HeavyDluxe

FWIW, I think that there's a good reason to have self-ratings. After all, they don't hurt anyone unless you agree to play a friend for money with a pickup 'expert' pard. The only thing that gets hurt with self-rated lies are people's pride. Look, I'm not claiming that it isn't frustrating to sit down with someone who drives you batty... But, it's still just an online game. To Adam's point - I think people do often see themselves in *cough* the best possible light. I think there are probably polite way to let folks know they're a little optimistic re: their skillz. Finally, dcvetkov pointed out that if you want to play with better people, it seems that telling a white lie re: your skills is the only way to get a seat with 'better' players. While that may be true, it's an awful selfish perspective to have aside from whatever ethical implications there are. While I'd love to get a chance to play more often with folks better than I am, I can't imagine how concocting a faux rating accomplishes much.

Han, At the risk of sounding like the kid who can't swim who plays in the deep end of the pool: Could you 'expound' your reasoning that led you to choose to pass? You laid out your dislike for the options initially, then your choice. I'd be interested what ran through your head in coming to that decision. Thanks....

Being a compulsive organizer, I'd sure like more than simply Friend/Enemy flags... But, that's still an ample rating system. Play with someone, assess their game, and play with them (or not) in the future. Granted, I don't doubt I'm on a lot of ppl's enemy lists... But, any other rating system seems like it would come with a lot of baggage.

Yep... Me too, though I imagine I get rattled in far more simple situations than Ken does. My resolutions: 1) Slow down & calm down. I think 90% of my remaining suckitude is related to not thinking things through... This is particularly true in thin contracts or when I'm playing with/against people better than me. 2) Count every hand, even the easy ones and when dummy. I simply need to discipline myself here. 3) Get over pride/embarrassment and take my knocks at the table with people better than I am. That's really the only way I'm going to improve, and I desperately want to get better.

I'm winning the club lead... If I lead a trump through declarer, we may be able to promote a ♥ winner. So, I guess I'd play ♣A, ♠A, then fire a trump through... I'm not sure we beat it, but it gives us a chance I think.

Late to the party, so I don't mean to sound like a yea-sayer. I'd open 1♣, mainly because I'm chicken to preempt this hand with 5♣.

The oft affirmed 2S ftw!

1. 3♥ 2. Pass and feel icky about it. 3. No, I wouldn't preeempt. 1♠ now.

Bah! Systems! I'd play everything natural... The rest of these gadgets are a blight on the purity of bridge. :rolleyes:

Add me to the 4♣ bidders.

Maybe in *your* marriage... :D Edit: My wife is the greatest gift and grace in my life. But witty punchlines and sarcasm go further on here than romance.

Early "good lucks" to everyone... Sorry I can't join you, but that's our anniversary. And that's the ace of trumps, you know?

I just looked at 'The Book' at the ACBL site. Unless I'm blind, this particular auction isn't outlined. 1x - (dbl) - 1NT is, however, and implies 6-10pt balanced hand. The OKBridge mashup of SAYC says something similar, fwiw.

What Winston said.

I'd pass... Partner could've made a stronger move and didn't. What in my hand says I should argue?

Wow. What Adam said in his last post = great.

Thanks for that balancing comment, Gerben. Let me say that I think my comment does (as Glen noted) extend to both non-natural and 'natural' players. Heck, on BBO I'm confident 50% of people think your bids are *secret* ("I don't have to tell you what that means!"). It also applies to carding, etc etc. But, the topic of the thread was HUMs and BSCs. So, respectfully, I still stand by my comments. I think that most unusual systems main benefit is that people are ill-prepared to face them and they make inferences needed to play difficult. A la a southpaw in boxing, the advantage is simply that it's "different" and requires different preparation. In most levels of bridge, that preparation is simply not possible. Note: I understand that part of the issue is that governing bodies (the ACBL in particular) are not playing ball with means for you guys to play Moscito, Gnat, or whatever you want to play. I admit that's possibly a problem, as has been beaten to death in the earlier part of the thread. Is it possible that these methods are objectively better? I suppose so. However, if that's the case, I would expect to see more and more expert players adopting them and winning. Having done so, the sexy-new-convention-crazy masses would urge for adoption and the snowball starts rolling downhill. If these guys who get paid to win thought they could win *more*, they would. If these things want to be played at the highest levels, great. If there is a way to open these to shorter events in a way that doesn't ridiculously disadvantage a 'average' player, cool.

I've watched... Now it's time for the crappy beginner perspective: 1) I find myself fascinated with bridge for the following reasons: - The beauty of cardplay and how card combinations work is fascinating. - The innovative ways people use a limited language to communicate info is geeklicious. - Everyone at the table has some information, and the rest is based on reasoning and skill (and luck) 2) It strikes me that cardplay - both managing dummy and defense - is far more important to your long term success than bidding. Meckwell or 'Hammood' could beat me into the ground by only putting down the green card. 3) To the degree to which 'unusual' bidding methods communicate information that is clear for both defenders and declarer, I think they should be allowed at some level. The innovation of the use of the bidding language is part of the game... And we've all benefited (think blackwood). 4) In 90% of bridge settings or more, the main advantage of HUMs simply lies in their obscurity. The leave virgin opponents flummoxed and frustrated. 5) I'm one for gamesmanship, so if you can get ops steaming a little and take advantage you should. So, a psyche or a 'misleading' lead are all in good fun. However, if you repeatedly make non-systemic leads all while telling your opps you play standard leads you're cheating. I can't help but think that a lot of the purpose in these bidding systems is simple obfuscation/confusion of the situation so people on the other side of the auction are simply stuck. At that point, play become more akin to poker than bridge. 6) I've thought the chess illustrations have been good. It's worth reemphasizing, however, that chess and bridge *are* different. If you surprise me by playing an unorthodox opening/defense at the chessboard, I still *see* everything you're trying to do. I have a shot at thinking it out and coming up with a solution. That's not true for bridge. Also, most chess games still start 1. e4 because time has shown that most of the classical principles of the game (control the center, knights in closed positions, etc) are sound. I'd wager that the same is true of 'natural' bidding methods in bridge. In closing... I don't mind playing against people who play something wacky. But, at the amateur level at least, there needs to be clear explanations and defenses available so we keep playing bridge rather than spades.

Karen Walker's page has this explanation: http://home.comcast.net/~kwbridge/negdbl.htm *Edit: I should mention that her whole site is top notch..

Congrats, Gonzalo! Rarified air that I, and countless others, will never breathe.

Sorry if I was vague, Han... And I wasn't trying to overreact. The crux of the discussion, as it often seems to be when SAYC is mentioned, is that SAYC as defined on the true yellow card has weaknesses. Come up with ways to correct them and you're not playing SAYC anymore. Whatever it is, it deviates from what the SAYC 'bible' defines. My reason for asking: I regularly get together with three other guys to play cards - spades, hearts, etc. They're all expressing interest (*finally*) in bridge, so I was trying to think how to get them started. I had been thinking that through, so this discussion simply prompted the thought "What should a beginner in North America cut their teeth on?" FWIW, current plan is to start with minibridge and then something like Root's _ABC's_ (which is BWSish) and go from there. Anyway, that's what prompted the question... And with that, threadjack over.

Ok, so we've officially decried SAYC as the Antichrist. Allow me, then, a momentary threadjack... If you were starting with someone new (living in North America), what 'naturalish' system would you have them learn out of the gate? BWS? 2/1? ACOL? I'm not asking with any snark in my tone... I'm genuinely curious.

Allen, Assuming 1m-3m = limit raise: One thing I was told is that you can bid heart/spade stops on the way to 3NT, but that's about it. Otherwise, you're passing or retreating to 4m. To Tyler's point, I think this is why inverted minor raises have become so popular. They take advantage of the preemptive value of 1m-3m while allowing a lot more real estate for exploring after the limit or better 1m-2m auctions. http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Convent...rtedMinors.html Good luck.

Every time I touch the flash client it just seems to get better and better... Kudos to Fred and the rest of the team! I did run into what I think is a bug... so, I wanted to post that for you and also put a couple plugs for enhancements as well. BUG: I decide to try to kibitz someone I've marked as a 'friend' while viewing their PROFILE pop-up. I click the JOIN TABLE button and am greeted with the 'Requesting Permission' green box. I guess they're at a table that's requires permission to kibitz. A second or two later, I'm disconnected and find myself back at the BBO Flash login. My guess is that the table host denied my request to join and the system booted me... (Firefox 3.0 with the latest Adobe flash on Ubuntu linux 8.04) ENHANCEMENT: 1) Related to the bug above, the windows client had a CANCEL button if you attempted to join a table that required permission and decided that wasn't what you meant after all. It'd be nice to have that back. 2) Partnership bidding access via Flash is what I'm hoping Santa gives me for Christmas. :) Thanks so much for all the hard work and providing such a great service to us.

Wow... my first day back on the forums after months away and I see this! Way to go, Warren! Congratulations.