Wayne_LV

Duplicate post, please ignore Link to correct post: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/58528-sam/

I realize that my 3♥ bid was not the best, but I posted the survey to see if my partner should have bid 3NT, given the 3♥ bid. The survey results, although not statistically conclusive due to small sample size, indicates most feel partner should have have bid 3NT. But, in bridge the partner that makes the FIRST mistake in bidding takes the blame for a bad contract. So the blame is mine. Had 4NT made, most likely the hand would have been filed away and forgotten. I thank all for their input. In the future I will obey Hamman's law.

[hv=pc=n&s=s8hqj75d642ckq832&n=sakj32hdkqj83ca95&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=pp1sp1np3dp3hp4dp4nppp]266|200[/hv] In our system, 4NT is to play if no trump suit has been agreed upon and 4NT is not a jump bid. 3NT makes and 4NT is -1, thus sparking the disagreement. The swing on the board was 10.53 IMPs. For those wishing to see the traveller, use this link: http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=M-1357632373-39925671&username=maspd

My partner and I played weak NT (12-14) with 2/1 for over a year. We tried 2-way stayman and it does help to side more contracts with the field but that is not always an advantage. We found 2-way stayman to have an extremely unnatural feel and went back to 4-way transfers. I consider lebensol a must play convention with weak NT. You will get overcalled far more often than those playing a strong NT and must have a good method of dealing with that interference. Most good opponents will play Cappelletti or some other defense that includes a penalty double. To avoid the dreaded 1NT x contract you must employ some form of escape. We used Moscow Escapes (bids are similar to DONT) and it worked well. You must also play either NMF or Checkback Stayman (I much prefer the latter). A double of 1N is not the worst situation a weak NT player encounters, especially with a method to escape. The worst contract is 1NT passed out when partner has a bust hand. Many times the opps will have missed a part score and on rare occasions a game. But with unfavorable vulnerability, you can also book some heavy losses, even not doubled - especially when the field is in an unmakeable conract in the other direction. For that reason, many play a variable NT i.e. weak NT not vully, strong NT vully - but that is a disaster waiting to happen if you forget to change gears with the vulnerability. After a variable 1NT opening bid a LOT of follow on bids are also changed and this can be terribly confusing to a tired brain. The best defense against a weak NT is to let the opener play the hand in 1NT. Against weak opponents the weak NT can be a very powerful tool, especially given its preemptive value. But if your opponents are good at competitive bidding, your edge diminishes or disappears completely. We found over time that the Weak NT was not worth all the mental baggage necessary to cover the bases. We also came to the same conclusion for 2/1. I have yet to see a contract arrived at using 2/1 that a good pair would not reach using more traditional Standard American bidding sequences, and the loss of 1NT to play after a major suit opening is serious IMHO. I know that can be worked around by playing 1NT/M as semi-forcing but that just becomes one more thing to remember. As with most other aspects of life, there are trade offs between cost and benefit. For all the fuss made over exotic bidding systems and arcane conventions it boils down to considering all the information from the auction to make sound bidding decisions and then playing the spots off the cards when the dummy hits the table. We are now playing a more basic Standard American System with strong NT and a dozen less conventions and our win/loss rates have not suffered. But I must point out we are not playing against World Class players and most BBO matches are won by just making fewer obvious errors than your opponents. The weak NT can be a lot of fun to play but be prepared to do a lot of alerting and typing "12-14" after your 1NT opening bids as well as alerting and explaining all of your NT rebids after opening 1 of a minor.

As I already said: SORRY I BROUGHT IT UP!!!

BBO points are not Masters Points in the true sense of the word. BBO only awards BBO points and ACBL Master points. I don't think BBO can award WBF Master Points, at least not yet. Besides, the intent of my original post was suggest that fewer kinds of Convention cards used by BBO might be a good thing. It is really a moot point since only a small fraction of BBO players ever create a convention card of any kind. Sorry I brought it up.

I am a strong advocate of 2♣ showing either 22+ hcp or within a trick of game in hand. The problem with opening 2♣ on a hand with 5 losers with the intent of jumping to 4♥ over any response is the 2♣ opening bid can be more easily overcalled and with only 12 hcp, this is a very likely event. If you know you are going to go to 4♥ just open 4♥, which (playing rule of 2 and 3) would show 5 or 6 losers and would not confuse partner. If partner can cover 4 or 5 of your losers, then partner can explore slam over the 4♥ opening bid, otherwise partner would pass and hope for a good outcome.

My regular partner and I do not play Sandwich NT but given the bidding would bid as follows: 1) dble would show 4-4 in the unbid suits and 8+ hcp 2) 2NT shows 5-5+ in the unbid suits and a weak hand (5-7 hcp). Why 2NT rather than 1NT? The weaker hands are less likely to win the contract and 2NT is more preemptive than 1NT. I suppose 1NT there would show a strong balanced hand (15-18 hcp) with stops in both of opp's suit, but I have yet to see one of those hands. With a very strong unbalanced hand we would cue bid 2♦, the lower of bid suits.

To the best of my knowledge ACBL Master Points are only awarded at ACBL sanctioned games, online or F2F. BBO points are not the same as ACBL Master Points.

Not even remotely suggesting anyone be banned. ACBL is the governing body for all Master Points awarded in BBO Tournaments so it make sense their convention card format be used, no?

[hv=pc=n&n=sakj32hdkqj83ca95&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=pp1sp1np3dp3hp]133|200|What do you bid?[/hv]

The problem I have with using the advanced robots are they are too expensive. I think a more fair offering would be the advanced robots at a price somewhere in between the current price and the price of the inferior robots and scrap the weaker version. Normal practice when a software product is improved is to stop selling the outdated version. If players are to play with robots, I would think it would be far better to play with one that is more predictable and plays a system they understand. Defending is normally a lot of guess work against players and systems that are, for the most part unpredictable, so what the robots play as opps is of little importance.

I would think a Robot that plays SAYC per the ACBL Booklet My link would be a popular feature for BBO. The current GIBs bid and play pretty badly, as evidenced by the fact they are relatively easy to beat. I realize that their win/loss performance is a factor of the humans at other tables playing with them, but my partner and I consistently beat them to the tune of over .6 IMP per board. I would venture a guess, not having any statistics available other than numerous observations, that the vast majority of BBO players are playing SAYC. I would also venture a guess that most of them are not playing the complete system (i.e. such conventions a J2NT and splinters are seldom evident on players profiles or in play.) One of the most useful purposes for renting GIBs is to practice bidding and play. Would it not be more desirable to have SAYC robots that beginning and intermediate players could practice with and learn from. Would it not be more of a measure of progress to play against opps playing the same system you play? Further I would suspect that a number of players not currently using GIBs would rent a SAYC Robot for practice and learning thereby generating more income for BBO. Wayne

I play weak NT opening (12-14) and tried the same range for 1NT overcall. It was a disaster. Not so much as the problems when you overcall with 12-14 as with those 15-18 pt hands with which you would normally overcall 1NT. To show those hands would require a double and rebid of 1NT and if the opps have opened the bidding you all but NEVER get to make the 1NT rebid.

Seems to me that one of the biggest advantages to online bridge is the ability to quickly find a game for a few casual hands at any time of the day or night. Also seems to me that one of the biggest disadvantages to online bridge is the inability to find a compatible partner that will make the causal games fun. The skill ratings of players topic has been beat to death in this forum and no solutions are forthcoming. Besides, a true expert in Precison Club is of little value to a SAYC or 2/1 player. The profile provides way too little space to describe any but the simpliest of system preferences and with all the arcane abbreviations it is of dubious value in most cases. By the time you scan the profile of players at open tables the seat has long since been taken and you have to look for another and that one is gone ......... and it never ends. My suggestion is to either expand the profile or provide a link off the profile with check boxes for the most popular systems and conventions. Then provide a search tool whereby other BBO members that meet your desired criteria of basic systems and favorite conventions would be displayed. Those with best match could then be added to a list of prospective partners, similar to the friends list that could be used for online contact. If email addresses are available for those prospects, that information should be part of the output of a compatibility search. Then it would be up to the player to make contact with those prospective partners and arrange for a trial game or two and up to both individuals as to whether to form a "regular" partnership or not. A search might include (from a check box search) such things as: Pacific time zone 2/1 Weak NT lebensohl or Eastern time zone SAYC RKCB .... of course the simplier the search the more hits and the less value of the list In general I am taking about a search with criteria similar to those used by all the online Real Estate Sites that would yield a list of prospective partners. If a BBO member does not want to be contacted by prospective partners due to having a regular partnership or whatever other reason should be able to opt out and the search would bypass them altogether. Members that have been inactive for a long period of time should be excluded from the search as well (there must be thousands of inactive user names due to members having multiple names or names reserved and then never used.) This would all have to be done in a searchable database with all interested BBO members responsible for checking the boxes and "opting in" to such a program. As an adjunct to this suggestion, I would also suggest that BBO free up user names that have no log in for a year. The stated objective of BBO is to provide a site where players can maximize the online bridge experience and Fred and his crew have done an admirable job. However, Bridge is a partnership game and the ability to find compatible players and form regular partnerships seems to have been overlooked. I realize what I am suggesting would require a great deal of progamming and not inconsiderable expense. This feature, as are the Gibs, could be a service for pay. Perhaps 1 or even 5 BBO$ per search after the data base has grown to sufficient size to be useful. Another approach might be an annual subscription to the service for a fee.

Personally I see a frightful trend in BBO. Why are there so many robot tournaments and why are they so popular? There will not be a computer program that will play good bridge for the next 1000 years, if ever. How do I know, you ask. 20 years ago I wrote the first simulation of the World Series of Poker and created an expert system that played Texas Hold'em, 7 card stud, Omaha, and draw poker, well enough to best several past world champions and a number of other expert poker professionals. Was it AI? Absolutely NOT! There is no such thing as artificial intelligence. Real human intelligence is pretty rare. What passes as AI is really nothing more than expert systems programmed to react to predetermined circumstances. A computer cannot and will not ever be able to learn in the human sense of the word. There are games that are more adaptable to expert systems; Poker being one of them and Chess being the classic. A computer approaches chess by trying every possible move, given a board position, evaluating them all until the most satisfactory or least unsatisfactory move is found. A computer can do this at the speed of light ... a human cannot and besides most humans would be bored out of their goard long before a fraction of the possibilities are explored. I used to love the game of chess until I realized that a machine is far better at it than I could ever become. I now play chess extremely rarely. A game of chess against a computer is like a contest between a human adding numbers in their head vs a calculator. The human will never win. And then there is Bridge. The game has way too many variables for any programmer or team of programmers to anticipate every combination. At best a small percentage of hands can be programmed to bid and play well by a computer. The best chess programs can and will beat 99% of the chess playing human population. The best bridge programs will beat only a small percentage of the bridge playing population. So why bother with a computer when there are far more proficient human players available with which to enjoy the game? Or have we become so introspective that we cannot deal with each other on a human level, accepting our flaws and rejoicing in our talents? I think we have .... and that fact makes me very very sad :(

Between the 2 versions of BBO (Win, Web) there are 3 diff kinds of convention card formats: 1. Generic BBO 2. Full Disclosure 3. ACBL format The Generic BBO format is a carryover from the days before the ACBL format was available The FD card can only be created and maintained in the Win version. The creation and maintenance of the FD card is impossible. There are just too many combinations and continuations to define. If a lot of basic bids and continuations are not defined, the purpose of the FD card is defeated. I have personally spent literally hundreds of hours trying to complete FD cards for complex bidding systems and finally just gave up and scrapped all my efforts. Conceptually FD conv cards is a great idea, but the execution of the concept is extremely frustrating and I have yet to see one done complete and correctly. Further, since all the bid explanations are available to partner and opps alike, I have encounted strong opposition to the use of the FD convention card and on more than one occasion removed the FD card from use to pacify my opponents. It does appear to be cheating to those unfamiliar with the FD concept. The worst downside to the use of the FD card is it becomes a memory crutch that tends to inhibit the memorization of conventional bids. The ACBL convention card format leaves much to be desired, BUT ........ it is the official ACBL format that is required for all ACBL sanctioned events. Personally, I would like to see BBO eliminate all convention card formats except the ACBL format and provide a means to print a completed BBO ACBL convention card that could be used in live ACBL club games and tournaments.

What if? Rather than generating hands using a random number generator, use hands that have been played in ACBL tournaments and/or club games. Compare results, not with the BBO field, but with the field that played in the ACBL game. I know that would involve substantial data entry but could this not be done with volunteers. To cross verify accuracy, assign a set of boards to 2 diff volunteers and then cross check the boards to make sure they match. If they don't match hand for hand, board for board, discard that set of board. Another possiblility would be to use BBO records for hand hands played in BBO ACBL tournamnents for comparison and scoring in the "club" games. The likelyhood of someone playing a board in a tournament and getting the same board in a club game is next to nil, and if it did happen who would remember it? I agree that the current method is not good, especially on weakends (pun intended) when weak fields are the norm.

My partner and I play 1NT-4♠ and 2NT-4♠ as GF in best minor, but in 2 years it has not come up once :(

Yeppers, and mistakes, all too often, win in bridge as well.

And in conclusion ....... Forget about it. There are only 3 real solutions to this problem: 1. Find a regular partner and develop your own agreements and only play online with that partner on BBO (or some other site of your choice) in for pay tournements. This way you have a partner you know and nobody can refuse to let you play at their "Holy" table. 2. Play with whoever sits across from you and try to act civil and not treat a casual game as if the World Championship of the Bridge Playing Universe was at stake. This means don't jump table everytime something happens that does not meet with your egotistical approval. 3. Give up online Bridge and play online poker where you have no partner and all the mistakes are your own.

The purpose of a rating system is to find a temporary or pick up partner for a casual game, not to find a lifetime partner to play an exotic system with a gaggle of obscure conventions. A bridge quiz should cover basic bridge knowledge that applies to all systems. Specific bidding questions could be limited to ACBL SAYC, which after all was intended to allow strangers to sit and play with NO discussion. Funny how so few seem to know the basics of SAYC yet expect partner to play Exclusion Blackwood, lebensohl, and other complex conventions. The play of the hand and basic defensive techniques are system independant for the most part.

I realize that bridge knowledge does not necessarily translate into performance at the table, but what if ....... A rating system was devised based on results of a bridge quiz. This quiz could be broken down into sections such as: 1. Basic bidding and play 2. Popular conventions 3. Advanced card combinations 4. Leads and signals 5. Other categories Such a quiz could be online and taken on an honor basis and computer graded. Ratings would then be assigned based on percentage of correct answers in a given category and overall. The quiz could be taken many times as a player learns more about the game and the latest score would used for appying the rating. If you look up all the answers as you take the test, you would at least have read about that aspect of the game once. Personally I would prefer to play with a beginner that knows how the game is supposed to be played and lacks experience than with a player that has been playing 30 years and has yet to master the basics.

I was bored this AM so I did an analysis of skill levels by selected countries. Below is a list sorted by percentage of players online at that time professing to be Expert or World Class. COUNTRY % Expert+ Turkey 28% Italy 21% Israel 20% NZ 18% Greece 17% Spain 15% India 14% France 14% Germany 13% England 13% Australia 12% USA 12% Denmark 10% Canada 9% Average 18% There are either a lot more really good bridge players on BBO than I imagined or a lot of ego maniacs. Go figure.