[helene_t]

You could probably explain your 1♦ and 2♥ openings in such a way that the four spades, and the longer minor, would be negative inference rather than part of the definition.

[gnasher]

paulg, on 2011-February-18, 12:48, said:

To my mind it would be foolish to give up the opportunity of playing a lot of bridge in the US to go elsewhere.

I will admit that I am biased. I live in Scotland and there is a single 'decent' weekend event in our calendar. There are perhaps four decent weekend events in England over the year. I get more competitive bridge just attending the ACBL Summer Nationals every year. The ability to play against some of the world's best occurs at a number of events in Europe, but the ability to play against all of them happens three times a year in the US, not to mention all the other events that happen.

I agree with this (about bridge in the ACBL, not about the disadvantages of living in Scotland ). Some other advantages of ACBL events are:
- They tend to run multiple events in parallel, so the field in the top event contains fewer weak players.
- They start on time.
- Everyone speaks English. I know that sounds rather parochial, but time spent thinking about how to communicate in a foreign langauge is time spent not thinking about bridge.

[Free]

fred, on 2011-February-18, 10:22, said:

FWIW Vampyr's hypothetical scenario mirrors exactly what happened to me.

I favored complex systems (though probably my notion of "complex" was quite a bit different than yours) for the first 5 years or so I played what I thought at the time to be "serious bridge". I came close to winning a World Championship near the end of this period so I guess I was not a completely hopeless player.

Then a new partner "forced" me to play a simple system with only a handful of conventions. I was deeply skeptical, but much to my surprise:

1) I found that I knew a lot less about bridge than I thought I did
2) I found that playing a simple system was a lot of fun
3) I found that playing a simple system could be highly effective
4) I became a much stronger player as a result

The entire experience was extremely enlightening, enjoyable, and liberating for me. If your mind is even remotedly open to this possibility, I strongly suggest that you try it.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

The problem is describing what makes systems simple and what makes them complex. Simple systems can get complex as well, you can start with a basic 2/1 scheme and adopt lots of conventions, relays, transfers, slam bidding treatments,... Do we still have a simple system?

What I basically meant was that pretty much everyone learned some standard system first. Then we saw other, more complex systems which had (or seemed to have) high potential. Some of us got interested in those, like you (apparently) and me, and made the step to switch to such a system. Our old forum poster and friend Misho once told me in my MOSCITO-period that I'd return to natural systems. He was right. With my main f2f partner now I play some sort of 2/1, but still in a complex way. We don't need the complex stuff every session we play, so it looks like a simple system. But under the hood we have a powerful engine just in case it comes up. I'm pretty sure you and Brad have lots of agreements that can make an auction very complex to give detailed information to partner, but they just don't come up that often.

In my experience complex systems take away some of the judgement you need playing simple systems. Using correct judgement in a simple system gives more satisfaction than letting the system do it's job on its own. If you failed however, it's your own fault and you can learn from it, while if you play a complex system you can usually blame the system more easily.

Note however that I have another f2f partner who likes to experiment a lot. We now switched from natural to precision a few months ago, because we both think it's more fun during the auctions. The system is more complex for sure. I heard you also gave precision a try a while ago, so I guess it's safe to say the attraction to complexity isn't completely gone.

[Vampyr]

Free, on 2011-February-22, 04:43, said:

The problem is describing what makes systems simple and what makes them complex. Simple systems can get complex as well, you can start with a basic 2/1 scheme and adopt lots of conventions, relays, transfers, slam bidding treatments,... Do we still have a simple system?

Of course not -- that is the point. I used to have the opportunity to play fairly regularly with a world-class player. He would only consent to playing "Acol like your granny played it -- and probably still does". We played 4-card suits, Acol twos, strong jump overcalls, penalty doubles of overcalls, weak takeouts, etc. Our conventions were Stayman, Blackwood and Truscott, and one or two things to defend against their artificial bids.

I found it much the same as Fred found his experience with a simple system -- it was fun, surprisingly effective, and it really helped improve my bridge game.

[blackshoe]

Free, on 2011-February-22, 04:43, said:

In my experience complex systems take away some of the judgement you need playing simple systems.

That's precisely what an expert friend of mine said when we played together for a while a few years back. He also said that this is the reason he preferred SA to 2/1.

[fred]

Free, on 2011-February-22, 04:43, said:

The problem is describing what makes systems simple and what makes them complex. Simple systems can get complex as well, you can start with a basic 2/1 scheme and adopt lots of conventions, relays, transfers, slam bidding treatments,... Do we still have a simple system?

Not according to my way of thinking. For me "complex" is mostly a function of, well, complexity. Complexity is not directly-related to how closely the opening bid structure mirrors "standard". That being said, I suspect that for most there is a correlation between departure from standard and the tendency to introduce complexity.

Quote

What I basically meant was that pretty much everyone learned some standard system first. Then we saw other, more complex systems which had (or seemed to have) high potential. Some of us got interested in those, like you (apparently) and me, and made the step to switch to such a system.

Agree. The problem is that most of us (and this includes me) take the plunge before they really have any clue as to how to play. In my experience, unless the person in question is gifted in terms of natural talent (I don't consider myself to be) or unless that person is willing to spend some time in a "back to nature" phase, the chances are that a premature switch will effectively kill whatever potential the person might have had in terms of ever becoming a highly-effective player.

And yes, I do understand that for some people learning complex systems is more important than becoming a highly-effective player.

Quote

In my experience complex systems take away some of the judgement you need playing simple systems. Using correct judgement in a simple system gives more satisfaction than letting the system do it's job on its own. If you failed however, it's your own fault and you can learn from it, while if you play a complex system you can usually blame the system more easily.

Agree, but you need certain bridge skills in order to decide whether to blame the system or yourself, especially since the system gives you an excuse to avoid blaming your own poor judgment. If the system is really to blame and you are willing and able to recognize it, you need a different set of bridge skills in order to do something sensible about it. If you are really to blame and you are willing and able to recognize it, you need yet another set of bridge skills to learn from your mistakes.

In my opinion it is important, at least in terms of becoming a highly-effective player, to develop these bridge skills. IMO keeping the bidding simple and focusing on the basics is a good way to do that.

An analogy that you might appreciate: I have recently become interested in pool (which you might call billiards) so I hired a pro to give me lessons. It is naturally tempting to learn tricky shots because they are so much fun to execute. But my pro insists that I spend a great deal of time focusing on the basics - things like how to hold the cue, how to swing, and how to aim, how to hit at various speeds, etc.

If/when I master these skills, I expect we will move on to lessons about tricky shots, but to focus on such things before I am proficient at simply sinking balls will be counter-productive with respect to my goal of eventually becoming an good player (at least according to my pro and I have no doubt that he is right).

Quote

Note however that I have another f2f partner who likes to experiment a lot. We now switched from natural to precision a few months ago, because we both think it's more fun during the auctions. The system is more complex for sure. I heard you also gave precision a try a while ago, so I guess it's safe to say the attraction to complexity isn't completely gone.

Yes, I enjoy playing a sophisticated version of Precision with some partners and the version of 2/1 I play with Brad is certainly "complex", but I already know how to sink balls

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Zelandakh]

Free, on 2011-February-22, 04:43, said:

In my experience complex systems take away some of the judgement you need playing simple systems. Using correct judgement in a simple system gives more satisfaction than letting the system do it's job on its own. If you failed however, it's your own fault and you can learn from it, while if you play a complex system you can usually blame the system more easily.

I think this statement is particularly sage in this thread. My experience is that to play a "simple" system at a high level requires world class judgement. For the majority of players around playing a system with more coded responses and thereby fewer judgement decisions means that they make fewer mistakes. Not only that but I have found that the judgement decisions I need to make playing a complex system (strong club relay) versus a very simple system (Benji Acol with almost zero gadgets) are often quite different in nature. Which decision types are easier to make will naturally depend on the individual player and how they tend to think. So while I agree with Fred that a natural system such as 2/1 will often be perfect for top-level players, I certainly do not agree that that makes it right for everyone and that straightjacketing weaker players into systems with which they are less comfortable is not only detrimental to the game but, worse, unfair to those players whose mentality is suited to such an artificial style of bidding.