bid_em_up

4S. How can one consider any other bid? We could have zero spades for the 1N bid, and we have three. Whether or not they carry any real weight opposite partners probably AKQxxxx is debatable, but we do have support and two filler cards in the minor suits. Partner has invited, and we need to accept. Pass is for wimps. 3N is for hand hogs. (where is your heart stop by the way?) :rolleyes: Anything else is innovative, to say the least, since 3S is only strongly inviting a spade game. It should not be a hand that failed to open 2C (because it was strong and two suited), so it is improbable that a slam will be missed. Anything else also risks disaster.

Since when does the auction 1D 1S 2C promise a five card club suit? So what you are saying is partner is supposed to be inviting holding only invitational values and what is only a known 4-3 fit at this point? In what book did you read that? Seriously. I want to read it for myself. 'Cause I don't believe you. (This applies to Phil as well, who also stated responder can bid 3C directly over to invite). Last time I checked, a 3C bid now promises better support than three card support, as in my earlier given hand (AKxxx xxx Qx Kxx). It could have changed though and I didn't get the memo.

You don't state how partner followed to the diamond. I assume he will give count?

PIQ = ? Pair in question?

Says who? You? Oh, and I suppose that makes it gospel. While it may be that you play it this way, not everybody does. And you still dont explain what you will do on the hand I gave, if 4C is 100% g/f. 5C will be too high, 3N won't make, but yet you are claiming that opener holding the given hand is now forced to bid 5C simply because 4C IS FORCING!!!!!!!, as you put it. Bullsh*t. Growl all you wish, it does not make you correct for all partnerships. And probably not even in yours......

Because....are you certain that 4C is 100% forcing? Look at AKxxx xxx Qx Kxx for example, and how will you bid it? Are you going to pass 3C? Are you going to blast 5C and lose 3 hearts off the top? (Or 2 hearts and a side loser in either diamonds or clubs).

Contrary to others, I do not believe this is "pick a slam". It is GSF for ♣ 100%. Partner created a game force over our 2C bid (we know that it was game force now, because of the 5N bid now, even if we only play 4SF as forcing to 4m). He liked what he heard from the 3C bid. He also had other ways to show support for both minors, right? If you are afraid to trust partner and bid 7C now because of the distributional weak opening (as some appear to be), then maybe you shouldn't be opening 5-5 ten counts in first seat. If you decided the hand is an opening bid in your system, then bid 7C like you are supposed to and apologize later. Note, I am not arguing the merits of opening this hand, but once you decide to open it, you should not chicken out later just because you think you may have less than partner is expecting. Btw, if 4SF is only forcing to 4m for you, can the auction 1D-1S-2C-2H-3C-4C now be passed? Hmmm.

I (vaguely) recall someone, possibly Ben?, posting the results of a BridgeBrowser query showing the number of tricks made when balanced hands opposite balanced hands contain varying number of HCP, i.e. 12 vs. 12 12 vs. 13 12 vs. 14 13 vs. 10 13 vs. 11 etc. Unfortunately, I can't find it at the moment. I also think its meaningless, because of where the result are obtained from. A skilled declarer will (normally) make the best usage of his cards, therefore he will make more tricks on average than a weak declarer. Since the results of any BrBr study are derived from BBO or OKB hands, the results tend to be skewed towards the weaker players. In other words, if such a study were to show that, on average, most declarers managed to take an average of 8.32 tricks on 12 vs. 12, the average for skilled declarers will be much higher than that, imo. And of course, as others have said, there are still a wide variety of factors that influence any such result.

I might consider bidding 4S as South after 4C p p to me because I have length in diamonds and surely North is either: 1) short in diamonds or 2) will have a diamond card on his failure to double 4C or 3) will have nothing at all in diamonds or clubs so Norths 3D call is based on the spade A and the AQ of hearts. But I don't think anybody is really at "fault", change Souths hand to: KQJxxx KJ Q10x xx, and 4S will have 4 top losers, it is only the club stiff in Souths hand that allows 4S to make. The stiff club combined with the above reasons "might" persuade me at the table to bid 4S, even though I realize it is risky to do so. jmoo.

Ken, would you feel the same way, if the announced range was 10-12? 11-13? I think the question being asked is, when does it change from "Shut up idiots" for complaining about the misinformation to "Hmm, there might be a problem here".

♠AKTx ♥KQxx ♦QJ ♣QTx To me, this hand falls somewhere in between 16-18. 17 looks about right. The QJ of diamonds is a slight minus, but if partner holds one honor, they will carry their full weight. The hand has both majors. If partner has either major we can practically superaccept. The hand has 4 cards less than a 10. I don't know what the x's are, but if they are higher than a 7, I consider it a plus as well. Having Q108 of clubs will be more useful than having Q102 sometimes. I would consider this hand appropriate for any 1N opening range with a lower limit of 14. I could even agree (or not disagree) with treating it as 18 intending to open 1m and rebid 2N or 3M (over partners 1M response). Anything under 13-15 is pushing it, but I could be convinced a pair would discount the QJ♦ and consider it to be a "really good" 15. I wouldnt, but somebody else might Opening this hand on a 12-14 or less NT range, would be a gross distortion to me. ZT = Zero Tolerance. You can't call your opponents idiots, at least not to their face. :lol:

Josh, it isn't a poker mentality of having to win every board. I am a firm believer in usually playing for average+ and taking good scores as they come. In this case, I believe we are saddled with a very poor score if we simply pass. If I thought 4H was a normal contract, I would agree with you. I don't think 4H is a normal contract, unless LHO is walking the dog. If he is, he got me, but assuming partner is competent and will have his X then 3S call, then like you, I don't think LHO is bidding 4H to make. If 4H is making, your likely result is not 3/12 but 0/12 or 1/12, imo. You pushed LHO into it (or LHO got lucky in his decision). In any case, you cannot expect it to be a "normal" contract. Doubling costs you nothing. A zero is still a zero, right? It is this point that is key, imo. There is absolutely nothing to lose, whether 4H is doubled or not when it makes. You already have a zero when it makes, you may as well try to improve when 4H doesn't make, but 3S does. I think the normal contract will be 3S making. In this case, you will again be winning a minimal amount, if anything, when you simply pass. If 3S is making, 4H -1 or 2 undoubled will win very little. I think 3/12 is a high estimate, but I will concede it for the time being. Doubling 4H at least gives you the chance to beat any other pairs who did not X 4H and only beat it 1, tie the pairs who did double it, and assuming you beat it two, not only will you outscore the pairs who beat 4H two undoubled, but you will also outscore everyone playing 3S. There is practically nothing to lose by doubling, and a significant amount to be gained and in this case, the rewards of doubling are significant enough to tilt in favor of the double. 3/12 is 25%, but 10/12 (or better) is at least 83.3%. So I am risking 25% for the chance to gain at least 58%. If I am right, I will win more than twice as much as I rate to lose. At worst, I turned a bad score into a zero (so I lost 25%). In the middle, I turned a bad score into an average score (gain 25%) and at best, I turned bad score into a great score (gain 50% or more). In the long run, I expect that a decision to double will win more than it loses. And I will concede a lot of this also depends on other factors as well. The caliber of opponents, my partner, and how many boards the tourny is will all factor in as well. Assuming the problem comes from a BBO MP tourny, there is a big difference between one board out of 8 where one zero is 12.5% of your final score and a normal ACBL 24/27 board tourny where one board is only 3.7 to 4.1% of your final score. In a short tourny, you are practically forced to double if your intent is to win. One zero out of 8 boards will kill a good tournament, as it is effectively the equivalent of 3 zeros in a 24/27 board tourny. If this was board 8 of 8, and you had a 65% game in the first 7 boards, and you get a zero on this board, your game is now 56.8%, a significant difference. If it was board 27 of 27 and you had that same 65% game going for the first 26 boards, and get a zero, you still have a 62.5% game. Not as good, but certainly nowhere near as bad. If I see you, Justin, Mikeh or Fred bidding 4H on this auction, I probably pass. If LHO is some random player, I double. If my partner happened to be you, or Fred or Justin, I pass. I will expect you to already have doubled 4H whenever you had your bids. Opposite a random BBO player or unknown partner or a partner that I know to be weak, timid, etc., you are practically forced to double to protect your side, imo. As I said, I cannot think of a hand where partner can double and bid 3S, and yet he is unable to beat 4H. Can you? (It is possible, I am sure....but it is also highly improbable). If partner doesn't have his bid, well, thats his problem. (Of course, I rarely have this problem and I doubt you do either.....as it is unlikely either of us play with people we don't know already). If partner "knows" he doesn't have his 3S call and that 4H is making (as he rightfully should from our failure to raise to 4S), he should pull the double, imo. Overall, I still think the double will win. I do not doubt that it can lose on this particular hand.

Assuming partner and opponents are competent, there are two ways to look at this. You can look at it the way other posters do (an obvious pass), or you can listen to the bidding and then decide. I think it is a closer decision than they are claiming. In fact, I think I can make a pretty good case that pass is wrong, and the decision is between 4S and double. The first key point is this is listed as an MP problem, not IMP. No matter what we do, its just one board. At MP, pass is never going to win on this hand. Partner has shown a good hand, but one that is not quite capable of bidding game on his own. Since we passed 3S, he certainly is not making a forcing pass now, he already knows we could not bid four. He would double 4H if he thought he had it beat in his own hand. He probably should have doubled 4H, if he actually had his 3S call. At the moment, I cannot think of a hand where he can double, then jump raise, and not have enough defense to be able to beat 4H. Its possible he could have one, but I can't think of one. If 3S was making, which quite likely on the bidding, we will have to beat 4H by 3 tricks undoubled to outscore 3S. If we double now, we only have to beat it by two. If 4H is making, 4S is at worse, off two (I think, but bad trump breaks could cause it to be more), so we win the board. 4S also may make. In either case, there are two chances to win the board, by bidding 4S, whenever 4H is making. If 4S is making, and 4H is going down, then not doubling 4H or not bidding 4S is a loss. Doubling 4H may not be a great result, but it will not be as bad as simply passing. I also think that if 4S makes, partner has misbid his hand. We do have Qxx of hearts and a doubleton diamond. It is probable that we are scoring at least one trick in trumps, even though partner should be expecting nothing from us. It is also likely that dummy is also short of entries for declarer to finesse hearts thru us. I fully expect to beat 4H. So it comes down to, how likely are we to make 4S? With the bad spade suit, no entries, and we know that LHO is going to be short in spades, I do not think 4S is likely to make. So I double. If I am wrong, oh well, next hand. But, at worst, assuming 4H makes, you have turned what was probably already a below average board into a zero. The loss on the hand will be minor. You stand no chance of improving your score by passing since 3S maknig would outscore 4H -2 undoubled. Even worse is you still don't outscore 2S making by passing......

Where exactly did you use might? I read it as "will". And if the opposite of antsy is relaxed, I suggest that you relax. Roland "Users will start to get antsy for details.. :huh:" Sorry Roland, I am a good ole southern boy. When I use the word antsy, I mean it as in, you keep telling me this and telling me this, but when am I going to find something out. Now you can call this impatience all you want to, but to me, waiting two months from the original statement before questioning it again, when "soon" is said again, is not impatience to me. It is simply asking for a clarification. I have that now, from Fred, the person that was originally being addressed. But thank you for your valued input. It was worth what I paid for it.

Thank you for your response. It certainly clarifies some issues. At least now we know that it is a complete rewrite of the current BBO software, and is detailed enough to prevent any changes being made to the current version of BBO. If I am reading your replies correctly, you are stating that once this new version is released on a wide basis, subsequent enhancement request (when approved) are likely to be implemented quickly. Am I reading that right? I apologize. I did not mean to infer that you would ask Mr. Gates to do this as a favor to a friend. (I don't think I did). But from a business and personal perspective, I simply believe that if he is serious about promoting the game of bridge, then either buying or supporting BBO for his site would be a logical alternative than trying to implement his (meaning Microsofts) own version of bridge software. Why reinvent when the best already exists? :) This is the only reason the possibility existed in my mind. Sorry if you took it differently. Again, thanks for your response, and hopefully we will hear something "soon" about the new version. :huh:

That's exactly why I used the word "impatience". bid em up is impatient in my opinion. That is not necessarily bad, but I would just let things take the time they require. "Of course, you should realize that if you keep making statements like this, sooner or later, the users will start to get antsy for details :) " A quote from bid em up's initial post. That's why I used "demand" (quotation marks, mind you). I am not antsy, Justin is not antsy either. bid em up is perhaps antsy, but that should not put any pressure on Fred. Roland This is absolute nonsense. Sorry. And as the saying goes, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one, and most of them stink. I am fairly certain that original reference to a revised/rewritten version of the software statement was made almost 6 months ago, I just can't find the specific quote. Two months is a reasonable amount of time to wait before asking a further question. Impatience is asking the same day or the next or the next week, not two months later. And the only reason I asked it, was because two months ago, we (I) were told "soon". In another post today, Freds response again indicated "soon". I was simply asking for a clarification of when "soon" might be. And I said, "users" (not me) might get antsy..... Try reading and comprehending next time instead of automatically assuming there is some "sinister" motive behind my questions. I will leave it at that, cause the rest of what I want to say will get me banned.

Am I the only one who can picture Fred running around a tournament going: "I only need to win 1.03 more masterpoints to make Grand Life Master!!"? :) The thought of it just strikes me as amusing.

You show me the biggest integer and I will show you "one" better. :)

Justin, note the date of the quote below. It is significantly later than the release date of the newest software version. It was this post that led me to believe that Fred was referring to a major rewrite of the BBO software. It does not mean you are not correct, only that I just interpreted this post in a different manner.

I think you badly misunderstand the purpose of the ACBL. Asking them to lower their ftf competition attendence while increasing online attendence is like asking a cruise line to lower their cruise attendence by just flying people to their destination. Kinda defeats the point. As far as the ACBL is concerned, I believe that they support online bridge as long as they think it can INCREASE their ftf tournament attendence (which it probably does right now). Online is a means, not an end. Hilarious, but we can discuss it elsewhere if you wish.

Phuleeezzee, Roland. What impatience? As I stated, it has been quite some time (I think the original statement was about 6 months ago) since this claim of a new software design project was originally made. I haven't demanded a damn thing. I think I was fairly clear in addressing my concerns, and just as clear in stating that Fred was certainly under no obligation to tell me (or anyone else) anything until he is prepared to do so. If it is, as Justin states, a completely different project that is consuming the majority of his time (when combined with bridge obligations), then it is completely understandable that Fred may not wish to disclose or announce it yet. However, I had been left with the impression that the software project was a major redesign of the BBO software. Perhaps mistakenly, but I doubt that I am the only one who interpreted Freds post in this manner.

Assuming you mean that by playing in online tournaments that attendance in f2f tournaments would drop, I don't see how this is necessarily a bad thing, at least in terms of revenue to the ACBL. They would not have to be run every week (although they could be), they could be a once or twice a year event. Even if they were run on a weekly basis, there are lots of people who still wish to play f2f or go on a vacation with bridge as a side excuse. There are also those like myself who are prohibited from attending f2f tournaments due to cost factors and time factors. But I might play in events that were sectionally, regionally, nationally rated from home, if I could. So what you lose on one side (f2f), would most likely be more than offset on the other side (online). Online you would have people available from all over the world, at any given time. The ACBL and/or districts could gain the extra revenue that is currently spent subsidising f2f tournaments. Hotel costs and the like would be eliminated providing more of the monies generated directly to the components of the ACBL instead of a third party. However, I do believe that this would be typical thinking on the ACBL's part. I am not asking for this to be done, however, it was just one of the many thoughts that occured.

Fred, in another thread you stated, You also stated something to this effect back in mid- March, and I believe even earlier than that as well. Of course, you should realize that if you keep making statements like this, sooner or later, the users will start to get antsy for details. :) I think all of us realize (and acknowledge) what a fine job you have done with the current BBO software, even if it is not "perfect" in every possible way. You simply cannot make everybody happy all of the time. Design "flaws" are inherent to any user application design. They aren't really 'flaws", it is simply impossible to forsee what each individual user will consider to be "ideal" for them. You must try to make as many people as happy as possible with one design. I commend you on your approach when it comes to making decisions regarding software changes in this regard. Your reasons and explanations for making (or not making) changes have always been well explained in the past, and I believe you will continue to do so. The fact that you do take the time to at least explain why you will not be implementing something, at least lets the users know that you at least heard and considered the request and made a decision accordingly, as opposed to the other sites where user requests just went off into never-never land with no response. This is one of the many things that makes BBO the great site that it is. With all of that said....when can we expect some details? When you alluded to soon in mid-march, I thought we would be hearing something in 3-6 weeks. Now you still say "soon". Is that another 6 weeks, or 6 months? I don't think anyone needs a detailed and comprehensive list of every individual feature or improvement at this time. But some hints would be nice. Will the new software allow for the running of a real Swiss team tournament? Will the new software allow for seeding across sections/tournaments? Will the new software allow for real accredited ACBL sectional/regional level tournaments to be performed online, instead of just "online-unpigmented" tournaments? Have any improvements been made to the "cheating" aspects of kibitzing tournaments? Will it be possible to "record" a vugraph for a pay-per-view later? I would like to have been able to watch most, if not all of the Cavendish. Work precludes that. It would be nice to have an option to pay a small fee to watch it at my convenience later. Of course, you can still say "I am not prepared to provide any information at this time", and if you do, I am certain that you have your reasons for doing so and I will accept it. But your "secrecy" now is, at least to me, giving the appearance of being in conflict with the forthcoming nature that BBO has always had with its users in the past. This is starting to concern me, although my concern may be totally unwarranted. It could just be you are too busy at the moment to write up a summary of the new design, and don't wish to do so until its completed. Or you feel that a complete and detailed summary is necessary and don't wish to release details on a piecemeal basis. However, I will share with you that I was on "friendly" terms with the programmers and adminstrative staff at eBridge. I could make suggestions for the software, and they were usually implemented on a fairly timely basis. At least until such point in time, as they began to have cash flow problems, or got greedy (I am not certain which the real problem was). When they reached this point, the programmers and administrators became less and less responsive to user requests, and less forthright with their users. Now granted, eBridge was a paid subscription so I had more of a vested interest in how that site was operating. Changes made (or not made) affected my decisions regarding subscription renewals and monies that I had already paid for the current 2 year subscription that I had. I was not thrilled when they sold out to WorldWinner when I had a year and a half remaining on my subscription. Unfortunately, I am starting to get the same "queasy" feeling regarding your current unwillingness to provide any information as I was when eBridge began its demise, and especially without any explanation of why you are unwilling to offer any details considering the forthrightness we have experienced in the past. It almost strikes me as if Microsoft/MSN is intending to buy or partner with BBO in some regards. Given Bill Gates' interest in bridge, I do not for one minute believe that he would drop Bridge from MSN games, with no intent to replace or promote the game. I know he is a fan and user of BBO. I would not be surprised if Microsoft programmers or design team(s) are helping you with the redesign before the announcement. I would not be surprised if those same people then become responsible for integrating subsequent changes at a possibly faster rate. I would not be surprised if you are not under some sort of contractual/business agreement where you cannot say anything regarding this. All of this, of course, is strictly speculation on my part. I really hope that it isn't the case, as I think it would be the beginning of the end for the site as we know it. But lets face it, we are all bridge players at heart, and I am certain you would rather be out at a tournament, than stuck somewhere having to program or listen to drivel like I just typed. :) Of course, please feel free to tell me if I am totally off base. Or delete this post if I am too close to being right and the cat can't be let out of the bag yet.

I don't think marking a club or a person as an enemy blocks mail messages from them. As I yellow I never block messages from anyone, friends or enemies, so that I can respond to members concerns, so I am not sure what I just said is true. But I have been told that mail messages from people marked as enemies does come through. Well, I don't know for an absolute certainty that it blocks "mail" from enemies either. I do know that I have never received mail from anyone that I have marked as an enemy. It could just be a fluke. But....considering the number of people on my enemy list, I would be highly surprised that none of them had not attempted to leave me a nastygram at some point in time. :) I also use this technique to filter out unneeded chat from clubs while logged in. If I am playing elsewhere, personally, I don't care to see "Individual in 15 minutes", "Individual in 10 minutes", etc. as in a countdown. Other people may wish to see this, so I just block it for myself.

Because as previously explained by Fred, the score control is a table level option, and not a player level option. See the following link for a thread I started earlier on this subject and Fred's responses accordingly: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=18517&hl= While it should be (to my mind) a relatively simple thing to accomplish the score being on a player level option, it appears that BBO was not originally designed to work that way. To make it a player level option, would require a major rewrite of the way things are currently handled. Which, in turn, explains why it is not as simple as I originally thought it should be. Since the BBO software is currently undergoing a major redesign (according to some of Fred's other posts), there are not going to be any dramatic changes made to the current software. I believe Fred when he says that he has read and heard the request for score resets to be a player level option (or for a players score to be zero every time you are seated at a new table). Whether or not it is incorporated into the rewrite is up to him. I was also left with the impression, that even if this request is not in the "original" release version of the new software, that once the new version is implemented, we should begin to see an even more rapid response and implementation to suggestions than are made. And those responses have already been fairly quick in terms of users getting changes made to a software system. For the most part, the BBO team has always responded quickly to user requests, whenever it was feasibly possible to do so.