[PeterGill]

because
(1) my partner forces me to, and
(2) we get better overall results when I play a complex system

[gnasher]

Hanoi5, on Dec 12 2009, 02:19 PM, said:

what I want to know is what makes people play abnormal systems when compared to the standards in their countries

So you want to know what makes me play 5-card majors? My partners, mainly.

[shevek]

PeterGill, on Dec 13 2009, 12:40 AM, said:

because
(1) my partner forces me to, and
(2) we get better overall results when I play a complex system

Here's some rhetoric. Why do some people get better results playing a complex system? Because a certain level of complexity requires a greater commitment from the players. The effort required to learn the method involves bidding boards & longish discussions on the merits of various additions. That has to be worthwhile. There is also the opportunity to discard some dead wood from decades old natural bidding theory. Then, having invested a deal of time and effort, the partnership is likely to stick at it. That's the clicher IMO.

[nige1]

What is a natural bid?

• A bid that, that the bidder suggests as a possible final contract? Then, obviously, only the last bid in the auction need be natural. Nevertheless, prior bids in early systems had many natural bids, where you opened your longest suit, and 2♠ was stronger than 1♠. Acol limit-bids were all natural in this sense.
  
• A bid that has some relation to its strain? Then many systems have lots of natural bids. Under such a definition, even trial-bids, cue-bids, and canapé are natural.
  
• A bid that simply and logically fits into the basic structure and philosophy of a system? System-mongers sometimes claim such a bid to be natural, although to everybody else, it is manifestly artificial.
  
• A bid that is natural to its user? The most popular usage. For example, many Americans regard a SAYC 1♣ or 1♦ opener as natural. Administrators, the world over, responsible for system-restriction, tend to regard the methods with which they are familiar, as natural; and other methods as beyond the pale. For example, some jurisdictions ban a 9-11 1N opening, although it is hard imagine a more natural bid, since the bidder would usually be happy if it were the final contract.

Many of us who like artificial systems are fascinated by their efficient and mnemonic design. Bridge is almost unique in being a true partnership game, relying on partnership rapport. Thus, communication is an essential part of game. Success depends largely on communicating effectively with partner and disrupting the communications of opponents. Artificial methods are a means to that end.

[Vampyr]

shevek, on Dec 13 2009, 12:05 PM, said:

Here's some rhetoric. Why do some people get better results playing a complex system? Because a certain level of complexity requires a greater commitment from the players. The effort required to learn the method involves bidding boards & longish discussions on the merits of various additions. That has to be worthwhile. There is also the opportunity to discard some dead wood from decades old natural bidding theory. Then, having invested a deal of  time and effort, the partnership is likely to stick at it. That's the clicher IMO.

There is a chance, however, that in this argument the causality is reversed. Maybe it is the commitment and effort and not the actual system that is responsible for the better results.

[bluecalm]

Where is the most obvious option : "Because i think they are better than "standard"" ?

[aguahombre]

bluecalm, on Dec 13 2009, 01:34 PM, said:

Where is the most obvious option : "Because i think they are better than "standard"" ?

you could shorten it to "just because", and it would be equally useful.

[helene_t]

Hanoi, I think you posed your question in a confusing way.

First, I don't see the difference between 1) and 2). Maybe you intended one of them as "playing against the field" while the other as "playing an unusual system". But it is not clear which one is 1) and which one is 2) in your poll.

Second, your options sound as more about non-standard than non-natural. This is very different. Some of us probably like to play some natural treatment in situations where artificial is standard, maybe in order to be different:

- Natural weak two-openings (while living in an area where multi/muid is standard)
- Natural minor suit openings (while living in an area where more or less nebolous 1♣ and/or ♦ is standard)
- A natural 2♣ opening
- Natural responses to 1NT.
- Frequent use of quantitative raises (also in suits) while the ordinary suckers always use RKC and/or cuebids.

[bluecalm]

Quote

you could shorten it to "just because", and it would be equally useful.

Why ? It's quite reasonable assumption than advanced partnerships play the systems they think are the best choice for them. One obvious reason for the system to be the best choice is that it leads to better contracts and make opponents lives more difficult simply it's better overall bidding system. It has nothing to do with : "being different" or "going against the tide" or "messing someone's head" or any other option in the poll.

I for example think that all wide range 5card major systems are a LOT worse than strong/mixed club systems (precision/polish club). This is why I don't play "natural". Which option should I choose in that pool ?

[mikeh]

I played a highly complex method in a serious partnership for several years. it took a huge amount of work, but the biggest thing I noticed was after that partnership ended and I had to go back to playing 2/1, with gadgets. I found that many aspects of the auction now lacked definition...we were guessing (albeit with some prospect of getting it right) rather than knowing what partner held, in many situations. I really missed the sense of assurance I had with the complex, artificial methods. It had little to do with messing with the opps, altho that was sometimes a byproduct.

I've adjusted, and I doubt that I'd be prepared to work that hard ever again.

[Phil]

Agreements are good; conventions and artificiality - not so.

Unless you are one of the top 20 pairs in your country, I believe that serious partnerships that spend at least 10 hours / week on system are better off working on more important things like signaling on defense, competitive bidding and most importantly, their own game.

I think, as a whole, partnerships that have a lot of artificiality are ignoring the most important parts of bridge. The 'system' becomes more important than winning, which is unfortunate.

Search old posts for "the Uncluttered Mind" - references to Larry Cohen's article in the BW.

[Vampyr]

Phil, on Dec 14 2009, 04:23 AM, said:

I think, as a whole, partnerships that have a lot of artificiality are ignoring the most important parts of bridge. The 'system' becomes more important than winning, which is unfortunate.

Why is this unfortunate? People's opinions about the "most important parts" may differ.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on Dec 13 2009, 09:05 PM, said:

Phil, on Dec 14 2009, 04:23 AM, said:

I think, as a whole, partnerships that have a lot of artificiality are ignoring the most important parts of bridge. The 'system' becomes more important than winning, which is unfortunate.

Why is this unfortunate? People's opinions about the "most important parts" may differ.

No, Phil's point is valid. There is nothing more important than winning (within the rules), and if a pair over-focuses on one aspect of the game to the exclusion of others which are important to winning, then that would be "unfortunate" for that pair.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on Dec 14 2009, 05:34 AM, said:

No, Phil's point is valid.  There is nothing more important than winning (within the rules), and if a pair over-focuses on one aspect of the game to the exclusion of others which are important to winning, then that would be "unfortunate" for that pair.

I think that the most important thing is that people enjoy themselves. Otherwise they wouldn't bother showing up and the rest of us wouldn't have a game. And I don't think that winning is necessarily the most important aspect; people spend a lot of money travelling to tournaments that they haven't a dream of winning.

It is not up to me or to anybody to say that someone "should" care more about winning than about their system, the social aspect, the quality of the coffee at the venue, etc...

[Phil]

Vampyr, on Dec 13 2009, 11:05 PM, said:

Phil, on Dec 14 2009, 04:23 AM, said:

I think, as a whole, partnerships that have a lot of artificiality are ignoring the most important parts of bridge. The 'system' becomes more important than winning, which is unfortunate.

Why is this unfortunate? People's opinions about the "most important parts" may differ.

If you want to 'system tinker', do so to your heart's content.

Unfortunately, many pairs think this is the path to the promised land of winning, when in fact they are putting up their own roadblocks, as well as wasting otherwise productive time.

[Codo]

bluecalm, on Dec 14 2009, 10:02 AM, said:

Quote

you could shorten it to "just because", and it would be equally useful.

Why ? It's quite reasonable assumption than advanced partnerships play the systems they think are the best choice for them. One obvious reason for the system to be the best choice is that it leads to better contracts and make opponents lives more difficult simply it's better overall bidding system. It has nothing to do with : "being different" or "going against the tide" or "messing someone's head" or any other option in the poll.

I for example think that all wide range 5card major systems are a LOT worse than strong/mixed club systems (precision/polish club). This is why I don't play "natural". Which option should I choose in that pool ?

Funnily your opinion differs completely from the facts.

Look at the ko-round of the Bermuda Bowl and other tournements with the best players: An overwhelming majority plays 5 card majors and strong NT without a very nebolous or strong 1 Club opening.

So if you are right, that players choose the system which gives them the best results, you and anybody else should abbandon precision, 4 card majors etc. After all, if the majority of the worlds best play natural systems, why shouldn't they be best for you?

But you are wrong. Most People do not choose the system that fits them best. They are limited in their choices because of their partner, their nbos regulations and the fasion in their country. This is why most Americans play 2/1, most polish players polis club and most French FES.

But anyway, for all of us this issue is totally overrated. As Justin wrote elsewhere: We lose all tournements in card play, not because of our bidding system.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Funnily your opinion differs completely from the facts.

It may differ or not. It's not the point. The thread is about why some people play artificial systems. I think many of them (me including) just think that those systems are better bidding systems. Maybe we are right, maybe we are wrong. It's not the point here. The point is it's our reason to choose them.

Quote

But you are wrong. Most People do not choose the system that fits them best.

I didn't state anywhere that most people choose bidding system which they think is the best. I only stated that SOME people do that. I hope you can see that's quite obvious.

Quote

But anyway, for all of us this issue is totally overrated. As Justin wrote elsewhere: We lose all tournements in card play, not because of our bidding system.

Well for one thing I know quite well why I lose tournaments. My estimation is that about half of loses is from bidding. It's true that vast majority of them are not caused by system but by lack of agreements or bad judgement decisions. Bidding is quite important though and once you reach higher level more important than cardplay in my opinion. Justin differs in his opinion. I am convinced he has a point when it comes to matchpoint tournaments with weakish field or maybe even strong field but I am also sure it doesn't apply to imps, especially high level.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Funnily your opinion differs completely from the facts.

I think you really should be more open minded and accept that maybe your opinion is not obvious truth. Do you have any way to rate bidding systems ?
As for your argument about pairs playing at Bermuda Bowl. I am too lazy to do analysis but I just looked at butler scores from 2009BB. And out of 20 top pairs 10 played artificial systems (strong clubs mainly).
So if that's true that most pairs play natural 5card majors and in top 20 50% of them don't play that you can see what that suggests. Not that I believe this to be strong argument. I am just pointing out that your reasoning is wrong and your hypothesis about my opinion "funnily differing from the facts" needs some more work to gain some credibility...

Cheers

[gwnn]

OK but why do you really play them? What's your real reason? Everyone is lying and it's a great conspiracy.

[helene_t]

Phil, on Dec 14 2009, 06:26 AM, said:

If you want to 'system tinker', do so to your heart's content.

Unfortunately, many pairs think this is the path to the promised land of winning, when in fact they are putting up their own roadblocks, as well as wasting otherwise productive time.

I was confused about whether the q of this thread was
- why do you play nonstandard?
or
- why do you play artificial?
and now you are addressing
- why do you play a system that requires more discussions and memorization than a standard system would?
which is a 3rd question altogether.

Many if not most of the non-standard and/or artificial-system players I know made their choice because they believe their system is easier for them to learn than a standard system would be. OK I am not in the top circuits but Muller/deWijs chose relay precision because they found it easier than a standard system, and Rob Helle gave the same reason.

As for my own answers to the three questions:
- Why nonstandard?
I like to be a nonconformist. Like I try to avoid fashionable clothes, microsoft products etc I also try to avoid standard bidding systems. That said I don't consider it a big deal and with limited time for system discussions I will usually go for some standard system with which we are both familiar. Especially if we are not just playing for the gag but actually care about the results.
- Why artificial?
Not really. Other things being equal I think natural methods have more pros than cons, but of course artificial methods are better in many situations. I like to have firm agreements and I like to play a system without holes. Artificiality is not much an argument by itself.
- Why difficult?
Not at all. I strongly prefer easy-to-remember agreements.