card_judge

Makes me glad I am playing Precision. Hands down 1♣ both hands. ;)

Interesting hand for sure. Gambling 3NT = not a fan. What are the vulnerabilities? That will sway my decision if the opps jump in someway. If partner has the hand you describe AND and an outside honor what prevented an opening 1♦? This hand screams for a major suit opening lead due to the bidding especially, if you bid any amount of ♣'s. With that said you loose 1-♣, 1-♥ & 2-♥'s. Who knows the opps lead 2-♠ and you just might make 5♣. So I would go against the norm on this one and play 5♣ doubled or undoubled. As one of the people here on BBO say 50-50-90 Rule = if you have a 50-50 chance then 90% of the time you will get it wrong ~ that also works for the opposition as well.

What a novel idea moving from pasteboard to computers!! :P That would also solve Luis' problem of pulling a stack or single bidding cards, no revokes, no playing out of turn. What will they think of next?

Does not matter if we wanted to pre alert or not. We are precluded from playing 2♦ multi in any GC governed event be it club, sectional, NAP or GNT. So we do not even place it on the convention card nor do we bring it up since we are barred from playing it.

You nailed it Justin with respect to hrothgar! Unfortunately I assumed the exact answer to be what he stated. I say this because I asked a local club director why we could not play it and his response "because I don't like it and in any club game I direct I will not allow it". In turn that to me equalled "I don't understand it and do not want to take invest the time to figure out how to defend it." It is unfortunate that we have politicos with tiny xxxxs and brains.

This has probably been asked here to for but I am not privileged to the answer. Why would ACBL not allow the 2♦ multi bid be part of the General Convention Chart? I go to the trouble of learning (or at least a good try of learning) just to find out that I am banned from using it whenever the General Convention Chart governs the game. After all there are several defenses published on it and it just requires some time to learn and discuss them with your partner.

As a former business owner I most definitely understand the balance sheet is what drives a company. Those who have never owned a company will NEVER fully appreciate what cash fluctuations can have on a company its stock holders and employees. As long as Fred and Uday are in agreement that BBO is not going to pay for the Vugraph coordinator this year to go to Estril then we as casual observers and bystanders may grouse all we want. They know the bottom line better than we. With that said, it is my opinion for what it is worth, BBO should take the appropriate steps to send the Vugraph coordinator to the next Bermuda Bowl. It is obvious now that this is a "volunteer" position which requires a great deal of the individuals time. Why not "treat" the Vugraph coordinator to a special trip where they would essentially be "working" anyway. Planning ahead generally saves money rather than not planning. This would allow Roland, or who ever is Vugraph coordinator, an adequate amount of time to also plan for this next year. That way BBO can budget and allocate funds accordingly. Additionally, if i read correctly, there are some fees associated with Vugraph. Therefore, simply add a convienence fee, administrative fee or something like that for all future Vugraphs. As long as you keep the connotation of "service fee" away I believe this to be an acceptable solution to the problem. There in all organizations are contributing to the Vugraph coordinator's trip to the next Bermuda Bowl. Everyone contributes a little rather than one organization footing the bill for the entire amount. ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠

Your have a very valid point Elianna and I did not give fair enough consideration to it. Therefore since this is only a game I will allow undo's for everyone's enjoyment and consideration. Besides the maximum number of points you receive is not worth getting all upset about. Thanks for reminding me.

There is another solution to this problem. First do not allow the dummy to view all four hands. Next if declarer becomes disconnected dummy will play the balance of the hand. At the next deal a sub or returning partner my then play on. If dummy does not pay attention to the prior plays of declarer so be it but they must finish out the hand one way or another. Adjustments or TD intervention not required. ♥ ♥ ♥

I kib lots of vugraphs, whether during the week or weekends, and learn a great deal from them. From the opinions expressed by the commentators I cannot count the number of times I have responded to a commentator's remark and we in turn speak to the positives or negatives on line of play or bidding. This in and of itself is worth the idle banter between commentators. The idle chit chat during long interludes may have little if anything to do with bridge but I assume it is to keep the spectators attention. IMHO the commentators are doing the spectators a service just like any other sports commentator for any other broadcast sport. How many times did/do we, in the USA, have to endure Terry Bradshaw talk just to hear himself? Well done commentators and give them all a 30% raise !!

I understand anyone can "make a mistake". But in this wonderful world of on-line bridge I would submit once a bid is made, sorry but it is made. Don't place the onus on Fred or BBO but rather the player. If the player is too quick to click then they must suffer the consequence. Why make the majority suffer because of the few who are not paying attention? I am not saying that the undo request isnt bonifide. But if you pay attention to the undo request I wonder how many of those "misclicks" are lead directing or some other unauthorized information? Granted I have been too quick on click but I personally refuse to ask for an undo in a tournament, the main club is another story. In short, when in an on-line tournament against me please don't ask for an undo because I always reject. Leave it alone don't change the programming unless you wipe-out all undos in tournaments.

What makes anyone think that this doesn't happen in private chat now? ♥ ♥ ♥

I thought I would get a reaction but never expected this much. The "elite" was speaking as 2/1 was the superion system. Now I didn't mean for this thread to get to be whether 2/1 was better than Precision. Just trying to figure out how to respond. Thank you all that responded. You have all helped. BTW Roland your advice I will totally tend to heed. My partner and I like it. We are comfortable with it. And we scratch more frequently than not using it. So it will be tough to get me to switch to another. ♠ ♠ ♠

I must agree with you Rebound. I am much more at ease playing Precision than Std. Am or 2/1. Playing those two systems I tended to "over bid" and when set say I was sacrificing. That became a bad excuse for bad bidding. Now it doesn't happen unless I am actually sacrificing. ♥ ♥ ♥

Since I am the inexperienced neophyte here how do I contend with the "elite" who knock my use of Precision as an inferior system. The only way I have been able to do so to date is show them at the end of the night (or tournament) who was ahead of who in the standings. But they always seem to indicate the "field was weak". Didn't we both play against the same field? Perhaps it is because I have only been playing Precision since March? ♦ ♦ ♦

For what its worth I would like to add my 2 cent worth (or some minor portion of a Euro). It seems from everything previously posted on this thread I too would make the suggestion of using the BBO standard either Oliver's basic (without asking bids) or Helene's. I listened, learned and watched Oliver's discussion of Precision in the BIL (basic version). I was amazed at how quickly you can learn it. Now I much prefer to play Precision to either Std. Am. or even 2/1. My partner and I got so enamored with it we play Oliver's full 65 page version (complete) with the exception of 2♦ Multi and Transfer Lebensohl. It's too bad the ACBL will not allow 2♦ multi in the General Convention Chart. But those rules are there for some purpose I still do not fully understand. The main deviation we added was Swedish 2NT to the system for much better shape showing while concealing responders hand. Speaking as an intermediate, I think playing a standard would allow us to be able to confidently play with much better (true advanced/expert) partners. This in turn should allow the neophytes like me to learn from those with more experience. After all how do we pass on the knowledge we have learned to those with less experience if we don't play with them? ♥ ♥ ♥

Sure the structure is a rather simple one created by a regular BBO player much smarter than either my partner or me. I just took the notes and with some instruction/guidance adopted it. We have used it on several occasions when opponents have chosen to interfere and has proven effective for us. This is not to say we have perfected it but our results were better than average on those boards, across the field. Is that to say we would have been top without interference, there is no way of knowing. Basically it is based on modifying DOPI / ROPI principles. Using your example here is one of the simplest methods: 1♣ - 2(any) - p = 0-4 hcp (X would be 5-7 w/ 5 card suit or 8+ S/ 4 card suit) opener X = asks partner specifically about the suit quality below the interfering bid disregarding the NT strain. A suit bid is natural while a jump is natural w/ 19+ w/ GF values; double jumps (and not game) are 22+ and 100% GF telling partner to do the right thing. For a little better description try this: 1♣ - P - 1N(8+ hcp & 5+♠) - X Now if opener XX it asks responder specifically about the suit quality in ♥ where a P by opener asks responder specifically about the suit quality in ♦ actually backing up (increasing, recovering or extra) the bidding room with only a minor hinderance from the opposition. We still have not moved past 1NT and are asking about other suits. Hence XX is back one and P is back 2 (ROPI) Bear in mind this is only 2 very small paragraphs of how it is accomplished. The whole bidding structure on interference takes several typewritten pages with many different scenarios. ♦ ♦ ♦

Interference over big club pairs can be challenging only to a pair that does NOT have good agreements concerning interference. The better the pair and the longer they have been playing will determine whether or not it is wise to interefere. Those that have very good interference agreements will pound on the opposition given the law of averages. Yes you may get a good board now and again. In my partnership when you interfere you actually increase the bidding room thereby giving us more opportunity to describe our hands. Bidder be wary. But a couple of things: [a] 3rd level preempts and higher do make it difficult, no doubt, but you run the risk of going down a telephone number yourself! good defensive schemes also create anti-defensive schemes. Good luck. ♥ ♥ ♥