[TylerE]

Any Viking Club players out there? Bought the book about a year ago and have finally gotten around to starting in on it.

[Echognome]

Read the book and although it was great for its time, symmetric relay systems are much more efficient and easier to memorize.

[jdonn]

Echognome, on Feb 12 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

Read the book and although it was great for its time, symmetric relay systems are much more efficient and easier to memorize.

The strength of Viking is definitely not efficiency of the relays, it's the ability to break them and switch to natural bidding almost at will. It's certainly a lot better in practice than in theory I would say.

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Feb 12 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

Echognome, on Feb 12 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

Read the book and although it was great for its time, symmetric relay systems are much more efficient and easier to memorize.

The strength of Viking is definitely not efficiency of the relays, it's the ability to break them and switch to natural bidding almost at will. It's certainly a lot better in practice than in theory I would say.

Have no idea why you couldn't do the same with symmetric. Actually, I think the whole area of relay breaks seems relatively undeveloped.

[csdenmark]

TylerE, on Feb 12 2009, 08:24 PM, said:

Any Viking Club players out there? Bought the book about a year ago and have finally gotten around to starting in on it.

I am ready for Viking anytime. 2004(the book) and 2007.

[TylerE]

Awesome. If you have systems notes that'd probably be easier to learn from than the book anyway. tylere@gmail.com

[jdonn]

Echognome, on Feb 12 2009, 01:57 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 12 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

Echognome, on Feb 12 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

Read the book and although it was great for its time, symmetric relay systems are much more efficient and easier to memorize.

The strength of Viking is definitely not efficiency of the relays, it's the ability to break them and switch to natural bidding almost at will. It's certainly a lot better in practice than in theory I would say.

Have no idea why you couldn't do the same with symmetric. Actually, I think the whole area of relay breaks seems relatively undeveloped.

Because symmetric shows things in a very efficient order for symmetry and getting the entire shape shown, but a not particularly efficient order for the importance of the information to partner. Viking essentially shows the features of the hand (as far as suits and sidesuits) in the same order that natural bidding does.

For example, 1♠ response in tosr is balanced or red suits. Partner will essentially never want to break before knowing which, so he bids 1NT and you bid 2♥ showing 44(23) or (23)44. Now you have wasted an entire level before opener can break the relays and he knows hardly anything more useful than if responder had begun with a natural 1NT.

It's a lot easier to break relays at an early point when partner has the black suits if he bids "I have 5+ spades, I have clubs on the side" than it is if he bids "I have 4+ spades, I have clubs as well but either could be longer." I'm not saying you couldn't do it in symmetric, but since the prior information is likely to not yet be well defined (is partner 4-7, 7-4, 5-5, ???) it would be very hard to bid naturally having begun that way.

[csdenmark]

TylerE, on Feb 12 2009, 10:31 PM, said:

Awesome. If you have systems notes that'd probably be easier to learn from than the book anyway. tylere@gmail.com

Yes the book is very difficult to read. You will be able to buy the notes for both versions at www.bridgefiles.net

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Feb 12 2009, 12:39 PM, said:

Echognome, on Feb 12 2009, 01:57 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 12 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

Echognome, on Feb 12 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

Read the book and although it was great for its time, symmetric relay systems are much more efficient and easier to memorize.

The strength of Viking is definitely not efficiency of the relays, it's the ability to break them and switch to natural bidding almost at will. It's certainly a lot better in practice than in theory I would say.

Have no idea why you couldn't do the same with symmetric. Actually, I think the whole area of relay breaks seems relatively undeveloped.

Because symmetric shows things in a very efficient order for symmetry and getting the entire shape shown, but a not particularly efficient order for the importance of the information to partner. Viking essentially shows the features of the hand (as far as suits and sidesuits) in the same order that natural bidding does.

For example, 1♠ response in tosr is balanced or red suits. Partner will essentially never want to break before knowing which, so he bids 1NT and you bid 2♥ showing 44(23) or (23)44. Now you have wasted an entire level before opener can break the relays and he knows hardly anything more useful than if responder had begun with a natural 1NT.

It's a lot easier to break relays at an early point when partner has the black suits if he bids "I have 5+ spades, I have clubs on the side" than it is if he bids "I have 4+ spades, I have clubs as well but either could be longer." I'm not saying you couldn't do it in symmetric, but since the prior information is likely to not yet be well defined (is partner 4-7, 7-4, 5-5, ???) it would be very hard to bid naturally having begun that way.

I understand your point. Of course we could always try to build a better mousetrap and organize our relays in a different fashion. But, given the existing systems already in place, I know that's not something I'd be interested in spending my time doing.