fazzzoola

Are you going to tell me that Axx Axx Axx Axxx is really worth 1N, especially when the hand already has 8 losers? Selecting extremes as valid arguments is not proper evaluation/discussion, unless the subject is comedic arrogance?

First of all, someone should correct the title's spelling: Method has only one "t" ! ! ! Perhaps, some of the more arrogant posters ought to first examine why some top flight world class players actually use the method, instead of poo pooing it simply because it challenges the Milton point count method. (Just saying.)

I've spent 10 years developing a 5/6 CM system. Sadly, our mentor passed away very unexpectedly this past July. The systems is basically ready on the offensive side, but need a helping hand in dealing with interference bidding. If interested, please respond to fazzzoola@windstream.net. THANKS http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

Thanks... I did not know that. I was beginning to feel rather stupid. Georges

Under the old BBO version, I used to be able to upload, download, edit, and save any FDCC being used w/ my partner. I used to be able to load an FDCC and my partner could save it on his/her computer. Now, I can't seem to be able to do most all of that with the new (web - browser) version. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif I have several FDCC's which I created from my desktop using the old "bidedit.exe" program, and uploaded to BBO, by some default mechanism, I suppose by simply opening and using them. Since I am now on a lap top PC, I wanted to download three of them so that I could edit them. What is worse, is that the editing feature on the (web - browser) version will apparently not let me edit any of them even when I click on the edit button. Under the old (bidedit.exe) application, I had the ability to fully edit any FDCC in my convention card folder - add, change, save, save as new, etc. Is there a real and complete solution to this? Is this a design failure by BBO or am I simply under educated?

OK. Please reread the original post, of this thread, and then show me, where I was asking for criticism! I am asking for help in developing FDCCs for several different bidding systems. I AM NOT ASKING FOR CRITICISM, CRITIQUES, OR COMMENTARIES! THANK YOU.

Thank you! I will take a closer look at that. I've been trying to find better uses for 2 level bids anyway! B-)

:lol: and where was the "vinegar" police last year, when the acrimony and attacks were blatently insulting and bullying? Oh, wait! No one cared back then, right?

Yes, there have been significant improvements... Thanks for noticing. ^_^ There are a few simple reasons for allowing responder to bid something else other than some kind of waiting bid: 1. Responder should be captaining the auction, not competing in it, until opener has fully described his/her hand, unless, of course, responder has some rather significant hand and/or HCP. 2. With responder getting into the action, the partnership risks having the stronger hand become dummy - something generally not good. 3. With opener having a freer passage has the clear opportunity to describe his/her hand rather fully and accurately, especially when dealing with majors or NT. 4. Even with interference from opponents, responder does have additional tools, like a double, and others. I haven't delved into interference bidding yet, but, I can feel the tools being there. 5. Also, and finally, even with interference bidding, opener can still describe his/her hand with reasonable accuracy. For example, even if opener's RHO bids a major after opener's 1♣ bid, opener can still bid 1N showing 15-18 HCP and a balanced hand, or 2 of the unbid major to show a 6-7 card suit, etc. the options are there, at least IMO. As to requiring at least 7HCP for Stayman, that is simply an adjustment, upward, from the apparently normal requirement over a standard 1N opening bid. Again, right now, the focus is on the majors, not so much the longer term sequences. The issues with those have to be recognized and resolved, which is why I was asking for help in this area: developing FDCCs... :)

There seems to be some confusion here... The 1♥ or 1♠ opening bids clearly state that opener has either eactly 5 cards, or, in some rare cases, 8+ cards in the bid major. Over an opening bid of a major, responder either has a fit or not. If responder does not have a fit, I decided to adopt Ron Klinger's suggestion/recommendation to bid an artificial 2♣ with 10-11 HCP, and 2♦ with 12+ HCP. I would respectfully submit that Ron Klinger's recommendation is far better than most other ideas. As an aside and important point, the web site is not fully up to date with all sequences... for now, I am more concerned with the immediate and directly related responses. In any case, I did say, on the site, that adjustments will be forthcoming, and they will be, as time and focus permit. :rolleyes:

LOL... not any time soon! Got a long ways to go before any such idea can even be contemplated. :lol:

Last year, right about this time, I began a discussion about GaLwood. To those very few who were courteous and thoughtful, I thank you. Perhaps belatedly so, but I still thank you. :D ^_^ To those who were callously arrogant, overly opinionated, and self-absorbed in their inconsiderate and venomous attacks, I hold you in contempt. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif (You know who you are. There is no need to respond. I will simply ignore you. I've learned a few things since then.) Now, for the good news: the GaLwood Partnership Agreement has been updated, upgraded and strengthened. A few experts have already looked at it and found it to be stable and viable! :rolleyes: Anyone willing to check on this "claim" can visit www.galwood.com and see for him/herself. What I would like: I sure could use some help from willing and considerate players, NOT "jackasses", in developing FDCCs for SAYC, 2/1, SEF, and Acol continuations. If you are willing, please use the "Contact Us" button on the web site. If you are serious, then please provide first and last name, physical location (city and country) and a valid telephone number. I will contact you personally. Thanks all. BTW, Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." I say "I learn, therefore I improve." :D

I did try that, alas, to no avail. No "pass" option at the top of the list. Oh well... I guess I'll just have to learn to live with this shortcoming. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif Thanks for trying.

OK, maybe I wasn't quite clear enough. Let's take a simple sequence; 1C - 1D; 1S - ?? Why is it, that at this point, responder's second round bid, there is no pass option for responder? The options start with 1N, etc., when they should really start with "pass" as the first option.

I am curious as to why the "pass" option is not part of the FD CC. For example: 1C - 1N; pass. Why doesn't the FD CC include "pass" as a first option, before the other possible continuations? It is missing. If, as in my example, opener should pass on his second call, rather than make a bid, there is no descriptor available. Who can I contact (and how) to ask for this update?

OK, I've read the posts on alerts. IMHO, why can't the FD CC have an "alert" box there, which can be "checked", just like the "artificial" one, which could automatically pop up with the bid? The bid explanation is already included in the FD CC; it's just the alert that is not there. This could be done by simply invoking the alert box with the bid, as in, the bidder does not have to fill in the alert box, but, the alert box pops up anyway. This way, bids which must be alerted can be so marked and automatically "pop up" , while all other bids remain the responsibility of the opponents to query, if they choose to.

NICE and ty for removing the puke vitriol about foreigners and the languages they speak or don't speak. :) Much appreciated!

Not being an expert, I would very much like some explanations as what certain bids mean, especially the esoteric ones. Not being fluent in other than English, French and German, it would be nice to have the commentaries in both the local language and English. I think that could be called serving the public in general, not just the local public. :)

good point.. I hope BBO reads this.

This isn't supposed to be a political forum for misplaced social misfits. So, I'll just ignore the bovine feces being bandied about.

Why is it that the simple idea of having commentaries by experts be available in English as well be such a polarizing invective? I don't know whether to yell, curse, or simply ignore this dumb ass diatribe - maybe because it is such a dumb ass one?

Perhaps technology is far enough advanced that it wouldn't be too much trouble. One can hope.

Wouldn't it be much more enjoyable and inviting if all vugraph matches and commentators have English translators there at the same time? I get no enjoyment watching a match in some foreign country, where all the comments are in a language I do not understand. I hope BBO can improve on that.

I guess there's got to be a PITA in every crowd, and you've appointed yourself to the job... UGH...http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif I wasn't looking for criticism, but critique and maybe some assistance... Obviously this wasn't the place, and you sure weren't the one.