There are a lot of books about bidding in bridge. With a very few exceptions, I find them to be a large, gaping yawn. They're all close to being Xerox copies of one another, and once you've read one, there's no need to ever read another one; you won't learn anything new.

The main reason for that is that the various bridge governing bodies like the ACBL and the EBU don't like new or complex systems. Their view is that beginning or social members of their organization feel threatened and intimidated by conventional bids other than Stayman, Jacoby, and Blackwood and if forced to play against them, will quit tournament bridge and go back to playing at the kitchen table. (And, of course, stop paying their yearly dues!) Books on bridge bidding that are produced in that environment follow along and, rather than being new and different, tend to be just minor variations on the basic, approved system.

Would those social players quit if new bidding systems and conventions were allowed? Probably a few would, but perhaps some new players would be attracted by a more free-wheeling environment, no one really knows because but the governing bodies keep tight control over what can be played in their domains. New bidding material has to run a gauntlet at the governing body to be accepted and can be barred for reasons like, "It's too difficult to play against" or "It's destructive rather than constructive." That's a bit like the NFL barring a defensive blitz because it's too hard for the poor offensive team to run its plays, or a chess organization barring every opening move but e4 so as not to "surprise" any of its members. In every sport and game other than today's bridge "difficult to play against" and "destructive" (of opponents plans) are virtues rather than faults.

Of course there have always been people who like playing complex and well thought out systems, and who like playing an attacking, in-your-face bidding style. They've been objecting to ACBL etc restrictions for years but their numbers are small, and the organizations (rightly) think that they're hooked on bridge and will remain members regardless of what draconian measures they introduce.

So the end result is that bridge organizations tend to "dumb down" bridge bidding to almost a novice level and all the bridge writers can write about are infinitesimally small modifications to the list of approved conventions. The question of whether these restrictions are a good idea for the organizations is still open. The measures were introduced when the organizations noticed that their memberships were diminishing and that the average age of a member was going up. For some reason, they attributed this to people quitting instead of no new people joining. Well...memberships are still diminishing and F2F tournaments are looking more and more like an old folks home, but the organizations don't see that as a sign that their plan was a failure. They see it rather as a sign that they haven't completely eliminated every vestige of unpleasantness at their tournaments -- like strange opponents playing strange conventions.

But something new has happened. Online bridge. Okbridge, for instance, has no governing body other than the one Matt Clegg is walking around in, and so far, it's a different environment. The only situation where Okbridge has restrictions on what you can play is the daily tournaments. That's understandable since there's very little time to discuss systems and conventions. In regular Lehman rated play and in team games there are no restrictions -- which is also understandable, since in Lehman play you can leave the table if you don't like what your opponents are playing, and in team games there's an opportunity to talk about systems before beginning. So maybe bridge systems are back, a least for "one brief, shining moment" before some ACBL-monster takes over online bridge as well.

Colonial Acol (Acol as played in the colonies) and LISA (Low Information Standard American) are two bidding systems that offer some new ideas about bidding and make hamburger out of some of the sacred cows of standard bidding. Could ordinary Stayman actually be a bad convention?  Are Jacoby Transfers really necessary?  Is there a better way to handle major suit raises than Jacoby 2NT and Forcing 1NT?  Is there a better way to raise minor suits than Inverted Minors?  Is there a better way to ask for aces and kings than RKCB?  ColAcol and LISA think that all of those conventions are bad and offer much improved versions of each of them.

ColAcol and LISA also offer some exotic flora and fauna in Colonial Acol and LISA that aren't found in Standard American systems at all. There's a roll-your-own set of opening two-bids that let's you choose anything from standard strong 2 and weak 2, to Multi-Multi where both 2 and 2 both have multiple meanings (Multi-Multi = two Multi bids) and 2 are two-suiters. Multi-Multi actually produces two extra pre-emptive bids at the two level which, in combination with undisciplined weak-twos and aggressive pre-empting can give opponents the feeling that all of their auctions start on the two or three-level.

ColAcol solves most of the problems that standard Acol has. It's possible to play 4-cd major suit openings and 3-cd raises -- something that ordinary Acol has never been able to figure out. It's possible to play natural 2NT and 3NT responses to one-of-a-suit and still have a good limit and forcing raise structure, and replacing Acol two-bids with Multi-Multi is like replacing a muzzle-loading cannon with a laser beam. But in spite of all this modernization, ColAcol is truer to the basic ideas of Acol than most versions of it that are played in England today.

So give them a try. Play a system that's fun to play while you have the chance.