For me, Multi is an example of point 3 above. None of the USA’s top ranked players have it on their CC’s. Does anyone know the reason why?
Fred/Justin: The two of you are regular posters to these forums and both currently ranked in the top 100 in the world. Do you know the real reason why so few of the USA’s top players play Multi?

[awm]

A lot of the success of these two countries has to do with professional opportunities. A pair that can afford to play bridge together full-time against high-quality opposition will tend to be better than a pair that can't. There are many reasons for this, including knowledge of their system, knowledge of their signals and style, as well as sheer time spent practicing (and practicing with a weak partner or against mediocre opposition isn't worth as much). The US has by far the best environment for bridge professionals (lots of wealthy sponsors, lots of serious tournaments that draw at least some top-quality players). Italy has a very strong bridge tradition and some wealthy sponsors who don't necessarily insist on even having a spot on the team (i.e. Lavazza).

Many of the other countries that have managed upset "surprise" Bermuda Bowl wins do include one or more pairs using pretty unusual methods. Not clear whether those methods are "better" or just increased the variance (allowing a weaker pair to "get lucky") or whether there's no causal relationship at all.

Of course, you can't argue that most systemic "innovation" comes from the US and that the US players at the same time play very "vanilla" methods. It's true that US pairs tend to play less exotic opening structures (in part because of what's allowed in US tournaments) but there's a lot of space for complexity and innovation after the first call of the auction. Rodwell has contributed a lot to bidding theory and his system with Meckstroth is famously one of the most complex in the world. Just because their openings are pretty "standard precision" doesn't mean anything. And while they are both very strong card-players (and that is more important than system) I'm sure their methods contribute to their success.

As for multi, the fact that it is essentially banned in the US (even in many national-level events like the Blue Ribbon Pairs or the Reisinger) might have something to do with why it's not on our convention cards! There's also a strong contingent who believe it's not that good a method (both in the US and abroad). And as for HUM systems, you don't see that many of them even where they are allowed. The issue is that you're not going to do that well in a top-flight competition playing a method that you haven't practiced extensively. There aren't a lot of opportunities to practice HUM methods extensively (or to practice multi extensively in the US).

[the hog]

Good Heavens, here we go again. 32519, you appear to have little idea what you are posting about. Are you aware that pros make their living by playing with clients who are often weak. Would you want to play anything remotely complicated with them? Are you aware that US system regulations are quite restrictive? Are you aware that even at BB levels regulations are restrictive?
" Yet in spite of this the USA has produced more BB winners than any other country." Of course they have! The US has more bridge players than any other country. It would be disgraceful if they did not win more often.

"On a more serious note though. The actual system used doesn’t appear at the top of my list for the USA’s successes. I would rate the following higher than the system itself –
1.) Mental toughness. These guys seem to be able to cope with the pressure of extended tournaments longer than their opponents. Their concentration levels must be incredible.

As is that of most of the world's top players

2.) Better declarer play and defensive play. Again, once mental fatigue sets in, the number of errors made starts increasing.
Really? Meckstroth may be the best player in the world, maybe not. Versace, Balicki, and quite a few others pretty good. Tim Seres had the reputation of being the best player in the world in his heyday. Patrick Huang did as well, and I bet you have never even heard of him. What about Michael Rosenberg whom many believe to be the best "technical" player in the world, not necessarily the best player?

3.) Innovation.
Perhaps. Again, the US has the most bridge players. On a per capita basis, I think you might find that Poland, and even New Zealand rate higher.

In concluding, I am sure that Straube did NOT mean that he gets an advantage because of unfamiliarity. In my experience those who play unusual systems go out of their way to ensure opponents are informed about the meanings of bids.

[bluecalm]

Many those BB wins for USA were won by team of sponsor (although quite strong) with his partner and two pro pairs playing strong club

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2012-January-04, 00:15, said:

During the knockout stages of the BB “anything goes.” The BBO forums have plenty of posts (posters) slamming the ACBL regulators for what many consider as overregulation. Yet in spite of this the USA has produced more BB winners than any other country. So how do they achieve this if they have limited opportunities for either playing or playing against a HUM system? Examining the CCs for many of the USA players, the most radical thing appearing on their cards is Flannery.

This is going to be fun!

1. Unlike any other country, the United States to send two teams to the World Championships which provides an enormous advantage
2. The US has a much deeper pool of talent than any other country. In any given decade, Norway or where ever will have a "Helgemo", however, the US is able to fields teams with multiple players with similar talent
3. Many of the best foreign pros move to the US and even play for US teams which significantly decreases the odds that Canada/Pakistan/Scotland/Sweden are able to field competitive teams
4. The "pro" culture in the US has allowed a large number of players to spend enormous amounts of time playing bridge professionally. Until recently, the same didn't hold true in other parts of the world.

Notice that conventions / bidding systems don't factor into this in the least.

If we move on to consider your question about the multi...

The answer why American pairs don't use the multi is simple: US Convention Regulations don't allow pairs to use it in most events. Recently, Multi got banned in almost all pairs events. I don't find it at all surprising that American players are unwilling to devote the time/effort to learn a new set of methods that they only get to play one match in 50... (This is a recipe for system forgets)

[32519]

the hog, on 2012-January-04, 02:53, said:

Good Heavens, here we go again. 32519, you appear to have little idea what you are posting about. Are you aware that pros make their living by playing with clients who are often weak.
Reply
You are absolutely spot on here. I have little idea what I am posting about, making (incorrect) assumptions from much of what I read in these forums. But hey, I’m learning from others who do have the answers. Common sense though, would suggest to me that any pro making their living by playing with clients who are often weak, had to first make a name for themselves before they reached a level of being sponsored. They would all have risen through the ranks, from being a “nobody” to becoming a big peanut in the packet. Only once they achieved a level of consistency (number of wins/top placing in big tournaments) would anyone be interested in sponsoring them.

Would you want to play anything remotely complicated with them?
Reply
This is an interesting question. Again, I have little knowledge of what I am posting about, but the inference made is that a pro and a client form a pair. Pierre Zimmermann sponsors Fantoni-Nunes/Helness-Helgemo. The last time I looked Franck Multon was Pierre's partner. Franck is the guy here who would have been required to lower his standards to those of Zimmermann. The other four can still play their normal game.

[Cthulhu D]

Quote

During the knockout stages of the BB “anything goes.” The BBO forums have plenty of posts (posters) slamming the ACBL regulators for what many consider as overregulation. Yet in spite of this the USA has produced more BB winners than any other country. So how do they achieve this if they have limited opportunities for either playing or playing against a HUM system? Examining the CCs for many of the USA players, the most radical thing appearing on their cards is Flannery.

Isn't that ranking of wins prima facie evidence supporting system innovation as important for winning bridge. The biggest per capita winners are Iceland and Italy, which seem to have played a variety of crazy stuff over time (Canape, precision, relay precision?). Of course other factors are at play, but if all things were equal, you'd expect the US to win 5 times as often as Italy, and about a 1000 (literally) times more often than Iceland.

[Zelandakh]

I have had the experience of playing modified Acol with a partner and then switching over to a home-made strong club system (with full disclosure) on BBO. I tracked the results - in Acol we were roughly +0.75 IMPS/bd and with the strong club we were about +1.25 IMPS/bd. The opps for the latter were generally slightly better than with Acol and my partner had not learned the entire strong club system which caused some unnecessary bad results occasionally (but they wanted to play the full system anyway so as not to have to re-learn stuff). So my non-natural system was worth about 0.5 IMPS/bd on BBO.

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.

Finally, I invite you to take the successful USA and Italian teams and calculate the system breakdown of the pairs. I would bet a small coke that there are far more strong club pairs appearing than "natural". The Blue Team, Hamman + partners, Meckwell, etc. If you consider the percentage of strong club winners in comparison with the percentage of bridge players that play strong club you might come to a very different (and equally wrong) conclusion about the relative merits of such systems against "natural" ones. 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?

[nigel_k]

the hog, on 2012-January-04, 02:53, said:

In concluding, I am sure that Straube did NOT mean that he gets an advantage because of unfamiliarity. In my experience those who play unusual systems go out of their way to ensure opponents are informed about the meanings of bids.

Of course those who play unusual methods gain quite a large advantage from unfamiliarity. It's just impossible to disclose to an extent that the opponents are in the same position as someone who has been playing the unusual method for years. I'm against almost all systems regulations, but the issue has to be whether cost of the unfair advantage players gain from the unfamilairity of the method is outweighed by the gain from giving people the freedom to innovate.

[Free]

Bidding systems are fun, and can give you a comfortable feeling at the table. This is priceless. Not being comfortable at the table will also affect your declarer play and defense imo, so it can have a huge impact on your overall performance.

[mycroft]

I have lots to say about why the OP seems to have asked eir question, but that's another topic.

In answer to what e actually *asked*:
- I feel more comfortable in a "non-natural" context, because of the restrictions that are put on the "non-normal" calls. I'm extraordinarily more comfortable after 1♠ gets overcalled when I'm playing Precision, say; and because I'm willing to put into the work to deal with the (inherently more unstable to competition) 1♣ opener, I go ahead on the deal. I also like the fact that after the limited openers, I have a *lot more* non-forcing calls I can use to "get in and get out".

- Similarly, I feel more comfortable with my sound 1m openers when I'm playing K-S. I'm willing to deal with the fact that there are some hands I have to pass that standard opens, and that we're doing a lot of "wrong-siding" vs standard, strong NT players, to get it.

What I find gains the most from unfamiliarity, frankly, of all the normal, odd, and really-odd (you know, 4-card 1-bids, 4-suit weak 2s, almost no artificial calls) systems I play, is the weak NT opener. I can do my best to explain it, but, you know, it's really "12-14 balanced." The implications for what one *should do* to oppose it, I don't really feel is my responsibility at the table.

As per questions 4 and 5, I happen to be one of those people who will never be the best player or defender. I believe I can be closer to the best system designer and user - why *shouldn't* I play to my strengths? So it's not as effective an advantage as the people who are naturally stronger at improving their play and defence - it's my advantage, and it would be stupid for me to not use it.