Sigi_BC84

In my opinion the following applies: If you register for an indy, you get what you've paid for; this includes horrible partners Everybody in an indy should know that, so while it's certainly not a pleasant experience to totally wreck a board, that shouldn't ruin your day as well. Criticising partner for bad play in an indy is totally inappropriate in my eyes. Just wait for the next board and that's it. Anybody who cannot live with that should simply not play in an individual. The results you get in an indy are usually quite arbitrary anyway. There will certainly be a correlation of indy results and playing strength on average over time, but for every given event the chances that you'll come out next to last are quite high IMHO, regardless how good you play -- this especially applies to short tournaments (most are shorter than 10 boards). So I guess nobody should leave an Indy with the feeling that their good result has been "tubed" by some specific player, since you should have reckoned with that beforehand anyway. --Sigi

What do you do with a strong hand then if you play new suits on the two-level as non-forcing in this auction? The cuebid is already quite overloaded and brings you to the three-level immediately. --Sigi

Apart from the obvious that have already been mentioned: Inverted Minors. --Sigi

Addition to the above: In the discussion mentioned it was argued that the 2♥ opener can be seen as a semi-constructive device (for me it's a preempt) and might well be used with that holding and position. (Possible follow-ups to 2♥ are NF 2♠, 2NT asks strength/2nd suit, else nat forcing). What do you think of this? --Sigi

1st seat, you are playing IMPs, none vul (actually this shouldn't matter too much IMO). You hold: ♠AKJxx ♥J10xxx ♦x ♣Qx You are playing SAYC with gadgets, and have the option to open 2♥ showing any 5/5 or better hand including hearts, below opening strength (your other preempt options are weak twos in ♦, ♥ and ♠). The weak two are actually assumed to be disciplined and contain 6 cards. What do you do and why? This might look trivial or purely a matter of style, but we had a discussion about this so I'm interested in any opinions, however subjective. --Sigi

I don't think that self-ratings will ever be even close to accurate for a significant share of the BBO population. It's very optimistic to assume that this will change (I'm curious about the exact reasons Fred stated for making his assumption, in case he mentioned any). People almost always think they are better than they really are -- that's the reason why the self-ratings will always be flawed. Also the inflation has already happened. "Intermediate" is not felt to be worth anything anymore, so anybody who thinks he's playing better than average on BBO (which is not that hard actually) will make him/herself "Advanced" (NB there are only two more levels above that, one of which is supposed to be reserved for the world's elite!). Honestly I think the "Skill Level" field in the profile is not worth a penny. --Sigi

Claus, I see myself unfit of replying to your postings unless I am willing to grow a substantial amount of additional grey hair with every message (yes, I've already got some). Your bigotry and unwillingness to leave your own trail of thought to even consider the subject at hand (let alone the view of others) apparently prevents you from making sensible contributions to this thread (and quite a few others). I'm starting to get offended by suggestions from your side that I have no clue what I'm talking about or that I'm unable to draw sensible conclusions, and believe me that I can usually cope well with opposition. --Sigi

Some systems are very powerful but at the price that they tax memory a lot. This also applies to simpler systems if you add too many agreements. This element of the game (or bidding) is eliminated if you freely allow the usage of notes (or computer assistance, as in this case). I'm not saying that it's a bad idea or unethical, only that you remove yourself quite a bit from "real bridge" that way. This is an interesting, while off-beat, suggestion, but it's totally out of scope of the argument that is taking place here. All that we (that is e.g. Justin, Adam, me) want is a mechanism to disallow self- and partner-disclosure of the system -- mainly for tournament play to avoid arguments and to get closer to real life bridge, where you are not allowed to use notes or computer assistance. This is not a discussion about the value of FD for training, pickup games, indies or general quality of the tool. It's only about adding a tiny bit of functionality to the BBO client (which wouldn't influence the rest of the system in any way, BTW). --Sigi

This is very very well put and I thoroughly second that. Sorry for the noise but I had to say this. --Sigi

That is not the point! The point is that is it extremely easy to use FD as a kind of "cheating". While in most cases this will simply not the intention of any pair using it (they might have turned off their displays after all), it will be perceived by many opps in such a way. Every avid BBO player knows that their opps might be on the phone, or in the same room, or constantly checking their system notes while playing. But it's not something thats happening on their screen right now. Entirely different with FD. You can't technically eliminate cheating from online bridge. It's inherently impossible and every sensible person understands that. But you should try not to give the impression that now there is the ideal "misunderstanding insurance policy" in effect. --Sigi

That one is lovely! Almost worth a wildcard for every non-trivial convention. --Sigi

Uh, what did you expect -- mention DONT and not have people suggest alternatives? Yes, I would expect people to just answer the question. If he could show 5+ clubs and a 4 card major there would be no problem. It is a problem because of the methods, and he was trying to stimulate a discussion of the best strategy with this hand. OK OK, please don't get it the wrong way. I was not suggesting that it is ok to turn every thread into a religious war about conventions - au contraire. I'm just saying that simply mentioning debated conventions ("DONT" most certainly being one) is highly susceptible to replies like the ones we got here. Even more so since the original poster said something like "I have to use DONT here", which of course means that in the situation he was talking about "DONT" was agreed so he was asking for suggestions for such a scenario. This provokes replies suggesting a different method. Human nature. This is different from saying that the base system is 2/1 or something else: You can't easily replace your entire structure, so it would be extremely foolish to just suggest that because, say, Moscito would have worked better in the situation in question. --Sigi P.S.: Take a look at the title of this topic: "DONT or don't". Well, I'd say it's really easy to read that as a request to suggest something else (of course this was obviously not Free's intention, it just happened).

Uh, what did you expect -- mention DONT and not have people suggest alternatives? I think you should expect these kinds of responses. Its the same as with those threads that deal with regulations -- they all turn into the same old discussion in no time (I'm not saying that I don't find them interesting over and over again ;-). I've got another question regarding defense against weak NTs that fits into the context (well, remotely so :-), so I'm taking the opportunity: Usually you'll play X against weak NT as penalties/card showing, e.g. 14/15+ any against a 12-14 NT. Now what I'm interested in is how your partnership handles making the distinction between defending doubled or bidding into a contract of your own (presumably a game in this case). Do you have forcing passes after such a double and unlimited partner bidding something? Lately I was in an auction where LHO opened a vulnerable 12-14 NT, p doubled in direct seat and they wound up in 2♣ undoubled, going down once for +100. We had a 3♦ partscore for +110 at least. This being a pairs event we got a zero. Penalizing them in 2♣ would have brought us a top. We had a 3-3 fit in their suit, so they were playing in a 7-card fit with our side having the majority in HCP (I had 8 average points). What is your general approach in such auctions? Do you double with xxx in their suit, relying on partner to leave it in with 3 good or 4+ trumps? Do you just compete over any 2-level scramble in order to explore for game? I'm assuming that advancer actually has some hopes for game. --Sigi

Alright, I really don't want to sound like somebody who keeps picking destructively on the work of others. After all, FD in itself is a great piece of functionality. But don't you think that they missed an obvious point when not adding the possibilty of enforced restrictions concerning FD? Actually when I saw the display options (which are really nicely finegrained) I was assuming automatically that there "must" be an option to enforce them during tournament play. That this is not possible comes as quite a surprise to me at the moment (apparently to a few others, such as Adam, as well :-). While disagreeing about Multi being unusual :-), I think this is an excellent suggestion, but would certainly require a significant extension of FD in its present form -- because you'd have to be able to submit a suggested defense to your opps, they'd have to be able to either accept or reject it, and then FD would require the added possibility of handling those in the editor. So I don't see this feature coming along our way in the near future... --Sigi

I think BBO should steer consistently into one direction here: Either keep the barriers for cheating as high as possible (although this ultimately won't work I am in favour of this) -- or make the software as convenient as possible while relying on the honesty of the players. Why disallow chat to players in a tournament? Let the serious players decide for themselves if they want to chat while in a tourney. On a similar line, why not allow self-alerts (the old fashioned ones) to be seen by partner as well. This would help in indies and the serious pairs will simply turn it off. Both things won't happen? I agree. But then why include FD without a simple option to turn it off? I don't think that "this can wait until FD gets used more". I see the possibility that FD will get a bad name as "cheating device" because of the information passed to partner, and I foresee serious trouble in tournaments because the TD cannot check if you have the FD messages of your partner turned off on your client. This has not yet raised any fuss for the only reason that FD is used by hardly any pair at this moment. Of course you can have a similar degree of UI by using system notes at the computer, but firstly using FD is much simpler and secondly (and more importantly) your opps see what is going on and they might not like it at all. I've gotten complaints for using the self-alert feature because opp was clueless enough to think that partner can see the alerts. Now imagine what will happen if many people start to use a tool where this is actually the case! --Sigi

Well, in Germany we have several flights, it's only that the top flight (that includes everything) is not being played very often. Having a category/flight were anything goes is not enough. The organization also has to encourage using that category freely (e.g. in all 12+ board matches). Not talking about the ACBL regulations here (they are beyond any reason). --Sigi

We understand the value and motivation of FD for pickup games, but still it is imperative that disclosure to self and partner can be suppressed for tournament play and serious sessions. --Sigi

I suggest that in tourneys disclosure is only given to opps ditto in team matches in individual tourneys all 4 players get disclosure at private tables the host should be able to set constraints who can see what The host of the event (TD or table host) should be able to specifiy what's possible or not in any case. I was expecting there was such an option already, if not my suggestion is to add this feature next ;-). Otherwise having FD files is getting pretty close to cheating in my eyes (well, I could have my system notes in front of me without anybody noticing, but the barrier is a good bit lower with FD; plus opps might get suspicious and start whining etc. etc.). --Sigi

That was a really nice pleading, Impact. It is good to hear from somebody that (almost) completely deregulating Bridge just works despite having "weak" players around. In a regulated environment it is really hard to make that argument because it's perceived to be hypothetical: people make you believe that it "would not work" because most people wouldn't want to bother with the unusual methods. Strangely, really strangely, these working examples are not being acknowledged in other countries -- it reminds me of the legalization of certain substances in Holland, them still being illegal in the rest of Europe... Totally absurd and against any reason. The situation is really bizarre. I have heard (third hand) of one German top player with a lot of experience that he does not want to play in Germany's honour division because there is one HUM team playing there (highly successfully BTW). He said that he doesn't want to read through "40 pages of system notes" in order to prepare himself. While I have not seen the system I believe that's complete BS -- I know that they use a strong pass and a 1♠ 0-10 HCP fert, but I simply cannot imagine that you have to go through their entire structure in order to properly prepare. The regulations have seemingly created an atmosphere were even star players are driven away from high level bridge because they feel that it's impossible to defend against HUMs! At least you can use BSCs in 12+ board matches here in Germany, but I'm completely with you that they should allow HUM as well, at least if time permits that you can disclose system and a reasonable defence to opps in time. --Sigi

I have used the trial version of "Jack 3.0" which I think is an excellent Bridge playing program. You can pick from many systems and conventions for it to play with you. I suggest you give it a try (the trial version is fully working but you can play only a few hands that have been included). Bridge Baron is also quite OK in this regard but I found it quite weak and also I liked the user interface of "Jack" a lot more. Homepage for "Jack": http://www.jackbridge.com/eindex.htm --Sigi

1. Actually, in French standard played "by the book", the auction 1♣-1♦ can be 3 cards if responder has a balanced 5-7 or 16+ (with balanced 8-10/11-12/13-15 bid 1/2/3NT). If opener supports diamonds, then he has 5+ clubs, in which case responder can easily dig his way out of the fake raise. Our system is derived from French standard, so I'm not surprised that their treatment is very close to ours (we also bid 1♦ with 5-7 bal (can be ♦ fragment) and 1NT with 8-9 bal). A suit rebid after 1♣-1♦ always shows unbal with longer clubs (else rebid NT which may contain 1-2 4majors). I would be very interested in such a gadget. Also, since me and p have recurring discussions after delicate inverted minors auctions regard strength, minimum rebids, yadayada I would be interested in a proven "conservative" structure for these raises (unlike Josh's method, which is nice but would prevent us from using WJS in majors). Another thing I'd like to poll for is how you treat a "game-force" after an inverted minors auction: do you play it as 100% forcing to game (be it 5minor even) or only as forcing to 3NT? --Sigi

This is a Very Bad Thing . It has bothered me a great deal several times already. Please create a possibility to enter an arbitrary user name to which to send a message. (While at it, get rid of the detached chat window as well, making it a component of the main window. We are chatting all the time and the pop up window is distracting, constantly hidden behind the main window, or covering up something you actually would want to read.) Well, IMHO the entire chat GUI would have to be thoroughly revamped but that's getting to far at this point. --Sigi

Not playing 4-card inverted minors, you're in a bit of a problem. The French school dug their way out of this by temporizing these 16+ balanced hands with a 1♦ bid. The idea is to keep the bidding low, while trying to gather more information. That might would work on this occasion, but keep in mind slams in the 44 minor fit are EXTREMELY hard to bid. Even more if the suit is clubs. Alright, we have a 1-in-a-1000-boards gadget for these kinds of hands. 1♣-1♦ is walsh style, so doesn't necessarily promise "real" diamonds, just denies a 4-card-major unless responder is strong enough to reverse. More importantly, it also includes hands with slam interest in a minor. Opener would in this case rebid 1NT, passing over his major; we won't miss a possible major suit game as responder can bid his major with 12+ points, establishing a game force. In all other cases he is either balanced or the diamonds are real, so no trouble either (long clubs w/o game/slam interest would have used an inverted raise). Now for the gadget: 1♣-1♦;1nt-2♣* asks for openers distribution. You can play all sorts of stuff here, symmetric relay or some GF relay structure. We have something simplistic which allows you to relay out all interesting distributional information, thereby easily finding the correct strain for a slam. The major drawback of this approach is that almost nobody of the people who are playing our system remembers the correct responses when the sequence finally comes up. If you have a GF relay available over your 1nt opener anyway you can play it here and have no trouble. Apart from that I agree that these minor suits slams are otherwise hard to find because technically you shouldn't use inverted minors without 5+ support (especially not when supporting clubs). --Sigi

It's really convenient to have the distribution on the traveller if you want to go over the hand after the event, to see how well you have performed. That way you don't have to get the actual board and take out the hands. It's also useful if you want to take a board "home with you", for example to post a problem here on the forums. You just have to take the traveller, because it's got the distribution written down on it. In case of problems the TD has a reference point regarding the distribution as well. --Sigi (Apart from all that, the regulations demand that you write it down :-)

Old Europe here. I am happy to provide you with payment details so you can transfer the approx. 3,000 EUR necessary for our club to buy a dealing machine. --Sigi