[DavidKok]

I'll share my own thoughts on starting points in bidding, i.e. frameworks for building a bidding system.

For me one of the main properties of a bidding system is its notrump ladder. Around 52-58% of all opening hands are balanced (it depends a bit on your minimum strength requirement for opening and how many semibalanced hands you wish to include), and it is very difficult to win enough on the remaining 42-48% of unbalanced opening hands to compensate for losing frequently on the balanced hands. Having a sound notrump ladder and knowing it by heart is the cornerstone of any bidding system to me. If you wish to open aggressively I think this is mostly reflected in the NT ladder - do you open all balanced 11's? Some balanced 10's? This has cascading effects on the rest of the system, and requires serious thought.

Jan Eric Larsson wrote a number of opinion pieces on bridge bidding system design, and largely I think he made some very good points. He recommended bidding slowly with strong hands, jumping around aggressively with weak hands, and showing natural suits so that partner can raise in competition. These thoughts are not very controversial and almost any system creator will claim their system does exactly this, but I like how he makes this explicit by e.g. making an effort to avoid constructive or semiconstructive two level openings (well, 2♦ and up) and inventing a strong club system without a nebulous opening (though note that the strong club itself is nebulous, as 'open low with all strong hands' and 'always bid a suit' conflicts to a certain degree). Incidentally he also pointed out that if you are going to open aggressively it is most important to have a way to open aggressively with balanced hands, as those hands usually can't back into the auction later so they benefit most from the preemptive effect.


Personally I think strong club is a step above other systems. If you play a simple version you get more bang for your buck than basically any other system, and I think it is actually very easy to pick up for beginners. Regrettably it is not popular enough for them to be able to find a partner after, so I do not recommend it or teach it to beginners. But if it had more representation I 100% would. Furthermore, even after the entry level you can add tools and gadgets as you please, and keep improving the system at a better tradeoff between effort and complexity than many other systems. Strong club systems have many problems (interference with 1♣, some nebulous flavour of 1♦, (slightly) reduced ability to preempt and/or possibly uncomfortable constructive 2m openings) but also do not have a lot of problems that standard systems do, and on balance I think it's an easier framework for building a bidding system than standard. In particular, I think the Auby-Ebenius club set of openings is really sound and relatively easy to pick up, though I'd recommend natural continuations rather than their relay for beginners.

Of the natural systems I really like the unbalanced diamond, balanced club style (so 5542 but almost all balanced hands outside the NT range open 1♣) paired with either Dutch Doubleton or Transfer Walsh. This requires a lot of effort - modern Dutch Doubleton continuations are complicated and highly artificial, Transfer Walsh is also no easy feat (sure, 1♦ and 1♥ can be handled relatively easily, but all higher responses are messy at best), and a balanced club exposes you to complicated decisions in competition so really I'd like to pair this with a lot of transfers and artificial rules in competition. On balance I think this style of system is also really sound, but I do feel I have to put in a lot more work to get to the same place that strong club systems get to. One very pleasant knock-on effect of balanced club structures is that you can more conveniently move your NT ladder around, e.g. play a Kamikaze NT at certain vulnerabilities without having to do an entire system overhaul (you primarily change the 1NT and 1♣ opening).

Lastly I've been looking at strong club with 4cM for a little over a year now, and the results have been beyond all my expectations. The main issue is that it involves the C-word, 'canapé', which tends to end the conversation on the spot. So instead I recommend Auby-Ebenius, or some simple derivative. Incidentally I played the AEC opening set with natural responses recently with a new partner and the system felt really smooth and effective.


As for some other systems, since I'm writing half an essay anyway I'll just plug some more brief thoughts:

• Standard systems with a 4cM: as mentioned previously I think these are rather closer to "4.5+ card major", and they are very similar to 5cM systems if you open four card suits mostly up the line. I think these are completely fine, though I prefer my Dutch Doubleton or T-Walsh too much to include many balanced hands in 1♦, 1♥ and 1♠.
  
• Strong pass systems: this is probably controversial, but I think they are likely not as good as they may seem. There most likely is some sort of theoretical system out there with pass containing a number of strong hands, but the classical route of pass = 13+, other bids showing 0-7 or 8-12 or something similar comes with a laundry list of weaknesses. I think these systems have limited theoretical merit.
  
• I am really interested in the Fantunes system. Forcing natural 1-level openings check all the boxes I'm looking for, though I dislike their constructive 2-openings to take pressure off of some constructive auctions. I already play Gazzilli versions over 1♦, 1♥ and 1♠ and Dutch Doubleton over 1♣, all of which have built-in strength splits on the second round. Perhaps these can be modified or stretched to accommodate unlimited forcing openings?
  
• These days it is becoming increasingly fashionable to swap out preemptive openings at the 2-level for some constructive or semiconstructive ones. My personal results doing the opposite - making the weak two openings extremely aggressive - have been incredibly positive and I would recommend not giving these up if it can be avoided.
  
• Polish/Swedish club systems (strong club but 1♣ can also be a weak notrump): I think these are markedly weaker than both strong club systems and natural systems. If the opponents interfere with the 1♣ opening responder is not nearly as free to act as in a strong club system (force to game with 8+, make some noise with 5-7 even at the 2- or 3-level depending on structure) as we have to cater to opener having a weak notrump, and conversely opener very often has to act again with a strong hand even at uncomfortable levels.

Having said all of this though I stand by the John Montgomery quote from earlier. An internally coherent system with multiple rounds of the bidding spelled out and practiced will outperform some rough framework with no idea of the followups, and in a similar fashion experts with a poor 'system' will outperform amateurs with a fancy 'system', if that means only the skeleton of the structure. Any of the above can comfortably beat any of the others if a lopsided amount of effort is put into them.

P.S.: John Montgomery's "Revision" is a strong club 5cM system. He claimed much the same I said above - a lot of the problems he tried to solve went away when he tried swapping from standard to strong club, and the problems he got in return felt more manageable.

[P_Marlowe]

 mga010, on 2024-January-09, 03:32, said:

Thanks for all those answers. I am happy to have triggered such a discussion.

What I really intended, however, was a discussion of the benefits of various starting points in bidding. I still do not buy the cited opinion by Montgomery, that it does not matter if we open strong or weak NT, 5 or 4 card major, strong or weak 2s etc. In these times, the aggressive interventions alone should influence the bidding from the start. There should be some intelligent discussion and data to this.

By the way, I played Acol with strong NT 40 years ago too, often with excellent partners. Now, I am forced to play Forum D.

FD is not as bad as they claim, the main trouble is, that it is a mess due to the many revisions.
It is well documented, which is a plus.

Anyway, weak NT is on the rise in Germany among stronger pairs.

[jillybean]

 P_Marlowe, on 2024-January-09, 04:31, said:

Anyway, weak NT is on the rise in Germany among stronger pairs.

How weak?

[P_Marlowe]

 jillybean, on 2024-January-09, 09:43, said:

How weak?

12-14, if you go lower, you would need to switch to var. strength in different seats
and colors, I dont think red and in 3rd opening 10-12 is worth the stress.
And variable NT openings ..., I did not see as often.

[mycroft]

While the technical argument Mike makes is perfectly valid and I would suggest answers the case (who plays Acol, at least 4cM 12-14 NT minimal openings and responses Acol, at WC level? Effectively nobody. Who plays 2/1, at least 5cM strong NT 2/1? Lots of pairs. (of course, one could argue that those that play something the 1970s 2/1 players could sit down and play - 16-18 NTs, anybody? - is equally nobody to Stone-Age Acol)); his conclusion:

Quote

What that means is that the type of player who chooses Acol is not the type of player who is good enough to compete at the highest levels of the game.

may be true(*), but is not necessarily relevant.

Mike *wants to compete* at the highest level of the game (and has decent evidence of not embarrassing himself when he does). Lamford as well. There are a few others here (Hinden, and thehog IIRC, ...) at that level. There are some who want to, and have reasonable expectations of, getting there (no, I'm not going to provide my guesses), but aren't now. They might be national-level competers rather than world-level, or they might be aiming for national-level in a few years.

There are thousands of forum members, and hundreds of thousands of BBO members, and tens of thousands of EBU members. The people I mentioned - even the "potentially achievable dream" people - are not 1% of them. Possibly not 0.1% of them. But they still play bridge, and they still try to win, at least at their level.

And as Tramticket says, if your entire club plays Stoneage Acol, it doesn't matter if 2/1 (Stone(**)age or modern) is better. You won't get partners unless you bring one, and you won't be able to learn from the other players in the club how to improve your "weird American system". Sure, there's online; sure, there are books; sure, you might find someone who wants to try out that "strange American system" with you - but for *you*, in that situation, your bridge will be better, more fun, and you will improve more playing Acol. Maybe not forever, and you almost certainly won't get to play for England at the WCs (***) unless you change, but you're not getting there with 2/1 either, with almost mathematical certainty. So yeah, that.

Mike is a Spike. His goal is to win (at the highest level, for which I applaud him), and anything that doesn't help him win gets thrown away as useless. And for him, it is. If you are a Spike as well, fine. If you are a Tammy or a Johnny (or a Vorthos!), or even a Spike that knows their limits (but still Spikes at that level) you are equally welcome at the bridge table, however you learn what is best for bridge *for you* - and what is useless for Mike could easily be the thing that keeps you playing (and vice versa).

(*) But:

• Note that Standard vs Strong/Multi 1♣ breaks about 65-35 at the highest level, and frankly for the pairs who actually expect to win the Worlds rather than just compete, it's closer to 50-50.
  
• Also pay attention to how the "the fire of pro play burns the dross, leaving only the gold" people handle things that are "too difficult" for them (specifically, or defending their paycheck). "[A]ll of the players are truly expert" got the caveat; know that "and can play whatever methods they think are best" also has one. One can validly argue (and boy, how do they!) how big that caveat is, but it's there.

(**) (and Roth).
(***) pun intended.

[akwoo]

Let me explain why I prefer to play weak NTs.

A couple years ago, playing strong NTs (with a good player but not a regular partner) favorable at MPs, partner deals, and the bidding goes 1C-(P)-1H-(P)-2H-(3C)-P-(P)-X-(P) to me.

I'm holding some balanced 7 count with 5 hearts and Kx of clubs. I instinctively pass.

That's the right move playing weak NT - in that auction you have the majority of the points or decent trumps (with your Kx behind declarer surely worth a trick), no game, so you take a very good shot at +200.

Wrong move at strong NT - partner doubled with a balanced 14 count with 3 clubs and the contract was cold.

My instincts in these situations are tuned to weak NT, and it's just not worth it for me to toss a board a session for a year to retune these instincts, at least not until I want to play with someone whose weak NT instincts are worse than my strong NT instincts.

[helene_t]

Mike Lawrence writes in one of his 2/1 intro books that he thinks that 2/1 is significantly better than 4-card majors when it comes to slam bidding. On the other hand he thinks that 4-card major is easier and more fun. Other than that he thought it's swings and roundabouts. To be fair, he probably has Goren rather than Acol in mind when he says "simple, natural 4-card majors".

Consistent with that, Wackojack, one of the good English 2/1 players who used to be active on this forum, said that he thought that Acol was a reasonable choice for matchpoints but at IMPs he would prefer a more slam-oriented system like 2/1.

Bauke Muller, when interviewed by Joost Prinsen a while after having changed from Dutch Acol to SR Precision, said that he thought there was little difference in terms of technical efficiency but that he and de Wijs scored with Precision because it's more formalized so you spend less mental energy on judgment and therefore have more energy for card play. Again, Dutch Acol is a 15-17 system, but other than the strength of the notrump rebids it is quite similar to Scottish Acol.


My own unqualified thoughts, having played 2/1 or English Acol in many partnerships for the last 20 years (mostly just at club level):

- Lots of modern theory (such as T-Walsh, the meaning of all kinds of doubles) has evolved in the context of 2/1. You have some work to do deciding which flavour of 2/1 you play with each partner, but to a large extent, it's about checking boxes. With Acol, you can take Standard English from the shelf (maybe just agree on a notrump structure and weak 2-openings), so you can get off to a faster start with Acol. On the other hand, if you really want to turn Acol into a solid system for your partnership you have a lot of work to do as lots of fairly basic things haven't been brought up to 21st century standards.
- That a 2-level shift is GF sounds simple, and great for slam bidding, but IMHO it is overrated. You still have to discuss the forcing character of a 2-level shift by a passed hand, in response to overcalls and upon intervention, so the 2/1 principle is just extra memory burden that doesn't really relieve you from remembering anything else. The 2-level-shift auctions are better in 2/1 than in Acol but that is largely offset by the losses on the overloaded 1NT response. No, I am not a fan of 2/1 although it's probably true that per saldo it's less horrible than Acol.
- The nebulous minor suit openings can't be good system design, especially in a strong-NT context. OTOH, opening a 4-card major with a balanced 15-19 hand is even worse. I really think you should (if you want to play a natural system) play either weak/5, Scanian, or coded minors.
- Weak NT is maybe good in 1st/2nd hand but it's just weird in 3rd/4th.

All that said, technical system efficiency is of very little importance. Play a system that you and your partner feel comfortable with, that doesn't stress you with the fear of bidding misunderstandings or more painful judgment situations than you like. Some say 2/1 is easier that Acol, some say Acol is easier, I think you can only judge that for yourself as system easiness is subjective.

[AL78]

In my opinion, what is best out of those two surely depends on circumstances. Even if 2/1 can be proved beyond doubt to be superior to Acol, it would be pointless for me to learn it because I would have almost no-one to play it with. What is best at world class level is irrelevant to what is best for me at my local club. In my case, worrying about what systems/conventions/agreements are optimal is like worrying about which is the best set of golf clubs to buy. It doesn't matter at amateur level because in the latter case I throw strokes away through lack of ability, not because of my equipment, and in the former case, I throw MPs away not because my favourite system is sub-optimal, but because I make loads of unforced errors. Therefore to get better at golf or bridge I should forget about the equipment and first and foremost reign in the blunders.

[sfi]

Having played a bunch of the systems mentioned here (as well as others) over the years, I've come to the conclusion that overall it matters very little what you choose. If a pair of good players put the time and effort into their agreements it will generally come down to skill level in the end. Being generous to the choice of system, I would say it's at most 5% of the final outcome.

What's far more important is that you choose something you are both happy with and then spend a lot of time on the detailed agreements for both competitive and slam auctions - the uncontested auctions are generally much more straightforward and well thought out in whatever base system you choose.

That being said, I think David is being harsh on Polish Club. I've been playing it for almost 20 years now in various partnerships, and it's easy to learn (I've taught a new partner the basics in 8 minutes), less in need of conventions than a 2/1 with wide-ranging openings, and in practice doesn't suffer many of the competitive disadvantages because the various options are fairly well segregated. The opponents might try and preempt us, but they aren't as free to do so as against a strong club because the hand can easily be theirs rather than ours.

What I do think is valuable is that the pair focus on different things at IMPs vs MPs, to the extent that I think entirely different systems should (at least in theory be used). As a simple example, in 2/1 I much prefer to use an opening 2♣ bid as a weak 2, or even better weak with both majors, than waste it on the infrequent strong hands. At IMPs you can't give that up because sometimes you pick up the good hands and risk losing 13 IMPs each time you do.

[nullve]

 mikeh, on 2024-January-08, 09:45, said:

But the important point is that at the higher levels of the game the past 50 years have been a laboratory in which various ideas are put to the ultimate test: in an environment in which all of the players are truly expert (with the exception of a few wealthy clients who are a bit like the tourists who get carried (in some cases literally) up Everest) and can play whatever methods they think are best….nobody plays Acol.

What that means is that the type of player who chooses Acol is not the type of player who is good enough to compete at the highest levels of the game. Bidding theory has evolved on what could be called a crude version of Darwinism…survival of the fittest. If the philosophy underlying Acol (and it is a philosophy…find and read A Design For Bidding and you’ll see an early version of Acol described along with the ideas underlying the system choices) were equally powerful as that underlying 2/1 methods, you can be sure that there’d be pairs winning or at least competing with some success at the highest levels. You don’t.

Ware - Mayer were playing Acol in last year's Bermuda Bowl.

Their convention card with a Brown Sticker:

http://systems.world...N%20STICKER.pdf

[jillybean]

They do call it Acol
Is any system opening 4 card suits up the line considered Acol, regardless of the rest of the structure?

I think the "Acol" written on the CC reflects their sense of humour rather than their system.

[helene_t]

 jillybean, on 2024-January-10, 05:23, said:

They do call it Acol
Is any system opening 4 card suits up the line considered Acol, regardless of the rest of the structure?

No, i don't think many would cinsider Cyberyeti's system a form of Acol. While there is little concencus about the defining characteristics of Acol, I think Cyberyeti's system is too complex. EHAA is not a form of Acol either. And Goren is not Acol because it doesn't have limit bids.

4-cards up the line is not a requirement,though. English Acol opens the major with 4432 hands.

[TMorris]

Chris Jagger wrote a series of articles in English Bridge a little while ago about how he played his Acol based system. He is most likely the strongest English player who plays like that as most play 2/1 or in one case Polish club. He has played in one European Championship I think with this system and did ok. Of course he is good enough to do ok whatever the system he plays.

His system is a great deal more complex than a club type Acol system of course.

I think one big advantage of 2/1 is that has sufficient critical mass for lots of people to have contributed theory to produce a good workable system. If Acol had the same critical mass of players it would no doubt compete better.

At club level all sorts of things are called Acol. Weak 2s, multi etc... included. Most bare little relation to Acol as it was first taught. Some seem to think Acol requires sound opening bids. I find this view astonishing.

[pescetom]

 helene_t, on 2024-January-10, 08:43, said:

4-cards up the line is not a requirement,though. English Acol opens the major with 4432 hands.

That and other quirks are why I found Italian 4-card majors (strictly up the line, strong NT, practical 2/1 developments) more logical and effective than Acol.
But I wouldn't want to play either in real competition with screens (another element people have not mentioned, but fundamental to the playability of systems based almost entirely on non-forcing bids).

[TMorris]

 pescetom, on 2024-January-10, 15:28, said:

That and other quirks are why I found Italian 4-card majors (strictly up the line, strong NT, practical 2/1 developments) more logical and effective than Acol.
But I wouldn't want to play either in real competition with screens (another element people have not mentioned, but fundamental to the playability of systems based almost entirely on non-forcing bids).

How are screens relevant?

Any system works as well with screens as without. The only difference is cheats don't pick up hesitations so easily.

[pescetom]

 TMorris, on 2024-January-10, 15:45, said:

The only difference is cheats don't pick up hesitations so easily.

You put it more bluntly than I would, but that was my point.
A system where many if not most useful bids are non-forcing will inevitably be more effective when partner can see you, even if you have no intention whatsoever to cheat (like the vast majority of people playing any system).
It's a fact of life that most regular partners can "read" each other more effectively than they can handle the legal consequences of doing so and that system ambiguity is partly protected by this.

[helene_t]

 pescetom, on 2024-January-10, 15:28, said:

That and other quirks are why I found Italian 4-card majors (strictly up the line, strong NT, practical 2/1 developments) more logical and effective than Acol.

That sounds like dutch acol. It makes it easy to teach to beginners- cheaper of two or three four card suits, higher of two five card suits. Applies to opener as well as respinder. No exceptions, most club players would even bid the lowest four card suit in response to a t/o double.

But technically I think it's poor. It's a 5card-majorite that hasn't comed out of the closet. The whole point of 4cM is that you can agree to open the better suit so you're happy with a 3-card raise or partner leading it, or, alternatively, that a minor suit opening denies 4cM in a balanced hand so you don't have the dilemma whether to play Walsh.
I think Dutch Acol combines the flaws of 4cM with the flaws of 5cM. But it's relatively easy to learn the basics. And that's arguably more important than technical superiority.

[TMorris]

 helene_t, on 2024-January-10, 21:49, said:

That sounds like dutch acol. It makes it easy to teach to beginners- cheaper of two or three four card suits, higher of two five card suits. Applies to opener as well as respinder. No exceptions, most club players would even bid the lowest four card suit in response to a t/o double.

But technically I think it's poor. It's a 5card-majorite that hasn't comed out of the closet. The whole point of 4cM is that you can agree to open the better suit so you're happy with a 3-card raise or partner leading it, or, alternatively, that a minor suit opening denies 4cM in a balanced hand so you don't have the dilemma whether to play Walsh.
I think Dutch Acol combines the flaws of 4cM with the flaws of 5cM. But it's relatively easy to learn the basics. And that's arguably more important than technical superiority.

I changed from opening the major to opening the lower with balance 4432 hands a few years ago. It is as you say rather close to a 5card major approach. I resisted to idea for quite some time as I thought we would lose significant major fits. In practice this rarely seems to happen.

I remember reading many years ago from a good player that strong NT and 4 card majors was a viable approach as was weak NT and 5 card majors. The combination of weak and 4 was the problem. I am now quite close to weak and 5 but partner can still raise my minor suit openings with confidence.

System is rarely the reason why I get poor boards Judgement is much more the issue.

[Gilithin]

 TMorris, on 2024-January-11, 05:49, said:

I changed from opening the major to opening the lower with balance 4432 hands a few years ago. It is as you say rather close to a 5card major approach. I resisted to idea for quite some time as I thought we would lose significant major fits. In practice this rarely seems to happen.

I remember reading many years ago from a good player that strong NT and 4 card majors was a viable approach as was weak NT and 5 card majors. The combination of weak and 4 was the problem. I am now quite close to weak and 5 but partner can still raise my minor suit openings with confidence.

If you always open the minor from 4M4m(32), I think it is almost indisputable that Swiss Acol (open 4♠333 1♣ so that 1♠ promises 5♠) is the superior option. The point about 4+Weak rather than 4+Strong is that it allows Responder to raise the major with 3 card support rather than bidding 1NT, which gets back some of what is lost from not promising the 5th card and allows for fast pressure to be put on opponents. This is generally unsound in 4+Strong systems. You can read about this and other differences between the methods in Robson+Segal's Partnership Bidding at Bridge.

[mga010]

 P_Marlowe, on 2024-January-09, 04:31, said:

FD is not as bad as they claim, the main trouble is, that it is a mess due to the many revisions.
It is well documented, which is a plus.

Anyway, weak NT is on the rise in Germany among stronger pairs.

Forum D is documented only in two commercial books, one for uncontested bidding and one for interventions. Not even the teaching material is free. I have only an old book of the system I bought used somewhere, and it is outdated. There is only a short description in the net which is nothing compared to the material for Acol or for Standard Bidding. I am really mad about this system. Also, Bridge teachers keep telling me that it is hard to teach because of its illogical structure.