Chamaco

BTW I want to thank every single person who took the time to reply to my question. All of them were quite useful! And, indeed, I enjoyed the "welcome back" greetings from old and new friends :-) Cheers! Mauro

Ciao Gerardo, quite a long time since the last hands together, isn't it ? :-) My "issue" is that I work only on a Windows computer and I am looking for something practical (e.g. no hassle about compiling source code etc etc)

Hi! Yes, I know , "Long time no see"... Well, I suppose we'll have to catch up :-)

Hi all, this is my first post here after 17 years of inactivity, so hello everyone ! I need help on the following: FIRST QUESTION Long time ago I used to resort to a version of Dealer compiled for Win/Dos, but looking around today I found one only for Linux (ancd I can't compile the source code). Can anyone point me to some reference where I can find the executable for Dos/win10? The original Dealer program seems to me far more flexible in generating the constraints, compared to the built in BBO Dealer SECOND QUESTION If I have to use the BBO built in dealer, what would be the syntax to generate the following constraints (all of them should be true in the generated hands) ? a) west has a 1NT 15-17 opener b) north has ANY 66xx, 65xx, 64xx, 54xx AND has AT LEAST 7 hcp exactly concentrated in the long suits Thanks to anyone will help ! Cheers mauro

Sorry, I do not want to be unpleasant so I'll leave this thread alone after this. But I feel from the latest replies that I did not explain well my ideas about the reviews of books by better authors. Indeed anyone can make a review of a credited author: however in my opinion, one should be VERY careful before being harsh towards a good author, for many reasons. Criticizing a book is one thing: but I think that beating hard on it is a different matter than a simple critique, and it requires a background at least comparable to the one of the author. (By beating hard I refer to a plethora of Arc's posts, mostly coming from author that do not use the bidding systems or styles more common in ACBL) One reason why I believe we should be careful in those critiques to well known authors is that a lot of the time we criticize things written by a better player it simply means we do not understand them. And I think in this case we should think twice or thrice before slaughtering a book (are we really sure we understood it well ?) However, that is only my opinion and I do not expect it to be shared by everybody What I think is clear, though, is that IF ONE gives a bad review (not just a so and so) of a book by a "good" author ("good" = having a good credit), he cannot complain if the same (same = being judged with the same severity) happens to him (by someone reading his review). (Of course there exist bad books and/or books that for instance have a bad layout or something like that - but this is outside the scope of my point. I refer to issues of bridge technique here) A final point: I have read the book, as most that were reviewed by Arc. I do not want to enter the details of the discussion (which points I think were the key of my critique to Arc's reviews) because that would only make the discussion more bitter, and indeed it is not my will. I have replied a bit hard only because I received a personal message by Arc, that one really explicitly insulting. However, it is not my will to be annoying, neither to Arc nor to others.

Arclight you decided on your own that you have the bridge proficiency to be able to judge the work of great bridge authors, sometimes beating on them quite harshly. My personal view is that I like the informative content of some of your posts, but: 1- a lot of the time you give judgments quite biased - which is something that a world class player can afford to, but in my opinion not an intermediate like me and you 2- in quite a few of these reviews, these judgements distort even what should be the pure objective description about the books Of course the above is only my opinion - no better nor worse than yours or some else's, and I do not expect that everyone agrees with me. In any case don't ask me more about this (such as which posts I am referring to and why) because I won't follow up a flame war. The only real message from this post of mine is: "If you want to be able to review, judge and beat harshly other writers' books, the least you can do is accept that someone else does the same with your posts (especially in a forum, where basically every post is under the gun) . Even if you disagree with his contents or tones" Sorry if you found yourself insulted, that was not my intention

Hi Arc, when reading books by foreign authors (e.g. British, Australian, French, Polish, Italian), one needs to take into acount that what is "common" in ACBL-land might not be common abroad. A book by a Norwegian could base the inferences of weak to on almost any Hxxxx 5 card suit. Other authors might draw different inferences o the use (or lack of use) of the jump overcall because they usually jumpovercall 2M with a intermediate or goodish hand. Similarly, many-a-players shall routinely open a 10 count at level 1, but many players would routinely open at the 2 level And so forth: for instance, many inferences from the bidding that are claimed in Terence Reese's books are not matching with common practice in the US (or Italy for that matter) Hence, when evaluating the issues related to the bidding that are raised by an author, it would be crucial to *try* to understand the different background, I think. If we stick to the simplistic reasoning "In my country we play that way and I am not interested in what the rest of the world plays" we are not making ourselves a favour, in terms of bridge culture, of understanding, and open-mindedness

I think foo answered such questions in his last post, together with some evaluations on this structure, that (despite being unfavourable to the structure I am thinking to adopt), I have appreciated very much indeed

Sure, I know that style, but I much prefer having an absolute GF 2/1. Just my own taste, I am no guru of course I certainly wholeheartedly agree: signing off 1 level higher and a minor partscore (especially at MP) SHOULD have VERY good reasons to do so BY THE WAY, THANKS A LOT FOR ALL THE CONTRIBUTIONS, YOU ALL WERE HELPFUL AS USUAL ! :)

I do not have a clue what this post means. Part of the discussion so far has been a heated debate about whether one should answer a question other than that which was asked. I decided to answer my own question as well. My personal idea about this is the following: Think of a poster asking a question as somebody asking for help. If someone is starving, asks help, begging for bread and water, and you decide giving him coffee is better (because you prefer coffee to bread, in this moment)... or you tell him that right now it's not the season for bread (and therefore one should buy bread in the supermarket, but supermarket bread sucks).... is this a real help ? My personal idea is that, if a question is very focused, it should be avoided that the discussion drifts (as often happens). Sometimes it does happen as an accident, but in my opinion, efforts should be made to keep the answers centered around the original questions, if the intention is really to help the original poster. I am convinced of this, even if often these "drifts" bring up many interesting issues. Instead, when the original questiosn are posed in a much more generic and loose, way, I think it's pretty normal to bring up also some side issues. But if the poster is really interested in a specific question, I'd rather be disciplined in the replies. However, I agree with Arend, when he says that *once the question has been answered*, there is nothing wrong in adding one's side notes (Arend did this; someone else did not, and just bashed into the hand evaluation without responding to the inquiry), although I think this should be done trying to avoid that this originates a new branch of the thread that takes over the initial one Just my opinion though

Arend, my point was that I wanted to keep the systemic issues separated from the hand evaluation issues. Had I not explicitly written that, I am almost sure that some % of posters would have started to say that *this is not an invitational hand* while others would have started explaining *why it is an inv hand*, followed by some others who would just treat it as a GF hand. If this had happened, my original question (how do you bid a 6m4M hand with invitational values and a stiff ace in pd suit) would still be unanswered. Everybody would start discussing the specific hand which is interesting in general, but would divert the attention from my point, which was discussing how to bid a specific shape with an invitational value, whatever invitational mean to you If you say it's not how bidding works, perhaps, but I am sure of the way Online Forums work :-) Hence my decision to state that "if this hand is not inv to you, just make it a little stronger; if it's GF to you, just make it a little weaker" Anyways, asking not to dscuss the hand evaluation was a favour I asked to the readers, of course I know I cannot *rule* a thread, that becomes ownership of everybody after it starts I think Jdonn got my point though

Hi Richard, I was aware of the system that uses the 4D puppet to hearts then pass/correct. Some further questions for me are: 1- assume you need a SPECIFIC cuebid, is the plan: a. ask for slampoints then b. start denial cue? (can you start the denial cue without slampoints ask? and would it be reasonable ?) 2- when the denial cue has started , how do you signoff in 5 of a suit (when we judge that slam is too high ) if the 4D bid was bypassed ? I assume there is a furter signoff mechanism even if the trump suit was not agreed yet.

Hi all ! With my teammates we play a variant of precision, in which we have various ways to open (or respond) 4441 hands 1) 2H opening is the classical 2D Precision opening, e.g. 4=4=1=4, (43)=1=5, 4=4=0=5 hands, hcp about 11-15 2) 2D is Multi, either a weak 2 in M, OR any 4414, about 16-18/19: after the 2NT inquiry by strong opener, opener bids 3NT and higher BELOW the sing to show the 4441 3) 1C:3x shows a positive response, 4441 singleton in a red/black suit, min(8-11) or max (12+) opener can relay first step to ask if sing is high or low The question is AFTER the 4441(or 4315 or 4405) has resolved the shape, which method do you suggest to probe for slam ? Among the keypoints I am sure I am missing (please enlighten me!!), here is a critical one: 1) is it more useful to set trumps in a certain way and proceed by cuebidding and KC asking ? OR is better to proceed in a relay-mode (so that the trump suit is ambiguous? In the latter case, how do we resolve the ambiguity?) 2) is it more useful to set trumps or to ask for controls (or AKQ slam points) earlier ? 3) Do you have suggestions on which (commercial or online) souces to look for when studying the slam bidding of these 3suiters ? THANKS ALL !! PS_ And yes, I now 3suiters do not come up all that often, but I'd like to explore some other tactics other than "Just don't bother" :lol:

Incidentally, 3NT is not unmakeable, and not the worse contract one has ever played :-) From our combined length in diamonds, it is likely that RHO is stiff in diamonds and not hearts (likely shape: 7=2=1=3). In this case, after the spade lead (ducked by opps), we'll count 8 tricks, 1 spade, 5 hearts and 2 clubs. I guess cashing the hearts and taking the club finesse for the 9th trick should be reasonable.

Hi all ! Assume you play: - 2/1 GF with 1NT forcing (2/1 is ABSOLUTE GF) - 1M:3x is NATURAL INVITE with good-long suit, so that 1M:1NT:2M:3x is absolute SIGNOFF Now assume pard opens, all WHITE, at IMPS, in first seat, ONE SPADE You hold: A-QT9x-xx-AT98xx FOR THE SAKE OF THIS THREAD, THIS QUESTION IS NOT ON HAND EVALUATION: SOME PEOPLE SHALL CONSIDER THIS WORTH A GF, SOME OTHERS WILL DOWNGRADE IT TO LESS THAN INVITATIONAL AFTER OPENER'S 2 SPADES REBID. In these cases, just improve or wiorsen this hand so that it fits YOUR requirements for an invitational hand. So, we are dealt an invitational hand with a long minor, a side 4cM, and an Ace stiff in pd suit. For better or worse, we refuse to bid an immediate 3m invitational (this would bury the potential heart fit) After 1♠:1NT:2♠, a. what can we bid to try to invite to a decent game (given that 3♣♦♥ would be a weak signoff with long suit?) b. did you agree on the first choice not to bid an immediate 3♣ ? c. Do you think this bidding structure (1M:3x = natural invite, chosen to "cleanup" the 1NT forcing hand type) is flawed ?