Wayne_LV

In the Main Room or BBO Tournaments, what is a good percentage of hands that should be played as delarer? Assumptions: Relatively even field Advanced or higher player Normal distribution of HCP A reasonably good system in use A regular or a frequent partner

My regular partner and I play a system (2/1 with weak NT, Moscow Escapes, et. al.) that requires a lot of alerts. I created a FD convention card defining only those bids that are alertable. This saves us time and untold keystrokes. The down side is the FD card can only be created and edited it the Win version and to make changes/corrections requires hopping back and forth between versions. The options for displaying alerts can only be set in the Win version. And, if I am on the web version and partner is on the Win version or an android device the alerts are not always made as they should be. I would like to see an editor to create and edit an FD convention card in the Webb version and have the alerts and explanations displayed no matter who is using what device. I realize this may be difficult for android devices but they should be consistent if one partner is on the Web and the other on the Win version. The alternative is to alert and only explain when asked but that still requires a lot of typing and a break in concentration. Another possible solution is to provide and require the use of speech so that alerts are made the same as F2F and not self-alerts. Again I know this might lead to verbal abuse, another catch 22.

Double Dummy Solver is a shareware program you can use to sort BBO hands in numerous ways using filters. http://www.bridge-ca...downloadDD.html You can download your own boards or boards for any BBO name. Among the search filters are: partner, who opened, opening bid, final contract, and many others. Using these criteria you can find most any type of hand you wish. My partner and I play weak 1NT (12-14) and I use DD Solver to track our performance on hands we open 1NT as well as our overall performance. You may also get a summary that tells you things like percentage of slams missed, % of game missed, missed doubles, etc.

There must be 50 or more variations on 2♣ opening bids and responses. What works as well and any and better than most is to play 2♦ always waiting. Many will tell you that is a wasted bid but in reality most of the other methods use up more bidding space. 2♣ says: "Partner I have a big hand" 2♦ says: "Great, tell me more" With the exception of minors, the bidding is now at the exact point it was in days gone by when all 2 bids were strong. After the 2♣ - 2♦ relay, follow on bids can be the same as outlined in Goren Complete and they still work today.

Since the implementation of the Follow/Friends etc. I am no longer able to set Sound OFF and have it saved for future sessions.

I like to have sound OFF and had it set that way in Options before the latest changes. Since the changes were implemented every time I log back in sound is turned back ON. Evidently the setting for sound on/off is not being saved properly.

Not necessarily so. The adjustment factor has a large bearing on the final rating and this is one part of the calculations that BBO Skill uses that is totally unreliable. I have an adjustment factor of -18 and I play with the same partner most of the time and we mostly play in the main room against all comers (for the board or 2 they will stay). I have a BBO Skill Rating of Advanced and my partner is rated Advanced +. The numerical value used for my rating has not changed in more than a year due to the large number of boards in their database for me (18,000+). I don't expect my rating will ever change. For grins I sometime pick a full table of "Experts" and run BBO skill for their ratings and most often not a single player at the table is rated Expert and many times they are rated as Novice or Intemediate. BBO Skill is a pretty reliable indicator of a BBO players real skill, however be wary of the rating of anyone with a very large number of boards and a very negative adjustment factor.

If you play negative doubles you should also employ a technique known as "trap pass". If you pass the first round it does not mean you do not have points, it simply means that you are either hoping for a double from partner when you are holding opp's suit and would like to inflict a penalty double or it means you have a hand that has no really good bid. If your LHO passes as well then your partner has 3 options as follows: 1. With 3+ of opp's suit and a min hand (12-15 pts) partner will pass and defend - in which case you have more trumps than the opp's and a postitive score is pretty much assured. 2. With less than 3 of opp's suit and a min hand partner then reopens with a double which you may convert to penatly meeting the rule of 9 (bid level + number of trumps >= 9) or takeout to another suit - in this case a bid of 2♦. 3. With 16+ pts, partner will bid again and with your 11 pts you can pursue a game, most likely 3NT if partner has heart stop and at least one spade. This method has worked well for me and my regular partners and seldom causes the loss of a board.

One final posting on this "much to do about nothing" thread that should never have been started: I use BBO Skill http://bboskill.com/ as a barometer for unfamiliar players. It is not perfect, but the BBO Skill ratings usually agree with my gut feel and assessment using BBO MyHands. My own BBO Skill rating is "Advanced" and I am perfectly happy with that assessment even though it will never change. This rating is based on almost 18,000 hands played on BBO over a long period of time. I have a "handicap" of -.18 IMP supposedly due to playing with weaker players and that has never changed and seems it never will. My regular partner, who plays 90+ % of her hands with me has a higher rating based on fewer hands - go figure! More importantly I think BBO Skill is right far more than wrong in its assessment of BBO players skill level. That said, blue haze is rated as Expert by BBO Skill and his MyHands win record supports that rating. In prior postings I used the term "self appointed Experts" extensively. I want to make clear that that is not the case with blue haze. All indications are that he is a Real Expert player deserving of the respect of that skill level. I say this to make sure everyone understands that the skill level of blue haze is not and never has been an issue. He is undoubtedly an excellent player deserving of the Expert rating. The reason I am normally skeptical of any BBO player with an Expert rating and no star is due to the number of "Experts" that are nowhere near that level. This morning I kibbed a table of 4 "Experts" and acquired the BBO Skill rating for all of them. BBO skill rated 1 as Intermediate -, 2 as Advanced, 1 as Advanced + ; not a single Expert there. As is normally the case with games in the main room, table turnover was fast and furious. I acquired the BBO Skill rating for the new players as the came and went. This was over a period of maybe 20 minutes. In that time frame there was only ONE player that appeared at the table with a Skill Level that was the same as BBO Skill and it was a self rating of Advanced. One honest player out of 7 that came and went in the space of less than a half hour. This is pretty typical of what I see day in and day out. That is why I am skeptical of anyone with an Expert rating because few really are Experts and some are not even good Intermediates. I am sure this is a contributor to the rapid table turnover in most BBO club room games - these "Experts" very quickly show their real level of play and either get booted or leave in shame. Kudos to BBO for now replacing these table hoppers with a free GiB in the Main and Relaxed rooms to complete the hand. I wish this feature would be expanded to all public clubs. Good bridging, Wayne

This sequence is a potential trap pass and my regular partners and I handle is as follows: Min hand (12-15) Pass with 3+ of opp's suit Double with <3 of opp's suitGood hand (16+) Rebid I value this hand as 17 total points (16 hcp + 1 for 5th spade). Therefore, I would rebid 3♣ which partner can pass or make a suit preference bid of 3♠.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa752hj74dkt53c64&w=skhk83dqj6cqjt832&n=s983hqt9da92cak75&e=sqjt64ha652d874c9&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1cp1sp2cp2hp2nppp]399|300[/hv] Above is the actual hand. Since he has revealed his identity: blue haze (Expert) was sitting East, our BIL mentee (Intermediate) was sitting West. North and South shall remain nameless. My partner (maspd) and I jointly mentor intermediates assigned to us by Maureen Hall, the competent and dedicated founder of BIL (Beginner Intemediate Lounge), a public club in BBO. We are unpaid volunteers trying to perform an extremely difficult job to the best of our ability. There are many other BIL mentors doing the same tough job. Few of us are real experts and don't profess to be. Most of us are winning players to one degree or another. The last thing we need is Experts contradicting our teaching of accepted standard methods and confusing our students. EW was playing with no discussion of systems and ACBL speedballs automatically post a SAYC convention card by default. With no other discussion, this becomes the system partners, opponents, and the Director should assume is being used. In a post mortem discussion, which was highly favorable, our mentee was given kudos for her bidding and play except for the last board, shown above. Our mentee was told she should have passed the 2♥ rebid by East. Playing SAYC both of East's responses are forcing for one round. That is what we are teaching her and will continue to teach her. As mentors for BIL we can only teach basic systems that can be used with a variety of pick up partners until such time our mentee forms a regular partnership and they create a convention card with partnership agreements for non SAYC bids. She brought the conflict in information to us and we explained that her bidding was correct as she has been taught. Our goal is not to create (even if we could do so) contenders for the Spingold or the Bermuda Bowl, but to prepare players to be competitive in BBO club games and tournaments with a variety of partners. This, by necessity, means we teach them the basics of bridge, ACBL SAYC, and minimize the use of conventional bids, If we are, in so doing, creating a pack of "morons" in the eyes of self proclaimed experts we apologize, not for our mentees, but for the narrow minded attitude of many self proclaimed "Experts" that have no tolerance for the average player.

Yes, I realize that, but an "Expert" insisted that it was NOT forcing and implied anyone that thought it was forcing is a moron. No manner of links to references or quotes from real Expert players and teachers would convince him. Sooooooooooooooo, I hope a lot of other "morons" like me will respond to this survey, although I doubt it will change his mind http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif Thanks and good bridging Wayne

Playing SAYC with a new partner with no discussion or partnership agreements: 1♣ - (P) - 1♠ - (P) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♥ Is 2♥ by the unpassed responder forcing or not? See above Poll

Disappointing number of votes. Time consuming as it was, I did a comparison of 500 IMP boards played this month by myself and 2 regular partners. RESULTS: WE DECLARED: No. Boards............... 237 % Boards................ 47.4% Average GiB DD..... 9.40 tricks Average Actual......... 9.39 tricks % = or Better......... 70.5% IMP/Bd................... .58 WE DEFENDED: No. Boards................ 263 % Boards................. 52.6% Average GiB DD...... 3.71 tricks Average Actual.......... 4.10 tricks % = or Better........... 82.9% IMP/Bd.................... .27 OVERALL: No. Boards...............500 % Boards................100% Average GiB DD..... 6.40 tricks Average Actual......... 6.61 tricks % = or Better.......... 77.0% IMP/Bd................... .41 Is this good or bad? My feeling is there is room for improvement. I think a consistent average of 80-85% should be expected by Advanced pairs and real Experts should hit 90% +. Note that the expected Average GiB DD is 6.50 or half the possible tricks.

What do you think?

Does anyone know the status of the site: http://www.bridgebum.com/? I have been unable to load this very useful bridge site for several days now. Use of a verification site (http://downuptime.net/) indicates that the site is down. I hope this is not permanent.

Checkback Stayman is a better approach for this bidding sequence: 1♣ - Pass - 1♥ - Pass - 2N - Pass - 3♣ (asking partner for 3 hearts or 4 spades) With 3 hearts, partner rebids 3♥ which does not deny 4 spades With 4 spades and only 2 hearts (partner should not have rebid 2NT with a singleton or void in hearts), partner rebids 3♠, showing 4 spades and denying 3 hearts With neither 3 hearts nor 4 spades, partner rebids 3♦ From there you can select the best game contract based on your holding as responder.

I think it is yet another attempt to measure an apple with a micrometer. I think the profile is already too cluttered. I give up on Skill Level fiasco and now just show "Private" and refer others to MyHands if they they are interested in actual results rather than my inflated perception of my skill level. The profile is not a convention card either and I just refer others to my Favorite CC or the convention card posted. Just my opinion and I predict it will not be a popular one.

4♦, Leaping Michael's ...... showing diamonds and hearts (the other major). The raise to 3♠ by responder is of no consequence.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj8hkt543dq72ckt8&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1dp1hp1sp]133|200[/hv] What do you rebid with S hand?

Can you run BBO web version on a Chromebook? Thanks for input.

Most likely there is little to nothing to be gained by looking at the numbers on the chart. I thought posting a comparison might be of interest to others, but without the detail I guess it is of little real value. With the individual spreadsheets I am able to look at the best and worst boards of the players who's data I imported. I can also examine numerous scenarios to see how they do with various contracts as declarers and as defenders. The real value (I thought) would be to identify really good players on BBO who play significant numbers of boards. Then to review in detail their better boards with hopes of learning what they do to be consistent winners over large numbers of boards. Few are willing admit that luck is a factor in duplicate bridge, but after reviewing many boards won by large IMPs, I see a significant amount of luck involved. I realize that some of what I might attribute to luck is really a skill I am not able to understand. However, many of the big boards are won by opponents making really dumb mistakes and gifting their opponents with a great score. One set of boards played by one of the top partnerships in the world vs. another top partnership was won by close to 1 IMP per board and the vast majority of the big swings were the result of one pair making mistakes that most intermediate players would have avoided. But, luck is certainly not the main factor. At any rate, I think this study has been largely a waste of time. There are better ways of improving bridge skills than trying to copy the methods of others, no matter how great they may be. I am becoming convinced that, for the most part, the skills required to become an expert bridge player cannot be learned. The important skills are those you either have or you don't: High IQ, good instincts, the ability to quickly assimilate facts and apply that information to making good judgement calls, a near photographic memory, and other talents that make people "smart". The most valuable thing to come from this effort is an Excel template that allows me to dissect the boards I have played with regular partner(s) to identify bad trends in our game. "The sum of all technical knowledge cannot make a master contract player." Ely Culbertson

If the skill level of the opponents could be arbitrarily judged then so could the skill level of the subject player be so judged. The assumption is that the opponents and the subject are of comparable skill levels. In the absence of such an assumption, you are correct: no information can be gleaned. There are certainly lopsided games where one pair is expert and the other pair is novice or worse; but, those games do not go for many boards before the weaker pair runs for cover.

It is not intended to represent or imply anything. It is a compilation of the results from importing BBO MyHands data into an Excel database and retaining only the boards played by the player and his/her most frequent partners (8 boards or more in the period examined). Boards played with GiBs were discarded. I think it indicates there is a definite correlation between skill level and IMP/Board averages over the long haul. Without doing all the grunt work I had to do to determine these averages, I also think advancing players can learn much by reviewing (using BBO MyHands) the better boards (+7 IMPs or more) played by really good players. This is like kibbing them after the fact.. Using the data collected and screened I have reviewed many boards with favorable results (7+ IMPs) achieved by some of the best players in the world. This process continues. So far, I have not found the holy grail of bridge; no killer bidding system, no pattern of genius level decision making processes, no apparent ESP. What I have found is that the key to winning bridge at all levels seems to be sound bidding and play; avoiding stupid mistakes and making fewer judgement errors than you opponents. And ....... crouching behind a wall .... LUCK, lots and lots of luck. Boards handed on a silver platter by opponents making stupid mistakes and bad judgement calls. And yes, this does occur at the highest levels of bridge with surprising frequency.

Results of a compilation of BBO Boards from MyHands. Link removed. I think the topic has been beaten to death. Sorry for the inconvenience Wayne