bestguru

Short and sweet. Thanks Ken

When responding to Jacoby 2nt do you show a shortness when it is a singleton ace? If you do, does this cause problems when cue bidding and using ace asking bids later?

HeavyDluxe, Come on in, its not a threadjack at all. Maybe we can work through this together? If you are interested in partnering, PM me and we can see what we can work out schedulewise.

Thanks everyone for your replies; It is encouraging. Phil, you hit the nail on the head. The more I played the worse I was getting. This mostly looks like great advice. So the new plan is: Kibitz like crazy and play the hands I kibitzed a few days later via GIB. Try to find a regular partner Discuss hands and systems with said partner Read more And if there is any time left over, play one or two hands.

The setup for this was way to long so I moved it to the end and hid it in case anyone is curious: My question is "Should I try to forget everything I have learned and start from scratch, or am I just letting my frustration get the best of me?" I am leaning towards starting over. I think I need to try to forget what I know, even such simple things as HCP, and then come up with a list of questions to ask my self when I pick up my hand, when the dummy comes down, after any surprises, and after the hand is over. It seems logical that by starting with a well chosen set of simple questions instead of a bunch of "rules of thumb" could lead to forming good habits from the start. My starting question will probably be "what is/was my shape and dummy's shape?" What do you think a good questions would be to add after that?

Do you all know of a natural system that uses 2♣ by responder as an artificial GF? I found the idea at the bottom of a bottle of wine, but it seems like it might have some advantages over 2/1. I know I'm not the first to think of it, but I've never seen it. What do you think of the idea?

hmm, I think just the opposite. As long as partner understands, you are more free to act after he passes. If you were a actually a strong hand you would do somenthing unusual to show partner that. I would recommend a redouble.

I'll second the idea to be able to define the marks. I'd like to see the current marks standard with and having custom marks in an "advanced options" tab to keep the interface simple for those who do not want the extra configurability.

Umm, I can do the catepillar (but only when really drunk). Some of that did not look physically possible.

I discovered an interesting variant of systems on with tweak for the transfer into opps suit. The tweak being an astounding reversion to natural with a hand too weak to show the stopper (apparently possibly half stopper) any other way. Perhaps a nice 2 count with 5 to the Q. I would say this method was novel, but definitely less efficient.

I've been thinking about starting a forum site for discussing the boards I've played. Has anybody else done this? I would like to have the site open to the public, but by the nature of it there will be critical comments about other bbo members. Would it be sufficient to leave the names off, considering how easy it would be to find them in myhands? I am also thinking about the best way to set up the site. Any suggestions would be appreciated. some ideas I have: * seperate threads under each hand for partner, preferred members, and regular members/guests. (possibly not showing names in the more open threads) * link to fd file used or text description of system on every hand * double dummy results for the contract and alternate contracts (via GIB) If I do eventually get this going, I'd be glad to provide the source to anyone, especially the BIL organizers.

Sounds like a win/win situation to me. I must remember to increase my play time.

serious question even though it sounds like I'm being sarcastic: When would you want to play 3nt with a 9+ spade fit? I can't think of a time, but it would make a great self psyche control

Keep in mind that many of us use the "enemies" designator as a positive because there is only one positive choice. I use it for people I have enjoyed playing with but wouldn't greet anytime they logged in. I'm not opposed to blocking mail, but it would need to be optional unless we got more categories. btw, I'm still all for user defined categories.

Thanks for not mentioning me by name :) Seriously though I agree with your post and decided its finally time I did something about it.

I think a good approach would be to work with partner in the "partnership bidding" area of bbo and then play in the Beginner/Intermediate Lounge (BIL). If you add a note to the table description, the BILlies should be quite willing to accept some discussing of the bidding in the name of improvement. It is true that many of your opps in the BIL will be playing more conventions. Just remember that you can always ask for clarification of the bid. Don't be intimidated when you just get the conventions name in an alert. On a side note, can I sheepishly suggest the NOvice Or Beginners club instead of Fred's club? :)

After reading Kiwi's rant in another thread I got to thinking that I should really start over and go back to basics. I can't claim to be a great player but I can garauntee being very tolerant of mistakes and being more than willing to discuss any questionable bids. Let me know if you'd like to give it a go. I am also in EST. I'm in the process of switching to a new schedule, so 6:00 am to 8:30 am would be best for me but I might be a braindead mess at that time for a while. I can also do evenings up through 11 or 12 pm, but less often and reliably.

excuse my drunkeness, but I don't think anyone has replied to the question he was asking. I think the point is now suppose opener makes a strong bid. 1) Was partner strong enough in bidding method A to make the strong bid initially? 2) Did the 1H bid encourage partner to change his bidding method to B which made his hand stronger than it would have been in A? 3) Does you response depend in any way on which of quesition one or two is true? 4) Is openers interpretation of your response influenced by any doubts about question 3? I don't think I can answer any of these questions, as I play more pickup than repeat partnerships. If I had to take a guess, I would say that over time with your partner you develop an idea of what partner will typically do and this will become an unwritten part of your system. That is, the system is more than just the conventions played; it is a balancing act between the unique styles and personalities in the partnership. To add to that, this balance may be quite dynamic. I think Mikeh's point is the most relevant. documenting every minute detail of a partnership and then trying to learn and use all of the minutae would be nearly impossible. Beyond the sheer scope of the rules to learn you also would have the conflict between your personality and the personalities involved in the original partnership. I am sure we have all been in situation where the correct system bid just doesn't feel right. I had more to say, but Ii'm being fussed at, and I need a beer, and I think I'm rambling anyways.

One of the many great things about bbo is that you can try out some of the more unusual systems and conventions. I am worried that this approach will make bbo a somewhat hostile environment for this. For example, I have really enjoyed playing notional club. My 1nt bid would be both minors <12 points. When FD catches on and people are used to relying on it, my 1nt bid will be basically destroy their usual interface to bbo. I agree a standard vocabulary is needed, but I think it should not be focused on any standard systems or conventions. Instead we need to focus on creating a short set a set of words as possible to be able to describe these systems and conventions. We will still have issues because your definition of balanced may be slightly different than mine. Yes we will have a standard definition of balanced, but that will create a disconnect for players that play both in bbo and their local club where balanced is different than our standard. Therefore each word should be defined with a logical expression.

hidden:

I will not repeat myself I will not repeat myself I will not repeat myself I will not repeat myself I will not repeat myself I will not repeat myself I will not repeat myself I will not repeat myself I will not repeat myself I will not repeat myself I will not repeat myself I will not repeat myself I will not repeat myself I will not repeat myself I will not repeat myself *sigh* 985 to go

Thanks for the site. It is great. I am starting to get the ability to think in suit patterns. What doesn't work in firefox? The spacing is a little wierd but I get the correct result when I click on the buttons. It has been a while since I touched html, but maybe I'll take a look. Maybe I missed it because I only took a quick glance, but is the timer functionality supposed to be enabled?

I had the fourth seat stuck in my head for a few days now. A couple of questions for you all: 1) Since your goals in 4th seat are different is it worth mucking around with your system? 2) Do you have any links to 4th seat systems or discussions on 4th seat bidding? I've been pretty swamped the last few days and when I've grabbed a break here or there I kept finding myself working on a fourth seat system to play with 2/1. If it makes more sense, I was thinking of playing it with a 10-13 nt in 1st to 3rd. It has attained "magic bullet" status, so I'm in need of some more objective opinions. 1♣/♦/♥ - that suit and spades 4+/4+ 1nt - takeout double of opps imaginary spade bid 1♣ 1nt - 16-18 balanced 1♣ 2nt - 19-20 balanced 2nt 21-22 balanced 2♣/♦/♥ - normal 4th seat weak 2 bids in that suit 1♠ either a 4th seat weak 2 in spades or a gf hand (will bid 2♠ over responder with the weak hand) -- 1nt -♣ or both majors ---- 2♣ - forced unleass weak ------ 2♦ - shows both majors ------ 2♥/♠/nt - clubs and 4+ cards in the suit under ------ 3♣ - just clubs -- 2♣ - transfer or ♠ and a minor ---- 2♦ - forced unless weak ------ 2♥ - spades and a minor ------ 2♠/2nt/3♦ diamonds and 4+ cards in the suit under ------ 3♣ just diamonds -- 2♦ - transfer or hearts and a minor ---- 2♥ - forced unless weak ------ 2♠ - hearts and a clubs ------ 2nt - hearts and diamonds ------ 3♣ just hearts --2♥ - balanced --2♠ - minimum (0-3) or maybe some other structure over the 1♠ bid. I'm not sure what to do with the 2♠ bid. maybe showing a solid suit suitable for a gambling 3nt bid. edit: added suit symbols

of course :unsure:. I was just being silly for a moment. I really did think like that at one time though. I even "invented" the forcing pass. Then I did some research and found that all my innovations were old hat and it didn't matter anyways since I can't figure out which order to play the cards in.

hmm, seems that we could take this a step further and use 1♥ over 1♦ and 1♦ over 1♣ as the one round forcing responses. Of course you would have to make a few adjustments to openers rebids just like you do with 1♠ over 1♥. Come to think of it you could go to the extreme by using 1♣ over pass as a one round force. hmm, wonder what a system like that would become :unsure: