The_Badger

I played Precision for years, first Wei, then the Blue Team variations, then the Sontag version, then... Ah Precision...what has it become? A real hotchpotch of juggled bids that resemble nothing like the original system :( I admit Wei Precision had its faults, nothing major mind you as all bids were clearly defined, but it was easy for beginners to learn and understand. And that's important in bridge I feel. I can understand players tinkering with systems but wholesale rape (for want of a better word) is anathema, I feel. Why keep on calling it 'Precision': just because you open 1♣ with 16+ points? [This is just a personal view, and players can use what systems and conventions they like, but I don't believe any other major bidding system has undergone so many changes in its lifetime.]

hi mr1303, I'll bid 5♦ and let the Director sort it out. 6♦ may be on as partner could have in the region of 6-8 points or thereabouts, but the strong hand will be dummy and under the opening bidder. As long as you inform the opponents before the opening lead what has happened I don't thing there will be too much complaint, I feel. It's entirely reasonable to bid 5♦ with your hand given the bidding. And in some ways, it's also entirely reasonable to hint at slam with a cue bid, though on a ♠ lead I feel, partner's going to need to have at least ♥KQxx and it's going to be difficult to establish whether he has those cards given the limited bidding space.

I rarely play at the bridge club now because of illness and disability, but I'll be interested if other older members still remember when bridge hands were less exciting generally. (And that's a personal view.) As bridge hands were manually dealt, there seemed to me less distributional hands, less competitive bidding, less seat of the pants decision-making. I say this, as I remember when computer-generated hands first appeared at the English Bridge Union summer congress in Brighton in the late 1970s/early 1980s. There were quite a few complaints generally about how 'wild' they were - in effect, a lot more distributional than previously. I presume most bridge hands, except for rubber bridge, are now computer-generated, and I wonder if other players have noticed this difference: hand dealt vs. computer-generated, or am I imagining this difference?

It's good to watch such a close match. Given that the four Forum members have to form spur of the moment partnerships, unlike the established and well-drilled Jimmy Cayne team, they should be proud of their achievement, even though they lost narrowly. I've seen established partnerships regularly hammered by Jimmy's team. Sometimes I lose interest watching JEC matches when the opponents are down by 40 or so IMPs halfway through. Today, I watched to the end, regularly switching between tables. Well done!

hi jogs, I believe you are right inasmuch it could give a general overview, but there are so many other factors involved such as strength of opponents, action by opponents, system and conventions used by both sides, etc., etc., etc. that it will give an indication but will not be conclusive. Just too many variables to explore. In chess, it would be far, far easier as every player is rated, and there's only the chessboard and the clock. Alas, for bridge it is not as simple as that, I personally feel :(

Thanks for that MrAce. I wasn't aware of the finer points of UDCA leading against No Trump contracts. In Britain, before UDCA, the lead of an ace against a no-trump contract demanded an unblock (highest card). Things change, and its good to read these forums as it gives me a modern perspective of what's happening now.

hi Bad_Wolf, Great shape - my favourite 6-5-1-1 :) - great suits (the Kaplan & Rubens count comes out at 16.00) and partner needs so little to make game a possibility, and has already indicated with his 2NT bid that he's got something, so it 4♠ 99.99 out of 100. Once in a blue moon you will be missing both red suit aces and encounter a bad ♠ split...but that's once in a blue moon...

hi Jinksy, I didn't have a coffee this morning, but aren't those compass points in the illustration out-of-sync :( Having now had a coffee, it's a tough one but I agree with everything MrAce says. Partner could possibly have (though statistically unlikelier) ♥ AKQx, and East has bid 3NT on a wing and a prayer. And you don't want to block the suit if that is the case. Statistically more chance of having an honour card in ♣s, so I'm discouraging with ♥8 with UDCA.

hi Jinksy, Horrible little hand. In the absence of any other conventions, I expect my partner to be 16+ with 6♣+ 3NT may be the only contract on, but by bidding 3♠ there's little chance it's going to be played from your side of the table. But 3♠ (forcing) it is. You have to show that 6 timer ♠ suit. What happens beyond that is anyone's guess.

hi Jinksy, Just put that hand into Kaplan & Rubens hand evaluator and it comes out at a whopping 25.55! Steve Moe says 4♣. 1N shows partner isn't broke. If they have 3 cover cards we are in business. However, given your own strength (and that an opponent has opened), what concerns me is that partner may be a little under strength for his 1NT bid, certainly not 8-10. He has been forced to bid and chose the lesser of two evils by discarding a very weak 4 card minor suit bid in favour of 1NT. But I'm bidding 4♣ like many others, yet will proceed with a degree of caution. The hand could be quite distributional - you already know partner has a singleton ♥. Please give us the whole hand, Jinksy, in a day or two's time as I am curious, perhaps like many others. Thanks :)

Apologies everyone. I was so excited by the number that represented the number of possible auctions that I read the question incorrectly. (Must do better next time!)

hi eagles123, ROFL! Would be a good start. I'll give Robot North a brownie point for not doubling 7♦ as it's possible, on a different layout of cards for 7♠ to be potentially on if East is void in ♦, and West in ♣. Or am I being generous? :) The only reason I can surmise why Robot West bid 7♦ is based on the total points combined in both hands, 23+ total points for East and 13+ total points for West. Or did it have a rush of blood to the head, or perhaps put more accurately, an electrical surge through its circuits. (Sounds painful.) Robots don't you just love them - not! But all in all, please don't complain as you probably got a top for that board :)

hi Stefan_O, I love Ted Muller's and Richard Pavlicek's (rpbridge.net) bridge sites :) Actually answer [d] is incorrect. ( I'm having one of my pedantic days - apologies :( ) It is an finite number, but a very. very, actually very, very, very large one. It anyone wants some light relief from our lovely card game, it's worth logging into both Ted's and Richard's sites. Great fun!

hi Ken, Corsidcap = Ajaccio. If that's your identity password to your FBI account, then expect a visit soon from the Police Department :) Lol - only joking now. (British sense of humour. Not everyone gets it.)

hi dickiegera, The actual hand would be a useful reference point...and what, if any, arguments can a partnership use that they genuinely miscounted their hands I wonder? Sadly, some players eyesight and mental acuity isn't what it used to be. And being disabled myself, and on strong painkillers (morphine amongst others), I have difficulty with concentration, and that's why I rarely play. As for dope tests, well I do some pretty strange things at the table these days - like miscounting generally - so perhaps I'm a dope after all :)

Agree Vampyr, The other consideration is how easy/difficult will it be to get approval to play it in tournaments? However, I'm all for new ideas and systems in bridge, as long as it doesn't make the game inaccessible to newer players. Wei Precision was easy to learn and proved that new systems can be developed and used internationally by inexperienced teams, and get stunning results, though C C Wei sponsored and trained the teams initially. And as I say, the proof is in the pudding [an old proverb - abbreviated] or, in the case, the bidding :)

hi Diana, Thanks for clarifying this. I'm sure many players on BBO didn't know how Vugraph works. It's good that BBO offer their services for free for Vugraph games :) In an indirect way you've probably answered ahydra's question (above), that basically the onus of commentary is with the tournament organiser, and whilst it would be good having some commentary where there is none, perhaps it wouldn't be quite appropriate to have a spontaneous commentary from BBO players except if the tournament organiser agrees.

So right Phil, My take on it is this:- While BBO expects people to do Vugraph commentary voluntarily - and well done all those players that offer their services due to their love of the game - BBO isn't a charity shop! There is a lot of money invested in bridge these days, and BBO needs to find a way of rewarding people who provide a service. Even if it's in BB$ (that technically cost zilch). Expecting it for nothing doesn't happen in the real world. Golf commentators, tennis commentators, football commentators, etc., etc., get paid in real cash. A friend recently questioned me about writing on these forums. "Why do you give your knowledge free?" she asked. "I enjoy it." I replied. "Keeps my mind active." However, there's a big difference I feel between writing on a forum, that I can discontinue at any time, and being asked to provide a professional commentary on a professional bridge match. BBO needs to address why so few commentators are available. I'm sure more players will watch Vugraph with a commentary, especially if there is one in English and the host language

hi lycier, An expert/advanced is perhaps always bidding 4♠ (pre-emptive) as West, even vulnerable, irrespective of X or an overcall by the opponents, working on the Law of Total Tricks, and recognising that 6-5-1-1 hands are extremely powerful. More cautious players perhaps will raise to 2♠, fearing the vulnerability and encouraging partner too much. It's an interesting hand inasmuch that it illustrates GIB's bids are not set in stone. A raise bid isn't technically right, but it doesn't make it abnormal as quite a few players will bid that way.

hi gombo121, I read that law half-a-dozen times and goodness knows how a tournament director interprets it. Having re-read it a further half-a-dozen times, I personally think it is vague gobbledegook (and I worked in four different government departments so I am quite familiar with rules, regulations, bureaucracy and Plain English.)

hi phil, You wouldn't have had this problem as you'd be bidding 2♦ now if you'd opened 1♣ which I assume is 16+ That hand is an upgrade. K&R puts it at 18.95! It looked an upgrade, it smelt an upgrade, and lo and behold it is a well-serious upgrade :)

Well it should play balancing doubles. Full stop.

hi wank, Even with a bit extra, I'm inclined to bid just 2♦. Partner will know you are 7-10 range for your 1NT. By bidding again - was 2♣ forcing in this sequence? Some might play it not - I believe you are showing extras. It all depends what your agreements are over opponent's overcalls, whether a 2♦ bid over their 1♠ overcall is a free bid (and a different sort of hand, of course.) Mmmm...it'll be interesting to see other commentators interpretation... A skinny game contract could be there, maybe not, 2♦ just allows more exploration, I feel.

Totally agree 1eyedjack, it's a bit like a 'potholes in the road scenario' but once they are fixed everybody's happier :) However, in my opinion, BBO having acquired Gibware.com, have a direct responsibility to improve and fine tune the software and should provide resources to do so. If Gibware.com were still an independent company, a smaller entity, then I'm sure people who used the Robots wouldn't feel so aggrieved.

hi jillybean, Interesting question. As far as I know Jimmy Cayne's team (JEC on BBO) still play control responses to a 2♣ opener, so watching them or searching out some slams among the hand records - probably far quicker - may provide you some answers. Control responses can sometimes wrongside a contract (but so can positive responses too) - swings and roundabouts on that one... And as nullve says: The only thing that makes control showing responses playable, IMO, is that the 2♣ opening is (or should be) so rare that it almost doesn't matter what you play over it. But obviously having agreements with your partner how you proceed after a control response is, shall we say, kind of important, to say the least :)