mishovnbg

Done Luis Misho

Thanks to all for answers. Hands: QJ109 Kx KQxx AJxx xx AJ9xx AKx xx In my opinion: Yes, 3DI show good DI, but not AK because no 4DI cue bid, it also show SP control. Yes, your p can be min, because he MUST show SP control Yes, he like you to bid 4NT, if you want that Yes, singleton SP is possible, but not SURE 4NT RKCB, 5CL cue bid, 5HE - cant decide. But suppouse you bid after all 6 HE and trump lead... Can you find best way to play it against average defense? ( Not described in books, ;)? )

I look for 4 or 5 major openings, 2DI multi, 1NT variable limits, 1CL(DI) strong, 1CL 3(2) way European Salsomaggiore 2002 Total: 38 teams (108 pairs) 4 major = 20(19%) : 3 england, 1 austria, 2 finland, 2 ireland, 1 slovenia, 1 wales, 2 netherlands, 1 san marino, 1 yuogoslavia, 2 czesch(4HE,5SP), 1 Germany, 2 Norway, 1 Romania 2DI multi = 50(46%) : 3 austria, 2 croatia, 1 denmark, 3 greece, 3 ireland, 2 latvia, 2 monako, 3 russia, 1 slovenia, 1 wales, 2 belgium, 1 cyprus, 1 hungary, 3 israel, 3 netherlands, 1 portugal, 2 san marino, 2 yuogoslavia, 3 bulgaria, 2 czesch, 2 Germany, 2 iceland, 1 liechtentein, 1 romania, 3 Ukraine 1NTVAR = 24(22%) : 2 italy, 1 austria, 1 croatia, 1 russia, 2 denmark, 1 finland, 1 slovenia, 1 wales, 2 israel, 1 spain, 1 turkey, 1 yuogoslavia, 3 bulgaria, 2 germany, 1 iceland, 1 norway, 2 ukraine 1CLSTR = 20(19%) : 1 italy, 2 ausrtia, 1 croatia, 1 finland(1di), 1 latvia, 1 russia, 2 hungary, 1 san marino, 2 spain, 2 bulgaria, 2 germany, 1 norway, 2 romania, 1 Ukraine 1CL3W = 10( 9%) : 1 italy, 1 denmark, 1 bulgaria, 1 germany, 3 sweden, 3 polish Misho

Your hand, p open: QJ109, KQxx, xx, AKx System: 2/1 Cue bid style - any control,RKCB,no other agreements Bidding: Partner You 1DI 1HE 2HE 2NT: general game try+, rf 3DI(values)-4CL(cue bid) 4SP: what hold your parter and what you will bid? Misho

I use systematic LOBs playing any system ;D. Furst and best book i read about systems was Culbertston's. His method opening ( 2+leve and biddable suit), i use all time, when i open with less hcp then by system, with some corrections ofcourse :). P.S. It is not for this topic, but any of "MOSCITO" players read about Culbertston asking bids for slam? If not, you missed great invention, that perfect fit with relay bidding and 4DI automat/modified for sign off 8). Misho

Awards promote "unethical" behaviour, >:(. If a pupil of mine beats me? I delight & am confident that it was done ethically. Bidding, Declarer play, Defence & Ethics... The 4 key aspects of bridge. I remember when the Olympics was an amateur event... IMO, golf has more right to be included than, say, tennis? In my opinion you miss most important aspect of bridge - Psychology. Main difference between chess for example and great game Bridge. Misho

Opening 1CL with any 16(15)+hcp lose tempo to show distribution. If you use 2 way distribution responses that cannot be easy discover ( like alternative 2 suiters) will be easy for opp to preempt same bids. Misho

After answer to RKCB and Q trump i play next cheapest suit as ask for side K for grand. Other bids (no sign off) ask for Q(bubleton) in asked suit, if no space - for most important side suit in bidding. Misho

Bridge ln my opinion is like any other fight - you must use own tricks and counter opp tricks. To bid and how to bid depend of style of opp ( i will accept here that you p can understand any you bid). If they use take out dbl, then is very good to bid, to bid with any reason, to pre-empt... If they use optional dbl you must do sound overcalls or opp often will write you phone number ;D. Somebody just joke about your partner will not support you, right? Change p if he dont or change system if u cant make weak and limit+ raises. If you already decide to bid, what to bid depend of many factors, but most interesting for me is level of opp. Against good players weak 2 suiters can help them to find/stop contract and make it near on 52 cards, so less informative overcall/pre-empt is better. Against not so good players is better to give more information to p, he can use it, opps cant. Misho

I vote for idea of "medal" rewards. Much more fun if you after tournament have little gold/silver/bronze Fred's portrait near name;). Cheaters know how they win - cannot run from yourself! Without rewards we also have it, if i right understand. Misho

Thanks to Fred and BBO yellows for great job !!! Directors in BBO tournaments are volunteers and may be havent experience as directors in live tournaments. I have it and have national status as director. I think that online bridge have great advantage was playing by computers. This make possible to decide easy because all can be recorded. Most of often mistakes at table, like bid out of order, wrong card played .... cannot happen. Some of calls of director like "not alerted", "slow play" ... can be simple marked during play without calling director. Ofcourse players must have same choice by BBO software. This will up pleasure playing in BBO tournamets ( prevent talking "hot" words at table ) and speed up tourney with less director calls. After tourney finish, such "late calls" can be judged. Results will be publish after score adjust. Convention cards must be obligatory for pairs not play SAYC or 2/1 or rare conventions. They must be publish at least 1 hour before tournament begin. For regular pairs it must be publish in some kind of tournament database. Misho

Ranking is good idea. Cheaters exist in the past, now and will be in the future. Even such pair like Belladona-Garoco was catched when cheated by move cards! Time limit reduce cheats but also reduce level of play ;D. May be is good idea to do analysis of play of champion of tournament. Expert can decide is play of this pair can be by cheats. If so, next several tournaments this pair must be under watching. If same play is regular, then it must be asked and judged. Ofcourse here no money and we need volunteer expert :-. Misho

Vote for average + for fast, average- for slow play. But if possible + must be average for fast pair result in tourney. Misho

CTRL+C for "Claim" must be changed because is one of hot keys used for Clipboard ("Copy"). Misho

Will be very interesting to have such statistics. If u can give me some links where i can find information about champions of world, european and american greatest tournaments and systems playing by them i will do such research. Misho

Partnership mutual trust is most important for me! I prefer to lose board, instead to lose partner ::). But if u dont open preempt with 8 card suit and not enough H i must after decide board alone. I dont think that if i have such hand and i pass or bid 1CL at my next turn of bid level will be 2SP ( depend of opp ofcourse) B). I will bid 5CL and give my p chance to make decision if opp also bid. Misho

Count is necessary sometimes ofcourse. How encourage on lead, Smith's signal and lavinthal... Sorry that we cant have it all. General 3 types of agrements: 1. Our signlas show what need in board. In my opinion it is too nice to be true. 2. Our signals give p count, all other signlas are rare. Bulgarian experts prefer this way. 3. Combined system of signals, where agreements are different for lead, opp play in suit... I prefer this method. Note: Ofcourse you can bluffing but pay bluffer;D. When we talking about bridge we often forget that humans are not computers, or at least not yet B). On long run counting every board will lead to fatigue. Misho

Thank you The_Hog for joining to our discussion , Ron. I read about you. (Thanks to Victor Mollo for...) ;D Yes you wrote what i mean. I noticed that i play similar in many positions. Next step is to classify it. Classification must be not too complex to be usefull. So i hope BBO members to help me :B) Misho

Thank u for join to our discussion Richard. I agree that any classification is very difficulte. I know that my terms is not good, can u help me with better terms, please. I chose it, because most of players use terms like "offensive" and "defensive" how i wrote. I prefer "Active" and "Passive" for distribution and "offensive" and "defensive" for hcp. I agree that great game Bridge :-* is "a complex multi-dimensional construct" like life. But ulike life, Bridge have less usefull "space" for analysis and may be possible to classify. All best ideas in human history was "simple", like wheel or E=mc2 :B). Behind the word, when you use it as term, you use definitions of meaning, else u must invent new words :- In terms i defined bid "penalty double of opponents contract" is Constructive-Defensive. We here discuss exactly how to reach better partnership undersanding and have same nice results, like 5HEX-2 sacrifice. I hope you help us to make this or another classification. I know you have great experience with realy systems and your friendly analysis is welcome. Thanks again. Misho

To classifying the hands we need some general terms and then reduce to absolute distributions and hcp described by Ben and Peter ( i will shortly call it BPC). I will try to write it. 1. Destructive: dont have hcp for own contract 2. Constructive: have hcp for own contract 3. Defensive: prefer opp to play contract 4. Offensive: prefer to play own contract With this classification we have 4 general type of hands: DD(1+3), DO(1+4), CD(2+3), CO(2+4). Now BPC looks: ( all of them can be modified with "o" - opp suit) 1. DD: bw, sw 2. DO: sw, 1w, 2w, 3w, s2sw 3. CD: bi, bs, wi, ss, 1i, 1s, 3i, 3s 4. CO: wi, ss, 1i, 1s, 2i, 2s, 3i, 3s, s2si, s2ss Notes: same type in different general type mean that type can elavuate to other by vul, position... not clear yet ofcourse >B) Absolute type of hands Ben-Peter classification: bw, bi, bs (for balanced weak, intermediate, strong) sw, wi, ss (for semibalanced weak, intermediate, strong) 1w, 1i, 1s (for one suited hand, weak, intermediate, strong) 2w, 2i, 2s (for two suited weak, intermediate, strong) 3w, 3i, 3s (for 3 suiter weak, intermediate strong). s2sw, s2si, s2ss = semi two suited (a 6-4 or 7-4 perhaps - weak, intermediate, strong) o2s = opponent 2 suiter (one suit is theirs) o3s = opponent 3 suiter (one suit is theirs In different SITUATIONS same hand can change it type - evaluation of hands( for example after preempts u jumps are not preempt ). We must first pick up a SITUATION. I will describe my METHOD of bidding in SITUATION: 1 level of bidding, Score-(weak opening like Boian precision), 1 major shown - not yet fited, 1 offensive hand shown, no exception. 1. CD hand i will bid DBL or trap pass 2. DD hand i will bid Pass or bluff 3. DO i will bid overcall !!! or 1NT !!!: 4. CO i will bid jump overcall, 2NT, cue bid, jump cue bid, 3NT. Note: I didnt describe exactly types because is only example. Else i must write much more:) Misho

I like "car" example, i also give it to my students, when i teaching them to work with computers ;D. Yes, i am programmer B) Yes, properties of bridge objects like: hcp, distribution, OD criteria, level... can help partners to idenify situation SAME WAY and have knoledge what METHOD they use in such SITUATION. Yes, METHODS of bidding are agreements we have how to bid in different SITUATION (different opp dids like MULTI for example). Thank u Ben for try of classification of type of distribution - we need it when we will build our METHODS against different SITUATIONS. I will correct my classification of situations and will add with name of friend that help. Ben we can start to write also methods for different situations. Different players use different methods ofcourse, but knoledge about their methods can only help. Misho

"* An expert is a person that has enough EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE of the game such that others can expand bridge ability from direct teaching/mentoring or kibitzing." I like this definition but in it must be include very important addition: ... " and can REALTIME use it". At tournament u have only 7-8 minutes for board normally... Student, No lessons, Teacher, Social ... must be additional subskill level, i think.

Thank u for opening this topic Ben. It isnt only theoretical discussion, target is to make SYSTEMof competitive bidding, rather then a heap of agreements. I know that it is very difficulte, but if we never try we never do it. As i read in one topic here author ( sorry cant remember name ) wrote that bridge system cant be make by method of mistakes-corrections because this way can lead to falshe optimum and i agree. Right way is "From top to bottom" and it lead to use objects of bridge bidding, its properties and methods. Some of systems of bidding without intervention was made same way. But i never meet complete SYSTEM of competitive bidding. But to make it, we must furst define and classify situations (objects of bidding) that appear during competitive bidding and its characteristics. I cant do it and hope that BBO forum members will help. I now will share few of situations i already identify, but i am not sure that i am right. Classification of competitive situations ( naive try :B)) 1. First open: ( Ben - Inquiry correction ) 1.1. No ( System ) 1.2. We ( opp Intervention ) 1.3. They ( our Intervention ) 2. Vul: ( Ben - Inquiry correction ) 2.1. They 2.2. No 2.3. Both 2.4. We 3. Level reached: ( Peter - pbleighton correction ) 3.1. 1 level 3.2. 2 level 3.3. 3 level 3.4. 4+ level 4. Strength shown: 4.1. Score- (Pre-empt) 4.2. Score+ (1/1) 4.3. Game try 4.4. Game forcing (2/1) 4.5. Slam try (splinter) Questions: Is strength (HCP) is most important? We must define other or subsituations for: distribution of strength between partners; statistical expectation for HCP; side which show strength; extent of limitation;...? 5. Distribution shown: 5.1. No major fit shown: 5.1.1. No majors shown 5.1.2. One major shown 5.1.2. Both majors shown 5.2. Fit shown: 5.2.1. One side shown major fit 5.2.1.1. One major shown 5.2.1.2. Two majors shown 5.2.2. Both sides shown major fit Questions: How important are minors and must we include it in classification and where? Is length of majors lead to different situations or subsituations? 6. Relations between strength and distribution - offensive (off) / defensive criteria 6.1. No off hand shown 6.2. One side off hand shown 6.3. Both sides off hands shown Questions: Best books i read about is Robson&Segal "Partnership bidding" and Lawrence "Evaluation of hands". I just feel a "black hole" here, even in noncompetitive systems and agreements? 7. Exceptions: ( Peter - pbleighton correction ) 7.1. Preempts 7.2. Strong conventional opening Questions: Exceptions only establish rules 8). Can u add more, but general, because if many it become a rule ;D Misho

1) I havent exactly statistics. I just want to notice that top pairs still playing 4 major opening, play it many years. Change system = lose years may be :-. 2) Most common natural 4 major system: Acol, alive yet :-*! 3) Terminology: if u can open natural 1CL/DI bid and normal use it, if CL/DI is longer then 4 major - u dont play 1X strong opening system(precision). Hey, i didnt said that else u play precision B)

Sorry, if I misunderstood. But, if u saw topic is "Moscito", not "Acol". And discussion is not about natural systems. Playing natural system with 4 major and weak NT opening like Acol is my favourite.