Wayne_LV

I failed to look at the date of the last post. The world may have moved on but bridge is timeless and I was bored. Thanks for the update.

I have played 12-14 1NT with Meckwell Escapes and have found the advantage to be minuscule to non existent. The disadvantages are 1) added complexity of escapes 2) Necessity to alert every 1NT opening. I currently play 1NT with 5 card majors allowed and 3♣ as Puppet Stayman. This allows an opening bid of 1NT with hands containing no rebid if opened 1 of a major. As for the 12-14 point balanced hands, I find an opening bid of a minor followed by a rebid of 1NT along with Checkback Stayman to find the 5-3 or 4-4 fits in a major suit by the responder works well.

I have created a number of FD Convention Cards for use with the Windows Version, but I have been unable to create a FD Card using bitedit and find a way to run it on the web version of BBO. There is one SAYC FD conv card that can be loaded in the web version but I find no way to modify it to my system. Rather than create an FD Convention card that covers every bid in the system (standard and alertable), I would like to create an FD card that only alerts those bids that require an alert per ACBL standards (such as use of Puppet Stayman over 1NT opening bids. Using bitedit from the windows version I have been able to create such a FD Convention card but find no way to load that card for use in the web version of BBO. I find the FD Convention cards that alert and "explain" every bid, standard or alertable, to be annoying during play. Bids that require alerts and explanations are infrequent in most systems. I also think an option to prevent partner from seeing the alerts and explanations would also be good. Many opps consider the FD alerts to be cheating and to a degree they are right. Any advice would be appreciated.

My suggestion is not to abandon the founding principles of BBO. Keep BBO as it currently is, in every way. My suggestion is to use the BBO technology to create another bridge site that is strictly devoted to traditional bridge for serious players. No advertisements. Using existing programming, I doubt it would take more than a few man weeks to modify the code and have a site up and running. A cost that I think could easily be recovered within 3 months of opening the new site and accepting members. In addition to revenue from players (like me) that rarely spend a dime on BBO, I predict you would see a lot of players coming from OKBridge for the superior interface and to escape the Lehman rating system. Only one name per player should be allowed with general systems information required on the profile and an ACBL convention card available, same as currently on BBO. The user name should be the real name, but not openly displayed. Only the name on the profile would be seen by others. Profiles should contain at least general system description, such as "SAYC", "2 over 1", "Forcing 1C", etc. The name shown on the profile could be changed at anytime, but players can play only under one name, no multiple player names. MyHand records should be available for this site in same format as currently used on BBO. Use another site name and URL, but limit access to paying members for a suggested annual fee of $50. I cannot see how this would lessen BBO's revenue one iota, in fact it should increase the revenue for those that own the BBO franchise. This new site would give serious online bridge players a place to play in club games,12 board tournaments (non ACBL), and team matches, with a dramatically reduced amount of turnover, joke bids, and hopefully less cheating. BBO members can always come back to BBO for games that are not offered on the new site, such as ACBL tournaments (which could also be offered on the new site), and to keep in touch with old friends (many of us go back to the days of MS Zone bridge). Practice and teaching tools on BBO are excellent and should be included on the new site (another cut and paste programming effort). On the new site, players proven to be cheating or overtly abusing other players can be banned, only now they cannot just create another user name and continue their frivolous ways. Now to get back into the new site would require the payment of ANOTHER annual fee using another name on the account -- a step I doubt many would repeat.

I am not suggesting a change to the now active BBO site. I am suggesting the creation of a new site that uses the same programs for dealing and scoring the hands, that is a pay site for a reasonable annual fee that would attract more serious players and discourage cheats, novices, and players that cannot stay at the same table for more than 2 deals. Wow my English teacher would give me hell for that run on sentence :).

Who knows what human nature really is these days. I would like to think the cheats would stay on the free BBO website where there are a lot more "victims" and refrain from paying hard cold cash to destroy the game for serious players.

I am not suggesting an entry fee for every game. My suggestion is a membership fee in a private online bridge club..

IMHO there is only one cure for online cheating (well most of it anyway). That is to create a spin off site under the BBO umbrella and charge an annual membership of $50. A reasonable membership fee would discourage the habitual cheaters and attract the serious players that want to win, but only on skill not by cheating. Such a site would create additional revenue for BBO from players that cannot afford to spend $200 - $300 a month for 12 board tournaments at $1.25 a board but could afford an annual fee of $50. The software for such a site already exists on BBO and would require minimum modification. Those that wish to play the occasional BBO tournament can always come back to the mother site and play there. The pay site would be geared mainly toward those that like a casual game of bridge but are discouraged by the constant table turnover and the growing number of cheats that play on the free BBO site. I know that OK Bridge is a site already in operation that has an annual fee, but their fee is too high and their rating system stinks. Their interface does does not come close to that of BBO. In the past 6 months I have discovered and reported a number of regular pairs that cheat and a review of boards and averages in excess of 1 IMP per board over 1000's of boards indicates blatant cheating by any number of methods that are commonly known. I have seen none of those that I have reported vanish from the BBO scene. I wish BBO would conduct a survey to see the level of interest in such a pay site. I think it would be very surprising.

Don't lose anything if you use 3♣ as puppet over 1NT. This leaves 2♣ for Garbage / Crawling Stayman and for Smolen.

With regular partners I play x of 4 level bid is penalty, 4NT is takeout.

Opening a weak 2 bid with more than one outside A or K prohibits the use of 2NT as a feature ask (outside A or K). My partners and I play weak 2's with the following agreements: 5-10 hcp (Not Vulnerable).8-10 hcp (Vulnerable).6 card suit, may be 7 card suit with too many losers for 3 level preempt.For major suits, Q10xxxx or better, seats 1-2, J10xxxx or better, 3 seat (or if you are a passed hand making a weak jump overcall).For weak 2♦, 2 of top 3 diamonds.No outside 5 card suit.4 cards in an outside major is OK if your suit is strong.No more than one outside Ace or King.Never open a weak 2 in 4 seat. A 2-level opening bid in the 4 seat shows a 6 card suit and 11-15 hcp. Responding to Partner's weak 2 opener: Rule of 17 with 2+ card support for major.2NT (forcing) to ask for feature (outside A or K) - generally exploring for 3NT. Opener rebids suit with no feature.New suit (forcing) asking for support, Partner raises with 3+ cards in the new suit, rebids his suit with less.RONF (Raise Only Non Forcing) Note: All constructive rebids by opener require a minimum of 8 HCP. With weaker hand opener rebids his suit at 3 level. Using Double Dummy Solver as a source. Month of April, all partners, Weak 2 opened 21 times. Average results: +2.72 IMP. I have made this analysis numerous times in the past and rarely have had a sample with less that 1 IMP average. A weak 2 opening is a preemptive bid. The primary purpose of a preempt is to prevent the opponents from finding a makable contract by elevating the bidding level from which they begin their search for a fit. With defensive values, particularly 2 aces, you have half the tricks necessary to set any 4 level or higher bid they may go to. Partner may well hold 2 defensive tricks. Why would you want to preempt them out of a contract, you may well be able to set, in exchange for a contract you have little hope of making for your side? Or worse yet, miss a game contract of your own.

I did not know that you could predeal a specific hand using practice or teaching table with that script. I tried it and it is a fact that it is both gross AND obscene to open that specific hand wiith 2♣ and rebid 4♦. I owe both Wank and JonnyQuest an apology. The mistake I made was thinking close was good enough. Our partnership agreement for such hands is: 1. Must be a one-suited hand 2. The long suit must have a SQ (Suit Quality) of 10 (the example hand has a SQ of only 9) 3. The hand must be within 1 trick of game in hand (10 tricks for minors, 9 tricks for majors) 4. To raise the opener's jump rebid to game, the responder must have at least 1 probable trick 5. With no probable tricks responder must pass 6. With enough probable tricks for slam, responder must use RKCB and/or cue bids to explore and never assume that all probable tricks are working (as may be the case if the opener has a void). The example hand did not meet the requirements in our system for a 2♣ opener and a jump rebid to show tricks. The hands that do meet the above criteria are extremely rare and the number of hands we have used this method on are few in number. Therefore my conclusions may be incorrect as to the success rate of the method. It has worked a majority of times it has been used, but that may be more due to luck that to probabilities. Since you have made me aware of a way to repeatedly deal a specific opener's hand and random distribution for all of the other hands, I will be able to generate enough sample hands to better evaluate the method. This technique can be used for many other types of bidding sequences and should allow me to sort the wheat from the chaff in our bidding system. Perhaps I am making too much of the situations where a good hand is opened with 1 of a suit and is passed out when a game is makeable, since the majority of the field should also pass out those hands. The real purpose of this survey was to try to find a name for the jump to 3♠ bid in the hand in the Bulletin. That purpose was accomplished and I thank you all and Mr Bluhmer.

'Wank calls it "gross." Obscene is more like it.' . Sounds a lot more like a zinger than a commentary. I realize this is not a popular method and I agree no Expert would probably play it. But I play a lot of things that experts don't play and they play even more things that I don't play. I seriously doubt if there is another pair on BBO that plays our method. I also seriously doubt there is any pair that regularly plays on BBO that plays Bluhmer Bids. Our method of bidding strong one suited hands works for us more times than it fails. What more do you want in a convention or partnership agreement? My comments about playing on BBO are not without relevence. If you do not play on BBO, how do you know how you should play on BBO? Footnote: Our method of bidding one-suited hands requires an SQ (suit quality) of 10+ to qualify as a stand alone suit. SQ = length of suit + honors. The posted hand has an SQ of only 9 in diamonds and is technically not a one suited hand. But as is often the case in bridge, close counts, and I still prefer a 2♣ opening bid to a 1♦ bid for long term good results with that hand. Bridge is a game where perfection is totally unattainable. On BBO, on any given day, the best player in the world can be mauled by bad cards, bad splits, and bad bidding and play at other tables. On the other hand, the worst player on BBO can have a magnificent day with great cards bad defense, lucky breaks, and gifts by opponents and bad play at other tables. Of course this all evens out over a large number of boards, over which the methods that have the highest percentage of success will prevail. I don't think there has been enough computer simulations to evaluate even the most popular bidding systems, let alone conventions. Bridge is a game of many opinions and very few facts.

It is very easy to see who has played on BBO and when, just go to BBO myhands and type in the BBO name and ask for hands for the last month. http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands I think anyone that plays on BBO for any significant number of hands should know that playing bridge on BBO in club rooms only vaguely resembles the high level bridge exhibited on Vugraphs and live tournaments. I have merely illustrated the bidding sequence my partner and I would have made on this hand, nothing more. I just resent the snide remarks that insinuate that I must be some sort of a bridge idiot. I give the respect I receive.

I love BBO "experts" who never play on BBO and prefer form over function. Neither you nor Wank have played ONE board on BBO in the last 30 days. As to the point of 2♣ opener taking up bidding space: What further bidding space do you require after a rebid that describes the strength and texture of the hand as well as if the hand were face up on the table? LTC is not perfect but neither are the myriad of varieties of point count methods. It is a method of determining the PROBABLE trick taking capability of a one-suited hand. Nothing about bridge is exact. The main advantage to opening strong one-suited hands with this method is to avoid the hands where you are within a trick of game in hand, open with a 1 bid and have partner pass a hand holding only one Ace or even a supported King. After the jump rebid to show tricks in hand, partner may pass with a hand that contains NO probable trick and we often get a good score not what we bid, but for what we did not bid. I dare say at any given time, you might not find a single player on BBO that has ever heard of Bluhmer Bids, let alone one that knows how to use it. Bottom line: I prefer methods that win boards over methods that dazzle the followers of bridge columns.

You posted while I was doing a correction to the bidding, but the opening bid and the final contract are the same. It may seem gross to you, but jump rebidding over 2♣/2♦ to show a strong single suited hand and and the number of tricks in that hand has served us well for a long time. Opening such a hand with 1♦ could well mean missing a diamond game if partner has only 1 trick and would not respond to 1♦ opening. If partner has NO probable tricks, she may pass. On this particular hand with one sure trick and another possible trick, exploring for slam is in order.

Well done. This hand was indeed in the Bridge Bulletin and 3♠ was the most popular choice of the expert panel. The North hand [hv=pc=n&n=shq85dakq842ckqj2]133|100[/hv] I realize the hand was contrived to showcase the Bluhmer bid, but as I tried to solve it I could never convince myself from the bidding and the south hand that there was even a sure game, let alone a slam and my choice was 3♥ showing a delayed 3 card raise in hearts and inviting to a heart game. For a slam to be possible I could not conceive of a North hand strong enough to make a slam that would not have opened 2♣ My regular partner and I would have bid the hand as follows per our partnership agreements: [hv=pc=n&s=s9742hkjtdjt6ca94&n=shq85dakq842ckqj2&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p2c(22%2B%20or%209%2B%20tricks)p2d(always%20waiting)p4d(10%20tricks)p4n(RKCB%200314)p5n(even%20%23%20keys%2C%20unspecified%20void)p6dppp]266|200[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=s9764hkjtdjt6ca94&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1dp1sp2cp2dp2hp]133|200[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=saht43dakjt7542c9&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1c2c(majors%205%2F5%2B)p]133|200[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&w=sa952hk875dckj986&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1cp1h5d]133|200[/hv] What do you bid?

What am I missing? What is the difference between logging in and seeing the Robot tournaments and not logging in and seeing the Robot tournaments?

You are right, the ACBL is stupid for allowing master points to be awarded with Robots at the table.

I agree wholeheartedly with the above - may be the only time in history 1eyedjack and I have ever agreed on anything. Why not allow DD Solver to access MyHands when the user is logged on to MyHands or allow DD Solver to log into myhands and access the records. Before DD Solver I used to cut and paste MyHands into an elaborate Excel Sheet to do some analysis, but the data availabile in Myhands is sparse and does not include such things as who opened the bidding, the opening bid, etc, etc, etc. -- all necessary data for detailed analysis. Some of this information can be computed using extremely complex parsing formulas but not enough to find long term trends and there is no capability of doing Double Dummy Analysis. Using DD Solver, I get more data in a fraction of the time required using an Excel Sheet.

BBO Web Version: The delete button is to the right of the names on the follow list and adjacent to the scroll bar. It is very easy to let the mouse pointer slip when scrolling and accidently delete someone from the list with no warning. The accidental delete can easily go unnoticed until you get a message from a friend: "Why did you remove me from your friends list???????" I think a verification before deleting would solve this problem. It is not likely that anyone would be doing wholesale deletes from their follow list where the verification would be an inconvenience.

Maybe I did not make myself clear. The number I am looking for is a percent of all boards you declare of all the boards you have played. Given equal skills and normal distribution of tricks (average 6.5 per side) the number would be exactly 50%. If you habitually overbid you will declare a higher % of total boards but will not score well. If you habitually under bid you will declare a lower % of total boards and still not score well. I feel that the field on BBO consistently overbids and trying to outbid them for the sake of declaring is not a winning strategy. My partner and I consistently declare on 45-47% of our boards and score well on those boards. We break even on defense as most pairs do since the declarer has an advantage. Overall we do well on the average scores of all boards. My partner and I are both Advanced level players at best. Using Double Dummy Solver I have sampled the boards of some top level BBO Royals as well as other players I consider to be good and the highest average scores are obtained by pairs that declare 45-50% of their boards. For this analysis I excluded all boards played with or against GiBs and included only hands played with humans. Most of the data came from ACBL tournament boards so the old cop out of how good are your opps does not apply. So after giving this much information, the survey will have no meaning at all. I simply wanted to know if there is a general feeling among good players that they don't need to declare on every board to win.