OliverC

LOL, That's a small part of one page of a fairly extensive site. If you look elsewhere you will find that using OCP you would probably need a bit more than a mere 8 hcp with 5-card Clubs to come in with a positive response at the 4-level. One thing the site will tell you is that 4♣ would be 100% GF (as is any positive response) and definitely not non-forcing. As I said in another post, Responder wouldn't necessarily have to have a 16-count, which is why personally, I would bid a natural 4NT over 4♣ (If nothing else just suggesting that all I have is a 16-18 balanced hand with good control of the Diamond suit). In OCP 4NT is never RKCB, so that's an option for us. Clearly with the hand Responder has they'll not leave that in, but I would probably expect them to do so with an average 11-13 hcp with 5+ Clubs). If you can't bid 4NT naturally, then 4NT RKCB or 5♣ are pretty much your only alternatives over 4♣, I guess. Once again, Responder is very unlikely to leave 5♣ there with the hand they actually held, but you're unlikely to end up in anything else other than 6♣. 4NT RKCB will get you 5♠ and now 6♣ or 6NT are both right-sided, but either way you've no room to find a Spade fit.

Playing Super-Precision I'd have to approach this hand from the other side, as it were, since Opener would inevitably end up in charge (initially at any rate). In practice we're unlikely to get into an Asking sequence here although Partner would have to have a pretty decent hand with reasonable controls to show a positive at the 4-level (rather than making a "positive" double): Holding ♠KJ64 ♥K852 ♦AQ ♣A102 If Partner responds 4♣ after 1♣-(3♦), I'll not be anticipating as much as a 16-count opposite, so I will probably make the pragmatic bid of 4NT (natural) to show a minimum balanced Opener with good Diamond control. With their hand there's no way Partner will pass and they'd probably bid 5♦ as a slam-interested DAB. Now 5♥-5♠-6♠ will likely finish it.

As the aforementioned teacher, Sanya, I hear you and I agree that it's a shame that the Browser Client doesn't give access to Tourneys further ahead. I suspect that's an easy enough fix in the long term, though. I've been a member of BBO for a long time now and definitely prefer using the Windows Client (probably because I'm more used to it). I tend to watch VuGraph on the Browser Client, though (for the voice support when it's available). I occasionally force myself to play using the web version (acclimatisation LOL) but I do find it awkward and clumsy compared to the Windows Client. The main items on my wishlist all relate to teaching and helping to run a Private Club, however, rather than playing: (1) I currently teach mostly using text chat rather than voice, because I can easily save the Chat Log of each Teaching Session and make it available on my own website for people who missed the lesson, for whatever reason. That functionality doesn't appear to be possible using the Browser Client. (2) When I am setting up the Teaching Table as OliverC, I can log in simultaneously as bbo_iac in order to do announcements to Club Members without having to close down the teaching Table (which I generally open up quite some time before the lesson starts). I don't think the Browser Client will allow me to do announcements to the Club at all, let alone logged in simultaneously as 2 different ID's. (3) When Teaching, I load pre-dealt example hands to run through the bidding, and then a separate set for Bidding/Play Practice at the end of the Teaching bit. I know it's possible to accomplish this (to some extent, anyway) with the Windows Client, but it's so convoluted and awkward a process that I gave it up last time I tried (as an experiment), and even now, I'm not sure I could reliably find my way through the maze of options to upload my choice of deals and then pick which ones I want to use in real time in the order in which I decide to use them, something that is trivially easy with the Windows Client. (4) Losing battle coming up LOL: I teach an off-the-wall version of Super-Precision (OCP) and to help people to learn the system we've developed, over the years I've been teaching it, a set of very large Full Disclosure cards (about 12 in all, all of them near the 1Mb limit) that help people to grasp the system and learn it. Long term I try to persuade people to abandon FD, or at least to turn it "off" for themselves but it's indispensable for them during their early months with OCP. It's a shame that there's no support in the Browser Client for Full Disclosure (eg: editing the files or loading specific ones for use in a given situation with a given partner). (5) Better support in the Browser Client for people who run Private (and Public) Clubs on BBO is a must, I feel. As someone else pointed out further up this thread, there are hundreds if not thousands of people who have learned to play Bridge on BBO and developed their skills in Private Teaching Clubs such as BIL, IAC etc. As it currently stands, turning off the Windows Client will be the death knell for Private Clubs, which would be a great shame. Having said all of that, I do appreciate all of the work that Fred, Uday and the rest of the team put into BBO, and the literally priceless facilities that are available on the system for free (let alone the additional ones available for a trivially small price). When Jason Hackett and I were developing the system I teach back in the 1980's I'd have sold my mother for a Partnership Bidding Table such as BBO offers for nothing. If ditching the Windows Client is the way they feel they have to go, then so be it.

Agreed nige1. I have no specific evidence for this other than my own experience, but suspect that if face-to-face bridge is declining in the UK or USA, one of the major reasons is the stifling attitude of the Bridge authorities there towards any systems or conventions that are outside their own narrow comfort zone. Similarly, online Bridge is demonstrably growing. On BBO you can play pretty much any system and carding you like unless you decide to subject yourself to an ACBL tourney. Moreover the facilities on BBO are second to none for anyone wanting to develop or experiment with new bidding methods or gadgets Oliver

Hi All, Fred, I hesitate to suggest anything which will add to the list of things your hard-working programmers are working on to improve the BBO software and the web client. I wonder, however, whether in some future upgrade it would be possible to give opponents and kibbers some means whereby they can see how people have their FD Options set (ie: in <Conv>/<Options>). FD is a fantastic teaching and learning tool, and does also provide a great means to alert in far more detail than is possible via the alert box, but I can understand the concerns that some people have. Being able to see how people have their FD options set would, at least, put people's minds at rest if their opps had Options 1 and 3 unchecked. I tend to leave Option 2 checked so that I know when FD hasn't "caught" something so I know I need to alert it manually. Regards, Oliver

Hi All, Sorry - you need to adjust your Poll. I was 5 when my Father and 2 elder siblings got fed up playing 3-handed kitchen bridge and my father taught me not thinking I would get into it, necessarily, but just so I could make up a four. Needless to say, I became an instant fanatic, far more than any of them. Oliver

Hi All, (1) 2/1 - what's that? LOL (2) Standard Precision: ..........1♣ 2♦ - 3♠ 4♣ - 4♥ 4NT - 6♠ Pass Not ideal: 3♠ insisting on Spades, 4♣ & 4♥ cues, 4NT RKCB, 6♠ 2Aces + Q + Void. (3) Precision with Asking Bids: ...........1♣ 2♦ - 2♠ 3♣ - 3♠ 4♣ - 4♦ 4♠ - 5♣ 5♦ - 5♥ 5NT - 6♠ Explanations: 2♠ Asking in Spades 3♣ No good Spade Support 4+ Controls 3♠ Asking again in Spades and setting as trumps unconditionally 4♣ Singleton Honour or xx in Spades 4♦ General Control Asking 4♠ 5 Controls 5♣ Asking in Clubs 5♦ No Control of Clubs OR 1st AND 2nd Round Control 5♥ Asking in Hearts 5NT 3rd Round Control 6♠: Knows this is a sensible spot. Partner must have either the stiff K♠ AND the K♦, or a small Doubleton Spade and the Ace of Diamonds as well as the AK♣ to make up their 5 Controls. They cannot have the Ace of Diamonds AND the stiff K♠. Whether the 3rd Round Control of Hearts is xx, Qx, or Qxx(x) is immaterial. Regards, Oliver

Hi All, Fairly obvious 1♥ Opener this, in my view. This kind of does not handle very easily if you open 1♣ whereas opening a Heart and reversing into Spades describes it adequately enough. Oliver

Hi All, Had a curious hand in the BIL League on Sunday where I saw something I've never seen in 45 years of playing bridge (and over 30 playing Precision) [hv=d=s&v=a&n=sxxhak10djxck10xxxx&s=sakj10xxxhxdqxcaqx]133|200|[/hv] N/S were playing Precision with Asking Bids and the sequence went:- South North 1♣ 2♣ 2♦ 2NT 3♣ 3NT 4♦ 4♠ All Pass Explanations:- 2♦ = Control Asking 2NT = 4 Controls 3♣ = Asking in Clubs 3NT = Hxxxxx 4♦ = Asking in Diamonds 4♠ = 3rd Round Control of ♦ South here bid well in the sense that at the point where North bids 4♠ they are known to have the ♥AK, ♣Kxxxxx, and a small doubleton Diamond so South can tell that 4♠ is, after all, the right contract and so passes. Clearly there are numerous ways to bid this hand, whether naturally or using Asking Bids to end up in the right contract. I've seen plenty of hands where the bidding gets cocked up, where there are misunderstandings or misbids and yet the partnership somehow stumbles into the right contract, but I have never ever seen a hand where Opener hides a strong 7-card Spade suit but agrees Clubs instead (for the right reasons initially), where the Spades do not get mentioned even ONCE during the auction and with no misbids or misunderstandings the partnership intentionally end up in the correct contract of 4♠. :rolleyes: At the table the funniest thing was East's comment after 4♠ had been passed out: "I'm not sure I like this. When did Spades get mentioned?". North (Gerardo, no doubt fearing the mother of all cockups in the bidding) casually replied "Me? I didn't". I suspect this is unlikely to happen with any system other than Precision where a suit contract is concerned. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has any similar hands they can share. Regards, Oliver

Your hand isn't easy to bid in any system but I think you've got as good if not a better chance of reaching your 7♦ contract starting off 1♥-2♦ 2♥-2♠ 3♣-3♦ 3NT-4♣ 4♦etc etc Opener known to be 1624 and fairly minimum, and Responder known to be strong and pretty much guaranteed to be 4063, so it should be fairly easy for Responder to take it from here. On a more general note I must confess: I dislike Strong Jump-shifts on the basis that they are not normally necessary and the times where they are really useful and the only way to show the hands are so rare that they are statistically insignificant. Similarly, I dislike purely weak jump-shifts because they're a bit like jumping off a cliff with no parachute. My own preference is for fit-showing jump-shifts (or mini-splinters), usually in the 8-9 point range, showing a decent fit for partner's suit and a reasonable 5+-card side suit (ie: fit-showing) or a good fit for partner's suit and a shortage (ie: mini-splinter). These are aimed at reaching thin games based purely on fit rather than necessarily with game values. They work really well when used with Precision or any other Strong Club system, but can work well even when Opener can have a rock-crusher of a hand and you can get to thin slams based purely on fit. Unlike weak jump-shifts where you are not guaranteeing a fit for Opener's suit (indeed, it would be rare that you do have a fit), fit-showing Jump-shifts are explicitly agreeing Opener's suit rather than suggesting an alternative. Moreover they occur with far greater frequency than strong jump-shifts, eg: [hv=n=saqjxxhxdaxxcqxxx&s=skxxhxxxdkqxxxxcx]133|200|1♠-3♦ 4♠-Pass[/hv] Swap around North's red suits and North would quietly sign off in 3♠. Just my twopennyworth, you understand...

I think giving partner a chance to show 3-card Heart support via NMF is a good plan, because it right-sides the hand to play this in Hearts (to protect your K♠ when partner does not have the Ace or Queen). You have to be thinking in terms of a slam from the outset, though. partner can only have 5 points in the red suits and so is likely to have something in Spades. True, partner may have a really filthy opening hand like ♠ Jx ♥ Qxx ♦ QJxx ♣ KQJx but I try to avoid partners who open hands like that :). So 1♦-1♥-1NT-2♣-2♥-??? Since NMF has made this a forcing sequence we can now afford to go slow, so 2♠ would be my choice followed by 3/4♦ to pinpoint my Club shortage. As far as the play problem is concerned it has to be right to take the finesse: Once LHO plays small the chances of bringing home the suit for only 1 loser by finessing are just over 32%, against just under 20% by going up with the King. In 24% of cases it makes no difference - ie: where LHO has AQxx or where RHO has both the Ace and Queen, and you've already eliminated the other 24% of the possibilities as soon as LHO plays low.

Hi All, BIL is for Beginners & Intermediate Players. It's for people who want to learn bridge or to improve their existing skills. I've never kibbed or played in a table in BIL where anyone would have objected to discussion between partners during the hand. Heck - you'll find a lot of tables out in the Main Club where the players wouldn't object to that. Tourneys - different matter entirely, of course, but everywhere else, most people are playing for enjoyment, not the Town Hall clock. Glad you're enjoying BIL, Sue - stick at it and don't be afraid to ask

Hi All, Yes, I like Jannerstern's book on Precision too. I have read Rigal's butprefer to use relays only in some specific circumstances rather than making theman integral part of the system (Am quite attracted by Moskito, tho, for some perverse reason). Regards, Oliver (OliverC)