TimG

In my document (not given by Ron, but derived from Ron's document), 1N-2♣-2♦-2♥-3♦ shows a maximum with two hearts and four or five spades. I think one of our documents is outdated.

Minimum 1NT with 5cM. Thanks iv heard it before and it make sense but it doesnt look right with the full system, first after 1NT-2C-2M there is no way to invite game(2NT and 3M are not nat invite). Second after 1NT-2C-2D-2M, there is no bid with MAX 3S and 5H. Both this problems are solved if the 2M suppose to show max hand. Since opener has shown a minimum with his 2M rebid, there is no need for responder to have an invitational call available. 1N-2♣-2♦-2♥-3♠ shows max with 5 spades and 3 hearts. 1N-2♣-2♦-2♠-3♥ shows man with 5 hearts and 3 spades. That is, after 1N-2♣-2♦-2M, 3oM shows 5oM and 3M. Tim

There are pairs that still play together after getting a divorce.

Minimum 1NT with 5cM.

That sequence now shows 4M333.

Sorry, I should have said that I am working from the improved version. I gave consideration to the suit quality issue, but opener cannot be sure whether responder has shown a bad suit or a 5422 hand when responder bids 3N over opener's 3♣ (1N-2♦/♥-2♥/♠-2N-3♣-3N). Tim

There seems to be two ways to handle a 5M332 game forcing hand with Keri: 1) transfer to the major and follow with 2NT. If opener asks about shape with 3♣ , responder bids 3NT to show 5422 or 5332; if opener asks about shape with 3♦, responder bids 3NT to deny a four-card minor. 2) puppet to 2NT than bid 3♦ (4 or 5 hearts) or 3♥ (4 or 5 spades). Does anyone know whether there is meant to be a difference between which 5M332 hands would use each of these approaches? Tim

I think there is a reform going on: EasyBridge (and others like it) teach play first, auction later.

I think there are a couple of simple reasons: 1) Bidding comes first in bridge, before you play the hand you have an auction; and 2) It's always been done this way, starting decades ago when bidding rules were much simpler. Tim

Call me an eternal optimist, but if I'm going to bid game, shouldn't I bid 4♣? Partner could have AQxxx x Axx KQxx. No, he won't bid on over 4♠ if that is all I bid. Tim PS I do have something more than I promised with my 2♦ bid: a 4th trump. I think that is enough to accept the game try.

Doesn't the type of hand you hold change these percentages? For example, if you have a constructive takeout of their major (even given the restriction that you are a passed hand) isn't opener less likely to be making a slam try or jump to game? I don't mean to suggest this will change your conclusion, just that what you hold will affect these percentages. Tim PS To another poster's mention of the possibility of the opponents being in a 4-3 fit: if that is the case and I have a takeout double of their major, partner will know what to do (with his five trumps).

My experience is similar. I don't really have to think about counting the hand - it is almost like a program running in the background of my mind handles this for me. Another strange thing is that I did not always have this ability and it is not something that I gradually developed. I don't think this is strange at all. Some are probably aware of a simple experiment done with chess players in which pieces were randomly placed on a board and exposed to the player for a few seconds. The chess players were not very good at reproducing the position. The same chess players were also shown placements of pieces from actual games and they were able to reproduce these very accurately. That's because the players were not merely noting that the a white bishop was on a specific space, but rather how the pieces were related in the overall position. The same thing happens in bridge. When a bridge player is just starting out, they have trouble remembering a hand after the last card has been played. As a player gains experience, he'll often be able to recall hands from days, months or years ago. It's not because he's remembering a random arrangement of cards, but rather because he's remembering the overall position and how it relates to the bridge result. You've already learned the only significant trick I know of: count just the cards your opponents play, not the ones you play. If you started with eight between declarer and dummy, you know the opponents have five between them, so count just those five rather than all thirteen. (I believe I first learned this trick from a Dorothy Hayden Truscott book, probably Bid Better, Play Better. I remember where I was when I read it -- it was that much of a revelation.) When I was teaching absolute beginners and I told them about this trick, someone would always ask: "but, how do I remember how many I started with?" Remember when you couldn't recall dummy's shape after a few tricks had been played? Seems inconceivable, now, doesn't it? (Well, most of the time, anyway.) To someone like Fred or Frances it seems inconceivable not to remember the spots that have been played to all the tricks. This mostly comes from experience (and the resulting deeper understanding of each hand) rather than in inate ability to remember spot cards. On to the original exercise. No, I don't think there is any special trick to remembering the cards that have been played. This is almost a pure memory test. But, it's not one that is that hard: you're counting five spades, six hearts, eight diamonds and seven clubs. And, the spades will be known soon enough, so you won't have to remember how many of those you've seen, but rather how they broke, and it's doubtful that it's important to have any idea which spade spot card either defender had. In fact, you'd probably do just fine if all you payed attention to were the Queen, Jack and Ten of Clubs; the King and Queen of Hearts; and the King of Diamonds. By thinking through a plan, you've basically reduced the amount of memory needed to remembering which of six cards have been played. So, this hand is probably easier from a memory standpoint than most. Tim

Quite to the contrary, there should probably be less emphasis on conventions at the lower skill levels. Some (perhaps lots) of lower skill level players list lots of conventions in their profile, but this does not make the use of these conventions a valid measure of skill. It sounds to me that what you would like is a place where players can go to play with a minimal set of conventions. And, there already is. Put in your profile that you want to play very few conventions and then open a table. Someone of like mind will come to play with you. That's one of the greatthings about having 1000's of players online at any time. Tim

I'm confused. There is no requirement to display a skill level -- one can select "private". I would think any move to require a public skill level would tend to turn off people who are new to BBO (and teh bridge world). Rather than put more emphasis on skill level by defining it more precisely, shouldn't the move be away from paying much attention at all to skill level? Tim

I don't think it's about conventions at all. There are, however, three conventions that everyone should be familiar with or they will run into troubles playing in even the most basic game: takeout doubles, Stayman and Blackwood. I think this is the list of conventions that your novice would want to know. A player could advance in skill level quite far without playing any other conventions. But, the next two a beginner will probably want to learn are: negative doubles and transfers after a 1NT opening bid. Not necessary for bridge skill, but useful in finding a wider variety of partners. Tim

That is the problem in a nutshell: partner must disclose what he knows about your agreements and tendencies or style. I wouldn't say it is impossible to be random in a regular partnership, but your given tendencies are not random: they vary with the perceived strength of the opponents. Tim

My characterization of the symbols as a mistake was in relation to your anti-ratings stance. Even if what you are rewarding is achievement in ACBL games on BBO, you have introduced a ranking scheme. Perhaps it doesn't rate bridge skill, but it could easily be mistaken for an attempt to do just that. (Otherwise, why would anyone be proud of their symbol? Why are the symbols good marketing tools?) Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. But, you cannot attempt to rank things without also rating them. To rank is to assign a relative value or position. To rate is to assign relative rank. They go hand in hand. I've read your explanation of the symbols and they are a ranking scheme. They rate relative performance (or attendance) in ACBL tournaments on BBO. In light of this, I thought Ben's statement: to simply be wrong. There is at least one rating system on BBO. Perhaps your position is that there will be no system wide rating system. Or, that there will be no dynamic rating system. Or, that there will be no rating system which attemtps to measure bridge skill. But, you've already instituted a rating system. Tim PS I'm in favor of rating systems; I wish there were lots of them.

Another status symbol which causes confusion.

It has already happened on BBO and it has been endorsed/enabled by Fred. You know those little numbers next to some players' names that denote how many masterpoints they have won online. Lol... you got to be kidding. Boian, maybe the best regular player on BBO has no such number... so I guess he is a beginner. And some of the people who play four and five tourneys a day have face cards, do you think that means they are great?? No, I don't think it means that any more than hundreds of ACBL masterpoints denote bridge skill. Or, even achievement. But, there are lots of people in the ACBL who mistake (at the encouragement of the ACBL) masterpoints as a measure of skill. And, there are, no doubt, those who do the same with BBO's symbols next to names scheme. It seems to me a mistake for BBO to start down this path; like ACBL, I imagine BBO will find that once you've started down the path it is impossible to turn back. Tim

It has already happened on BBO and it has been endorsed/enabled by Fred. You know those little numbers next to some players' names that denote how many masterpoints they have won online.

Next time I'm playing online and do something silly, I'm going to say: "sorry partner, I just found this cool website I was checking out and wasn't paying attention to the bridge game."

When I read this, I couldn't help but wonder why you play bridge. I know that may seem harsh, and I don't really mean it to be. But, if you're not concentrating, why play bridge instead of hearts or crazy eights?

But, there's no reason a rating system can't be designed to actually measure real skill rather than how often one plays.

An accurate rating system would not force you to avoid novice partners; your rating (if it was accurate) would not go down as a result of playing with novices.

If you are better than the novices you were playing with, your rating should have gone up when you played with them. If it did not, either your perception that you're better than a novice is wrong, or the rating system was flawed.