[Chamaco]

Hi all ! :-)

I am reading with interest some of G. Rosenkrantz books on Romex and its derivations.
There are several nice ideas and the books are written in some entertaining way

However, I was wondering why Romex seems to be less popular than other systems.

So I'd like to hear from you folks some comments on the fine points and the weaknesses of Romex compared to:

- 2/1
- Polish Club
- Precision
- Viking Club
- Symmetrical Relay
- Moscito
- others...

Besides the popularity of the system (which is a factor, e.g. you do not want to waste energy learning a great system if you can't find a pard who plays it) what do you gain/lose in effectiveness vs these systems using

1- Romex
2- Romex Forcing Club

Thanks all ! :-)

[Free]

As you said, Romex is less popular, which is why I don't know the system (yet )... Sry

I can however tell you the strong and weak points of moscito:
Strong:
- finding a playable part-score -> good enough for imps
- make it hard on opps to bid competitive -> both imps and MP's
- finding a nice game, and let it play by an unknown hand most of the time -> imps
- finding distributional slams without much troubles -> both imps and MP's
Weak:
- finding the best part-score -> MP's
- strong ♣ opening with intervention -> both imps and MP's

[EricK]

Free, on Oct 21 2004, 11:03 AM, said:

- finding a nice game, and let it play by an unknown hand most of the time -> imps 

I would think that having the declaring hand unknown is better at MPs than IMPs - At IMPs, the defence (if they are good) will construct your hand on the assumption that they can beat the hand, so having it hidden is not that great an advantage on the thin games. But at MPs they also have to be worrid about overtricks (in other words their target isn't clear) and in these circumstances having declaring hand unkown is much more profitable.

Eric

[hrothgar]

There are a number of reasons why bidding systems fail to grow and flourish....
In the case of Romex, I think that the expllanation is a fairly simple one: The basic architecture of the system seems flawed:

Romex uses three separate opening bids to show "strong hand":

The Romex "dynamic" 1NT opening
A strong, artifical and forcing 2♣ opening
The Mexican 2♦ opening

Romex wastes three very useful opening bids in order to get as much accuracy as possible with 17+ HCP hands and have limited openings with 12-16 HCP. In short, the system is ass-backwards, forcing enormous amounts of memorization in order to describe relatively rare hand types.

Rosenkrantz eventually saw the error of his ways, and created the "Romex" strong club system, however, it seems peculiar to describe the two approaches as being part of the same bidding system.

At this point in time, "Romex" is probably best thought of as a comprehensive set of responses and asking bids that can be grafted onto any number of 5 card major based systems. This structure has some good ideas, however, it strikes me as somewhat dated...

[Chamaco]

hrothgar, on Oct 21 2004, 12:07 PM, said:

At this point in time, "Romex" is probably best thought of as a comprehensive set of responses and asking bids that can be grafted onto any number of 5 card major based systems. This structure has some good ideas, however, it strikes me as somewhat dated...

Ty Richard.

You summarized the flaws of the system.

If you had to sum up the good part of the system, does anything come to your mind ?

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Oct 21 2004, 08:07 AM, said:

There are a number of reasons why bidding systems fail to grow and flourish....
In the case of Romex, I think that the expllanation is a fairly simple one: The basic architecture of the system seems flawed:

Romex uses three separate opening bids to show "strong hand":

The Romex "dynamic" 1NT opening
A strong, artifical and forcing 2♣ opening
The Mexican 2♦ opening

Romex wastes three very useful opening bids in order to get as much accuracy as possible with 17+ HCP hands and have limited openings with 12-16 HCP. In short, the system is ass-backwards, forcing enormous amounts of memorization in order to describe relatively rare hand types.

Rosenkrantz eventually saw the error of his ways, and created the "Romex" strong club system, however, it seems peculiar to describe the two approaches as being part of the same bidding system.

At this point in time, "Romex" is probably best thought of as a comprehensive set of responses and asking bids that can be grafted onto any number of 5 card major based systems. This structure has some good ideas, however, it strikes me as somewhat dated...

I am going to disagree with statement.

Romex three strong bids work very well.. 1NT unbalanced hands, 2D balanced hands, 2C true monsters. What George saw is what I experienced first hand, You couldn't play Dynamic 1NT as it was outlawed in virtually evey compeitition you tried to play it in. It is as simple as that.

You don't lose bidding accuracy dividing three strong hands between three different opening bids, you gain it. And the combination of 1NT and 2D opening bids made the 1C, 1D, 1H and 1S auctions soo much easier.

I tried to play romex for several years (operative word try, because it was illegal almost every where I tried to play it). The university club I played at allowed anything goes, even forcing pass...but go to a sectional or regional, or city club, and you had to change your system. Blah... George, unlike richard, saw the sillyness of trying to buck the system.. and he gave up the dynamic 1NT and went woth a strong club. Richard is still fighting to get moscito approved... but someday, if he wants to play a lot in ACBL events, he too will be force to conform.

Ben

[mikestar]

One very clear plus among the minuses--the 1N opening with its fairly high minimum (19+ balanced, ususally 18+ unbalanced--might be a very good 17) and a defined upper limit is much less vulnerable to intervention than a Precision or Moscito 1C.

Yes you lose 1N but get a natural 1C--no nebulous diamond, no self-preempting Precision 2C.

As against that, the limited openings are less limited.

[hrothgar]

>Romex three strong bids work very well.. 1NT unbalanced hands, 2D
>balanced hands, 2C true monsters. What George saw is what I experienced
>first hand, You couldn't play Dynamic 1NT as it was outlawed in virtually
>evey compeitition you tried to play it in. It is as simple as that.

Romex is a GCC legal system. With the exception of a very brief 6 month or so period, Romex has been GCC legal for at least 15 years. There are benefits to having a personal forutine as Rosenkrantz and Wei bother knew...

I recognize that officals don't alwys enforce the laws that are on the books (Ed Reppert has some stories that are either amusing or horrifying about trying to play Romex in ACBL land). Regardless, in contrast to what Ben claims, if people want to play the system, they can.

>You don't lose bidding accuracy dividing three strong hands between three
>different opening bids, you gain it. And the combination of 1NT and 2D
>opening bids made the 1C, 1D, 1H and 1S auctions soo much easier.

I don't disagree with this. I do, however claim that striving for enormous bidding accuracy with 17+ HCP isn't worth the costs: In this case:

1. The loss of a preemptive 2♦ opening (however, you might chose to use it)
2. The loss oa natural 1NT opening: 1NT is a great preempt. It also is very nice to immediately know the range of your balanced hands.

You don't get dealt 17+ HCP hands that often. I'm happy to take my losses when they crop up.

>George, unlike richard, saw the sillyness of trying to buck the system..
>and he gave up the dynamic 1NT and went woth a strong club.

I think that George noticed that none of the pros that he paid to partner him were willing to use the system themselves...

>Richard is still fighting to get moscito approved... but someday, if he wants to
>play a lot in ACBL events, he too will be force to conform.

I gave up trying to get MOSCITO approved in ACBL events close to three years ago. I also gave up on ACBL events about the same time. I've actually hit the point where I think that the world of bridge would be better off if the ACBL were wiped from the face of the earth. Where I do vacillate is whether I prefer a slow, painful, lingering death or some kind of violent cataclysm, potentially involving a distraught client with automatic weapons...

This post has been edited by hrothgar: 2004-October-21, 08:45

[inquiry]

The original romex may be legal now, don't know. But when I started playing it, which was in 1972 or 1973, it was not. A group of four of us bought 10 copies of Georges first edition Romex book (the red cover one). And we gave copies away to others who we thought might adopt the system. And we had some readily available partners who knew if...

So I tired to play it about four years (so let's say 72 to 76) and if it has been legal fo 15 years (2005-15 = 1985).. i stopped playig it a decade before it became legal. I did purhase the second edition of the Geroges book. I have to admit I ahve not looked at Romex Club.

A disadvantage to romex, is that it is so descrptive, the defense can often figure you hand out very quickly and you can get some deadly defense (this applies only when playing against people willing to tsay... "ok he has unblanced, 4 losers, I can see the folowoing honors from dummy, my hand, and partners play or lack of play, ergo, he must hold such-and-so"....that is, hnads become double dummy for the defense too often.

ben

[pclayton]

Yeah, the Dynamic 1N and the Mexi 2♦ are legal; not that many play them. I can't remember a single pair I've played against in the last 5 years that played Romex.

I play a lot of his "Standard International", where 2♣ takes place of the 1N opening and the 2♦ opener is the really big hand, not 2♣. Simpler and just as effective.

[mr1303]

A pair I've played against many times in EBU events played Romex. I know they used it in convention level 3 events without any difficulty, and they used the three strong bids (1NT, 2C and 2D). Strange for the EBU to allow someone to play something slightly different, but there you go.

[luke warm]

i didn't read his first or 2nd book, but i've read a couple of his books... the system has enjoyed success internationally, because of it alone but also because of who played it

rosenkrantz was convinced that the system is stand alone AND that any part of it can be grafted into whatever you now play... i know i use some of his stuff, especially having to do with weak nt, and i know dwayne relied on a lot when he designed klp...

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Oct 21 2004, 09:24 AM, said:

I gave up trying to get MOSCITO approved in ACBL events close to three years ago.

We went over it in a very basic format, but I don't think I've ever heard it in detail.

Which parts of Moscito are illegal in ACBL events? Transfer openings are legal, are they not?

[hrothgar]

jtfanclub, on Oct 22 2004, 02:18 AM, said:

Which parts of Moscito are illegal in ACBL events? Transfer openings are legal, are they not?

Meckstroth and Martel have openly stated that they dont want MOSCITO
to every be allowed within the ACBL and are delierately distorting the
regulatory structure to discriminate against this approach.

In any case, as to your specific comment:

The ACBL refuses to sanction any kind of transfer opening at the Midchart level,
let alone GCC events.

The ACBL refuses to allow game forcing relays at the GCC. Game invitational relays
are banned at anything but the Superchart and there are [essentially] no superchart
events.

The ACBL has deemed "assumed fit" preemptive structures like and Ekrens 2H
or Frelling 2D to be inherently destructive and banned them at any level in North America.

I can point to other examples if you like....

I pretty much gave up on he 3rd occasion that the Conventions Commitee
rewrote the laws to specifically ban methods that I wanted to play.

[the hog]

"Meckstroth and Martel have openly stated that they dont want MOSCITO to every be allowed within the ACBL and are delierately distorting the regulatory structure to discriminate against this approach."

They actually said this openly? Did either of them give a rationale for this Richard? This is SO hypocritical when one looks at what Meckstroth himself plays.

Ron

[Flame]

Your ACBL rules are imazingly stupid.
Can anyone give me any resson in the would (even stupid resson) why inv relay arent allowed ?
Its like having random rules without any logic beind them.

[jtfanclub]

Flame, on Oct 21 2004, 10:08 PM, said:

Your ACBL rules are imazingly stupid.
Can anyone give me any resson in the would (even stupid resson) why inv relay arent allowed ?
Its like having random rules without any logic beind them.

I know why they aren't allowed in GCC- too confusing for LOL who can't figure out what X's would mean. Pretty much, if you can't use the same defense you'd use against SAYC it isn't allowed.

I can't imagine the rationale for banning it in Midchart.

[Gerben47]

Does that mean that Checkback Stayman is not allowed?
I.E.

1D - 1S
1NT (12-14 bal no 4S) -2C* (invite or better relay, asks min/max and distribution)

This is a relay that is not GF so it is forbidden?

[inquiry]

Gerben47, on Oct 22 2004, 06:47 AM, said:

Does that mean that Checkback Stayman is not allowed?
I.E.

1D - 1S
1NT (12-14 bal no 4S) -2C* (invite or better relay, asks min/max and distribution)

This is a relay that is not GF so it is forbidden?

Maybe one of our certified directors can help with this, but I think RELAY here means just that... relay to the next higher suit, showing the next higher suit.

Checkback does not promise diamonds, and if fact is often looking for three card support which is the purpose of the bid many times. So I would say checkback is perfectly allowed.

Ben

[mikestar]

A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an opening of one
of a suit, it is started prior to opener’s rebid.

From the GCC. Checkback is legal. Only relays beginning with the respose to one of a suit are illegal.

Elsewhere in the ACBL regs (can't find it so I can't cite it verbatim) I believe a relay is defined as a bid that is non-desciptive as to shape but asks about partner's shape. By this definition, Checkback and even Stayman and itself are relays (though GCC legal ones).