[whereagles]

keylime, on May 26 2004, 01:44 AM, said:

I strongly disagree with the fact that the 1♣ bidder is the captain - it's RESPONDER that is captain, especially in comp. bidding situations since responder needs to know certain informational cues from the 1C's yet to be defined hand.

I gave this situation to the Mrs. - she was quite emphatic over the fact that 2♠ as a TAB was asking for trouble. Furthermore, a double isn't appropriate either. 2♣ in this auction for is just a natural bid not denying 3 spades. Showing where pard lives is good bridge.

Sorry, but I think that's very wrong. How can responder take charge if he doesn't know what cards opener is looking for? The strong hand should take charge because it is more independent.

I also disagree that 2♠ is asking for trouble. How exactly does it ask for trouble? Because pard may not think it's an asking bid? Well, that only happens if you don't do your homework.

Actually, in this hand you're even quite lucky. If you fail to show support now, you'll probably land on your feet anyway because fit is spades and you can outbid them to the 4-level. Interchange pard's first bid and you'll get a headache if it goes

1[cl] -- 1[he] 1N (spades+diams)
2[cl] 4[sp] -- --
??

whereas if you had shown support, maybe pard could have already doubled or bid 5-something to help you.

[csdenmark]

Dwayne - sorry I really thought your KLP system was similar to Meckwell in most areas. Here I understand you have created something complete of your own. I can see why you want to bid 2♣. From earlier statements by you I have got the impression you apply to the standards for captaincy - the unlimited hand asks the limited hand. In strong club systems the exception is the strong hand always ask the weak hand if the strong hand has not limited himself in an NT rebid. Then it will be for the weak to ask or to transfer.

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

Richard in Viking Precision Club SYS is off after interference if you are not yet in a relay sequence - else you complete the sequence in steps - and then system is off. This is special for Viking and contradictionary to standard Precision. Thats why Glenn has emphasized so in his book.

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

Here you have an excellent chance to take advantage from fools. You must use it and not hide yourself behind all of the mysterious private versions confusing yourself most.

The principle is:

If first opps. bid responder modify if opps interfere that high it will necessary - else you take advantage from the extra options they provide you. If you are in doubt what will be understood you pass for 0-7, and double for 8+,any

If first opps passes and partner bids 1♦, and only 1D, you correct your bidding accordingly. Still taking advantage from your extra options.

If first opps passes and partner bids anything but 1♦ you proceed and ignore opps except taking taking advantage from your extra options.

[Flame]

Thx misho , you are a somebody

[Ulrich]

Claus,

the key to good bidding is that the hand THAT NEEDS TO KNOW is he captain. That MAY OR MAY NOT be the strong C opener. As Misho has already pointed out, and as Richard has already pointed out, there are ways and means of organising this in the auction. In any well designed system, you can show and you can tell, (reminds me of primary school in Liechtenstein). You are far too dogmatic in your views and should read and learn from posts here.

Ulrich von Liechtenstein

[Free]

I also don't agree with Claus, the 1♣ opener shouldn't always be captain! If he's minimum, he better shows his hand opposite an unlimited responder in a GF auction. That way, the big opener really limits his hand and he shows shape (hopefully at a low level to start with). Responder can do whatever he wants, and if he's maximum he doesn't have to zoom and stuff like that...

[csdenmark]

Ulrich, on May 26 2004, 12:18 PM, said:

Claus,

the key to good bidding is that the hand THAT NEEDS TO KNOW is he captain. That MAY OR MAY NOT be the strong C opener. As Misho has already pointed out, and as Richard has already pointed out, there are ways and means of organising this in the auction. In any well designed system, you can show and you can tell, (reminds me of primary school in Liechtenstein). You are far too dogmatic in your views and should read and learn from posts here.

Ulrich von Liechtenstein

No Ulli - this is really a major difference to standard classic systems. In artificial systems you are prevented from sudden attitude actions.

Yes I am dogmatic - but not in the sence I read you accuse me to be. I want a partnership to apply to the agreements. Any agreement OK - but then all apply best possible. With no agreements - standards for that kind of systems are to be applied. If somebody ask me to apply to your proposal I will accept - but next time I want to play I will search for another partner.

[csdenmark]

hrothgar, on May 26 2004, 01:41 AM, said:

[Your assertion that artificial systems only use HCPs and don't use distributional points was an all time classic, btw]

I play relay.  I play relay a LOT.  As I am sure you know, relay auctions are specifically designed so that the captains and the responder shows...

But you know what.  When the opponent's interfere in our strong club auctions, we adapt the bidding structure and allow both sides to describe their hands.  The reason why:  its critical to exchange information quickly before the opponents jack up the bidding.

I know you play relay systems Richard. There you really dont have any of those problems - except defecting from HcP counting. No matter whether Moscito, Bez Nazwy, Regres etc.

The reason why it matters in artificial systems is because you are assumed to proceed a precise action. Different to standard classic. Defecting from HcP counting only - will undermine the valuable key features in such systems like Control asking and Trump asking. Those are normally not a part of relay systems.

Lets examine the example from this thread:
The positive response to 1♣ open shows at least 3HcP cards. This justifies the use of TAB, CAB and RCKB in this order here. In this way you will know exactly the holding of the keycards you need to know of.

Via TAB you will know whether 5 or 6 carder + whether 2+ Top-honors are there. Via CAB you will be able to find out which Top-honors:
2 CTRL = 1 ace ♠ - contract 4♠
3 CTRL = 1 ace(♠ or ♥) + 1 king ♠ - go for RCKB for queen
4 CTRL = 2 aces ♠ +♥, but no king -
* with 5 carder contract 4♠
* with 6 carder go for RKCB
5 CTRL = 2 aces + 1 king ♠ - contract 7NT

If RKCB shows trump queen you will be safe in 6♠ if 3+CTRL
If RKCB shows no trump queen your slam will need 4+CTRL. Your partner will hold at least ♣Jack

Such investigations will be obsolete if suit positive instead of 5+cd, 8+HcP might be 5+cd, 5+cP
---------------------------------------
Occasionally I post when people are asking about their own system inventions. I know such is to the annoyance to those as they hoped to have generated an excellent new invention. But so it is not. They have just missed the point of artificial systems. The point is artificial systems are not standard classic with limited openings. The approach is an ideology where you need to see the specific features as targetting tools for precise communication.

Some are asking whether to add this or that feature for such systems. In general they are not needed and they do no harm - except such will be distracting you from what you will be using the tools for. Artificial systems really have very few conventions - nearly everything is defined explicitely or handled via relays or canape' sequences. Those used are all staymanic(standard, GF, Checkback, Jac-trans, Texas-trans, Namyats, Gladiator, Puppet) + Splinter raise. Additionally it is standard to use 2-way game try.

KS is a standard classic like system adding New Minor Forcing and Acol Dutch instead Muiderberg.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on May 26 2004, 06:04 PM, said:

I know you play relay systems Richard. There you really dont have any of those problems - except defecting from HcP counting. No matter whether Moscito, Bez Nazwy, Regres etc.

The reason why it matters in artificial systems is because you are assumed to proceed a precise action. Different to standard classic. Defecting from HcP counting only - will undermine the valuable key features in such systems like Control asking and Trump asking. Those are normally not a part of relay systems.

Here, once again, you are confusing separate topics:

Lets assume, for the moment, that we are only considering slam investigations. Most bidding systems, be they natural or artificial, decompose slam investigations into three distinct stages:

Defining Shape
Defining Strength
Placing Controls

Different systems vary in the ordering and the method by which these information is conveyed. For example, Ultimate Club and Blue Club both define strength before shape. MOSCITO traditionally describes shape before strength, though modern versions try to constrain strength if convenient.

In some case, different systems define stages differently. For example, relay structures are very good at defining shape at low levels. As a result, relay systems normally limit the definition of a control to an honor (an Ace, a King, or a Queen). In contrast, a system like Precision will often treat a distributional control as equivalent to an honor card.

With this said and done:

I agree with your basic point. Artificial systems work better when players are able to apply accurate and consistent hand evaluation techniques.

I differ very strongly with you assertion that High Card Points evaluation system is

(a) Accurate
(B) Necessary

[Chamaco]

csdenmark, on May 26 2004, 03:04 PM, said:

Occasionally I post when people are asking about their own system inventions. I know such is to the annoyance to those as they hoped to have generated an excellent new invention. But so it is not. They have just missed the point of artificial systems. The point is artificial systems are not standard classic with limited openings. The approach is an ideology where you need to see the specific features as targetting tools for precise communication.

Claus,
as you raise this point, I feel compelled to answer.

I like your enthusiasm in posting and sharing your knowledge.
But I have to be sincere on your posts, since you raise this point.

When I post on any forums, I am looking for advices.

Advices are better given when they are practical, on specific points.

Specifically, when I have doubt on a convention or a sequence, I'd like to know whether what I think can lead to problems and specifically which problems.

Answers like "Just play relays" are ok, *the first time*.
But when I explain *why* relays are not an option, there is no point in keeping on telling that the way is the wrong one without giving a constructive alternative that is not relay. Then if you think that relay isd the only way to go, no need to post again, you already told it. This is not constructive, but only destructive.

My own personal system ? I do not want to invent anything, my skill is so low that all I can do is to try to keep simple the system, so my pards won't go crazy. And to try to do it using the conventions used my good players which are the best compromise between effectiveness and resources required.
But after my posts, you know that very well and nevertheless you continue to beat on, generating only frustration rather than being constructive.

My own personal system ? I try to base the system on original precision, and avoid relays, that's it.
I do not think to be the only one who have thought of using 1M:2NT even in Precision (since it is mentioned also in Rosenkranz article on maxi raises).

I know you are better, you know more stuff on bidding etc etc, but once you know that I try to simplify the system in order to have limited openings (which I believe is an achievement anyway), but avoiding relays because I want to grow together with my friends otherwise qwe have too much stuff to study, PLEASE STOP REPEATING I want to play a proicvate system and that I go against the phylosophy of relays and strong club system.

You wrote this a number of times, now it is clear and I will do it nevertheless because I value my partners more than the phylosophy of accurate relays.


Other people besides you on the Forum (e.g. inquiry, misho, Flame, kfgauss, Free, hrothgar, the hog, luis, mikestar, Trpltrbl, and many more- sorry if I forget people here) mentioned the fact that relays work better on most uncontested sequences, but then they understood my level and my needs and when I post a specific question, they are very helpful, because they give specific advices on this and that sequence.
This is constructive and very appreciated, really.

[csdenmark]

Mauro my comments was not for you only - they were general. Others have also posted that kind of proposals/questions. Your postings was the reason for the comments right now but they are not aimed hitting your personal decisions.

Others are also reading topics over our shoulders. I think it is of importance to try to inform them about what they can expect trying to venture a system themselves instead of adopting an already existing system.

I think I have understood what you intend to do. You have by me and others received advice to proceed differently. No doubt - what you intend to do is your decision - and yours only!

I think(really I know) you are much too humble describing your personal knowledge/insight.