csdenmark

So let's start with Board 9: [hv=d=n&v=e&n=s94ha87da976caj97&w=sq73h954dk42ckqt2&e=skj852hkqjdq3c865&s=sat6ht632djt85c43]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding was 1♦-1♠-Pass-2♠-All Pass +110. Result from other table: 3♦ by NS down 1. It is silly to claim this bidding is confused, or the pairs are derailed. You may say so Glen - but as the other table found their sacrifice it is near to see they ended up in giving away here because a likely short diamond opening. They didnt give signal of diamond support in due time. Therefore it is right to say they were derailed and unable to find their best spot.

In the Iceland-Sweden match the precision pairs were derailed and ended up in poorer contract than other table in boards: 9-11-13-14. In board 1 they ended up in best contract but missed the slam. In three boards: 1-15-19 precision pairs ended up in better contracts than other table. Board 15-19 were uncontested. There might be other candidates for support of my statement - but they are more difficult to see.

Sorry Glen - I dont understand the word 'shots'. Further discussions must wait until tomorrow. Very soon EURO2008 - football.

Great! So, moving along to the next step, which boards were you talking about? Remember that you were taking shots at: BALDURSSON Jon JONSSON Thorlakur 0.32 89 280 Iceland CULLIN Per-Ola UPMARK Johan 0.12 26 220 Sweden So make your shots count (or take your shots back)! Here the file is: http://bridgefiles.net/R9T02-Eur%20champ%2...%2006-25-08.lin

The links worked well thank you. It is the right match. I have BBO Vugraph files for those matches I attended.

I assume that everybody participating in such kind of contests always are able to reach their preferred harbour indisturbed. Therefore it makes little sense to investigate whether that in fact is the case. Yes a simple comparrison certainly gives a starting point. But discussions very rarely comes deeper than that - comes to what matters. If needed to go deeper I think you need to make some human interpretations, replacing lack of real knowledge of others methods, on which basis I think it will be possible to test right/false with quantitative analyze. I think it might be interesting to test Bocchi-Duboin which pair scratched their preferred methods in 2005. They also switched some of their opening/response structure - but I think it could be interesting to see if something would be possible to extract in fx. minor openings.

This " looked to me" and "to me it looked like" is pretty vague - could you post or refer some hands here at least? I do think you missed the point of showing the systems of the top ten Butler, but that does not surprise me based on your posts in this thread and before. Although it is annoying in this case, I do appreciate your unique views on subjects, and in this case, the idea of sys vs sys comparison. Now if you just figure out some way to get me the raw data. Sorry Glen I am not sure what you are asking for. I would gladly help if I am able to. I think the iterative discussions about opening structures, and when it becomes hot, then also which is best, have not much for it. I think systems must be judged on their ability to help players to stay on their intended track. And if they are derailed to help them to find back. I think thats in fact the secret of Meckwell, Hamway and Bocchi-Duboin. But certainly I am not sure of that. I doubt a quantitative analyze will be able to produce some kind of proof but might be worth to give a try.

Claus, you are basically saying that Glen is a fool and that you know better. Show us! Roland No I dont do so. It is not my business. What I say is that both pairs here(Baldursson/Jonsson versus Upmark/Cullin) ought to be in a good position with their systems to cope with interference playing limit openings. Instead it looked to me they were confused and unable to come back on track. To me it looked like they had some kind of special defensive both different to what is used by standard classic players and that caused problems for them. In that respect the disturbance worked well but it ought not to be so. In uncontested auctions I dont think it matters very much which definitions you have. They will all be able to lead you to your preferenced harbour. What I therefore think might be helpful would be to compare systems in competition with other kind of systems. This is of course more complex to do statistically - but that is what matters for a successful outcome and therefore what matters for predictions as well.

Certainly everything and anything are not working equally well. Unfortunately you fail not to draw the attention to what is important. You list a lot of openings, looks rather confusing to me without the needed info of how well they managed opposite other kind of systems. I haven't looked much of the stuff but I happened to notice that 2 Precision versions seemed to play rather poor against each other(Baldursson/Jonsson versus Upmark/Cullin). Glen your list will be improved trying to group according to: 1) Limit openings or not 2) Interference handle 3) Defense incl. leads.

Makes no sense Brian. Unless your methods varies for each of your openings you only need 1 entry. Fx. if your variations are between 13-17HcP, you just state that and check for artificial plus an info that variations are acc. to vuln and position. Else you can just use the copy/paste option. Please note FD is a convention card aimed to help your opponents easily to understand your methods to be able to judge their perspectives for their values. This means that nobody asks you to go any further than opening + initial response. Your proposal will only cause anger and frustration if people suddenly see themselves confronted with a lot of obsolete explanations caused by mistakes. They have already problems to handle and to understand the present options. The reason for lack of use is not complications in writing sequences but in their interpretation of serious bridge. Please remember 95% of all players plays nothing but standard, perhaps with some variations of special conventions. They all have a set of default convention cards which they lack knowledge to understand.

I dont know if it works - but logic says it will. - Rename a blank FD-card to the name you have loaded. Then that will will updated and there will be no display. - Load a blank FD-card replacing the present one. -------------------- Your serious action ought to be to load the correct FD-card you play for the day BBOITA or 2o1. I read your statement as you intend to play without convention card. Thats a poor decision.

You are wrong bidding the Lebensohl relay. As you mention you only do so for a weak hand, 0-7cP. The correct bidding will be, acc. to Ron Andersen: 2♠-DBL-Pass-3♦(10+cP, trans to 3♥) You find the convention here: http://bridgefiles.net/cc/Conventions.bss This might be a bit more complicated because it is normally assumed it is the strong hand to double. I think the auction ought to be something like: 2♠-Pass-Pass-DBL Pass-2NT(Lebensohl delay)-Pass-3♣ or 3♥(Relay) I have never found anything about when to break the 3♣ but logic I think means it need to be unbalanced, more unbalanced than 5-4-2-2. If you bid the 3♣ the continuation is transfer or bidding stopper/no stopper.

MAXIMUM and ♦=void

Quadri Livorno, Quadri Italia, Burgay Diamond, Chinvat Diamond, Magic Diamond

If you have problems to see the bids it is most likely you have a syntax-bug in your file. You may have edited via editor instead of via bid-edit application. Nobody asks you to include RKCB in your convention card. What you need is opening bid + initial response. Then it can be wise to go a bit deeper to aut. explain fancy conventions or relays.

You find them here in Internet Explorer. Please replace my ID with your own. "C:\Bridge Base Online\convcards\csdenmark convcards"

Load your new one.

Stickan - there are 2 formats for convention cards on BBO. The one are asking for you acces by clicking: Show old style convention card. If you think that isnt enough you can create create any kind of web-site and provide a link for your opps. On Swan Games you find a form in ACBL-style to which you can link. Nobody needs to use their free space on their ID for system information.

Posters here seems to look for causes and solutions inside housing and/or bank sector. You will find nothing there. Those institutions are just doing their job working inside a framework. Bubbles come from something, I hope you know that. The french president has addressed part of the problem. International free trade which puts pressure on wages by setting price standards for goods inside a country bearing no relation to that particular country's internal rates. Nicolas Sarkozy was able at the final negotiations about the new EU-treaty to change the responsibilities for the European Central Bank. Besides controlling inflationary rate the obligation now also will be a social responsibilty. I am pretty sure nobody but himself assumed this to be substantial. But read - even before the treaty has been ratified he has raised words about free trade attacking WTO(World Trade Organization). He is in fact supporting the french based world organization ATTAC - which also has a strong base in Germany.

Winston it is certainly correct there is no longer any market for those securities. Once there was a market it was because of international bankmanagers looking to the percentage to win ignoring basic of market economy - the risk. America has a huge problem - countries like France has same kind of problem. People are low skilled and they need low productivity jobs. From that they are unable to pay for the living standard they think they have a right to have living in a western society. The industy need to invest in education and innovation to enable a country to differentiate from the real low-cost countries like China and India. For USA you have a systemic problem that all too much of your innovations are spin-off from military industry - which means it is subsidized to a level we cannot imagine in Europe. You need an economy so that people will be able to live the life they rightfully can expect from their wage. We see your problem partly in Europe too in Italy, France and Germany. All European leaders are in these years studying the scandinavian model - the former alienated social experiment.

Not as simple as that Winston. Ordinary people will always be the persons suffering from bank failures. Such have huge implications to whole society - therefore they are mostly saved by the words - too big to fail. In danish radio some few days ago a Chicago professor was quoted for asking for bank stockholders also to be affected of mis-mangement in bank sector. That is new. We have just had a bankfailure in Denmark 14 days ago and in Germany they have very hard problems with holding banks for the saving banks. It will be very good for world economy if USA would be able to do something serious about how to handle your own economy. Right now we are all suffering from too much debts by ordinary americans. From the leftwing site of the political spectre, to which I belong, we have said for many years that it will be a good idea to privatize the private companies.

No there is not. 99% of players are well served using the default cards coming aut. by downloading BBO. If you insist to create your own - it is most simple to modify one of the default cards. The method is trial and error but basically it is not so difficult.

You seems not to understand the point Stefan. The point is BBO is a completely silent web-site. Fred has repeated that several times. You are not the first person asking for that feature. I dont know who the main target for BBO is but I am pretty sure 60-70 years old ladies are welcome as anybody else. Those 2 persons I know of have no problems of this kind. I know Fred has a good heart for young bridge players. Even the creation of BBO-Flash has many reasons one of those Fred mentioned was to ease entry to BBO for ordinary persons without computer skills.

Correct and what does the word 'natural' mean? The word natural means that if you have no knowledge you tend to do the right thing if acting natural. But in bridge it was not so for many years - and it is at least 70 years since the first convention was invented. From then bridge was all natural/artificial/conventional according to your preference for words. But using the words as we mostly use them I think it is so: Natural systems uses natural openings and artificial continuations Artificial systems uses artificial openings and natural continuations To compare 2 solid books: Max Hardy: Two over one game force - 322 pages Belladonna/Garozzo: Precision and super precision - 237 pages Try compare 2 very different but still counted as natural systems: Gitelmann/Moss versus Rosenberg/Mahmood.

Yes of course, optimal use of bidding space would allocate 50% of all hands to 1♠, assuming that opps are not going to interfere. Even more if we agree that opener is captain. But as you also observe, this is not really the issue in this poll :P You always agree about captaincy. Else it is not Precision but instead any kind of club system. Precision is to play 'Don Quixote and Sancho Pancha'. The treatment over 1♣-1♥ is similar to 1♥ opening. This means you only introduce an alternative to a MAJOR if you have a good alternative. To introduce a minor you will have 0-1card support.