[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-January-13, 17:31, said:

Run a mid-chart knockout and a muppetgeneral-chart knockout in parallel. The brackets might be wider, but I expect everyone would find the company more to their liking.

That seems like a good idea.

Once my partner and I were visiting in New Jersey, and went to a New York regional for the day. The following day was a bracketed event, and we found some teammates, but I was ill and couldn't go. Anyway, it was something I had been thinking about for a long time -- the top bracket was open to all. Perhaps the format for this bracket would have to be changed. Maybe the top bracket would have to be broken into sections, or maybe a Swiss or multiple teams could be played and then the top bracket could be broken up according to performance.

Of course, for people who want masterpoints (I assume that all brackets get the same amount), playing in lower brackets is attractive. But for others, myself included, travelling to an event and finding I couldn't play in the top flight would be totally unacceptable.

[JLOGIC]

Vampyr, I am pretty sure the event you are talking about was a bracketed swiss/round robin (the NY regional runs this event). In that event, anyone can enter the top bracket and its run as a swiss, while the lower brackets are run as a round robin. I agree that this is a good event. In knockouts I still think it would be impossible without changes like the ones suggested here.

[JLOGIC]

Amusing side note, I was in Orlando for a regional recently and they ran a bracketed round robin where the top bracket was NOT open to everyone. I was surprised to see I was assigned bracket 2 on a team with 3 people who were grand life masters/had more masterpoints than me four handed. Eventually they let a team that reported the same masterpoints as us play in bracket 2 and us in bracket 1...but the other team contained Gavin Wolpert and 2 young polish stars who are on their open team lol. Tough tournament.

[JmBrPotter]

32519, on 2012-January-03, 13:25, said:

The BBO Forums are littered with all sorts of systems. Some deal with improvements on existing already widely recognised systems. Others deal with the development of new systems. The Non-Natural System Forum in particular is crammed with all sorts of interesting ideas for building new systems around. However at the end of the day, how much of your results at the table can be ascribed to the system you are playing?

Consider the following –
1.) In top flight tournaments you have to provide your opponents with a copy of your CC. They normally are given sufficient time to study it before the commencement of the actual match itself.
2.) Top flight players inevitably have agreements on how to deal with strange systems or they are able to reach agreement quickly after studying their opponents CC’s.
3.) During play all artificial bids still need to be alerted. So how much was the gain for using a fancy system? Inevitably a huge amount of effort was dispensed in developing a new system.
4.) There was a thread recently where the majority seemed to agree that good declarer play and good defensive play will ensure above average results in any tournament.
5.) Bidding wasn’t regarded as important as point 4 above.
6.) Many controlling bodies e.g. ACBL outlaw many of these fancy systems anyway.

Which brings me back to this threads primary question: How much did you gain from developing your own unique Non-Natural System?

Bill Gregg (in Michigan) and I have taken the system outlined below to BBO and five ACBL regional tournaments (4 times the New Years Regional alternating between Charleston, SC and Myrtle Beach, SC). It conforms to the ACBL GCC. Much of it needs alerting, but none of it is so off the wall that it will shock experienced opponents. Thus, I concede your points #1 and #2. You do not even need "top flight" opponents for you to be correct on these points. Most players in the class with ACBL Silver Lifemasters or better can handle nearly anything a system compliant with the ACBL GCC could throw at them. If the system design considers regulatory authority, point #6 is moot.

#3: Opening hands (especially, preemptively) that were passed at the other table(s) will present your opponents with challenges others in their seat do not face. If you can do so without facing excess risks, this can work in your favor by forcing opponents to make decisions others with their cards did not face. Each unusual decision is an opportunity to make a mistake. Even very strong pairs will sometimes stumble.

#4: Better defense—especially, partnership defense—always tells, no doubt. Better declarer play also tells, but usually less so. Bidding an unusual system designed to steal hands may sometimes dull those advantages. If I'm declaring 1NT undoubled on a hand where my opponents have a vulnerable game, I really do not care if they put me down four or five rather than only the two or three tricks by which my partner and I may have defeated them if we switched seats after the auction. Since our teammates got to open rather than deciding what to do over my 10-14 HCP 1NT opening (or weak 2♣ opening), we'll come out even or ahead more often than not.

#5: This is surely true when bidding methods are similar and you are talking about ability to bid sound yet difficult to bid games and slams (while being better at avoiding unsound ones). With unusual systems, very light openings and increased preemption create obstructions that may have opponents defending when they SHOULD be declaring (or declaring the wrong contract when they SHOULD have swung the ax before defending). Every "in your face" auction forces unusual choices absent from the other table(s). Pairs CAN win hands in the auction. Systems that threaten to win hands in the auction by stealing (or just bidding to the limit, quickly) put intense pressure on the opponents. Pressured opponents facing unusual decisions on limited information are more likely to choose a sensible (but wrong) option than similarly capable players operating inside their comfort zones.

Remember how effective Bergen-Cohen were just by opening lighter, preempting more, and applying fast arrival more extremely than most of their opponents? A system DESIGNED to create MORE "in you face" auctions exploits those same advantages to an even greater extent.

Here's an example of an unusual GCC compliant bidding system that achieves the above competitive advantages while retaining effective constructive bidding. The natural 10-14 HCP 1NT opening is particularly frequent AND particularly difficult to defend. The weak 2♣ opening is similarly difficult—much more difficult to bid over than "Pass". Opponents should probably compete aggressively over both the 1♣ (especially) and 1♦ openings. Both are near their bottom limits MUCH more often that they are strong. Yet, entering a live auction over 1♣ (alerted as 11-37 HCP, Conventional, Forcing for one round, likely to be a minimum range minor suit one-suiter [suit unknown] or a major-minor two-suiter with greater length in the major [both suits unknown]) does not give most folks a warm, fuzzy feeling without good shape and useful tickets. On the other hand, passing may thrust your partner into the balancing seat at the two level unaware that YOU hold a 13 count with 4-card support for his 5-card suit. I'm glad that most (OK, all) of my opponents do not bid like Bill and I do.

MoTown Minors System Sketch:

- 1NT opening: 10-14 HCP balanced
- 1♣ openings: Conv., 1RF, 11+ HCP, 19+ HCP if balanced
- 1♦ openings: Conv., 1RF, 15+ HCP, 15+ HCP if balanced
- 1♥ & 1♠ openings:11-20- HCP 4-card suit, one-suited or two-suited
- 2-suit openings: 5-11 HCP 5-6 card suit, one-suited or two-suited
- 2NT opening: 11-15 HCP, minor suit two-suited
- 3NT opening: solid 7-card suit, no side suit entry
- 3♣-5♦ natural suit openings preemptive
- Other openings: special case slam tries
- All 3-suited hands open either . . .
. 1♣ (11-14, 18-20, or 24-26 HCP) or . . .
. 1♦ (15-17, 21-23, or 27-34 HCP)
. Sort them out from each other and the big balanced hands in the rebidding
- Notrump ranges are . . .
. 10-14 (open 1NT)
. 15-18 (open 1♦ and rebid 1NT)
. 19-22 (open 1♣ and rebid 1NT)
.. Same systems on over all three 1NT bids
. 23-24 (open 1♦ and rebid 2NT)
. 25-26 (open 1♣ and rebid 2NT)
. 27-28 (open 1♦, first rebid 2C [nominally 3-suited], and second rebid 2NT)
. 29-37 (open 1♣, first rebid 1S [nominally 3-suited], and second rebid 2NT)
.. Same systems on over all four 2NT rebids
.. Opener may make "impossible" responses to Stayman or Jacoby with 31+HCP

Problems encountered:
- 1♣ opening vulnerable to preemption when responder has about 8-12 HCP
- 1♦ opening vulnerable to preemption . . . about 4-8 HCP
- 11-14 HCP 3-suiters often preempted before opener's 1S "3 suits" rebid
- 1♦ openings on 15-18 HCP balanced sometimes get preempted before the 1NT rebid
- We sometimes reach good contracts I do not make because I too often don't count
- Doubling 3-level preemption over 1♣ or 1♦ can create big (+ or –) IMP swings

Successes:
- The 10-14 HCP 1NT opening is difficult to defend
. Defenders need to be in the auction against frequent 10-11 HCP openings
. Defenders should respect 13-14 HCP openings
. 12 HCP openings may fall into either of the above camps
.. By the time defenders know what's happening, we've found a spot or . . .
. . defenders have entered the auction and they (one or more of) . . .
. .. are unsure how high to go when they own the hand
. .. have rescued a 10 HCP opener while concealing its weakness
. .. have stepped into a trap when responder is almost invitational
. . defenders have clobbered 1NT undoubled and missed their game
. . we've slipped into two of a suit (down a trick or two) versus . . .
. .. the defenders' missed game . . . or . . .
. .. the defenders' partscore that would score better
. .. defenders play game making slam
. .. defenders bid past a sound game seeking slam and go down
. .. defenders wrong side a contract and make one less
. .. defenders find their spot and there's a par result
- The weak 2♣ opening often creates favorable swings in team matches
. Especially effective with 5 clubs and 4 cards in a major suit
- Showing 18-22 HCP balanced hands with 1NT helps invitational range responders
- Showing all 23+ balanced hands at the 2-level is an advantage in slam auctions
- 1♥ or 1♠ openings with a primary suit elsewhere can yield big swings
. Opener plans a canapé rebid into the primary suit
. There is a misfit
. A defender overcalls 1♥ or 1♠ with two (or more) of opener's primary suit
. Opener converts responder's positive double to penalty
. It gets worse for the opponents if they try to run
- Three-suited hands do not clutter and complicate other bidding sequences

We play test on BBO, but usually in ACBL Speedball tournaments to get reliable opponents.

We want steady play test opponents. Our BBO IDs are JmBrPotter (me) and WGregg (Bill Gregg). We're on US Eastern Time (same as Atlanta, DC, New York and Totonto). Contact me via e-mail to "ClioBridgeGuy>at<att>dot<net" for a system book copy or to arrange BBO matches.

[JmBrPotter]

mycroft, on 2012-January-13, 13:31, said:

The regulation is that people can *ask* to move up to the top bracket (only), and *if feasible*, *in the TD's judgement*, it'll happen. I think that's odd - I think we should be able to ask for a higher bracket (any higher bracket), and then if possible, the TD will do whatever.

I think it's a little silly that my "highly underrated team" (and I've been on a few) either gets to play in Bracket 7 of 9 (which is an "if we don't win each match by 40+, we played horribly") or Bracket 1 (where we have no hope, and are effectively a "paid bye" for the one team lucky enough to catch us). We're a bracket 4 team; shouldn't we be allowed to move up at least a couple of brackets without going all the way to 1 (which isn't fair, so they won't)?

. . .

In most bracketed KOs your team can "play up" a bracket or two by simply overstating your combined masterpoint holdings. As long as the overstatement is not so bold as to put you in a class where "everyone knows your name" (but the TDs don't), the bracket assignments will get made based on the reported (rather then actual) masterpoint holdings. Checking for underreported masterpoint holdings happens during the first round matches and teams who underreport get disqualified during the first round.

A team I was on "won" a first round match this way because our opponents made an addition mistake underreporting their masterpoints by a hundred plus some players' forgotten recent winnings. The difference of a couple of hundred or so WOULD have moved them from the "strongest team" in our bracket to the "weakest team" one bracket up. We'd played about three boards at each table when a TD informed the opposing captain that they were disqualified. It was unpleasant for all concerned. The TD had to deliver the bad news, the other team had to leave, and we did not get to play cards.

For apparently accidental underreports like this one, it might be better to handicap the team that underreported. Add, for example, the square root of the amount of the underreport to the opposing team's IMP total. Then, double the handicap for each successive round. Thus, a team that underreported by 25MP would have to win its first match by more than 5IMPs, second by more than 10, third by more than 20 and fourth by more than 40IMPs. A team that made a possibly deliberate underreport of 1600MP would face a more difficult challenge. They'd need to win the first match by more than 40IMPs, the second by more than 80, the third by more than 160, and the final by more than 320IMPs. In each case, the team that underreported its masterpoint holdings faces a steep uphill climb to even advance in the event, much less win it. Small (probably accidental) underreports yield a significant (but potentially surmountable) advantage to the opponents. Large (thus, potentially fraudulent) underreports yield a very large (probably insurmountable) advantage to the opponents. Perhaps, a handicap should be a smaller number but on an IMPs per board basis so as to be independent of match length.

When I'm the team captain, I round all team member's masterpoints up by about a typical month's winnings and then bump the team total up to the nearest round hundred or so. This assures that we will not get disqualified for underreporting our masterpoints and sometimes we play up a bracket. Since we'd rather be the "weakest team" in a higher bracket than the "strongest team" in a lower bracket, his works fine for us.

A team captain who grossly overstated the team's masterpoint holdings for a team that gets blitzed in its first match might earn a discussion with a TD about reasons for honestly reporting the team's masterpoints. However, if the team performs well enough to demonstrate that it "belongs" in the bracket, I cannot imagine why a TD would care about the misrepresentation.

[Scarabin]

[Scarabin]

When I was young there was a saying "bid to win and play for fun". It was probably never true and arose because the Italian bidding systems won them far more than their fair share of world championships. I seem to remember also that when Reese's Little Major was first introduced England won the European Championship without losing a match and with a record number of victory points. When the Dallas Aces won back the World Championship they had adopted pretty artificial bidding systems. It may be that any system which makes limited bids at the earliest possible stage has the potential to be a winner? Here's a thought, could the way bidding and play is taught be a factor: most bidding books implicitly promise that if you study the system you will be a winner; a lot of books on play manage to convey that of course you'll never be able to play properly but their book will dispel some of your appalling ignorance? I exaggerate of course and there are many exceptions.

[mgoetze]

JLOGIC, on 2012-January-09, 00:15, said:

I only skimmed but the reason I don't play multi is that I think it is a bad convention.

Multi isn't particularily good on it's own, no, the reason to play Multi is simply to free up other opening bids for conventions which actually are good.

[Charlie Yu]

mgoetze, on 2012-January-24, 11:58, said:

Multi isn't particularily good on it's own, no, the reason to play Multi is simply to free up other opening bids for conventions which actually are good.

And Wilkosz+weak 2M is far superior to Multi+Muiderberg. Which is one of the reasons that I'm frown by reglating authorities. Why I'm not allowed to open my 2-suited weak 2 if I find there is merit doing so?

[Vampyr]

Charlie Yu, on 2012-February-16, 19:46, said:

Why I'm not allowed to open my 2-suited weak 2 if I find there is merit doing so?

You are allowed. Unless you are in the ACBL; you didn't specify.

[Charlie Yu]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-16, 20:32, said:

You are allowed. Unless you are in the ACBL; you didn't specify.

ACBL is not the only one. I live in another country, but they still follow ACBL restrictions.

[Vampyr]

Charlie Yu, on 2012-February-16, 23:24, said:

ACBL is not the only one. I live in another country, but they still follow ACBL restrictions.

Maybe you could write to the committee in charge of regulations and suggest that they use the Orange Book instead, or use the ACBL regs but reserve the GCC for novice events?

If they are using ACBL regulations only for convenience, they may not be intractable.

[mgoetze]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-17, 01:10, said:

Maybe you could write to the committee in charge of regulations and suggest that they use the Orange Book instead,

I feel there's been some misunderstanding, but do tell me, what level is Wilkosz allowed at in the EBU?

[Vampyr]

I thought it was allowed. I was mistaken:

Quote

But it is not permitted to play [a 2♦opening] as
‘Spades or Clubs with a second suit of Hearts or Diamonds’, since length in
Diamonds is part of the specification.

Pity.

[Charlie Yu]

Weird restrictons, but are myxo twos allowed?

[Vampyr]

Charlie Yu, on 2012-February-17, 17:01, said:

Weird restrictons, but are myxo twos allowed?

Trying to work this out has given me a headache, but as far as I could tell the 2-of-a-suit openers are allowed but not the 2NT opening.

[32519]

Charlie Yu, on 2012-February-17, 17:01, said:

Weird restrictons, but are myxo twos allowed?

This is the first time ever I have heard about myxo twos. I looked it up via a Google search and found this http://www.bridgeguy...tosis2Bids.html

Now I have the following questions:
1. How many contributers to these forums play myxo 2s?
2. How effective have you found them:
...a) Offensively?
...b) Defensively?

Will really appreciate feedback here.

[FM75]

Just some random comments on this thread:

• The ratio of US to World Bermuda Cup wins very closely approximates the ratio of the two populations. (not sure what the "bridge playing" populations are.)
  
• The rules of the Bermuda Cup allow two US teams, but are prejudiced against them winning by preventing both from reaching the final.
  
• The number of wins by China and India supports the professional hypothesis.
  
• The "got better results after switching from x to y" should be expected regardless of x and y. The fact that a change was made suggests a player intent upon improvement. That player would likely improve if he continued x.
  
• Perhaps discussion of systems' tolerance for errors (severity of the failure) and the probability of errors is under-discussed.

[32519]

I was the loudmouth who queried the reason for NNS. And then I went on to design my own NNS.

This I can say: they’re fun to play and fun to play against. You need to think “out of the box” during the bidding if you aren’t prepared for whatever NNS you may meet. Weaker opponents more often than not don’t know how to deal with them.

[phil_20686]

These kind of discussions are always pointless, as they are so poorly defined.

What is a NNS? I tend to think precision and polish club are fairly natural. Even transfer openings are basically natural. Only relay systems are truly "non natural".

There are lots of trade-offs and cross overs in bidding. You want to work out what kind of style you like to play before you think about what kind of system. It is my observation that limited systems like precision favour a very aggressive style. I think standard 2/1 type systems favour a more conservative style, particularly in competition. If you like to open light and force to game on minimal hands, 2/1 is not for you imo. Similarly, if opening Axxxx Axx Qxx xx concerns you you probably arent making best use of the freedom precision allows you.

Regardless of your opening bid structure, there is a lot of mileage in having good/complex agreements for constructive auctions. I think all expert players know this and have those agreements within their expert partnerships. Thats why they say it takes 3-5 years for a professional pair to reach their peak.

If you think that a particular NNS is significantly better than, say, 2/1+expert level continuations, you are definitely just wrong. For one thing, if it were true, experts would know it by now, and it would be come close to uniform in a short space of time. Gaining half an imp a board is a winning margin for most BB teams. Enough that your favoured system would be dominating World competitions. Instead there is diversity, which is a clear indication that there is no pancea. Even within the 2/1 community there is a clear division between those who bid shape first, and those who prefer strength first.

Finally, it has been my observation that those who are most strident in proclaiming that their system is better than, say, 2/1, tend to be strongly correlated with those who dont understand how to bid in 2/1 very well, and do not appreciate the large number of off the shelf system that most experts have to go with their general agreements for dealing with difficult hands.