SALON
Introduction |
from
Pikier 9, 1982 |
What
is natural bidding ?
There are few people in Poland
who can sensibly answer this question – and we should not be very surprised
– because almost nobody has tried to. Thus, the situation can be described
briefly: ignorance, lack of knowledge, and a completely erroneous view.
In „The Lambda Weak Opening
System” [1975] I wrote:
“This, among others, is the result of low culture
of our bidding (sic!) caused by domination of The Common Language System
and departure from natural methods”
Weak
Opening Systems:
Systems
which open the bidding with the most frequent zone of strength 8–12 HCP.
Common
Language (Polish club):
A
pseudo–natural system commonly (90% of players) used in Poland sice
1964. Main feature = a three way 1§
(natural, short, strong (18–21)) with negative 1¨ response. Plenty details
and peculiarities. No general principles and integrating rules.
And today, I still uphold
fully that statement:
The devastation caused by the
„Common Language Style” in minds of bridge players in Poland is
colossal. Primitivism, schematism, some rudimentary, apparently true
rules – all this has been advertised as a „modern natural system”,
allegedly more precise than others – and has been wrongly identified
as the essence of natural methods. Only few realize that The Common Language
(also called „The Polish Club”) is only a local, provincial
product, almost unknown, and rarely used by the world bridge community.
Meanwhile, the bridge world (Western)
cultivates natural methods and understands them much better than the
bridge Poland. It is clearly seen in published analyses of bidding problems:
simplicity, elegance, subtlety, and – unnoticed at first glance
– accuracy. This approach to naturality seems, however, to be more intuitive
than reasoned. I have not found in the world bridge literature any attempts
to present a synthesis of naturality.
For
instance:
the
only entry referring to naturality in „The Official Encyclopedia
of Bridge”:
NATURAL
CALLs: Calls which reflect the character
of the hand and suggest a possible final contract. A natural call is contrasted
with Artificial Call. However, some bids which have artificial meanings
can be used as natural bids.
Not even roughly outlined like
the one I published in „Introduction to WOSs” and in „The
Lambda Weak Opening System” (1974–1975):
1 |
What
has been bid – is a contract to make (ie it has strength assurance of
making ) |
2 |
Driving
the bidding high is a positive suggestion (strength), |
3 |
Bidding
a suit suggests length and concentration of honors in this suit. |
4 |
Bidding
no trump suggests balanced distribution (within the information transmitted
so far), dispersion of honors and stoppers in unbid suits. |
5 |
Exchanging
information with partner is a positive suggestion, |
6 |
New
suit carries a positive suggestion, while old – a negative one. |
It is funny that the only attempt
to elucidate the essence of naturality appeared in publications on WOSs
– the systems commonly regarded as very artificial and extremely
complex. An opinion – I must add – completely unfounded, because
only the fundamentals are artificial, while the relay style of subsequent
bidding (excessively used by many „non–passers”) is usually
not required.
If a NATURAL BIDDING STYLE
exists (and it does!), it is much more explicit in the WOSs (especially in
Lambda) than in The Polish Club or in The Precision Club. These two systems
are only allegedly natural.
The presented outline of
naturality reflects my experiences with Lambda, and it has been created, I
presume, out of my laziness which forced me to look for universal, yet
simple and aesthetic solutions.
I fully understand Zacharias
Lichter, who said that:
Intellect
always has an obsession of fundamental, structural, and principal problems,
leading back to sources. A real intellectual may be recognized by the fascination he has for what is simple
and elementary; his mental effort being an integrating factor, he searches
for a principle, or metaphorically, an ideal key fitting all the secret
doors of the Universe. The desire to find a unique solution to a problem is
not a function of stupidity, the strength of which depends on a fact that it
can accept any theory, even a demonstrably bad one, provided good practical
result can be obtained using it.
and I dare to supplement the
principles of constructing systems with something which has been long observed in my research:
|
Maximal
Aesthetics Principle |
|
|
|
|
The
simpler and more beautiful something is – the more true it is. |
|
However, ideology is not the
only reason behind my affinity to naturality.
I consider the Natural Bidding
Style to be a superprecise one !! (if only one is able to grasp its essence)
and the only generally true method !!
To grasp the essence of naturality!...
In Poland, and abroad, a group
of polled experts give several different recommendations „what to
bid with this hand in this situation”, each answer being supported by
a different presumption (sic!).
For example:
|
4♠ |
because A |
|
3¨ |
because E |
|
3NT |
because X |
|
|
4♠ |
because B ! |
|
4¨ ! |
because F |
|
5§ ! |
because X ! |
|
|
4♠ |
because C !! |
|
5¨ !! |
because G |
|
2© !! |
because X !! |
|
|
4♠ |
because D !!! |
|
6¨ !!! |
because H |
|
pass !!! |
because X !!! |
and
so on... |
Their presumptions are usually
vague and only touch the surface of various aspects. One may say that experts
„watching – see everything separately”. Why ? Because they only have a number of superficial
presumptions at their disposal, without any logically synthesized set of
the most important canons of naturality.
|
|
|
Next
|
|
|