thepossum

Hi there Has anyone else noticed some rather annoying, somewhat creepy UI behaviour in the Bridge base and other interfaces that make the UI unusable today Still trying to eliminate possible causes It seems to relate to mouse clicks, UI events, strange multiple refreshes of script/pages etc. I don't work in that stuff anymore but its creepy It appeaars to be independent of Browser, Windows 10, HP, very dodgy (and needed to be replaced) hardware components Where could the problem be. I seem to have eliminated local WiFi but there are many other possible causes. Have rebooted router, tried to elimimnate the dodgy ISP DNS that occasionally causes me trouble etc Anyone else noticed anything strange at all on their devices or is it just mine? P

I don't think my bidding shows anything more than 5-1 :) EDIT I accept the system can be difficult to bid precisely and in a disciplined manner. Many were able to find 3 but 6x-3 didn't score too badly considering

I don't really blame the North bot completely. Apparently my sacrifice said I had 25-30 points Also its possibly a pre-emptive raise to 6, assuming that East would bid again It could have been worse and the other hand worked out even better when it did it 6-2 undoubled :)

I don't want to sound like a smartass but I'm curious about why. The currents perhaps? I think I am with you but it's a bit hard on the Atlantic

Instead of maybe only -100 it was -500. Fortunately I wasn't alone. I appreciate maybe the EW bots may keep going another level. Maybe the North bot knows it but seriously - if you pass a double then partner sacrifices I'm not sure slam is on - happened twice in the same tourney to me and half the field (in this one) - EDIT correction only a few did it but it would have been a reasonable score even at MPs. The other one worked out better since only a few of us did it and it wasn't a bad sacrifice, even in 6. Simple programming/bidding logic. I know you will defend it and allegedly my bidding shows a monster. All these points magically appear at the 5 level [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|thepossum,~~M33158,~~M33156,~~M33157|md|3S6H97DKQ432CAKQJ4,SKJT743HQ6DA8CT32,S9HKT5432DJ9C8765,SAQ852HAJ8DT765C9|sv|e|rh||ah|Board%209|mb|P|mb|1S|an|Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20!S;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points%20|mb|2N!|an|Unusual%20notrump%20overcall%20--%205+%20!C;%205+%20!D;%2012+%20total%20points;%20forcing|mb|3C|an|Limit%20raise%20or%20better%20in%20S%20--%203+%20!S;%2010+%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|3D|an|5+%20!S;%2014-21%20HCP;%2015-22%20total%20points;%20forcing%20to%203N%20|mb|D|an|5+%20!C;%20rebiddable%20!D;%2016+%20total%20points|mb|4S|an|3+%20!S;%209+%20HCP;%2010-12%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|5C|an|strong%20rebiddable%20!C;%20rebiddable%20!D;%2029-30%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|6C|an|2+%20!C;%203-8%20total%20points%20|mb|D|an|5+%20!S;%2014+%20HCP;%2015-21%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|SJ|pc|S9|pc|SA|pc|S6|pc|C9|pc|CA|pc|C3|pc|C5|pc|CK|pc|C2|pc|C6|pc|S5|pc|CQ|pc|CT|pc|C7|pc|S2|pc|H7|pc|H6|pc|HT|pc|HJ|pc|D5|pc|D2|pc|DA|pc|D9|pc|HQ|pc|HK|pc|HA|pc|H9|pc|SQ|pc|C4|pc|S3|pc|H2|mc|9|]400|300[/hv]

Apologies for a personal discussion After learning basic Acol many years ago and surviving with Weak NT, Stayman, Transfers, Blackwood, Strong 2s, 2C, basic preempts and not much else for decades I came back to Bridge, started learning 2/1 GF and seemingly unlimited weird and wonderful conventions would pop up at times. In order of personal preference and usefulness of new conventions My like list includes Michaels, Unusual 2NT, Drury, Jacoby 2NT, doubles, Cappeletti/Hamilton (don't know DONT) - I like the bids that can pre-empt or interfere and show two suits. I learned a more formal way of evaluating pre-empts - I use 234 which seems to work. Regarding doubles I get so confused I use it to say please try to bid with one of the suits not yet mentioned - its too confusing otherwise :) I like Smolen but it doesn't pop up much. I can understand it and its useful on occasions. Ooops I like Splinters. I have to use Soloway jumps (I like forcing the bidding) but often get into trouble with not understanding all the followup bids. I haven't gotten a grip of use of NMF and FSF really but use them from time to time. I forgot since starting to use weak 2s I struggle with hands that used to be strong 2s. Lead directing doubles perhaps My can't get my head around list includes Lebensohl. I still can't work out what every bid my (regular) partner makes. The amount of information to fully learn all those systems takes away from useful thinking power Oh yes, thoughts on Blackwood. I find the full RKCB rather confusing and some of it gives far too much information to defence. I would often be happier with Standard. Explain to me why you want to tell defence where your strengths and weaknesses are. And can I make a little shoutout for Gerber which despite its detractors I find can add a certain level of precision to (NT) slam bidding on occasions. How many Aces, How many kings in one hand is too much information. Oh I have a void here so don't lead that Ace :) There is the not really a convention but how I evaluate hands that I use a modified form of loser analysis to guide my bidding, not just points Another thing that isn't really a convention is the Pass which has many uses. What does your partner pass mean - I think it means he doesn't know what to bid and is being careful etc. No statement about his points at all What does your partner's response mean. It means he thinks we can make 3 but if I have a better hand maybe more. If I opened light or average or strong etc How to deal with interference and defend against complex systems. I don't know. Try to pre-empt and disrupt them and play your own game - all my simplistic brain can cope with. Assuming that disruption of a sequence such as Stayman just pushes to the next bid up (maybe double etc) but they all still mean the same. If people are going to try and confuse and gain advantage with excessive complexity fight back with simplicity and direct statements of what you have May add to these later PS Can I also add support for Larry's list and philosophy. Personally I find far too much messing around and wasting time and giving too much information to opponents. I need a KISS approach to life. Learn to use your brain and principles and thinking rather than propping yourself up with error-prone complexity. There is a thing called an over-fit in modelling. PPS What's this Precision system I keep hearing about PPPPS What does modelling/analysis suggest is the best approach on average - information to partner vs information to defence :) to my maybe overly commonsensical brain learning to bid simply and effectively without giving too much away seems the best approach. Learning to be flexible in assessing hand strength and explaining that is how you play to your opponents if asked. A few exceptions like NT limits where not much flexibility is allowed but bid the strength of your hand and aim to be in the right contract. Bid according to the limitations of declarer. In my case I am happier in Bridge and professionally giving my contract to a more competent player :) I usually bid accurately and ambitiously. There is a thing called an overfit and a thing called an overthink. See above. Also I feel there is a tendency in Bridge and other areas of human endeavour to equate complexity with expertise or level of competence. Complex and rigid structures have their place in buildings and machines, otherwise complexity and error have other implications. I appreciate (as a non-engineer) that even buildings and other structures need to be able to move or may fall down :)

Thankyou �� I have read that it's 0-4 points and no aces Hence my consideration of 6NT vs 7H as a matchpoints play I'm starting to think it was a natural bid but I would have expected 3C positive first time �� Or maybe even a game try. Can you help me in clubs. To which I could have happily bid 4H�� But after 2D-3C-6NT I was bidding completely in the dark trying to work out the best bid with 0-4 points and no Aces opposite. To that stage all I had indicated so far (accurately) was that we were a trick or so short of a heart game, possibly another game depending on fit etc. And you will notice I hadn't yet gone past the 3H which is all responder had promised as a minimum. I was still hoping we should be able to get to 4 but wanted a bit more encouragement from North I appreciate I have forgotten much of my basic level programming but making completely untrue bids with completely inaccurate messages seems fairly basic to me despite the constant excuses given. How many people pay to use this bot every day. I get a little upset when its all made about my quite reasonable game force. But I care mostly about outcomes and was not unhappy at (an extremely undeserved) 6NT+1 against a bunch of poor souls in 6H+1. I'm upset at not being in 7H

Come on people 🙂 I do regret not bidding my 7H I've done it before over a questionnable 6NT and made an unlikely 100% Surely even with 19+ the bot only promised 4 or 5 which is barely game I was very upset to miss the grand but if the bidding was too conventional it wouldn't score well Sorry another edit. Looking down the traveller people who opened 1H and then tried forcing ended up with the same fate

I was considering that we may only make 3 (despite my beautiful hand) then very nearly bid 7 Hearts because I didn't fancy our chances in 6NT Remarkably a good score in an ACBL MP tourney [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|thepossum,~Mwest,~Mnorth,~Meast|md|4SQ54HKQJ762DAKQ5C,ST762HTDT9432CAJ2,SAKJ3HA9DJ7CQT976,S98H8543D86CK8543|sv|e|rh||ah|Board%206|mb|P|mb|2C|an|Strong%20two%20club%20--%2019+%20HCP;%2023+%20total%20points;%20forcing%20to%202N|mb|P|mb|2D|an|2D%20bid%20waiting%20--%20forcing%20to%202N|mb|P|mb|2H|an|Opener%27s%20suit%20--%205+%20!H;%2019+%20HCP;%2023+%20total%20points;%20forcing%20to%203H|mb|P|mb|3C!|an|Cheaper%20minor%20--%20forcing%20to%203H|mb|P|mb|3D|an|4+%20!D;%205+%20!H;%2019+%20HCP;%2023+%20total%20points;%20forcing|mb|P|mb|6N|an|14-16%20HCP|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|H3|pc|H2|pc|HT|pc|HA|mc|13|]400|300[/hv]

Hi sorry. I didn't think you were awake. I was editing 🙂

I simply have concerns about conflicts between profit and making the best decisions for the world in any industry Example issue that concerns me as a none expert with a fair bit of understanding 1. We all know SARS 1 and 2 mutate like all viruses. Was every single decision of the (seemingly excessive number) all vaccine research and development projects made using best science to prevent spread of the virus without consideration of revenue streams. To me it seems not 2. Can also those vaccine (and other) projects be justified 3. Is leaving such decisions up to a very greedy market which can easily pull the wool over questioning eyes appropriate Etc

Hi all Desperately looking for places to play a reasonable level of relaxed Bridge P A few requirements are. Preference for simple but interesting bidding systems, people not obsessed with overcomplex conventions, a tolerance for each others occasional mistakes, open minded, keen to explore new systems (Precision looks fun) etc :)

Hi Thanks. Sorry I forgot to mention the limitations/specifics of the system we were playing. I was playing South in human declares GiB 2/1 tourney I did indeed pass hand 1 (anxiety about doubling 2S) and sadly played the defence badly getting a bad score. Double and sacrifice to 3C-1 was the top [hv=pc=n&s=sq8hkj76dqt72ckqj&w=s732ha93da964ct75&n=sk95hqt2d853c9843&e=sajt64h854dkjca62&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1sdppp]399|300[/hv] In hand 5 I doubled, opps went to 2S and unfortunately North took us to 3C which sadly I played badly (human declares in a bot tourney) [hv=pc=n&s=s98hkqt4daq92ck94&w=sqj7h975dkt43ca62&n=s6543hj83dj8cqjt8&e=sakt2ha62d765c753&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1dpp1sd2s3cppp]399|300[/hv] Please don't take the opportunity to have a go at North over the bid. I wasn't happy. But I didn't play it well. I didn't really care much anymore and wanted the next hand Note I appreciate my double was slightly light but.....FYI top scor on bottom hand was bidding 1 NT+2 :) - the real top was 2SE-1 EDIT I appreciate not liking to have to play bad contracts and making a bad score even worse is a weakness

Couple of examples. One where a sacrifice by North was the top score (which we missed, and I missed an obvious trick) and one where it was almost the bottom (which sadly we bid). How would you bid as South in each? First hand was Hand 1 of set [hv=pc=n&s=sq8hkj76dqt72ckqj&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1sd2spp]133|200[/hv] Next hand was Hand 5 - same seat [hv=pc=n&s=s98hkqt4daq92ck94&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1dpp1s]133|200[/hv] I should mention I have certain anxiety about doubling 2S :)

Hi everyone Thanks again for all the comments which I've had chance to read and think about My general approach is similar to some of the suggestions above but its the inconsistency that can bring me down. I rarely miss a bid slam for example (often one of the few in the field on 5). I often prefer part score plus rather than risking games. I struggle with complex competitive auctions and often feel I get pushed too high by partner (usually GiB) which often pushes things to the next level unnecessarily - thats a problem with Gib - or an over-complex bidding system and unnecessary use of cue bids when a natural raise is available, and the underutilisation of the pass - one of my favourite bids I feel my judgement is reasonably good. My play varies a lot. I try just to play fairly simple percentage plays with occasional random low percentage risks thrown in. I usually focus on getting plus scores at IMPs or MPs and hope the rest will work out. I need to weed out the errors really Thanks P PS Regarding analysis I thought about it more several years ago and tried to get a grip on the scale of analysing duplicate Bridge. Always interested in anyone who has come close PPS Also interested in any categorisation of thematicisation of Bridge issues. As a small sample in a recent disappointing set of hands 4 (what I regard) as very bad scores out of 24 (1/6) First 2 of them I was in the modal contract but missed one easy trick, 3rd I was defending the modal contract but clearly made a basic error in defence, and 4 was a rather complex auction where sadly after a slightly light double (unfavourable) and interference partner pushed us up to problematic sacrifice (1 too high), which I then played even worse :) One trick each time and one bidding half-error out of 4

Hi everyone Thanks so much for all the comments. Will respond when I get chance to read them all One of the problems I have tried to articulate is the actual identification/annotation/flagging of hands that cause problems. apropos of posting them, but also trying to establish a pattern of hands to post :) regards P

Hi Back in my correct forum for a while. I keep feeling I have reached something of a plateau. I'm doing well. I'm still doing well next day. Oh dear what happened on the last day :( When I look at my hands in MPs (and compare with better players) its clear that its not the level of the good scores letting me (others down) but the frequency of bad-very bad in the mix which can destroy an otherwise good/average set of hands Has anyone developed any ways of trying to analyse if certain types of hands out of a set are the ones bringing you down. Competitive auctions, say, or ones where you were overambitious with opening bid or defence. I appreciate maybe we don't play enough hands to meaningfully analyse that but curious if anyone does it or has done I've tried using the filter on Double Dummy Solve although not all my hand sets are available and I am not sure I have sufficient hands for any reasonable filters in order to compare My analysis of MPs while playing seems to be fairly accurate. I tend to know when a hand will score badly P

I need to go with my instincts and not overthink and overanalyse things - this hand has too many losers but enough HCPs. I know I will go with the HCPS :) -it could possibly work if partner does not always accept invites :)

I keep analysing my hands and without being able to prove it the number of times using HCPS against the judgement of losers in our hands has proved unwise. It could just be confirmation bias but I had a beautiful example just the other day. Considered passing 2S, made the mistake of inviting and ended up one down

I am sure there will be increasing drug-cocktail options available as time goes on In other news billions of people worldwide face serious food insecurity - maybe not as profitable Very few industries (other than maybe software technology) keep using the failure of previous versions to sell upgrades

Being an early starter in the NABC :( Which begs the question. If you end up on 50% (or close) did you waste your time?

EDIT Before reading the rest I did say to invite with 2NT and give responder the option - I accept it should be with max rather than passing with min. Depends on what point ranges they work on. I accept maybe you picked up on possible 23+ but I work on 24+ (9 or 10 pts) :) I don't miss many (in the sense of bidding them accurately) -if anything I find I err on the conservative side and miss some makeable ones:) - but its not just the individual performance - its all about comparison with others _ tend to be less obsessed with games and am happy with part scores by comparison with many. I couldn't tell you my stats but I do ok in the circles in which I play. PS I didn't say 23+. I said 24+ :) I reckon the 50% guide for bidding game in duplicate could easily be reduced to 40% in some circles. As for min and max I am expecting that me and my partner can add up our total to within a point or so most of the time. But for some reason I always worked on 24-25 and was surprised to find I needed more points I am wishing often that I could play Precision which appears to have an intermediate NT option PS Sorry I didn't read your post properly. I suggested a 2NT rebid giving responder the chance to decide whether they had min or max. That adds up to game does it not? - depending on what the 1NT response means (I also expressed that confusion)

why not 2NT invite? then responder passes with their minimum. I work on 24-25 for game :) - I am confused by the hand example though. Could not 1NT be 6-9? Maybe I am mixing up my weak and strong NT ranges. I always have to backward engineer my bids

I learned to play with a 12-14 Acol (occasionally variable). Most recently been playing 15-17 (5 card majors) but find it terribly restrictive. Occasionally still play 12-14 if partner likes. I think I prefer a variable approach and would tend to err on reducing the ranges by a point or so if possible (oops occasionally) :) Does anyone play 12/13-15 or anything like that

:lol: