[ianbgs]

Ok guys n girls. Heres my situation: Me and my partner love bridge, and we think we're pretty useful The main thing is, we're VERY ambitious and would like to find a serious bidding system so we can greatly inprove our game. We feel a bit bored with standard SAYC, any suggestions very welcome

[barmar]

I'm sure Hrothgar would love to recruit some more folks to MOSCITO.

[fifee]

ianbgs, sayc is boring and has some serious inadequacies. You might try 2/1. It's always good to learn new systems so that you can better defend against them. Precision or Strong Club systems are good, too.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on Nov 1 2005, 05:48 PM, said:

I'm sure Hrothgar would love to recruit some more folks to MOSCITO.

Yes and no...

I think that MOSCITO is a very effective system: Newell and Reid came in second in the Butler in the Bermuda Bowl playing very similar methods. (Admittedly, Marston and Thompson came in 50th out of 70 however, there are a hell of a lot more sigmas involved in 2nd that 50th) I also think that MOSCITO is a "fun" system which probably matters even more.

With this said and done:

1. Its pointless to learn MOSCITO if you want to play in ACBL events
2. MOSCITO is based on very different design criteria that more conventional bidding methods. If you play MOSCITO you're going to be playing very high variance methods...

For whats its worth, I've been putting in way too much time on the FD files for MOSCITO. The core file has now hit 30 pages (78K) and there's still a bunch more to encode. I'm done with most of the core relay structures (complete shape resolution), however, I haven't code auction termination sequences or relay breaks.

[Al_U_Card]

ianbgs, on Nov 1 2005, 09:30 AM, said:

we're VERY ambitious and would like to find a serious bidding system so we can greatly inprove our game. 

I doubt that there is a way to greatly improve your game simply by adopting a practice or method. That being said, what do you enjoy most about the game?

Some get off on tinkering with systems, some with partnership dynamics, others with esoteric plays (squeezes and the like) and yet others with the social aspect of the game.

2/1 is just sayc dusted off and straightened up a bit. Various conventions and treatments that you choose to play will benefit your play only when JUDICIOUSLY applied in a way that
a.) both of you agree on and
b.) represent good bridge practice.

Might I suggest that you go over the typical cc and spend some time thinking about how to integrate all of the systems, treatments and conventions that you like into a bidding method that suits you both.

Agree on the basic principles underlying these methods and discuss options and scenarios to make sure that you are both on the same wavelength. Then you will enjoy the improved results that will surely follow.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on Nov 1 2005, 06:54 PM, said:

2/1 is just sayc dusted off and straightened up a bit.

???????????

They both use stayman. I suppose that this makes them the same system...

In all seriousness, other than the response schedule over NT openings and Jacoby 2NT I'm having a hard time coming up with many bidding sequences that don't change pretty drastically when you move from SAYC to 2/1 Game Force... A few vanilla aucitons like 1m - 1M - 2M are similar, but even here there can often be some real differences.

[ianbgs]

Im tempted by 2/1, if anyone knows a comprehensive website on 2/1, it would be much appreciated Btw, Im actaully from the UK , i dont know how I got brainwashed into American Bidding Systems

[Al_U_Card]

hrothgar, on Nov 1 2005, 10:58 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Nov 1 2005, 06:54 PM, said:

2/1 is just sayc dusted off and straightened up a bit.

???????????

Are you revoking my poetic licence? Revokes are serious in F2F bridge, if impossible online...lol

Perhaps with all the NGF if suit rebid etc. and adding of 1NT forcing as the catch-all for problematic weak and intermediate responses, all you have to do is apply a litte rigor to SAYC and there you have it. (as played by the masses).

[Al_U_Card]

ianbgs, on Nov 1 2005, 11:21 AM, said:

Im tempted by 2/1, if anyone knows a comprehensive website on 2/1, it would be much appreciated   Btw, Im actaully from the UK , i dont know how I got brainwashed into American Bidding Systems

Max Hardy codified the genre and I like most of his tenets.
Mike Lawrence, Marty Bergen etc. developed their own flavors.
Perhaps you too can jump on the modification bandwagon as we all tend to.....

[Gerben42]

If you want a well-documented system that is not too far from standard but far enough to make you feel "cool", try Polish Club.

The link to the full description is:
http://www.geocities.../sys/WJ2005.zip

Look in the FD thread to see the Full Disclosure file for this.

Advantages of learning WJ2005 (2005 version of Polish standard) is:

* good documentation
* lots of players online to play your system
* natural bidding
* lots of good (rather than me ) players to ask for help

Otherwise, try to improve in other areas too perhaps. In this respect I agree with Justin.

[pigpenz]

Justin pretty much hits it on the head:
Learn the baics firsts that will improve you the most!
Proper declarer play and proper defending wil lead you to the promised land.
Its the basic understanding of card combinations and how you can use them to your advantage, they work hand in hand with defense and declaring...after that then you can deal with bidding.

[Flame]

As much as i agree with those who said if you want to get better forget about systems, i know me and many others just love this part of the game.
If i were you i would try somethign completetly different and most importantly something well documented.
Yesterday i came across very good link to precision systems (beginners one and more serious one)
http://bbo.pigpen.org.uk/
good luck

[Free]

The more I see some of the BB hands, the more I realize that my declarer play is one of the spots that can make me improve a lot. I thought defense was my weak point, but lately I changed my mind.

Playing a certain system can help a lot, but your (and partner's) declarer play is most important. How good is it to play a system which can get you in great slams if you can't play it like it should be played? Better to play 5 just made, than 6 down 1.

If you have a lot of time, I could advise you MOSCITO if your local regulations allow it. The system itself is quite simple (if you change your way of thinking), but dealing with intervention needs a lot of discussion with your partner. I've been playing MOSCITO for a while now with my f2f partner, it works great, but there's a big 'but'! If you can't evaluate your hand properly the system doesn't work. If you can't play well you'll go down in laydown contracts. If you don't spend much time you won't be able to handle interference like it should be handled.
I've had several hands where we threw away imps like hell! One hand, we lost 11 imps while we should've won 10. A lead directing double was misinterpreted for 3NT*+4 instead of -1. Another hand we get intervention over our strong ♣, one player relays, the other one describes his hand completely wrong and we end up in 6NT-5 instead of 6♣=. Once during a relay sequence one of us didn't see a double by opponents with a 5♦ contract in a 5-1 fit as consequence.

Knowing that we win in the long run playing this system, even if we make such mistakes, it's an improvement for us. However, it's a system that needs to be played correctly, not a system that makes you play better. I don't know how good your handevaluation and declarer play is, but maybe it might be something for you.

If you don't like much comments like 'weird system', you probably better pick a polish club system. Imo they're better than standard and stay pretty natural.

[luke warm]

i agree that it's better to sharpen up the play aspect... however, i also believe that if a p'ship learns and practices a system together, this in itself will improve their results... there's no reason not to do both (play and system), i mean they aren't mutually exclusive

i personally think a strong club system of some type is better, but almost all i know require excellent judgment, mainly because the limit bids don't deny game (or even slam)... also, intervention is a biggee when playing one of these systems, so a lot of time is needed.. for a dedicated p'ship, this shouldn't be a big problem

next (for me) would be 2/1... if you are thinking about it, i'd recommend (in addition to the fine books already mentioned by others) talking to roland when you see him (walddk on bbo)... he has an intermediate/advanced 2/1 club and his website has many fine articles... i think you can join on the website, www.2over1.com ... register, log in, click 'lessons' and start at the beginning... he has a good overview, and more

[Kalvan14]

My advice is to discuss and improve treatments and "flavors", rather than switch to a different system. SAYC is not a "bad" system: it has the right fundamentals, and can be streamlined and customised as much as you like.
If you really want to change system, try 2/1 (Max Hardy's version is the one I play, and it is a bit integralist at times, but it is fun; Mike Lawrence's version is more vanilla, and possibly better for an intermediate player).
Stay away from relays systems, unless your brain clicks in a particular way

The best recommendations, IMHO, is to improve partnership's agreements, in particular for competitive bidding and slam trials. Defense is also an area which almost any player should improve.
Discuss with your partner the hands you played, in particular the ones which got bad results.

[Trumpace]

luke warm, on Nov 1 2005, 07:00 PM, said:

i agree that it's better to sharpen up the play aspect... however, i also believe that if a p'ship learns and practices a system together, this in itself will improve their results... there's no reason not to do both (play and system), i mean they aren't mutually exclusive

Yes, it will improve the results, but will it "greatly improve" the results? (Refer first post). Unless the bidding is really horrible, I don't think switching the bidding system will greatly improve results. The problem probably lies in the play aspect.

[mikeh]

I echo the general advice: stay away from advanced bidding methods and focus on working with what you have got: this does not mean staying stagnant: by all means incorporate tweaks and modifications (always asking: what problem does this new gadget cause: every convention has a cost and the cost may outweigh the gain... and the cost/benefit analysis often depends on the rest of your system, so different partnerships can legitimately differ on whether a gadget is a net gain or cost for them)

Instead, learn judgment. A very, very good way of doing this, if it is available, is to get hold of back issues of the Bridge World. You may be able to find them on ebay (everything comes on ebay sooner or later) or by other internet searches. The Master Solvers Club is superb: the moderators are certainly individualistic, but it is the comments and analysis that make the effort rewarding: on each hand you get a difficult problem with input from some of the world's foremost experts (altho non-north americans are understandably heavily under-represented... understandably because it is a north american publication). This assumes that you are interested in a main stream NA approach: I'd suggest any editions from 1984 on. Don't worry about the 'system': read the 'why's' for any bid: the arguments are usually system-independent (within a north american natural-based method).

Other than that: read books! Any play books by Kelsey: ignore the bidding, and the carding methods: apply the thinking, both in his wonderful team game books and his killing defence books. Even old Reese books (Master Play, for one) are worth reading for the thought processes. Reese - Trezel (I think) put out a series of short books on descrete play themes in the 1970's or 80's, on such things as deceptive plays, analysis of odds and so. They should be findable if you lok hard enough and they were very useful to me when (I suspect) I was at your current stage.

Get hold of BridgeMAster from the BBO shop: it has great play problems: if you can solve all level 5 hands first time through, I don't ever want to play against you in a serious match

[dcvetkov]

I agree with Justin view completely.

While having a good system is important, you ll see that on the long run you need to improve your judgment, playing skills and defence. "Table presence" would also help although I can not translate it;).

Also, if you clog yourself with complicated system and milion conventions, its a high mental pressure on both players and the brain may be overworked when you
need to find that killing defence or play.

2/1 is a good start and comes in a lot of variety. I would recommend Mike Lawrence books, ( its easier to read then heavyweight Max Hardy), although they differ a little

2/1 is most common, but of course none of the top players on the world play plain 2/1. They developed and upgraded their system for years and spent countless hours on it, and for some, it paid off in World Championship titles.

Precision is something you may want to try later and decide what you like.


BTW,
is anyone familiar with what Russ Ekeblad-Ron Rubin are playing?. They use a lot of relays and asking bids, it seems pretty effective, slams especially.

[david_c]

ianbgs, on Nov 1 2005, 05:21 PM, said:

Btw, Im actaully from the UK

Oh, that makes a big difference, because there are a number of decent systems which aren't allowed in most UK competitions (including Polish Club and MOSCITO which have been mentioned here). So learning a modern version of "Standard" (which basically means 2/1) is likely to be a good bet. Though if you thought SAYC was boring, I doubt you'll find much to get excited about in 2/1. I'd nominate Strefa or the Welland-Fallenius system for a bit of variety.