Todd gives a link for BWS:
https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwscompletesystem.htmlI usually just Google to Bridge World Standard, I have done it often enough so that typing in Brid usually suffices.
2/1 has merit, but there are downsides. The auction 1
- 2
- 2NT - 3
- Pass is no longer available. This creates two related problems. The obvious one is that responder can have a hand where he wants to show a decent but not game forcing hand, as he could do in SAYC. The other problem occurs when the auction goes, for example, 1
- 1NT - 2
- 3
. How strong is that? If I would bid that way with six good clubs and a ten count, and also bid that way with six fairly decent clubs and a six count, or maybe even a five count,, what is opener to do? If the hand with six clubs and a ten count (or maybe make that an 11 count, but anyway a hand that is a bit under the strength needed for a GF 2
on the first round) would have started with 1
- 3
, then this takes a lot of pressure off opener on the auction 1
-1NT -2
-3
.
As to Bergen, it has its uses, no doubt about that, but I see Bergen as offering a refinement to bidding (three card support versus four card support) while I see the BWS agreement as offering a way to solve a problem that is simply unsolvable without it. I checked with the bots and they use this agreement by a passed hand: Pass- 1
- 3
is an invit with long clubs.
There are other interesting options in the auction. After 1
-Pass - 1NT - 4
- Pass I think that I, if I held my Rho's hand, would either pass or bid 5
. He has passed the 1
, he cannot suddenly have discovered a club suit to bid at the five level. So 5
is a slam try. Is the hand worth it? Oh, I don't know. These 4
bids are sometimes on pretty decent strength. So let's see. With his
holding and partner's 4
call he can reasonably assume his partner is short in spades. If the 4
bidder has no
and the
A surely 6
has a good play, and it might have a decent play if the 4
bidder has either one spade and the
A, or no
and the
Q. I am not so sure I would bid 5
but I don't think it's crazy.
Here is a problem with my coming in with 5
on the auction we had: 1
- Pass - 1NT - 4
- Pass - Pass -5
. What are you to make of 5
given that the auction did not begin 1
- Pass - 3
. Let's say we trust that to be weak. I don't think it should be Bergen unless we have explicitly agreed to play Bergen. If 1
- Pass - 3
is weak, then presumably 1
- Pass - 1NT - 4
- Pass - Pass -5
is not entirely weak. They will go on to 5
, at least so I would expect. You have three aces, you expect some values in my had, you might well double for penalties. Would I pull? I dunno. I can see myself thinking that after I bid 5
and partner doubled rather than bid 6
, then I should let it be. If I bid 5
then I think bidding 6
, with or without them contesting 5
with 5
, is apt to be up to your hand. Reasoning by opener: Pard bid 5
not knowing whether I have any, I have ATxx, a stiff in their suit, and aces in the other suits. Maybe this is enough for 6
, maybe not, but I might try. if it goes 1
- Pass - 1NT - 4
- Pass - Pass -5
pass - Pass -5
- Pass - Pass -X, I am far from sure I would overrule the X with a 6
call. I certainly would not expect opener to have Axxx in clubs.
so I still think that the problem began with me not making a weak jump shift 1
- Pass - 3
. But if that would have been taken as Bergen, it's just as well! It's an ongoing iac problem. I rarely bid 1
- Pass - 3
for exactly that reason. There are various "standard" treatments of various auctions but the key word is "various". One solution would be to use Bot standard as a default. It doesn't cover everything but it resolves ambiguity in a number of cases. If something more elaborate is wanted, BWS is pretty elaborate. Neither would be untouchable writ. What's needed is something so that in undiscussed autions playing it "the bot way" or "the BWS way" would avoid ambiguity for the moment, but then later discussion in a regular partnership could be used to overrule a feature that does not appeal to them. Bot standard and BWS have this in common: They are explicitly written down, they have been devised by high level players, they have been thoughtfully revised over the years in response to comments. In the case of BWS there is also the extended list of comments that Todd links to:
https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwspolls2017.htmlUnderstandably this might be more that many want to digest. I have not read it all.
https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwspolls2017.htmlis already a lot.
And so the problem: We choose something that is written down, or else we (meaning all of us on iac and bbo more generally) have different understandings of sequences. In Midnight in Paris, the hero Gil sees an unsolvable problem. Salvador Dali sees a rhinoceros.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BEf2nRwKX8Different views.
PS I have to put up a couple of play disasters from the same session, both clearly my errors. Later!