tytobyto

Thank you, thank you. Either I'm getting better at asking questions here, or you're very astute, because you answered my questions exactly. They were, in fact, silly questions, because in the bidding I know, those questions don't come up; but I'm an analyst and I have to analyze. But to clarify, I could ask my hypothetical question before play commences, yes?

How do I learn to play rubber bridge better? When we get together with a neighboring couple to play bridge it's going to be rubber bridge (I live in Chicago and I've never met anyone who plays "Chicago"). Just because we may talk more than play when we're together doesn't mean we don't care about how well we play. I've glanced through some bridge books. Off the top of my head I'd guess that perhaps 3 pages out of a thousand discuss bidding with a partial (and one of those 3 pages says the exact opposite of a page in another book). I belong to organizations like "Seed Savers" (to preserve genetic diversity in domesticated plants) and "Nature Conservancy" (to preserve bioversity in general). Perhaps we need an organization to preserve Whist derivations, if not Contract Bridge itself.

A silly question. Partnerships can change what their bids mean depending on what they are playing against, e.g. overcalls of an artificial bid mean something different than if the same bid were natural. So, is it possible that I could have a bid whose meaning depends on the way you bid defensively, but your defensive bid depends on what my original bid means, thus our definitions chase each other in circles? Writing the previous sentence conjured up another silly question: in the midst of play, is one allowed to ask an opponent about the meaning of a bid they have not yet made (a hypothetical question)? If yes, then suppose this is the situation (I'm just trying to present an example, if it's foolish don't answer that no one would ever do this): it's my turn to bid, but before I do, I want to find out from my opponents whether "If I were to now bid 2S, and you were to double me, is the double for takeout or for penalty?" Besides wanting to know if I'm allowed to ask such a question, I'd like to know which opponent I should ask. Either one, it seems, I would be preparing both for the hypothetical situation and giving them a chance to confirm their agreement (or lack thereof).

People claim that passing a strong club is OK, but your observation makes me think that interference is mandatory. That is, unless you feel that asking bids are just an ornament. I have to admit, they were the reason my roommates and I decided to learn Precision in the first place. The asking bids (we'd never heard of anything more exotic than Blackwood) seemed way cool, and it is a great loss (of enjoyment if not accuracy) that they can no longer be used because wise opponents will always interfere without any fear of being penalized.

Thank you, but I need even more clarification. Your first example I get; your 2nd maybe not. Perhaps I'm not clear about what "constructive" means exactly. I think "positive" means "partner, I believe we have something here;" "constructive" means "partner, here's some useful advice, but let's get this over with." Why wouldn't your 2nd example be considered constructive? You know your opponenets won't let you play at the one level, even if opener's partner has nothing, but all the same, if you're not required to make this bid (as in your first example), then it seems you're telling your partner something. Back to your first example. I'm really talking out of my hat here. What if "pass" means something specific (I asked earlier, and was told that's OK), and 1S is what you bid if no other bid is correct? Is that still illegal? I notice that you wrote "at least 1♠." What if all my bids below 1S (and pass and double, are they called low?) mean that I have some points? So if I bid 1S, it might mean that I have nothing, but it doesn't mean "I must bid at least 1♠" because I could have bid lower with a better hand. Sorry for the nitpicking, but I've always thought it wise to approach a game by understanding the rules. (I'm not a rules lawyer. If my opponent misunderstands a rule I let them take their move back.)

Yet another question: does anyone still use "Italian style" asking bids (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc) after positive responses to 1C? And if so, under what circumstances to you continue to employ them after 1C is overcalled? Apologies in advance if I'm wearing on anyone's patience. I actually wrote to the ACBL, outlining the nature of my questions and offering to pay a tutor modestly for help, but I never received a reply. Here I seem to get replies in minutes. This is a good place.

I'm still trying to encourage my inner sadist by learning how to punish people. Here's a suggestion for how you might assist me. Present a bidding sequence in which your 1C opening is frivolously overcalled (i.e. your opponents are not interested in continuing the contest unless they feel compelled to scramble to a better suit) by your LHO with a bid of 2D or less and your opponents wind up in a doubled contract. Then, even if the bidding should make it obvious, explain to me how your side knew the double was for penalty (because in this scenario the bidding should not go higher than you can afford) and how you calculated that you will score better with a set than in playing your own contract. Thanks in advance. You folks are great.

Thanks for the links. Hopefully, I will soon know my way around this forum well enough that I won't have to start threads just become I'm lost. I would never have guessed that "simulation" was a word I should look for. But I like this place so far. People seem very quick to help.

A good bidding database could benefit humans as well as robots. A good database should be a bytesize that would not necessarily choke a cooperative effort. In my occasional efforts over the past 30 years to write a Precision bidder, I have learned some of the hazards in developing and using a bidding database. Perhaps the most basic: if one description interprets as "I have 5 or 6 hearts," then all other descriptions at the same level must say "I have less than 5 hearts or more than 6." This, unfortunately, becomes entirely too tedious, so descriptive languages use priority/precedence to adjudicate overlaps, and catchalls at low priorities to handle the unfortunate (but astoundingly commonplace) situations that fall through the cracks. The problem with the use of priority is that it rarely imitates human decisions which instead, usually resort to a set of subordinate rules. This project's bidding description must include syntax for resolving conflicts (and conflicts within conflicts, etc) while realizing that such descriptions are likely to tax even experts on bidding who are not also experts at description. The problem with catchall rules is that following a lengthy set of rules, it can be difficult to calculate (and in somewhat of a reversal of the typical mind/machine discrepancy) difficult to invision exactly what the hand making the bid holds. This is a problem because it becomes difficult to accurately describe the responses. All too frequently (frequency in the type of database description not frequency of the hand occuring) each crack that the catchall catches requires an additional subset of rules to insure that the response is sensible. Generalities are great, but 95% of the problems are 5% of the cases. I would recommend that the project, as soon as it settles on a syntax for recording bidding systems, begin development of a tool which can can analyze the descriptions, and because problems are always more likely at the extremes, use random extremes to generate examples of both overlaps and fallthroughs to query whether the rules are adequate. This tool would also be useful to those contemplating new systems or conventions. (edit to add the following) Another useful tool would be one that tests a database contributor by generating hands, asking the contributor for the proper bid and then comparing it to the bid described for the database. It is rare that an original description does not require elaboration in obscure places.

Back in the early 80s I wrote some Basic programs to help my new girlfriend learn to bid Precision. Although I was a good programmer, I was not a very good bridge player, so I never tried to write a program to coach the play of the hand (other than defensive leads which were by formula). In the later 80s, I became increasingly distressed by the fact that although there were good chess-playing programs, bridge-playing programs were an embarrassment. I bought a book on the subject (which I unfortunately no longer have) that described the early optimism that computers would soon be able to play bridge infallibly: just calculate the odds, weight the outcomes by the scoring, and you have your play. The book, while maintaining confidence that direct calculation would someday prevail, devoted it's bulk to examinations of heuristic approaches which they claimed were on the verge of competent play. I still remember standing in the shower as it occurred to me that generating random hands to fit the situation of original bidding and subsequent play, then examining all four hands to find best play and then calculating the most likely best play, was a strategy worthy of pursuit if sufficient hands could be generated and evaluated in a reasonable amount of time. I had already developed some routines to generate random hands meeting certain specifications for my programs which tutored bidding. But I had no clue how to develop a fast and reliable double-dummy player so several years had to elapse before modern bridge programs were created by people more talented than I am. Now, I'm still interested in programs to coach bidding, and I still don't know how to write a fast and efficient double-dummy player. I need a free one that I can link to from a C program (or source in C or C++). I want to employ the DD player in slam bidding. I'm also interested in thoughts from anyone else who has used DD players in bidding rather than in play.

Or would a different website entirely be more appropriate?

Wow! How do you properly use edit here? And is there an option to delete a post?

While others in this thread have stated that they essentially ignore intervention, you mention "danger" for your opponents. I want to develop my inner sadist. How do you punish people for butting in? you: 1C (strong hand) LHO: 1S (no info and possibly no cards) partner: X (from what you wrote earlier, 5-8 hcp) RHO: P you: ? (you and partner know you have majority pts but nothing about other's distribution or a fit. do you pass to watch your opponents squirm)

While others in this thread have stated that they essentially ignore intervention, you mention "danger" for your opponents. I want to develop my inner sadist. How do you punish people for butting in? you: 1C (strong hand) LHO: 1S (no info and possibly no cards) partner: X (from what you wrote earlier, 5-8 hcp) you: ? (you and partner know you have majority pts but nothing about other's distribution or a fit

While others in this thread have stated that they essentially ignore intervention, you mention "danger" for your opponents. I want to develop my inner sadist. How do you punish people for butting in? you: 1C (strong hand) LHO: 1S (no info and possibly no cards) partner: X (from what you wrote earlier, 5-8 hcp) you: ? (you and partner know you have majority pts but nothing about other's distribution or a fit

obviate: "to dispose of effectively"

Gotcha. But without the interference, i.e. 1C - pass - (I'm guessing) 1S, would your bidding still have proceeded naturally (1 level lower than in your example) or would you employ (what I was taught were called) Italian-style asking bids? In either case, it looks like your opponent overcalling with 1S has obviated your reasons for adopting a strong 1C bidding system (whoops, too quick), or do you think it is just as easy for an opponent to overcall an opening 2C?

P 11+ hcp and unable to preempt X color 1D wonder bid 1H wonder bid 1S wonder bid or any 4333 1N rank 2C wonder bid 2D shape 2H unused (or sound preempt reduced) 2S unused (or sound preempt reduced) 2N unused 3C+ Sound Preempts

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm new here and don't know what to expect, and dont know how to behave. I don't want to appear combative but I grew up in a family that encouraged argument. I just want to figure out how to bid. Your system of responding pass or double (and I presume redouble) to show less than 8 hcps after your partner's 1C opening is overcalled, allows your opponents to explore a fit without raising the bidding level. The 1C opener will know about points, opener's partner will know absolutely nothing, while opponents will have information about both points and distribution.

Cro-Panama: X same color 1D natural 1H natural 1S natural 1N same rank 2C wonder 2D wonder 2H wonder 2S wonder 2N same shape You should have asked about Wonderful Kamikaze Crash.

I learned Precision in college, from Jannersten's book, in the early 1970s when it was fun and becoming a fad. A few years later, my best friend's cousin's brother-in-law showed us (I, my wife, my best friend and his cousin played Precision together) how aggressive overcalls of 1C (he claimed people would bid 1S over 1C without even looking at their cards) could make bidding Precision difficult (Jannersten, and other writers at that time, scarcely mention competitive bidding). Precision (and other strong 1C systems, e.g. Blue Club) tried to counter with a rather complex system of cue bids over opposition to 1C (a definite problem because Wei had invented Precision to be easy to learn). But then Precision's opponents invented systems of interference, e.g. CRASH and Wonder Bids, which are ambiguous about what suit(s) are held, rendering cue bids useless. My favorite defense against strong 1C systems is Wonderful Kamikaze Crash, which almost always interferes but doesn't indicate a specific suit below the 3 level. I don't understand why such systems are not prohibited by the rule against systems designed specifically to disrupt opponents' bidding (but apparently that rule is only enforced against the disruption of opponents' opening bid). So if anyone does still bid a strong one club, how do you react to Cro-Panama?

[i apologize for being more interested in bidding than in cardplay (tho I'm acutely aware that bidding must anticipate cardplay).] I conclude from the ACBL General Convention Chart that certain conventions are disallowed: 1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods. So why e.g. is IDAC (Instant Destruction Against a Club) aka IDAK (Instant Destroyer And Killer) permitted? 4. Forcing pass systems. If a convention includes a forcing pass is it considered a forcing pass "system?" 5. Relay (tell me more) systems. How e.g. do Stayman or 1-step responses to Astro avoid this prohibition?