[ggwhiz]

In my neck of the woods (Ottawa Canada) it is probably about 80% 2/1 (I'm talking more experienced players) but the other 20% has changed drastically over the years.

A lot of K/S when Kokish was actively playing out of Montreal, an influx of strong Polish Club players (lots in the mid 90's and only a few remain) and a variety of strong club systems but maybe 5%.

[Vampyr]

 StevenG, on 2016-November-15, 09:20, said:

Here in England, most clubs only have older members.

Older than what?

[mycroft]

I've happily played a non-2/1 system (with all the 2/1 gadgets, of course, save the forcing NT) for years. I don't now (although I do play GF-unless-suit-rebid K/S), but I'd be happy to do so.

As I said before, the problem in this part of NA is "if you can't play 2/1, you can't play". And it's not "standard or 2/1 with all the tools required to make standard work", it's "2/1 (with all the tools) or standard (likely without a forcing raise in any suit, stolen bid defence to overcalled NTs, 4NT is "we could have slam" (if not 4♣) and the like)". Akwoo's comment above.

One or two pairs in Flight A will play Precision, one or two some kind of 12-14NT, and one weirdie (Polish Club, Blue Club, Montreal Relay, EHAA, R-G style (which I think is sort of like Roth-Stone with bad 5-card weak 2s; they pass an awful lot of 13s)). Everyone else (including 95% of flight B) is playing Alberta Standard 2/1 with various gadgets. The novice game plays half standard, half 2/1.

Unlike where I used to play, however, they don't accuse non-2/1, strong NT players of "just trying to win from confusion". I appreciate that. However, we get 1m-1M; 1NT! "yes?" "15-17 balanced." "So why didn't you open 1NT?" about quarterly. I wish I was joking.

[StevenG]

 Vampyr, on 2016-November-15, 09:54, said:

Older than what?

I'm not quite sure what the point of that throwaway remark is, but I would guess that you could count the number of Bedfordshire club players under the age of 50 on the fingers of one hand.

[Vampyr]

 StevenG, on 2016-November-15, 10:55, said:

I'm not quite sure what the point of that throwaway remark is, but I would guess that you could count the number of Bedfordshire club players under the age of 50 on the fingers of one hand.

The point was that I was curious. It was not a remark; it was a question.

[wanoff]

 Vampyr, on 2016-November-15, 12:24, said:

The point was that I was curious. It was not a remark; it was a question.

As a clue, the old age pension is paid to old people starting at 65 but as the government runs out of money this will rise.
I would guess that the mean age at our club is also 65+ and rising.

[Zelandakh]

 wanoff, on 2016-November-15, 19:13, said:

As a clue, the old age pension is paid to old people starting at 65 but as the government runs out of money this will rise.
I would guess that the mean age at our club is also 65+ and rising.

I would agree that the age would rise but the driver is the old-age support ratio. If this had remained fixed, as perhaps it should have, the pension age would already be considerably higher than it is.

[helene_t]

 wanoff, on 2016-November-15, 19:13, said:

As a clue, the old age pension is paid to old people starting at 65 but as the government runs out of money this will rise.
I would guess that the mean age at our club is also 65+ and rising.

I knew it was the government's fault

[nige1]

 barmar, on 2016-November-15, 09:11, said:

Are you talking about opening 1♣ with a 2-card suit? It's only considered natural if you only do it with exactly 4=4=3=2 shape. It still requires a "could be short" announcement. I've never heard that this is considered part of the 2/1 system (very few of the 2/1 players I know use it), it's just something some players tack onto whatever system they're playing.

Yes: I'm told the ACBL redefined the 1♣ opener on 2-card suit as Natural, to protect it from effective artificial counters. In Glasgow, many 2/1 partnerships have adopted the convention, which seems to have obvious merit, but we don't pretend that it's natural.

 barmar, on 2016-November-15, 09:11, said:

Or are you talking about opener rebidding 2♣ after a forcing NT with 4-5=2=2 shape? That's just a necessary evil unless you play Flannery.

No. Although that's another good example. IMO it's not Natural. I accept it's an artificiality necessitated by the 1N forcing convention.

TFLB said:

Artificial call: is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named.

I dislike that definition and I can't find a definition of Natural or Conventional in TFLB. In the old days, all these terms had commonly agreed meanings that simplified communication:

• Natural: A call expressing willingness to play in the specified denomination. For example a penalty double; at a pinch, a trial bid; but not a cue-bid.
• Artificial: A call with an agreed meaning independent of the specified denomination. For example a strong club. We also considered a take-out double to be artificial.
• Conventional: A call subject to an agreement that a naive opponent might not expect. For example an artificial call; but the term also applied to many natural calls e.g. change of suit forcing.

[mycroft]

And Barry is saying that you are (in blanket) incorrect. A 2+ card 1♣ opener is *not* considered natural - it must have 3+. As An Exception (and a sop to the mostly lower skill players who play this), if 1♣ is also the opener for exactly a 4=4=3=2 hand outside NT range, then we will not consider it artificial for the purposes of "any [non-primarily-destructive] conventional defence to an artificial call". Note that we still have to Announce these "could be short".

We also don't say that NT openings with a singleton are Natural; we say that we will treat a hand with a singleton A,K,or Q and no doubletons as balanced, therefore NT with that possible shape is Natural, again as an exception.

I happen to think that 5cM, 4c♦ openings are worse than better-minor, especially the way it's played by said lower skill players (who will *always* assume partner has 2 clubs when they're thinking about raising, and make a fundamentally worse call instead "in case"). I think that 1♣ "clubs or balanced" does have merit - especially played with transfer responses - but that does not get the exception to aggressive defences that 5cM 4c♦ club openings get. Same goes for Montreal Relay-style 5cM, *5*c♦ systems, even if they find another call for 4=4=4=1s.

[johnu]

 barmar, on 2016-November-15, 09:11, said:

Or are you talking about opener rebidding 2♣ after a forcing NT with 4-5=2=2 shape? That's just a necessary evil unless you play Flannery.

 nige1, on 2016-November-16, 13:47, said:

Although that's another good example. IMO it's not Natural. It accept it's an artificiality necessitated by the 1N forcing convention.

Definitely not natural in the US. It is legal under the GCC because it is a constructive call starting at opener's 2nd call.

[nige1]

 mycroft, on 2016-November-16, 14:20, said:

And Barry is saying that you are (in blanket) incorrect. A 2+ card 1♣ opener is *not* considered natural - it must have 3+. As An Exception (and a sop to the mostly lower skill players who play this), if 1♣ is also the opener for exactly a 4=4=3=2 hand outside NT range, then we will not consider it artificial for the purposes of "any [non-primarily-destructive] conventional defence to an artificial call".

Thank you, Mycroft. In our Glasgow version of 2/1 with a short club, we lower-skill players open 1♣ on

• Shapely hands with 5+ ♣s.
• (441)4♣.
• Most balanced hands outwith the range for a 1N opener; including (4333), (4432), 33(52), and some hands with (42)(52) shape. Many partnerships even include hands with a weak 5-card major or a 6-card minor.

Presumably the ACBL would allow a doubleton ♣, only with precisely 4432 shape?

[nige1]

 johnu, on 2016-November-16, 15:06, said:

Definitely not natural in the US. It is legal under the GCC because it is a constructive call starting at opener's 2nd call.

My understanding was that 1♥ - 1N - 2♣ doesn't need an alert.
But system-regulations make little sense; and foreign system-regulations seem crazy.

[mycroft]

• GCC *allows* one of: a) any "all-purpose" meaning for 1♣ that promises 10 HCP, or b) any natural meaning for 1♣ that promises 8 HCP. Please don't ask me what "all-purpose" means, just assume that anything you'd reasonably want to play counts, but also that you will get an argument that "4+cards in a specific other suit" does not.
  
• For the purposes of that statement, and for the purposes of limiting the conventional defences to this opening, we will consider as natural "promises 3 or more cards" (or any subset of that, like "promises 4 or more cards, unless 4M333") with or without exactly 4=4=3=2 (but no other shape with 2 clubs).
  
• For Alerting purposes, if 1♣ is "natural", passable, and showing clubs (even if intended to show "0+ clubs"), one is to announce "could be short" if it does not promise 3. "Could be short as X" or "Could be 4=4=3=2", while not technically legal, has never been balked at by anyone except SBs. Any forcing or "shows something other than 'clubs'" 1♣ call is Alertable.
  
• Note that the sets mentioned here are not disjoint - 'natural' 1♣ calls can be Announceable, or Alertable, or neither; 'artificial' 1♣ calls can be Announceable or Alertable; the same Announcement is made for a 'natural' call that is protected from certain defences and an artificial call that is not (and yes, I have an issue with that). Consistency, little minds, etc.

And yes, 1♥-1NT; 2♣, if it promises 3+ clubs or 4=5=2=2, is not Alertable by explicit exception. That doesn't mean it's natural. Of course, neither is Stayman or Blackwood. Alertable does not imply conventional (or vice versa), anywhere, frankly.

Your "lower-skill" partnership (and you know exactly what I meant by that, and it wasn't you) would have to Announce your 1♣ openings, just like the LOLs who play 5cM, 4c♦ (and won't raise without 6 because "she could have 2") do. Unlike against them, I'm allowed to play canape overcalls or Grunt defence or Holo Bolo against you (once I confirm that you are, in fact, playing something not natural-to-the-GCC).

[nige1]

Thank you, Mycroft, for your helpful instruction, your politeness, and your patience

[mycroft]

and my pedanticness? :-). You are welcome. It is confusing, even to us LeftPondians.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2016-November-17, 11:24, said:

and my pedanticness? :-).

I think you'll find the word is pedantry.

[mycroft]

Nah, that's just pedanticness.

Spoiler

Seriously, I knew that. And I knew what I wrote was wrong. But I couldn't connect the two. Yes, that is disappointing, especially to me. Thanks for the reminder.

[pescetom]

Thanks to all who replied here, it was very enlightening and amusing even if I did hope to hit hard numbers of some kind. I do remember reading a document somewhere which suggested that 2/1 was fast overtaking (at some level and in some context, probably BBO or USA) other systems. That is also my impression, if mainly based on play in BBO - when I started here a few years ago almost everybody said SAYC in their profile, but it's increasingly rare now and the level of bidding in 2/1 tournaments has thankfully improved.

Thanks in particular to Kungsgeten who dwelled on the distinction between system and style. It's hard to say where one stops and the other starts; certainly 2/1 on BBO is associated with a set of modern styles (short club, fast arrival, 4th suit forcing etc) that are not strictly inherent to the system (just look at how the robots bid it) and often played with other 5 card major systems. But it's increasingly hard to imagine playing it in other ways.

In terms of physical playing experience, I play in northern Italy and occasionally in UK, which I won't dwell on because well described by others. In northern Italy people play a babel of different systems. Most expert couples play strong club systems (Canape' style or Neapolitan or similar), a few playing 5 card majors often with transfer responses; Precision is almost extinct. Ordinary club level has about 50% playing 4 card majors, 40% playing 5 card majors with extremely simplified developments and very few conventions, 10% a real 2/1 system. As in Sweden however, the dominant styles are far from Standard American, in particular it is taken for granted that clubs are short (diamonds 4+) and a response of 2 clubs is game forcing even for most 4 card major players. Older players of 4 card majors bluntly refuse to alert their few but often bizarre conventions such as Stayman with 8 replies, 2 clubs CRODO asking for Aces or 2 diamonds Multicolor, claiming they are "natural"! Very different from ACBL alerting rules but the nationalistic logic is the same.
As mentioned by others, the general level of bidding in clubs is rather poor. But the average level of card play is quite high, in particular in defense. Very few players are willing to dedicate a few hours to improving their bidding, even though they play 3 or more tournaments a week.