morecharac, on 2021-March-01, 10:45, said:
The more I hear about how good players bid the more some systems resemble a Rube Goldberg device designed by M.C. Escher on an LSD trip.
I like the quote, but as someone who is a bit of a bidding nerd (though not as much as one of my partners, with whom I used to play a relay method that had several hundred pages of notes, many in 'space-saving' flowchart presentations), if you actually study what good players play, there will be a clear internal logic behind every aspect of the method.
Any one who has played a lot of ftf bridge at tournaments will be familiar with the pairs who show up with convention cards so densely packed with writing that they are virtually illegible. The first one I remember was back in the late 1970's. My team wasn't very strong...I think I'd just made LM and one of my teammates was hoping to make LM in that KO event. We played this young pair with a dense cc. We beat them, in 28 boards, by 117 imps! More accurately, they beat themselves by 117 imps.
A lot of aspiring players confuse playing conventions with playing systems. A proper system is a carefully integrated set of agreements, the vast majority of which are not 'conventions' at all. They are 'agreements'.
One of the challenging aspects of system design is recognition that when one changes one part of a system, one is probably going to have to change a lot of other aspects. The worst thing one can do, in terms of coming up with a good method, is to adopt conventions without understanding that for every problem a convention appears to solve there will be a new problem that didn't use to exist.
You want to play Flannery 2D?
What do you do with xxx x AKJxxx xxx?
Well, you can decide to open those and similar hands with 3D, but now responder has to adjust how he bids over a 3D opening bid.
You want to play 12-14 1N instead of your previous 15-17?
What does this do to 1m 1M 2M?
In most standard strong 1N methods, 1m 1M 2M may be on a weak hand with 3 card support. Had I AQx x KQxxx Qxx and partner responded to my 1D with 1S, I bid 2S happily
I still have to open 1D with this, playing weak 1N, but now can I raise to 2S?
Most would say: no! Because one raises to 2S with AQxx xx KQxx AJx as well. When playing weak 1N, one raises the major with 4 cards support and either a strong 1N or a distributional hand...the point being that a shapely 12 count, with a stiff or void, is probably as good, in terms of playing strength, as a strong 1N with 4 card support (one would probably bid 3S with 17). However, a weak hand with 3 card support is nowhere near as good a mesh as one with 4 card support.
So you have to discuss and agree on how you handle these problems that simply did not exist with the strong notrump method
And so on.
Some modern methods are extraordinarily complex. Meckwell, in their prime (and for all I know, still today although I had heard that they'd simplified a little) had over 600 pages of notes. But they are NOT random. Nor are they designed primarily to frustrate the opponents.
In my old relay days we had agreements that never, in thousands of hands over several years, arose.
Here's my favourite system change that did arise: playing in our team trials, having reached the semi-finals, we were talking about one of our gadgets. We opened a weak 2D, but very aggressively, including with 5 card suits and with a 4 card major, so we could be 6-4 or 5-4 (or 5332 or 6322 etc)
Our structure was that a 2H response was artificial and asking with a 2N response being forcing in hearts.
Our discussion that morning was to add a wrinkle:
After 2D 2N, showing hearts, we had shown heart support via 3H. We decided that 3C was basically wasted so we added that 3C would be hearts with a bad hand and 3H would be hearts with a good hand.
Partner opened 2D and I held AKQJ9 AKJ9x A AK vul at imos
I bid 2N, he bid 3C!
Now I could keycard, find the heart queen and diamond King and bid the best contract of 7N.
All I am saying is that it is wrong to think that complex methods, played by good pairs, are 'rube goldberg' concoctions. Far from it. They are the results of many hours of discussion and analysis. Beware of mocking that which one does not understand.
Last word: at the highest levels (where I am most definitely not) the standard of declarer play and defence is very consistent. Yes, they all make mistakes or misreads, but they happen rarely. The great majority of swings at high level bridge are the results of bidding. This is why top pairs devote so much energy to their methods.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari