Cthulhu D

Ah, beautiful, I didn't know you could set the CC except at the table. Thanks. It's Jinksy's system, I'm just helping with some documentation, so he gets to release it imho if he wants to.

I've been using Kungsteen's excellent BML to convert Jinksy's in depth system notes on LOCA to a FD card. I've got a first draft, but how do I share the FD card after I have uploaded it to BBO? The only way I know is to be Partners at the same table and set your CC, can I do it without both players being online?

One thing, I wish more polls had a nullo vote option like 'candy' 'open out of turn' 'revoke' or a 'I'm sure at the table I'd do something moronic' options, because a substantial minority of the time that is what I want to vote. This is particularly true when someone has posted a poll in the expert forum. I could of course vote, but I am not an expert and am probably just statistical noise. Include a I am not an expert option or similar pollsters!

It's clever. Start by wining 3 rounds of hearts. Cash two rounds of diamonds. East now has only black cards Play a small spade. Either east ducks, or goes up with J/T/8. If estducks the trick to the 7, you just cash out. Assuming he goes up. Win and cross back to hand in diamonds, then cash the last diamond. Then play a small spade to the queen (play the 7 if he plays small again), then cash the queen of hearts. East now has to discard from Tx in spades and Kx in clubs. If he discards a spade, you now have two cashing spade tricks and then lose the last club. If he instead discards a club, you end play east with a club lead, or west is endplayed if he goes up with the ace. If at any point he discards the king, you just lose a club trick to west who then gives you your 12th trick. Can you make this at the table? I doubt it - you go off if you you don't play for west to be void in spades, or if you cash 3 rounds of diamonds. Can you tell he is likely void in spades from watching east discard after the 2 rounds? Probably not.

Playing 11-13 opener, we play an XYZ variant there. Really it it works very well any time opener has shown a balanced hand with a defined range. Observation though, XYZ sucks really hard if opener is unbalanced. As it is more likely opener is unbalanced though after a 1m opening in a weak NT context, I suggest agreeing that it is off if you know, for sure, on the auction, that responder is unbalanced. I suspect the most likely problem auction is 1 club, 1 red, 1 spade (and to a lesser extent 1D-1H-1S) It may be wise to agree to a treatment for this auction about bypassing 1S with a balanced hand and 4 spades. Or just play transfer walsh with a short club. Wait, GCC and all that. Edit: It's definitely better than systems on as well.

You need to upload it to BBO using the window's client.

We lost by 21 imps. The boards that really cost where 20 and 27, which is unfortunate, and then a slow bleed. http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?tourney=1962-1416682913-&username=Cthulhu+D

Valve have a very good approach for a 5v5 team game that works well. Skill is best measured from bresults obviously. Indeed, and DOTA2 offers a good template of an approach that streams the userbaser into team rager and team normal people and puts the ragers with each other, meeting this objective. Its a mostly solved problem - the issue for BBO is the language and system barriers which have not been resolved

Edit 3: New question: Can you give me some worked examples of the #hide command? I want to hide all the stupid superaccept continuations from displaying except in FD, but I use #CUT and #PASTE to put them in - does this work? #CUT NTtransfer 2\R Transfer 2\M Transfer accept 2N 4333 max 3C Doubleton, Max, 4 card support 3D Doubleton, Max, 4 card support 3\M Nusiance accept 4\M 5 card super accept #ENDCUT Resolved bug below:

My thoughts on this is it is a matter of style and methods - I think holding that hand someone is clearly going to open the bidding and someone is atleast making a part score. If I accept that as the condition of contest, I want to be the first to get my bid on the table, as that gives partner the maximum information to compete. I'm not planning to bid again with this hand unless forced by partner, or it's totally obvious (2H rebid as required) I'm not sure it matters about how good you are, you just have to have the methods that let you stop before you get too high. Like, I am evaluating that hand as a bad 11 count. It's not a question of evaluation imho. I'm just saying we've agreed to open bad 11 counts, and thus holding a bad 11 count with no rebid problems I'm happy to just do that. It's a very different philosophy - make the first bid for the partnership aggressively, and are conservative in our responses. Additionally, wherever possible we endevour to play methods that allow us to stop at the LoTT position. We think this is good because the bid of 1H conveys so much more information than Pass, we think we should strive to bid. I'm reluctant to pass, not because I think this a good hand, but because I miss an opportunity to add significant definition to my hand and communicate a lot of information to partner. I'm not sure if this is right tbh, it could be that the costs outweighs the benefits - but I do think it is very important that this style needs to be matched with methods that let you get off the train before you overbid. Multiple ways to raise while keeping the auction low really, really help in this. I suspect this style is only playable because partner can get off the pain train at a low level before you get demolished. I also think that it is very fun style, though you have to be sound and disciplined in responding and sometimes this makes sequences feel underutilized (anything 2/1 GF, because I am pretty sure that requiring a balanced 13 count over a balanced 12 count to force to game reduces the frequency markedly).

I think this makes a lot more sense if you are playing a weak NT. But with 4M why not raise?

I'd bang down 1H without thinking about it that much (yeah the two Qx doubletons suck, but 6 hearts, so no rebid issues) - which is making me question my 2H bid in the other thread because that is a better hand that this which is a miserable 11 count.

I guess this is a related question, if you have transfers after 1H-1S (denying 5 spades), so you can bid 2C to show 4 diamonds then correct to 2D to 2H would you do that? I mean, the power of this hand is not just the 6 card hearts, it's got useful red suits so I feel like if I open 1H (and I have a lot of sympathy for your point after thinking about it), I'm kinda wondering how to best communicate the hand to partner, do you get the diamonds in the picture or is it just hearts. I think if partner bids spades naturally it's better just to bid hearts, give up on the diamonds and hope you can bail on the auction ASAP because your hand is quite a bit worse (particularly if partner promises 5 spades).

Just to confirm, to 100% sure I understand, the game is 2pm New York time which is UTC -5 being converted to Australian time which is UTC +11. Therefore: Location Local time Time zone UTC offset New York (U.S.A. - New York) Saturday, 22 November 2014 at 2:00:00 PM EST UTC-5 hours Sydney (Australia - NSW) Sunday, 23 November 2014 at 6:00:00 AM AEDT UTC+11 hours Corresponding UTC (GMT) Saturday, 22 November 2014 at 19:00:00

What's your rebid plan for the hand after 1S and a semi forcing 1NT? I'm mostly interested in if you are going to show diamonds or just show hearts.

Don't try Bergen raises in an indie! Playing the GIB card is your (only) hope, but that's not perfect, the delayed 1NT raise for example is not clear to most people. More seriously, there is a joke somewhere that says 'unless you have been passed in blackwood, you cannot win an individual' - BBO random play is of a poor standard and many people will not be familiar with the system they have agreed to play. You just have to take your knocks. The regularly suggested advice is to find people that you like, add them as friends and then offer to play with them whenever they show up. This will hopefully result in CHO being somewhat reliable.

Cool, lock me and partner in - his username is madmike12

He's not actually accusing you of lying - he's pointing out the problem with the proposed disclosure threshold for scratch partnerships. It is entirely possible that after the discussion 'Bergen Raises' 'OK' Partner means 1H-4C to be the 16-18 3 card raise (as is commonly played playing Bergen Raises), and you have in theory discussed it (because, as he notes, the actual book on the topic calls for that). You're in a real spot for the same reason you should never *disclose* these agreements by saying 'Bergen raises' or whatever and should specify the hand type. There are so many variations of 'Bergen Raises' that it's hard to know exactly what one is intended. Appropriate disclosure might be: "4C could be an ace ask, a 16-18 HCP raise with 3 card support or a splinter singleton club, typically with 4 card spade support, but may have different ranges in a good hand. Based on the shared experiences I have with this partner, I would rate the singleton club as most likely and the ace ask as least likely." You can see the problem(s).

The heart length means that partner probably has shortage (unless its 6-3-1-3 around vthe table) so its likely that he doesn't have anything good. Combined with the poor shape I'd pass but it would get some thought at the table.

He's got a good point though - I mean I regularly have auctions where undiscussed bids are made with a partner I've played with for 3 years. I always try and disclose where there is an analogous situation we have discussed, but in heavily contested/preempted auctions, particularly when a multi meaning or artificial bid was made at some point, it can often be really hard to know for sure. We perpetrated this horrible auction 2C-(2D)-X-3H-3S-4C-4NT-7H and neither of us were sure what trumps were (2C was weak diamonds or weak spades or strong) because we'd never discussed if the jump to 3H set trumps in a comptetive auction after partners action double. When asked I disclosed that in an uncontested auction that it did, but the specific auction at hand was undiscussed. Its just not possible to discuss the many and multitudinous possible contested auctions so often you are not going to have a specific agreement, but will infer from analogous situations. It seems ridiculous that you want to ding me for MI when I say 'This exact situation is undiscussed, but in this related situation the bid means X'

This is super important, and this probably isn't a problem if you have this agreement - but must you have4 for the fitbid or is 3 card support OK? Edit: Failed to read the vulnerability there.

2\1 GF with 5 card majors an unbalanced diamond, and a short club. That's not the problem obviously - Our brown sticker methods are Overcalls: 1NT overcall is three suited takeout Over a 1 minor opening by them we play 2D is a WJS in either major and 2S is a good preempt in any suit. Openings: 2C opening is diamonds weak, spades weak, or a strong hand 2S opening is a preempt in any suit (so 3C is both minors, 3D is 6D plus 4 m and 3M is a bad preempt) I don't anticipate that is particularly revolting or unusual.

Before I harass partner about waking up at 5am, is there a regulation or prohibition against WBF brown sticker methods in these matches?

I'm struggling to grasp why you'd downgrade this out of 14-16 straight NT range though as Bill Patch is advocating. Like.. really? Maybe if it was match points and you wanted to be with the field on a 1C-1M-1NT auction or something, but even then. I'm going to be much happier when I get the entire hand of my chest with 1 bid, and that bid is 1NT (playing a 14-16, as I do). Then I'm much better positioned for any subsequent auction, and I've got 3-3 in the majors so none of the usual concerns about playing in a 5-2 major fit apply. Maybe if it was the totally garbage J65 Q42 AQT KQ82 or something similar (Q65 Q42 AQT KJ82), but the hand at question is a lot better than that. Plus partner 'knows' that you don't have a decent 14 and thus is much less likely to invite than the field (he's going to be inviting hoping for game opposite a good 12, so plenty of stuff your supermax '13' is going to make game against is going to pass 1NT imho, like so-so 11 counts), so I'm not even sure that is a good idea.

I really like the comments, you've got some really great ideas and you sparked a number of good thoughts. I am anticipating transfer acceptance is NF in my thoughts below, so after 1D-1M-1NT responder will give diamonds preference normally. Yeah, 2D as NF is the intention - the theory being responder is well positioned to select the contract particularly if it's 3 card vs 4 card raise (any hand with a 3 card raise has to have 5 diamonds, so he can safely play in an 8 card minor fit rather than a 7 card major fit if he so judges). I'm a bit stuck on resolving this, for partner getting to have two ways to raise was the primary value add of the methods and as a result he's going to get to make the final decision on what two ways to raise he would like to have. I anticipate that he will want to bid a bunch of hands with both and see what he thinks before we land in a final spot, but indicatively we've got good-bad. This is a shame as the GF raise with 3 hearts in 2D is clever. I will float this with partner as you can easily pattern out. It also solves (many) of the problems in the table (see table at the bottom). I think if we commit to raising on 4, this is an easy addition. Good suggestion with the GF heart raise in 2NT there - do you take the singleton self splinters out and put them in this? Then you could make the splinters void splinters, and use 3C as an ask for the singleton shortness after 1D-1M-2NT. This is very clever - I was initially afraid of losing strong 6-4 minor hands, but I really like this. Incidentally, when you say pattern out.. what for? After the sequence 1D-1H-1NT-2C-2H responder can surely place the final contract with his next bid (maybe you need 3H as a re-invite to bid the slim games). There is a 91% probability that partner is exactly 5 diamonds, 4 clubs and 3 card support with a stiff in oM. Surely now anything else is a slam try. edit: Derp, what do we do with a stiff club and 4 spades. I think this makes a lot of sense, and I really like it, but I am stuck on where do we put the GF 3 card raise in the structure if I want to keep 1D-1M-2D as NF? I guess I'm happy to bury some of them. Often I think 3NT is going to be the play to play rather than 4-3 fit, and if opener has just finished describing his hand exactly we want it on the table in 3NT, but any auction that starts with a club transfer is going to have the closed hand relaying to the open hand if 3NT is the final spot. I actually have this concern generally with auctions that go 1D-1M-1NT-2C-3 card raise bid, because we've wrong sided NT. Not sure. There are really 4 shape buckets as I see it: All hands with 4 card support - partner is very strong on the view that these must raise directly, so I must allocate them all to direct raise, which is fine. (there are four sub types here, which is 6 diamonds, 4 clubs, 4 oM and 4441 hands, which I shall pretend do not exist). 6 diamonds 3 card support hands 5 diamonds, 3 card support, 4 oM 5 diamonds, 3 card support, 4 clubs And 4 strengths of raise as you outline: trash, real opener, max, gameforce. So 16 hand types (well, ideally 28 but not sure I can squeeze everything in). I'm just trying to jam everything in as we speak! 4 6 w/3 5 with 4oM 5 with 4 clubs Trash 2D xD-P 1S Xfer clubs, pass Opener 2M xD-H 1S Xfer clubs, bid 2H Max 3M ??? 1S Xfer clubs, bid 3D? GF 2NT 2NT Bid 2S Xfer clubs 3H? As you can see from the table, not sure what to do with a big 15-17 hand with 3 card support and 6 diamonds. I think I just jettison the ability to show that with precision, and split it into cruder ranges, real opener, and near game force. Partner can always disambiguate over 1D-1M-2NT though it may leak some information if 3C is an ask with a better than minimum, whereas 3D is p/c and 3H is weak to play (responder can just raise to four with a GF). I hate the strong 5 diamonds, 4 clubs, 3 hearts hands though because I feel like we are going to be wrong sided 3NT a lot. I think the value of your proposed 3 card game force raise going through 2D is apparent here, because the following is possible: 4 6 w/3 5 with 4oM 5 with 4 clubs Trash 2D xD-P 1S xC-Pass Opener 2M xD-H 1S xC-2M Max 3M 2NT 1S xC-3D GF 2NT 2D-3D 2D-2oM 2D-3C (look ma, we haven't wrongsided 3NT!) Still wrong sided 3NT a lot though, but much nicer. And we've still got the splinters to use for.. something. God knows what. I think you've sold me on the 1D-1M-2D GF w/3 concept.