BBO Discussion Forums: Definition of Non-Natural System - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Definition of Non-Natural System I have a system Q but is it non-natural?

Poll: A system is non-natural if (at a minimum) (15 member(s) have cast votes)

A system is non-natural if (at a minimum)

  1. >=N opening bids art., nothing about shape (1 votes [6.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

  2. >=N opening bids art., but loosely bound shape (1 votes [6.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

  3. >=N opening bids art., showing suit(s) other than suit bid (2 votes [13.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.33%

  4. >=N opening bids either art. or nat. (3 votes [20.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

  5. Opening bids nat. but response structure highly art. (or relay) (8 votes [53.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 53.33%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   gingolia 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 2006-July-10

  Posted 2007-April-09, 11:32

I am trying to gauge which systemic questions go in this forum as opposed to other forums.

If choose one of the first four options, please suggest a value for N. (e.g. does the system have to be moscito? or do normal 2/1 but with multi-2d questions belong here as well?)
0

#2 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,194
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2007-April-09, 11:59

Precision and Polish Club are frequently discussed at this forum although they are arguably both more natural than SA. I think "Non-natural" should just read "non-standard". For some reason, Acol tends not to be discussed here.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#3 User is offline   AlexOgan 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 2006-June-09

Posted 2007-April-09, 12:46

Given that the other system forum available here is "SAYC and 2/1 Discussion", I would say that anything other than SAYC / 2/1 belongs here. Non-natural is a misleading title.
0

#4 User is offline   Gerben42 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,577
  • Joined: 2005-March-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Erlangen, Germany
  • Interests:Astronomy, Mathematics
    Nuclear power

Posted 2007-April-09, 14:39

Agree, and no one dares to discuss the English 4-card major system since they are afraid to use their commentator licence... :(
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do!
My Bridge Systems Page

BC Kultcamp Rieneck
0

#5 User is offline   Free 

  • mmm Duvel
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,728
  • Joined: 2003-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Duvel, Whisky

Posted 2007-April-09, 15:38

All of the above...
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
0

#6 User is offline   NickRW 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,951
  • Joined: 2008-April-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sussex, England

Posted 2008-May-02, 19:35

Gerben42, on Apr 9 2007, 08:39 PM, said:

Agree, and no one dares to discuss the English 4-card major system since they are afraid to use their commentator licence... :)


Well, this is a strange and old post for me to pick on as only my 2nd attempt at saying something interesting here...

I used to play standard Precision years ago at a local club. Quite soon even the little old ladies started to realise you can pre-empt the 1 opener on bus tickets and that all the other openings never have much muscle - which helped them with both play and bidding decisions. I reckon it was a servicable system at IMPs and we did OK with at MP coz the generally more accurate game and slam bidding gave enough edge to compensate for what we were losing elsewhere.

Acol, on the other hand - well - it is easy to learn and add in the multi or benji it becomes quite a servicable weapon at least for MP play. Don't get me wrong - I love bidding theory and spend far too long reading this forum - but I am yet to be lured back to the strong 1 system arena.

Just my plug for a tired old work horse system that is still going. At least it doesn't have idiosyncrasies like nebulous diamonds or unplayable 2C openers, nor indeed better 3 card minor as in SA - a supposedly "natural" system :P

Nick
"Pass is your friend" - my brother in law - who likes to bid a lot.
0

#7 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2008-May-02, 21:59

You can post wherever you like but this forum is where the system geeks and other weirdos discuss gadgets that never come up but are theoretically superior. :)
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar
0

#8 User is offline   NickRW 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,951
  • Joined: 2008-April-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sussex, England

Posted 2008-May-03, 08:02

Don't get me wrong here - I am a system weirdo geek at heart too - I am just waiting to find a system that is really worth the effort.

I am however, beginning to despiar of being convinced that any 1 and/or 1
system is actually the answer to the percieved problems of the 2 based systems. Perhaps the FN/disciplined EHAA style is the way to go :)

Nick
"Pass is your friend" - my brother in law - who likes to bid a lot.
0

#9 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,686
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2008-May-12, 16:20

"The way to go" is probably whichever way makes your partnership happy. :D

George Rosenkranz has suggested that "the wave of the future" may be "two card" systems. Something like 2/1 or other "natural" system when vulnerable, some "forcing club" system when non-vulnerable. In its latest incarnation, Romex takes this approach, playing at MPs "natural" Romex (essentially 2/1 GF with some extra forcing openings) when vulnerable and "Romex Forcing Club" (RFC) (with mini-NT) when not vulnerable. At IMPs the division is that RFC is played at favorable, "natural" Romex otherwise. Also the latest wrinkle (at both forms of scoring) is to make 1NT weak (12-14 HCP) in third seat when playing RFC. The theory is that this will at reduce, if not eliminate, opponents' tendency to preempt on "tram tickets" just because we opened 1. :)

Hamman-Soloway (iirc) used to play "Attack", a system based along these lines, albeit without Romex's "extra" forcing bids (and other things - a lot of effort was put into reducing the memory strain involved with a two card system as much as possible in the Romex variant). They later abandoned it, I don't know why (but I suspect memory strain might have had something to do with it).
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#10 User is online   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,472
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2008-May-12, 16:30

blackshoe, on May 13 2008, 01:20 AM, said:

Hamman-Soloway (iirc) used to play "Attack", a system based along these lines, albeit without Romex's "extra" forcing bids (and other things - a lot of effort was put into reducing the memory strain involved with a two card system as much as possible in the Romex variant). They later abandoned it, I don't know why (but I suspect memory strain might have had something to do with it).

Goldman and Soloway actually...

As far as I know, they continued to play Attack until the end of the partnership, however, they only dragged the system out in rare circumstance:

If G+S were significantly behind and felt that they needed to generate action they migrated to a high variance structure. Its interesting to note that they played strong club based on the opponents vulnerability.

hey beleived that it was most advantageous to play strong club when the opponents were red (and less able to jam the strong club opening)
Alderaan delenda est
0

#11 User is offline   hotShot 

  • Axxx Axx Axx Axx
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,976
  • Joined: 2003-August-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-May-12, 16:33

I think a workable definition is:
A system is non-natural if it's dominating/characteristic bid is non-natural.

In precision the 1 is not natural and it limits all other bids, that makes it the dominant bid of the system.
In SAYC there is no similar restrictive bid and (1-level) openings promise the named suit, so it's natural.
0

#12 User is offline   NickRW 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,951
  • Joined: 2008-April-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sussex, England

Posted 2008-May-12, 18:51

hotShot, on May 12 2008, 10:33 PM, said:

I think a workable definition is:
A system is non-natural if it's dominating/characteristic bid is non-natural.

In precision the 1 is not natural and it limits all other bids, that makes it the dominant bid of the system.
In SAYC there is no similar restrictive bid and (1-level) openings promise the named suit, so it's natural.

That's the generally perceived wisdom - except that it isn't really true. SAYC has natural 1H/1S openings - but 1C/1D don't actually promise a suit of 4 or more cards. Basic Precision, for example, from its equivalent set of bids, i.e. 1D/1H/1S/2C has 3 of the 4 showing a genuine suit - and, in some peoples' variants, even 1D is genuine as well. On that basis Precision is a more natural system. And, comparing SAYC's 2C to Precision's 1C - well they are both as unnatural as the other - it is just that Precision's version is vastly more frequent.

I beat no drum particularly either for Precision or naturalness - but - lets be kind here - what is regarded as a "natural" system is regarded that way for 'historical' reasons.

Nick
"Pass is your friend" - my brother in law - who likes to bid a lot.
0

#13 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,686
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2008-May-12, 23:29

One could argue that if the basis of "natural" vs. "non-natural" is the nature of the opening bids, the only truly natural system (well, only may be an overbid - the only one of which I'm aware, anyway) is EHAA. B)

I suspect the right name for this forum is "other system discussion"
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#14 User is offline   Free 

  • mmm Duvel
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,728
  • Joined: 2003-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Duvel, Whisky

Posted 2008-May-13, 01:17

hotShot, on May 12 2008, 11:33 PM, said:

I think a workable definition is:
A system is non-natural if it's dominating/characteristic bid is non-natural.

All you now need to do is to define what the dominating/characteristic bid is exactly, and when it's considered non-natural... Is opening a 3 card minor in 10% of the cases considered natural? Is opening canapé considered natural?

But still it's not a good definition imo: if all your opening bids are 'natural', but you play a relay structure after every opening, you won't be able to convince anyone that you're playing a natural system. So your definition is not complete. B)
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
0

#15 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,371
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2008-May-13, 01:37

A reasonable definition for a natural system might be both:

(1) An extremely high percentage (say 90%) of the times you open the bidding, your opening bid shows length in the suit named (or shows a balanced hand in the case of notrump openings).

(2) An extremely high percentage of the non-jump suit responses to natural opening bids show length in the suit named.

Strong club systems fail on the first criterion because the artificial 1 opening bid is actually quite common (probably around 15% of openings bids). This percentage is even higher for "prepared club" methods like WJ. The 1 bid in some strong club methods also qualifies as not showing length in the suit named.

On the other hand, systems like SAYC and 2/1 (and obviously EHAA) are okay on the first criterion because a strong 2 is quite unusual. Adding openings like namyats or gambling 3NT or mexican 2 probably won't raise this percentage enough to disqualify the system. Even multi probably doesn't raise the percentage of artificial openings above 10% of opening bids, although if you add enough artificial calls you will eventually get there.

Very few systems that qualify on (1) fail on (2), but a very relay-intensive method might qualify, as might a method that is very heavy on transfer responses (probably just transfer responses to 1 is not enough to become non-natural).

But really this forum is just for any methods which are not on popular "2/1 GF" convention cards.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
0

#16 User is offline   hotShot 

  • Axxx Axx Axx Axx
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,976
  • Joined: 2003-August-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-May-13, 02:01

NickRW, on May 13 2008, 02:51 AM, said:

That's the generally perceived wisdom - except that it isn't really true. SAYC has natural 1H/1S openings - but 1C/1D don't actually promise a suit of 4 or more cards.

Around here a minor suit call is considered natural if showing 3+ cards.
0

#17 User is offline   Free 

  • mmm Duvel
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,728
  • Joined: 2003-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Duvel, Whisky

Posted 2008-May-13, 02:42

hotShot, on May 13 2008, 09:01 AM, said:

NickRW, on May 13 2008, 02:51 AM, said:

That's the generally perceived wisdom - except that it isn't really true.  SAYC has natural 1H/1S openings - but 1C/1D don't actually promise a suit of 4 or more cards.

Around here a minor suit call is considered natural if showing 3+ cards.

The idea that one suit requires at least 4 cards and another suit requires only 3 cards to be natural is ridiculous. Natural is natural, whether it's , , or .

This is just a definition made up by the ACBL to make regulations easier (because almost all their members play 5 card Majors and 3 card minors). They solved it practically, but it has nothing to do with the concept 'natural' however.

Another typical example is Stayman: everyone plays it, so it's considered normal. But normal is not the same as natural. B)
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
0

#18 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,194
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2008-May-13, 05:00

So Wei Precision has a quite frequent artificial opening (1) and a less frequent artificial opening (2), while SAYC has two very frequent semi-natural openings (1 and 1) and one artificial opening (2). Unless we agree on the "artificiality score" for the SAYC minor suit openings we cannot compute the average artificiality of SAYC and therefore can't compare it to Precision.

Defining "artificiality" for a single call is hard enough. Defining it for an entire system is almost pointless. Most would probably agree that Acol is more natural than Dejeuner, but beyond that people tend to mean "different from what I have learned" when they say "non-natural".

Here in England, many players (even some quite knowledgeable ones) seem to think that "natural" implies a weak notrump. I have met Americans who think the opposite. And one Dutch player I met thought that for jump overcalls, "natural" means "intermediate".

Ultimately, one could let Jack play 10,000 hands with all kinds of combinations of bidding systems opposing each other, and then for each bidding system compute the ratio a/b between
a) the number of calls in the final strain made by the declaring party
b) the total number of calls made by the declaring party

Then publish the a/b ratios as objective measures of naturalness. But even if we could all agree that that would be the right way of resolving the issue, I am not sure what purpose it would serve.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#19 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,482
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2008-May-13, 07:47

han, on May 3 2008, 04:59 AM, said:

You can post wherever you like but this forum is where the system geeks and other weirdos discuss gadgets that never come up but are theoretically superior. :)

That's the right description. Perhaps we should change the forum name.
0

#20 User is offline   Apollo81 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,162
  • Joined: 2006-July-10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 2008-May-13, 08:01

blackshoe, on May 12 2008, 06:20 PM, said:

George Rosenkranz has suggested that "the wave of the future" may be "two card" systems. Something like 2/1 or other "natural" system when vulnerable, some "forcing club" system when non-vulnerable.

You sure he didnt suggest two system based on opponents vulnerability? This makes more sense if you play strong club when opponents are vul.
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users