csdenmark

As you may expect Svein I will not be in favor of your private modifications of Viking. You see from the first 2 responses the concept is generally not understood. Such is causing confusion and your modificated system is for your preferred partner and you alone. As you have modified Glenn's concept I don't understand why you have not incorporated the modifications stated at page 245-246. I will be ready to play Viking(Aa/Groetheim) any time but without private modifications.

I completely agree with your statement. I think this problem need to be adressed else people will rightfully claim they can do nothing in the waiting time. For that waiting time and later sucking into tourney they are not welcome at tables in Main Club - so local newspaper - TV or other easy activities you can break without notice are excellent ways to spend the waiting time.

Nikos - if you once again want to play at my table I will just be happy if you will be interested to find your partner yourself. We will all benefit from that and it is very annoying to me that I always search for partner myself but need to accept to play against opps. as casual partnerships only. Often it works but a clear disadvantage for me is that I can have no realistic aspirations to play opps. to pairs playing same kind of bridge as I prefer. I need to register for special tournaments for such. In reality I think it will be difficult to do things in other ways than today. During last 2 years I think I only twice have been lucky to have an established - or something like that - partnership as opponents.

Mauro my comments was not for you only - they were general. Others have also posted that kind of proposals/questions. Your postings was the reason for the comments right now but they are not aimed hitting your personal decisions. Others are also reading topics over our shoulders. I think it is of importance to try to inform them about what they can expect trying to venture a system themselves instead of adopting an already existing system. I think I have understood what you intend to do. You have by me and others received advice to proceed differently. No doubt - what you intend to do is your decision - and yours only! I think(really I know) you are much too humble describing your personal knowledge/insight.

Thank you Richard - I will study them carefully. A first glance disclosed references to national authorities. No doubt this will need more close study as national authorities have no authority except to their members. I now assume we agree on that. Neither ACBL or Danish Bridge Federation have any authority here on internet on BBO except for events hosted by themselves. References to their authority will therefore disqualify such laws and meassuring time consumation for such activity will be without sense. But I will study the provided laws more carefully now. --------------------------- I like to compliment you Richard. The document you have found I think will be the nearest possible to a GOD-given document with self-constituting rules. In that respect it looks like we are now heading the same objectives. No matter of the content it is right to try a document by World Bridge Federation.

Fine Richard - neither I think it is right to discuss here on WEB as if the Laws was something invented by ACBL or any other irrelevant body. I am very glad we agree on that - at least from now on. I am sorry to have misrepresented you. I hope you read my post as a query assuming I may have been unfair assuming disagreement. I am glad we instead can agree. I have a question for you Richard. Which laws or who's laws?

I know you play relay systems Richard. There you really dont have any of those problems - except defecting from HcP counting. No matter whether Moscito, Bez Nazwy, Regres etc. The reason why it matters in artificial systems is because you are assumed to proceed a precise action. Different to standard classic. Defecting from HcP counting only - will undermine the valuable key features in such systems like Control asking and Trump asking. Those are normally not a part of relay systems. Lets examine the example from this thread: The positive response to 1♣ open shows at least 3HcP cards. This justifies the use of TAB, CAB and RCKB in this order here. In this way you will know exactly the holding of the keycards you need to know of. Via TAB you will know whether 5 or 6 carder + whether 2+ Top-honors are there. Via CAB you will be able to find out which Top-honors: 2 CTRL = 1 ace ♠ - contract 4♠ 3 CTRL = 1 ace(♠ or ♥) + 1 king ♠ - go for RCKB for queen 4 CTRL = 2 aces ♠ +♥, but no king - * with 5 carder contract 4♠ * with 6 carder go for RKCB 5 CTRL = 2 aces + 1 king ♠ - contract 7NT If RKCB shows trump queen you will be safe in 6♠ if 3+CTRL If RKCB shows no trump queen your slam will need 4+CTRL. Your partner will hold at least ♣Jack Such investigations will be obsolete if suit positive instead of 5+cd, 8+HcP might be 5+cd, 5+cP --------------------------------------- Occasionally I post when people are asking about their own system inventions. I know such is to the annoyance to those as they hoped to have generated an excellent new invention. But so it is not. They have just missed the point of artificial systems. The point is artificial systems are not standard classic with limited openings. The approach is an ideology where you need to see the specific features as targetting tools for precise communication. Some are asking whether to add this or that feature for such systems. In general they are not needed and they do no harm - except such will be distracting you from what you will be using the tools for. Artificial systems really have very few conventions - nearly everything is defined explicitely or handled via relays or canape' sequences. Those used are all staymanic(standard, GF, Checkback, Jac-trans, Texas-trans, Namyats, Gladiator, Puppet) + Splinter raise. Additionally it is standard to use 2-way game try. KS is a standard classic like system adding New Minor Forcing and Acol Dutch instead Muiderberg.

I have problems to read and understand you Richard. Normally I read you as all can do whatever they like - you choose from what you seems to be attractive and choose those events only. You seems to be a little more keen whether some are applying to specific ACBL rules you arbitrarely have chosen to accept. No matter here whether the events in general will be attractive to you. Those ACBL rules which you oppose to I normally read you also the TDs ought to reject. If I am right in my readings of you I think you ought to reconsider cosistency.

Playing Belladonna/Garozzo: Holding 6-5 you need to have 14-15 to show both features. With minimum you open 1♠. Holding 6♦ + 5♠ you open 1♦ and rebid spades with jump. Holding 6♠ + 5♦ you open 1♠ and rebid diamonds with jump. In this case only 1♠ is to be opened. 1♠ -*2♣ - Pass=0-7HcP 1♠ -*2♣ - Suit=10+HcP,5+cd 1♠ -*2♣ - Raise=Ignore overcall 1♠ -*2♣ - DBL(2-level)=8-11HcP, *<3cd supp *<4cd in opps suit 1♠ -*2♣ - 2NT=11-12,bal + stop 1♠ -*2♣ - CUE=Slam invite

No Ulli - this is really a major difference to standard classic systems. In artificial systems you are prevented from sudden attitude actions. Yes I am dogmatic - but not in the sence I read you accuse me to be. I want a partnership to apply to the agreements. Any agreement OK - but then all apply best possible. With no agreements - standards for that kind of systems are to be applied. If somebody ask me to apply to your proposal I will accept - but next time I want to play I will search for another partner.

Dwayne - sorry I really thought your KLP system was similar to Meckwell in most areas. Here I understand you have created something complete of your own. I can see why you want to bid 2♣. From earlier statements by you I have got the impression you apply to the standards for captaincy - the unlimited hand asks the limited hand. In strong club systems the exception is the strong hand always ask the weak hand if the strong hand has not limited himself in an NT rebid. Then it will be for the weak to ask or to transfer. --------------------------------- Richard in Viking Precision Club SYS is off after interference if you are not yet in a relay sequence - else you complete the sequence in steps - and then system is off. This is special for Viking and contradictionary to standard Precision. Thats why Glenn has emphasized so in his book. ---------------------------------- Here you have an excellent chance to take advantage from fools. You must use it and not hide yourself behind all of the mysterious private versions confusing yourself most. The principle is: If first opps. bid responder modify if opps interfere that high it will necessary - else you take advantage from the extra options they provide you. If you are in doubt what will be understood you pass for 0-7, and double for 8+,any If first opps passes and partner bids 1♦, and only 1D, you correct your bidding accordingly. Still taking advantage from your extra options. If first opps passes and partner bids anything but 1♦ you proceed and ignore opps except taking taking advantage from your extra options.

No Misho - this is not right. 1♣ means - I handle this, please help me partner! It is 1♣ who is the captain - who decides what to explore and what not to take notice of. Dwayne - due to above you dont bid 2♣ - it is not for responder to judge on the basis of your distribution. 2♣ would also in your system I think be asking for support as BETA/OMEGA. You dont do such with good options in Major. Partner has at least one of the missing queens - and via CAB you will know if both - then 2 controls or you have a clear slam. Via RKCB you will know which ♥ or ♠ Your options are: - DBL for penalty(slam off and favorable vuln.) - cue of lowest suit ♦(slam off - we go for game) - CAB - cue of highest suit ♥(slam invite) - CAB - 2♠ - TAB

No DBL will never be for takeout. DBL will always be for penalty and you DBL here for penalty if you decide not to explore slam. 1NT will be down at least 3. The correct action is really TAB and if partner shows 5 carder slam is nearly off. If partner show 6 carder he will likely have one of the queens(♥♥) else his response would have been 2♠ and not 1♠. You try CAB and if you here receive 3 controls slam will be off. If you receive 4 controls you bid RKCB to explore which of the queens. 5♠ will make.

Thank you Ben - I appreciate your efforts to teach me very much. I think it would have been easier 30 years ago. That was really why I asked for 10 words - your big novels goes over my head and this time I really wanted to be able to judge whether this was important or not. You see Ben in many ways I have an easy life playing club systems. HcP only, no distribution or other kind of features. Such is all defined and is disclosed during the action but not counted in points. This means your example hand I do nothing else than counting 11HcP, 5 carder. A simple hand without strength for reverse so I prepare to support partner. I don't count any distributional values - such dont exist in art. systems. So what I will be looking for is really something like the feature I asked whether ZAR was. A feature similar to what in computer language is known as 'expert systems'. They are not to be used by experts - the word refers to expert knowledge is build in software so your compuzation will result in an advice for how to act wisely according to experts. In that way ordinary people will be able to gain from deep knowledge of others. I came to the thought it might be such a tool as I read a reply from ZAR in your thread about fine tuning. There ZAR explained something about the computer counted a bit different than you did which was the reason for different results.

This time I understand it is NOT your private system you are concerned of. Bid your TAB. You still have problems to avoid 2 losers. You already have a heart loser but also a winner. You need to be able to run spades without losers. This can be very difficult with the likely 4-1 split. Even 3-2 you may have a hard time to come ashore in 6. If you had been a bit stronger you were ready to advantage from the fools overcalling light of 1♣ providing you excellent strong options for action. Bid TAB - then cue's or CAB and prepare for diamond lead putting your trumps under pressure. If opps. don't lay down their arms - then you will be happy to double for penalty.

Thank you Ben - I hope you are serious as your explanation is rather different than what I expected. This means ZAR is for Helene and Maureen and will soon be a must for beginners? Is it so that ZAR is something similar to expert computer applications in which you put knowledge and then the users feed some facts and the result is not a simple computerization but instead an advice for how to act wisely? Fx. 66 = slam laydown 65 = slam makeable with 1 finesse + 1 squeeze 64 = slam makeable with 1 finesse 52 = game in No-trump only etc. Informing that if you don't master the adviced techniques - don't go that high?

Jack I have made my final statement to the subjects name and flag in this thread about skill level. If you want my comments to those subjects - please open a thread aimed for that. This is only to repeat: My web-sites are NOT for debate on a BBO platform. BBO web-sites are NOT for debate on my web-sites. So it has to be in a free world of information. The views expressed at each of the places are certainly for debate - that is a main reason for all web-sites. About quoting. I normally quote all I find of importance and then I add a link for the full text so that all can see what I mean and have an easy access to make their own, maybe different, judgement from that. The problem here is the text is not available as web-site.

Mauro has opened this thread for dummies. Please count me in here. I dont understand a word of it. What is the purpose of ZAR points? (in 10 words please) I read a bit of the thread about fine tuning. From that I understood ZAR points was to be used by computers and not human beings. Right?

And whats the point Mauro! I haven't read those articles - maybe pity. I know quite well you are not responsible. I count Goren - DOUBLE - and oops I have ZAR points - or what? If such is revolutionary news - we have some fine danish words for that! ------------------------------------------ I understand quite well the meaning and intensions of loser trick counting! I understand quite well the meaning and intensions of quick trick counting! I dont understand the meaning of just one more general counting! I would like to know how many additional tricks such counting produces!

This link might be a general help to you. http://groups.msn.com/bridgeFILES/alert.msnw

Oops - double. Fault in my browser.

http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...62&hl=Topflight http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...11&hl=Topflight

I think I recognize the definition of skill level as stated by Abadaba. I dont agree to the wisdom of that as I think merits in one area tends to be of little interest acting in other areas. Not necessarily obsolete as the areas online/offline have something in common of course. To me good ethics is of decisive importance. Else I will prefer a distinction something like this: Beginner: A person striving to reach a fair level of standards enabling him at least to ask questions from which he will be able to gain more insight Intermediate: A person who has reached a comfortable level enabling him to deal on equal foot with majority of players Advanced: A person with surplus enabling him to deal with most of the field enabling him to help others and to ask the tricky questions Expert: A person with an unquestioned surplus with good knowledge in most parts of what is on agenda. With special skills in communication for helping others in their aspirations

Jack here a thread to one of the former discussions about identy in ID. http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...owtopic=620&hl= (As it is a thread from the former BBO Forum - the layout is a bit different) You will here see Fred has still the same position - but hard contested he has committed himself to modify the information. As far as I can see this has not taken place as "Rules for these sites"(I think only place with such kind of information) still is: It is not necessary for players to include their actual names, e-mail adresses, or countries in their user profiles, but we encourage our members to do so. On the other hand his position in the rules is different to what he stated in the thread you mentioned. This will be my last post here regarding name and flag. I don't like de-railing threads. If sombody wants to continue those topics I will be ready - but please then open a separate thread for that.

Fine Mauro - go for that. Let your partners propose/choose what to do for raises of 11-15 openings -matters very little. Then you will have a chance to have control asking(CAB) accepted - matters much more and not complicated. If you can get them to accept Roman defense - somewhat local in Italy I think - you will soon have a something good.