BnBeever

(letter references added) a) I am fine with pen dbl of 4♠, and 4N as takeout. If I know you don't have a penalty double of 4♠ available I may well open 4♠ on a 5 or 6 card suit at favourable vul as your opp ;) I think the point is that partner isn't going to play you for a spade stack even if you agree penalties; with doubles of 4♠ or higher one must be more pragmatic. b) I don't remember a -1100 after making a light takeout double at the 1 level (at least not for the last 5 years or so). If you really believe takeout doubles should be more than 10 points, then either you keep your overcalls up to similar strength, or else you must justify why your minimum overcall strength is lower than your minimum t/o doubling strength. Neither seems palatable IMO. c) Re: 1♣ dbl 1♠ dbl. Your treatment here seems very subtle. I won't say it's unplayable, but I'm happy with penalties, which partner will interpret as something like 8+ HCP and ♠Hxx+. Of course vulnerability would be taken into consideration.

In your first example my rules would say takeout (e.g. with 3=2=4=4 or 2=2=5-4 or perhaps a weak 5-5 minors outside the range for your unu 2N). In the 2nd, they would say penalties, as N passed at the chance to t/o double spades earlier. I guess some may have the double as takeout on a hand they considered too weak (or in some other way unsuitable) to double 1♠. Clearly both methods are playable.

Re: 1♦ double 1♥ 1♠ 2♦ pass pass dbl Personally I'd bid 2♠ if I had no game ambitions, though you could argue this leaves the door open for a psyche 1♥ to do some damage. I rarely meet anyone who would dare to psyche, lest someone record their 'unsportsmanlike conduct', but if I regularly met such opponents.... Even then I don't think either of our treatments of double & 2♥ is clearly better.

(I've added the letter references) Firstly, many thanks Frances - I really appreciate your input. So specifically: a) Perhaps I don't play often enough against top opposition (and I will look into 'transferable values'), but I haven't found any problems playing double of 4S as pens so far in any situation. b) Yes I agree this isn't standard, but my philosophy is, if you weren't worth a t/o double the first time, you aren't worth it at all. But then, I routinely make 1st round takeout doubles on 9 or 10 points. c) My rules agree with yours here - this as penalties, as we have had 3 suits shown (1C=1, dbl=1, 1S=1, total=3). d) Yes I do mean these as takeout, which will occasionally come in handy. Besides, I'm usually quite happy to pass if they opps bid over ps pre-empt and are going down. I can't tell which method is better than the other here, but as you say, you would need an extra rule about doubles after pre-empting, and I like to keep the number of rules down unless one method is clearly superior. e) I could ask the same question about penalty doubles - seems unlikely their 2NT is going down here. 3NT? Well you only need 5 tricks to take that off, which seems a fair bit more likely than 6. And again, I'm not saying these 5 rules are optimal, just that they get pretty close. f) Fair comment. You may have noticed, conformity isn't my priority. g) First part I agree with. In the 2nd auction you give, the final double is in fact takeout under my rules. Counting the suits: 1H=1, dbl=1, rdbl=0(values), 3C=0*, total = 2, so dbl = takeout. * "However, when a (re-)double is taken out to a suit by the doubling side, this doesnt count as an additional suit." Another way to think of it is that the first double doesn't need to count as a suit anymore after their partner bids one in response to it. Counting a takeout double as an unspecified suit is purely a mechanism to ensure the auction matures into 'penalty double' state eventually. Eg. (1♥)-dbl-(1♠)-P -(2♥)-P-(P)-dbl = pens.

I agree with most of your treatments, with a couple of exceptions. Firstly, I would rather keep a penalty double than have an invite to game after both sides have agreed a suit (invites are over-rated anyhow IMO). Secondly: I would much rather be using takeout doubles here; seems a similar situation to (1NT) - X - (2♦) - X; the second doubler (and subsequently the first doubler) would have to pass feebly most of the time holding a balanced hand (or 4441) and fewer than 4 diamonds if penalty doubles are in effect here.

Thanks - good point. Where a double cannot logically be for penalties (as in your first auction) but the rules prescribe it as such, then it should be taken as showing 'values'. More precisely: A subsequent double of a suit by a player who doubled the same suit earlier for takeout, should show extra strength (4+ HCP more than previously known minimum), but is not an intention to penalise. This rule would prescribe your first example as values, but not the 2nd one; here I don't see why you would want this as values rather than penalty - after all, a 2♥ UCB could be used for values purposes. The 1♠ bidder could have 5 diamonds and a reasonable hand - perfect for a penalty double, especially at green. For those interested, my seminar notes (2 sides of A4) which cover doubles for takeout, penalty, values and suit-showing, can be found here: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15026487/Bridge%20Lessons/Lesson%20-%20Grade%206%20-%20Doubles.doc

I play and advocate the following 5 rules for doubles of natural bids (artificial bids need their own set of rules to determine whether they are cards or suit-showing or whatever - will give these if people are interested): Double is penalty if any of the following are true (takeout otherwise): 1) Doubled bid is 4S or higher 2) You and p already agreed a suit 3) 3 or 4 suits have been shown 4) Bid is NT (excepting 1/2NT response or rebid) 5) Doubler had chance to do t/o of same shown suits earlier, but passed instead A takeout double counts as 1 (unspecified) suit being shown, but if the double is taken out to a suit by the doubling side, then this is not counted as an additional suit. This rule ensures doubles become for penalties when the auction is sufficiently mature. Many of the consequences of this small rule set fly in the face of accepted wisdom, allowing many more takeout doubles than the norm, but the key point which many experts miss, is that takeout doubles usually perform the job of the penalty double (just from the other side of the table), in addition to removing the guesswork when a penalty double isn't called for by either partner. In addition, it is important that both partners' doubles mean the same thing, otherwise their doubles clash with duplicated utility, rather than being synchronised to overcome an optimal variety of situations. The following example shows how the above rules sometimes prescribe a takeout double that flies in the face of tradition: 1NT - X - 2♥ - X Many experts would assume penalties for both doubles, but IMO some thought should convince anyone with an open mind that the 2nd double should be takeout, despite the first being penalties. The crucial situation is one where neither opponent of the 1NT opener holds a good heart holding, nor a 5 card suit (otherwise it probably matters not whether you play pens or t/o); here both of you are impotent when playing penalty doubles of the 2H (or require guesswork in bidding the right 4 card suit).

How about a 'Volunteer' checkbox? By ticking this, we are saying: 1) I am happy to be invited to sub in any tournament or TM that'l have me. 2) If a TD clicks the (future) 'Help please!' button I am happy to be invited to become an extra TD in a tourney. 3) I am happy to help out as a yellow if no actual yellows are available (they can have their own 'help please' button to signal the need for this). 4) If BBO starts to crash I am able to offer support on the software. 5) If the world goes tits-up, I have an air-raid shelter in the basement, with minibar ;)

Why is this an improvement? Well of course everything is a matter of taste, but it seems that 90% of BBO players would agree it is an improvement, as roughly this proportion play for IMPs rather than MPs.

Helene - although the % scores for each pair would be the same as MPs when there are only 2 tables, the big improvement would be that a board where say 1 NS pair were in no-trumps (and scored 10 points more than the other pair in hearts/spades) would be worth relatively little, compared to the board where 1 NS pair made game whilst the other NS pair went off. This therefore mimics IMPs scoring even with a low number of tables.

NEW SCORING METHOD PROPOSAL: Board-Weighted Percent Scoring. Now that computers make scoring so much easier, why don't we combine the nice features of both MP and IMP scoring - more explicitly let's have a scoring system for pairs that gives a %, without declarers being clobbered for giving up the chance of an overtrick to ensure the contract makes. The system I propose is particularly useful for duplicate events with small numbers of tables, where matchpoints are almost meaningless. Here are the details: For all NS pairs, subtract the lowest NS score from theirs. For all EW pairs, subtract the lowest EW score from theirs. This will make the lowest scoring NS and EW pairs get 0. Divide these adjusted scores by the highest adjusted score in their direction, and multiply by 100, to get a %. Call this P. For those concerned about possible division by zero (for flat boards), define P = 0 in these cases, though this problem goes away naturally, as it turns out (see next-but-1 paragraph). As it stands, this unfairly penalises pairs who make game but don't get an overtrick, if every other pair foregoes the safety play and makes the overtrick. So to fix this, we define a 'board weight', as follows: Find the range of NS scores (highest minus lowest), convert this 'score' to IMPs, then multiply this by the number of other results (i.e. 1 less than the number of results for the board). This is the board's weight - call this W. Clearly, a flat board has a weight of zero. Some may object to this, but if everyone gets the same score on a board, why should it be considered in assessing someone's score? On some boards, any sensible line results in the same number of tricks; does scoring the same as everyone else on such a board mean you are a 50% player? I would say it means nothing. This also avoids worries about defining P for flat boards. A pair's final % is the sum of P x W for each of the boards they play, divided by the sum of the weights of the boards they played. Now a quick point about IMPs. To make it easy to score without a computer, IMPs were defined as a step function of points scored, but with a computer we can reward scores much more accurately (as BBO does) by using decimals. There may be a formula for this somewhere, but I couldn't find it, so I made my own, which stays pretty close to the step function, though it slightly overvalues low scores. IMPs = Log(1+Score/2)^2.6 I've written an Excel file that can be used to score events in this way. If anyone wants a copy of it, send me an email at benbeever@hotmail.com The main problem with this method, as I see it, is how best to desensitize the scoring to extreme, freak scores. IMPing the scores before calculating their % is one way. Capping all scores at 500 pts above the 2nd placed score for their direction is another.

My week was made tonight when I made the most unlikely contract I've ever played - 6 Clubs on a 3-3 fit, missing the Jack of clubs and a cashable ace. To top it all off, 6NT won't make, and I got a joint top with only 1 other slam – 6D on the scoreslip) Board 12 ♠AQJ3 ♥Q104 ♦K65 ♣Q107 ♠43 ♥2 ♦AQJ10942 ♣AK9 Contract: 6C by South Lead: 8 of diamonds lead. Play: Won with QD. Finessed JS. 7C to AC. Repeat spade finesse. Cash AS disc heart. KD ruffed by East. East played ace of hearts ruffed using K to allow entry to dummy via club finesse to draw last trump from each opponent using Q. Diamonds enjoyed. Bidding: North: 1D (10-15) South: 2S (puppet to 2NT) 2NT (forced) 3D (1430 in D. I thought 3NT resp would now be void D) 3NT (2 KC no Q tr) 6C (in case partner had void D, & therefore 5+ C) Pass (Trusting partner to have done something clever with his 3D bid) Final Scoreslip: 6C = (us) 1370 6D= 1370 3NT (+3) 690 3NT (+2) 660 3NT (+2) 660 5D (+1) 620 5D (+1) 620 Last hand of the night. Nice way to finish. :rolleyes:

Thanks Adam. Tony: Re 1) It is impractical to give all agreements in all situations at the start of a round, and and when a specific auction arises, as in the example Adam gives, it may well be unclear as to what information 'should' be given along with the bid, as many partnerships don't realise that their bids are carrying extra or different information than is standard for their auction. Furthermore, many calls carry agreements but are not alertable, and many are too complicated to give accurate conditions (especially doubles & passes) due to being the mathematical complement of an long disjunction. What is comes down to, is that bidding at bridge is not an exact science where the interaction of 4 players is concerned, and never can be. So for the most part, I am happy to enjoy the game for what it is - a series of logic/psychology problems. When I play against 2 players who have never played together, I am happy to guess at the meaning of their bids, just as they are probably doing. But when I am playing against a regular partnership, there will be extra information that I should be allowed access to, and it would be useful to know when this is likely to be available. Re 2) Of course players don't have an absolute right to rejoin the tourney when they disconnect, but then people don't have the right to insist that others respond to their chat messages or shake their hand when they meet for the first time. It's about courtesy and promoting good vibes. For example, my Romanian partner has a terrible connection, which sometimes breaks 3 times in 20 minutes, but he is powerless, as the problem lies with his provider, who are unwilling to do anything to help. He is almost always back online within 60 seconds, but overzealous TDs sometimes sub him immediately, unless I try to message them all in advance. We play quickly, so it causes no time pressure when this happens. As a TD myself, I would dearly love to have information which tells me whether or not to expect players to return, as replacing players too soon causes bitter feelings and devalues the whole tournament. Perhaps a further and simpler alternative would be for bbo to monitor the number of boards you have partnered another player on, and display this info somewhere appropriately. On a related TD issue, it would also be nice to know how many minutes each disconnected player has been logged off. Ben.

Could we have a 'regular partnership' status? By that, I mean that a player would be able to select that they were regular partners with someone else, either by being able to define another player as 'partner' (instead-of / in-addition-to 'friend'), or else checking a box in their own profile that tells others that they are currently playing with a regular partner. Of course BBO could maintain the list of regular partnerships, so you would only have to do this once per partner. The 2 main benefits to this as I see it, would be: 1) Opponents would see this info about you and your partner, and would then know that it was appropriate to ask for detailed understandings in regards to bidding and carding. 2) TDs would have access to this info, and would then know how quickly to substitute when a player vanishes, the assumption being that 'regular partnership' indicates that someone hasn't simply got angry or embarrased at a mistake and logged off. A way to solve point 2 (tho not point 1) which requires probably less additional programming, is simply that TDs be allowed to see whether a disconnected player is 'friends' with the partner they have left behind. Currently I try to ask the left-behind player if they expect their p to return, but this is fairly time-consuming, and often I receive no response anyway. Ben

The new convention cards look great, but there appears to be no 'pass' description available for those who play a specific meaning for it (e.g. in forcing pass systems). This is probably of concern to fewer than 1% of players, but providing this option would be very useful for the eccentrics among us. :lol: