[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2019-July-01, 21:34, said:

But most of these conventions are played in Acol as well. Not forcing 1NT, and not NMF; rather simple or 2-way checkback. You have just made a list of some of the most common conventions that people will generally play regardless of their general approach. and called it a “default 2/1 system”.

The intent was to contrast with Standard American and SAYC, and to point out that 2/1 is not just any system that where 2/1 is game forcing. I think lots of Precision players also have that agreement, but that doesn't make it 2/1.

Quote

When does it become not that? When they play a Multi, or a Mexican 2♦, or 2-way Checkback? When they play Bergen Raises? Weak NT? Kokish? Lucas Twos? Mini-Roman? Transfer responses to 1♣? Polish Club?

Systems are just a baseline, you can make almost any changes you want. If a foreigner speaks with a thick accent and many grammar mistakes, they're still speaking English.

Quote

What defence to their 1NT does this “system” specify? What, if any, forcing M raise? What sort of jump raises? Jump shifts? Jump overcalls? What are three-level responses to a 1NT opening? Is Puppet Stayman played? If so, which way round? How do we respond to weak twos? There are so many other things that would be spelled out in an actual system.

There are lots of holes in the 2/1 system that need to be filled in by explicit partnership agreement. I wouldn't make any assumptions about any of those things without discussion.

Quote

What I take from this is that the convention of 2/1 GF is played in combination with a player’s other favourite conventions.

Which I think is true of most systems. Does everyone play Acol the same way?

If you want something more comprehensive, you need to refer to something like Bridge World Standard. But this is not a useful recommendation for playing with randoms online -- it's a system created by and for experts, most players are not very familiar with it.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-July-02, 08:18, said:

If you want something more comprehensive, you need to refer to something like Bridge World Standard. But this is not a useful recommendation for playing with randoms online -- it's a system created by and for experts, most players are not very familiar with it.

It's very useful for what it is, but a system "created by" experts is maybe a slight overbid - BWS says that it "encapsulates common American expert practices, determined by polls, as a set of partnership agreements." Basically they revise the system periodically by voting on selected (not sure how) controversial aspects, and then blindly implement the majority decision on each. Which is democratic (if you are an American expert), but hardly a design process - imagine that your Ferrari that has just been modified by the votes of a panel of drivers, rather than the design team in Maranello. BWS is great as a sanity check on your own agreements, though.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2019-July-02, 08:18, said:

If you want something more comprehensive, you need to refer to something like Bridge World Standard. But this is not a useful recommendation for playing with randoms online -- it's a system created by and for experts, most players are not very familiar with it.

It seems to me that if you want to play with randoms online, you should use one of the standard BBO convention cards exactly as written.

[etha]

obviously FD cards are the answer but sadly they no longer exist

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2019-July-01, 08:29, said:

Maybe that's true on your side of the pond, where 2/1 is a relatively recent import. In the US, I've played with plenty of pick-up partners and there's a pretty common concensus

Perhaps you would care to explain the consensus on a simple auction such as 1♦ - 2♣; 2♥? As Stefanie is pointing out, 2/1 is a family of systems, although it really goes beyond that as it is also used in, for example, some versions of Precision, so it is also fair to call it a convention rather than as a true basis for a system.

[pescetom]

Zelandakh, on 2019-July-05, 02:34, said:

Perhaps you would care to explain the consensus on a simple auction such as 1♦ - 2♣; 2♥?

Natural and does not show extras?
BWS found 68% consensus on this in 2017, and it was 73% when polled again on BridgeWinners this year.

Zelandakh, on 2019-July-05, 02:34, said:

As Stefanie is pointing out, 2/1 is a family of systems, although it really goes beyond that as it is also used in, for example, some versions of Precision, so it is also fair to call it a convention rather than as a true basis for a system.

I think it's both - a convention that can be part of a system, and a family of systems which grew from the introduction of this convention to improve natural 5-card majors. That's a messy situation but no worse than 'cue bid'

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2019-July-05, 02:34, said:

Perhaps you would care to explain the consensus on a simple auction such as 1♦ - 2♣; 2♥? As Stefanie is pointing out, 2/1 is a family of systems, although it really goes beyond that as it is also used in, for example, some versions of Precision, so it is also fair to call it a convention rather than as a true basis for a system.

What does this have to do with anything? As I said, a system is a baseline, it doesn't specify the meaning of all sequences. Agreeing on a system is a shortcut when you sit down with a new partner -- you know where you're starting from, and what places are open to variation that you should discuss.

I've played against many pairs that say they're playing Precision. From what I can tell, there are significant differences between all of them. I don't know enough about the system to tell which of them is "classic" Precision. As far as I can tell, Precision seems like a family of systems, what they mainly have in common is the meanings of opening bids from 1♣ through 2♣, and the 1♦ response to 1♣. Beyond that it seems like there's wild variation (e.g. natural vs. transfer responses, relay bids). So is Precision a system, or a family of strong club systems?

[Zelandakh]

pescetom, on 2019-July-05, 07:42, said:

Natural and does not show extras?
BWS found 68% consensus on this in 2017, and it was 73% when polled again on BridgeWinners this year.

There are a few problems with that. First of all there is a disagreement within 2/1 culture as to whether 2♥ here should show, deny or be ambivalent to Opener's diamond holding. Secondly, there is a small but significant minority that require extras. And finally, there is a larger group for whom 2♣ is not even a game force although they are playing 2/1. Even the OKB 2/1 system document, for example, while laying out their version of 2/1, states that players cannot rely on this with any certainty. Pick any specific meaning here and you would be hard pressed to find a majority, let alone a consensus.

barmar, on 2019-July-05, 08:06, said:

So is Precision a system, or a family of strong club systems?

Funnily enough I actually included Precision and Acol in my first draft of the message as examples of families of systems, so I absolutely agree that that is an accurate description. When players use Precision as a specific system designation they might be referring specifically to Wei Precision, which is a complete system, or in modern times they might mean Meckwell Lite, which has effectively become the modern standard. Similarly, when I talk about Acol in England I am basically referring to a slightly different system than in Germany and a completely different one from the Acol I learned as a child.

There is a difference here between system, meaning the specific set of agreements, and general approach. Families tend to be the latter and require an additional moniker to reach system status (Wei, Modern English, BBO Advanced, etc). 2/1 straddles the line between a general approach and a convention and it qualifies as the former largely due to circumstances and history rather than it being more fundamental than, for example, the choice of minor suit openings, which does not receive a great deal of system distinction.

[Thorn610]

RuflRabbit, on 2019-June-24, 14:16, said:

Please tell me what part you found confusing and I will be happy to clarify.

RuflRabbit

I only have tried playing on line and I don't recall any opportunity to divulge the information you mentioned to a proposed partner, either a robot or a real person?

I am nor sure if the 2/1 system is just about an over call with a 5 card suite and 6-9 HCP or if it involves a lot more?

I tried to search for a comparison of the systems employed, 2/1, ACOL, Standard etc, but did not get any satisfactory comparisons?

Thanks for your patience
John

[pescetom]

Zelandakh, on 2019-July-06, 02:18, said:

There are a few problems with that. First of all there is a disagreement within 2/1 culture as to whether 2♥ here should show, deny or be ambivalent to Opener's diamond holding. Secondly, there is a small but significant minority that require extras. And finally, there is a larger group for whom 2♣ is not even a game force although they are playing 2/1. Even the OKB 2/1 system document, for example, while laying out their version of 2/1, states that players cannot rely on this with any certainty. Pick any specific meaning here and you would be hard pressed to find a majority, let alone a consensus.

If you learned ACOL as a child then you will be familiar with the term "wriggling out"
The Bridge World polled american experts in 2017 and the consensus (68%, more than a majority) was both that 2♣ should be a game force here and that it does not require extras (poll 420). Both are reversals of what experts thought in the previous standard. When I polled it again on Bridgewinners this year the consensus was 73%.

BWS 2017 said:

System change: After a one-diamond opening: a two-club response is forcing to game (opener's two-of-a-major rebid does not show extra values and is ambiguous as to diamond length), a three-club response is invitational.

[RuflRabbit]

Thorn610, on 2019-July-06, 08:49, said:

I only have tried playing on line and I don't recall any opportunity to divulge the information you mentioned to a proposed partner, either a robot or a real person?

I am nor sure if the 2/1 system is just about an over call with a 5 card suite and 6-9 HCP or if it involves a lot more?

I tried to search for a comparison of the systems employed, 2/1, ACOL, Standard etc, but did not get any satisfactory comparisons?

Thanks for your patience
John

You can put the information about what you play into your profile. If you're playing with a human partner, you can ask that person something like "my profile OK?" If you're playing with the robots you're stuck with the robot system. The good news is that you can see an explanation for each bid the robot makes, but the robot won't know what your bids mean unless they match the robot's system.

The label "2/1" just means that the system being played is one is which a game force is established when an opening suit bid is followed by a 2 level bid in a lower ranking suit.

RuflRabbit

[etha]

It might be a good plan to pick a system and then read a book on it. This way you can at least say to someone do you know x system in this book/article.

For example when I first started I read Precision Bidding and precision Play by Terence Reese. Now I could at least say to someone lets play Reese Precision. This would admittedly be pretty useless for you as the number of todays starting players that would have read this would be about 0.01%.

Presumably somewhere on the internet there should be a summary of some common current system that you can reference and read. BBO used to have useful system summaries in FD cards and you could simply say BBO expert standard and now you would have a system.