[Free]

Does anybody have a FULL description of this system? I'm familiar with their convention card and notes, but I'm interested in how they continue their auctions, subsequent bidding, relays, whatever. Every interesting part of this system is also welcome, even specific bidding sequences you've seen, perhaps we can nit the system piece by piece ourselves

[Flame]

I wish i could help you, but i think those systems are a secret, i play boochi doubin 2c over 1M, and really wish i knew thier conntinuations because ours sux.

[EricK]

Flame, on Nov 2 2004, 09:01 PM, said:

I wish i could help you, but i think those systems are a secret, i play boochi doubin 2c over 1M, and really wish i knew thier conntinuations because ours sux.

Are pairs allowed to keep their system secret?

What about full disclosure?

Eric

[LukeG]

Flame, on Nov 3 2004, 12:01 AM, said:

I wish i could help you, but i think those systems are a secret, i play boochi doubin 2c over 1M, and really wish i knew thier conntinuations because ours sux.

The Bocchi-DuBoin 2♣ response to 1M is very similar to Garozzo's Ambra system, so you may want to check out those notes. See Dan Neill's web site for the info.

[Flame]

LukeG, on Nov 3 2004, 07:23 PM, said:

Flame, on Nov 3 2004, 12:01 AM, said:

I wish i could help you, but i think those systems are a secret, i play boochi doubin 2c over 1M, and really wish i knew thier conntinuations because ours sux.

The Bocchi-DuBoin 2♣ response to 1M is very similar to Garozzo's Ambra system, so you may want to check out those notes. See Dan Neill's web site for the info.

played Ambra, its not the same thing, and even in ambra you dont have all the developments, it make sense to keep the responder making relays, and for someone who know relay system it might have been easy there because the normal relay rules works, but as i dont want to learn a the all relay prucuders we are in problem.
About disclosure, you dont have to give all your system. some world class partnerships system is known to be a big secret worth lots of money.
As much as i wish it was public, i think its understandable that its not, someone working years on a system doesnt have to give it to anyone for free.

[peefco]

I think bridge systems are not the same as a procedure to make a Coca Cola to keep them in secret. As Erik mentioned full disclosure in bridge is a law. I play many conventions ( BLK, multi or wilkosz, splinter, cue bids etc etc) and never paid for it. Now I became a little bit scary, maybe someone is going to charge me for useing these conventions (for 25 years it might be a lot ).
For 5 years I've been playing Polish system NS. NS means "Nasz System" what is very easy to translate to english as "Our System". Who was "Our" ? Top Polish pair in 70/80 Krzysztof Martens - Tomasz Przybora. They for sure were working on this system many years but I hope they let me play it for free. They made some money on me because I brought these book about that system ( I didnt need to) and I think thats the right way to make a money. Keeping system in secret make no sense to me. Poles call someone like that " gardener's dog" because cant eat fruits by himself but doesnt let to eat anyone else

[helium]

peefco, on Nov 3 2004, 09:02 PM, said:

I think bridge systems are not the same as a procedure to make a Coca Cola to keep them in secret. As Erik mentioned full disclosure in bridge is a law. I play many conventions ( BLK, multi or wilkosz, splinter, cue bids etc etc) and never paid for it. Now I became a little bit scary, maybe someone is going to charge me for useing these conventions (for 25 years it might be a lot ).
For 5 years I've been playing Polish system NS. NS means "Nasz System" what is very easy to translate to english as "Our System". Who was "Our" ? Top Polish pair in 70/80 Krzysztof Martens - Tomasz Przybora. They for sure were working on this system many years but I hope they let me play it for free. They made some money on me because I brought these book about that system ( I didnt need to) and I think thats the right way to make a money. Keeping system in secret make no sense to me. Poles call someone like that " gardener's dog" because cant eat fruits by himself but doesnt let to eat anyone else

think u have to read the previus post more carefully.

[peefco]

Well, I did.

[the hog]

Totally agree Peefco.

[PriorKnowledge]

You do not have to publish a system to achieve full disclosure. You merely have to fully describe any bids that occur and what they mean.

As a simplistic example, playing standard Jacoby 2N, after a 3C shortness rebid, you would describe that bid as, "club shortness, no 2nd strong 5-card suit, nothing about hand strength."

To achieve full disclosure the opps do not have to know that a jump-rebid shows a 2nd strong 5-card suit.

A thorough kibber could reverse engineer the whole system, but it might take quite a few hands.

[1eyedjack]

PriorKnowledge, on Nov 8 2004, 01:03 PM, said:

You do not have to publish a system to achieve full disclosure. You merely have to fully describe any bids that occur and what they mean.

As a simplistic example, playing standard Jacoby 2N, after a 3C shortness rebid, you would describe that bid as, "club shortness, no 2nd strong 5-card suit, nothing about hand strength."

To achieve full disclosure the opps do not have to know that a jump-rebid shows a 2nd strong 5-card suit.

A thorough kibber could reverse engineer the whole system, but it might take quite a few hands.

That is fine so long as the methods are not so complex that advance notice is not required in order to develop a defence. (I think I got the right number of negatives in there!)

[Gerben47]

I just did a simulation and what I got scared me a bit. They have a mean opening of 2.15 which is much higher than standard systems (which have about 1.6). A mean opening of 2 means on average your opponents take away 2 bids if they are in 1st seat (i.e. open 1D). Most standard systems have an average below this but as I said, 2.15 is very high!

[Flame]

Gerben47, on Nov 11 2004, 12:02 PM, said:

I just did a simulation and what I got scared me a bit. They have a mean opening of 2.15 which is much higher than standard systems (which have about 1.6). A mean opening of 2 means on average your opponents take away 2 bids if they are in 1st seat (i.e. open 1D). Most standard systems have an average below this but as I said, 2.15 is very high!

You mean you take 2.15 from your opponents ? or else i didnt understnad you.
If i understand right, do you consider a high mean as always good, always bad or usually good/usually bad ?
I think its usually good but not always.
In general i consider their system to a new age system, based on the consept of total tricks more then any other system i know. The main fault imo is the forcing 1 bids, but i cant say how bad this is.

[junyi_zhu]

Flame, on Nov 11 2004, 05:21 PM, said:

Gerben47, on Nov 11 2004, 12:02 PM, said:

I just did a simulation and what I got scared me a bit. They have a mean opening of 2.15 which is much higher than standard systems (which have about 1.6). A mean opening of 2 means on average your opponents take away 2 bids if they are in 1st seat (i.e. open 1D). Most standard systems have an average below this but as I said, 2.15 is very high!

You mean you take 2.15 from your opponents ? or else i didnt understnad you.
If i understand right, do you consider a high mean as always good, always bad or usually good/usually bad ?
I think its usually good but not always.
In general i consider their system to a new age system, based on the consept of total tricks more then any other system i know. The main fault imo is the forcing 1 bids, but i cant say how bad this is.

To me, this system is not playable for teamgame. Their 2 level opening can't guarantee 5 cards if you want to open AKxx AJTx x xxxx which is probably not a one level opening unless they distort their shape to open 1NT which I don't realy like.
Another thing is that they don't even have weak 2, without weak 2, that means SAQJxxx Hxx Dxxx Cxx can not be opened.
The third thing is that For some strong type of hands, they still have to open one level and rebid at two level, for which, other systems would simply make a jumpshift, and I've seen them miss a cold game about every 20 boards in this team olympic game. So I think overally, it's a match point system, it's pretty good at 2 level and 3 level bidding. But For game and slam bidding, I don't see it's good.

[inquiry]

Jlall, on Nov 11 2004, 03:22 PM, said:

junyi_zhu, on Nov 11 2004, 01:43 PM, said:

To me, this system is not playable for teamgame.

I think its probably playable since they won european championships and olympiad.

Lol...

Imagine what they could do with a system good for team-games. :-)

[Flame]

I dont play weak two bids and i dont miss them, they are too rare.
I dont think this system is a mp system more then its good for imps.

[Antoine Fourrière]

In my view, their 2♣ opening has the advantage of showing real clubs as opposed to 1♣, and their 2♥ and 2♠ openings often find a playable contract without much description.
But I don't see the point of opening 2♦ instead of 1♦ with 10-13. There is no economical relay, 1♦ already shows a real suit, and you can always devise something for the diamond powerhouses, such as 2♦ weak in a major or strong in diamonds, or 1♦ forcing one round with a 2♦ response for the 0-4 HCP hands.

[MickyB]

Jlall, on Nov 11 2004, 07:22 PM, said:

junyi_zhu, on Nov 11 2004, 01:43 PM, said:

To me, this system is not playable for teamgame.

I think its probably playable since they won european championships and olympiad.

Yes, this baffles me. I feel certain that their opening structure is poor, yet they keep winning everything! Maybe they have just been lucky so far

[junyi_zhu]

Jlall, on Nov 11 2004, 07:22 PM, said:

junyi_zhu, on Nov 11 2004, 01:43 PM, said:

To me, this system is not playable for teamgame.

I think its probably playable since they won european championships and olympiad.

Well, with so strong teammates, two copies of myself can also win those things.