[Gerben42]

Hi, I did some system analysis on the 64 CC for the coming Bermuda Bowl:

BASIC SYSTEMS:

Better minor: 23
Perpared Club (1C could be short): 20
Strong Club (5-card majors): 14
Multi-way Club: 5
Acol: Delivera - Thomson (AUS)
Swiss Acol (5443): Gromöller - Kirmse (GER)

NOTRUMP OPENINGS:
Here it got more complicated, as some play multiple ranges...

Strong: 83%
Weak: 17%

2C OPENINGS:

Strong: 42
Intermediate: 19 (all the strong and Multi-way except the Smirnov-Piekarek, but including Fantunes)
Weak D or strong: 2
Hearts and a minor: 1 (Smirnov-Piekarek)

2D OPENINGS

Multi: 24.75
Weak Two: 12.5
Ekren: 8
Benjamin: 6
Mexican: 3
Weak H or strong: 3
3-suiter with D-shortness: 2.75
Intermediate Multi: Wladow-Elinescu (GER)
Intermediate natural: Fantoni-Nunes (ITA)
Flannery: Hamman - Zia (USA)
Mini-Roman: Wildavsky - Doub (USA)

2H Openings:

Weak Two: 41.75
Two-suiter with H: 9
Ekren: 8.25
Intermediate with H: 2
Weak S or strong: Bakkeren-Bertens (NTH)
3-suiter, short D: Woolsey - Stewart (USA)
Flannery: Robinson - Boyd (USA)

2S Openings:

Weak Two: 44
Two-suiter with S: 16
Intermediate: 3
Diamond preempt: Woolsey - Stewart (USA)

2N Openings:

Strong NT: 51.25
Minors: 10.75
Diamonds Intermediate: Wladow-Elinescu (GER)
Hearts + m: Groetheim - Tundal (NOR)

[Cascade]

You don't have the Ware Whibley HUM I think.

[Gerben42]

The Ecats-site only has the Round Robin CC at the moment. I'm not aware of any KO system modifications... There are more missing, for example Auken - vArnim brown sticker conventions seem to be missing.

[kenrexford]

Out of personal curiosity, do you know how many if any of the "prepared club" openings limit 1♦ to unbalanced?

[Gerben42]

Well, from what I've seen, very few... And if they do they don't advertise it.

Some state 1♦ shows 5 (4) cards, others say 1♦ shows a good suit (i.e. open 1♣ on 4342 and a bad 4-card ♦). But really none are claiming they would open 1♣ with 5♦332.

[qwery_hi]

See also : http://www.bridgemat...tters/blog.html

[MFA]

These reviews are quite interesting.

It strikes me how uniform the approaches are. Nobody play some really unusual stuff - it's really a very narrow range of methods. Actually I think that's a shame, since new developement in bridge thinking is always refreshing.

[gwnn]

nobody plays kgr style 3♣ bids?

one suited diamonds or two suited majors or one suited in hearts or spades or three suited without clubs and spades? (I hope I got all of them)

[csdenmark]

MFA, on Aug 22 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

These reviews are quite interesting.

It strikes me how uniform the approaches are. Nobody play some really unusual stuff - it's really a very narrow range of methods. Actually I think that's a shame, since new developement in bridge thinking is always refreshing.

The lawmakers will be pleased to receive your opinion. They have worked for this for many years - that you think it is all uniform now means they have been very succesfull.

[USViking]

Many thanks to Gerben42 for the interesting information.

It must have taken a lot of work to compile numbers on
so many different systems being used by over 200 pairs.

MFA said:

...It strikes me how uniform the approaches are. Nobody play some really unusual stuff - it's really a very narrow range of methods. 

Uniform?

There is so little uniformity that the odds of two competing pairs
using exactly the same methods must be tiny:

6: # of basic systems

probably at least 6, possibly many more than 6: # of 1NT openings

probably at least 6, possibly many more than 6: # of 2C openings

11: # of 2D openings

7: # of 2H openings

4: # of 2S openings

4: # of 2NT openings

MFA said:

Actually I think that's a shame, since new developement in bridge thinking is always refreshing.

New method use is really a different issue from that of variety.

I wonder of any pairs are trying anything untested at the
world championship level.

[NickRW]

USViking, on Aug 23 2009, 10:01 AM, said:

MFA said:

...It strikes me how uniform the approaches are. Nobody play some really unusual stuff - it's really a very narrow range of methods. 

Uniform?

There is so little uniformity that the odds of two competing pairs using exactly the same methods must be tiny:

I think what was meant was there is nothing like

1) Strong ♦ system
2) Transfer openings
3) Canape (or it isn't listed if some are doing it)
4) Romex or other forcing NT variant.

Even within the more natural systems it is pretty much wall to wall 5 card majors - only one pair habitually using 4 card majors, and only one doing 5443. And it isn't clear, but are any of the 5 card major people actually at the far end of the spectrum with a 5551 system? Possibly not.

Yes there is a lot of variety with the 2 level openers - but basic system seems really quite uniform to me.

Anyway, I find these summaries interesting - but I am not sure they prove anything other than that most people tend to stick with the system they are brought up on.

Nick

[3for3]

There is a pair playing transfer openings in Sao Paolo, but they are playing in the ladies!

The stats above were only for the BB.

Danny

[cherdanno]

Btw, one thing that stood out to me (in the bridgematters summary) that almost everybody is playing natural 1NT overcalls now.

[Cascade]

3for3, on Aug 24 2009, 07:44 AM, said:

There is a pair playing transfer openings in Sao Paolo, but they are playing in the ladies!

The stats above were only for the BB.

Danny

I assume you are referring to Newton Wilkinson from New Zealand.

They play "Mosicito Relay"

1♣ 15+ Any

1♦ 10-14, 4+♥ , denies 4 ♠ - may be canape

1♥ 10-14, 4+♠, denies 4 ♥ - may be canape

1♠ 10-14, 4+/4+ majors

1NT 11-14, denies major/occasionally singleton M

2♣ 10-14, 6+♣ - denies major

2♦ 10-14, 6+♦ - denies major

[bidule4]

MFA, on Aug 22 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

It strikes me how uniform the approaches are. Nobody play some really unusual stuff - it's really a very narrow range of methods. Actually I think that's a shame, since new developement in bridge thinking is always refreshing.

Exotic systems are dying.

They were born 50 years ago with the "Little Major" of T. Reese.

Nobody play HUM anymore because it is not allowed
in qualification/early stages. Who would play a system you
cannot practice anywhere ?

In Killarney (1991) we had fun playing against two strong pass systems:
Suspensor & Carrotti. We also played against a modern version
of the "Little Major" with relays (dont remember the name of the system,
was played by a swedish pair).

Is there a censor free country left ? (SWE ?, POL ?, NZL ?)

yvan

[Cascade]

bidule4, on Aug 24 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

MFA, on Aug 22 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

It strikes me how uniform the approaches are. Nobody play some really unusual stuff - it's really a very narrow range of methods. Actually I think that's a shame, since new developement in bridge thinking is always refreshing.

Exotic systems are dying.

They were born 50 years ago with the "Little Major" of T. Reese.

Nobody play HUM anymore because it is not allowed
in qualification/early stages. Who would play a system you
cannot practice anywhere ?

In Killarney (1991) we had fun playing against two strong pass systems:
Suspensor & Carrotti. We also played against a modern version
of the "Little Major" with relays (dont remember the name of the system,
was played by a swedish pair).

Is there a censor free country left ? (SWE ?, POL ?, NZL ?)

yvan

Not New Zealand.

Although as far as I am aware there are no system regulations for club play.

The system regulations only mention tournament play and there has been a decree that:

"Law 80A3 The powers of the Regulating Authority for New Zealand rest with the Board of New Zealand Bridge Incorporated as provided for in its Constitution and have not been assigned or delegated to any other entity."

This seems to suggest that clubs are not entitled to make their own system regulations.

Therefore there are no restrictions for club play.

[MFA]

bidule4, on Aug 24 2009, 12:46 AM, said:

Is there a censor free country left ? (SWE ?, POL ?, NZL ?)

Denmark.

Everything is allowed here at teams. In club games the local club can make its own restrictions if it likes. But in national team tournaments there are no restrictions.

I have had the pleasure of playing 2-way forcing pass with OleBerg (0-8 or 16+) in a (very strong) club game. For instance. Once in a while people do show up with their own home brew.

[Cascade]

Whoops I misrepresented the New Zealand position.

Everything is allowed at teams and potentially in some pairs events - Swiss Pairs - where 8+ boards are played in succession against the same opponents.

There are some conditions on playing HUMs - loss of seating rights.

[Wackojack]

MFA, on Aug 23 2009, 06:30 PM, said:

bidule4, on Aug 24 2009, 12:46 AM, said:

Is there a censor free country left ? (SWE ?, POL ?, NZL ?)

Denmark.

Everything is allowed here at teams. In club games the local club can make its own restrictions if it likes. But in national team tournaments there are no restrictions.

I have had the pleasure of playing 2-way forcing pass with OleBerg (0-8 or 16+) in a (very strong) club game. For instance. Once in a while people do show up with their own home brew.

I'd be very interested in the details of the OleBerg ambiguous (0-8 / 16+) forcing pass system. 30 years ago I devised a 0-7 / 17+ FP system and have been playing it sucessfully ever since with Wacko Jacko when we get the chance (I now live with a Greek on her island!). Thanks. Keith Henson

[Trinidad]

bidule4, on Aug 24 2009, 12:46 AM, said:

We also played against a modern version of the "Little Major" with relays (dont remember the name of the system,
was played by a swedish pair).

This was probably the "Lilla glada Säffle spader" system, developed by Pontus Svinhufvud and Einar Bergh. (http://www.syskon.nu.../002_lgs_01.pdf in Swedish)

Rik