brian_m

Yes, I remember that happening. You need to install symbol.ttf, the client depends on that font for the suit symbols. Once you do that, and make a couple of tweaks to bbover.ini, everything will work just fine. I've been running the Windows client under Linux for more than five years now.

Not running Linux, are you? The old client runs just fine with Linux and WINE provided you know to do a couple of simple tweaks to a configuration file. Brian.

Yes, I for one totally agree with you, I've tried to get used to the browser version and I detest it. The old client is just so much better, it works reliably with FD (some of us invested a lot of time in writing FD cards!) and it lets you keep your hands (I mean as .lin files on your hard drive). If BBO is intending to force us all on to the browser client, I think that's very bad news indeed.

Sorry for the delayed reply. For some reason, I didn't get an e-mail saying that you'd posted in this thread. After the sequence showing the strong 3 suiters, responder uses a bid of the known short suit as an asking bid. Opener's responses are 1 step = minimum with a singleton 2 steps = maximum with a singleton 3 steps = minimum with a void 4 steps = maximum with a void Yes, obviously from the above, we can include 5440 shapes in the bid - it's basically up to opener. With a good 5 card major, we tend to show that. With a weak 5 card suit or 5 cards in a minor, we'll go via the 3-suited sequence.

Oops. Removed comment about misreads (though the "impossible negative" is in response to a strong 1♣, not a rebid by the 1♣ opener). The misread was mine. I use a gadget made popular(?) by the Cambridge Univ team of the late 70s, 1♥ after a negative is a multi-way bid, showing ♥ or some balanced ranges or the 4441 shapes. Responder is forced to bid 1♠, after which 1NT = ♥, other NT = big balanced, and a suit is the suit below the singleton in a 4441 shape, 2 level = 16-19, 3 level = 20-23. etc. When you open a Precision 1♣, you're in charge of the hand after a positive. Assuming that you're using some form of asking bids, whether the Italian asks or Symmetric Relay or something else, usually no effort is made to describe opener's hand. You try to get the information you need about responder's hand for opener to set the contract. Yes, there are exceptions to this, e.g. opener may simply raise a major suit positive to game with a flat minimum 1♣ opener and appropriate trump support, but, particularly if you play some scheme of transfer positives, you try NOT to give away information about the hand which will not be dummy, and you try to make that hand the 1♣ opener.

Was this a typo, and you didn't mean to post? Either that, or these forums have some major incompatibility with 64-bit chromium as a browser, and I'm only seeing a truncated posting. No indication of what hand types are in your (presumed) multi 2♦. No indication of what the alerted 2♥ meant. Did you ask? No indication of whether you have any agreements about your partner's double of 2NT. What information, if any, do you have from the fact that South doubled 2NT but didn't double 2♥? No indication of what's in your profile, or your partner's? Especially not about any lead agreements? Were the other three players GIBs. and you expect us to know all this? Presumably not, since you're opening a multi. What answer can you expect other than "insufficient data"? I am, of course, making the assumption that you opened 2♦? Maybe not...

I echo lalldonn's advice. It's more than 20 years since I felt the need to dedicate a bid to the Precision 2♦ opener. The sky's not going to fall in if you open 1♦ on 4414 shape, and if the idea of opening 1♦ on a void is too much for you, then put the 4405 shapes into your 2♣ opener. I find it useful to be able to make a 1♥ or 1♠ response to 1♦ mandatory on any hand holding a 4 card major, 0-10 HCP and NOT forcing, with 2♣ and 2♦ as conventional invites, but AFAIR this part of the system (general licence - now known as level 3 - in the UK, or it used to be) was one of the many things which I found violated the GCC when I moved across the pond.

Couldn't agree more. The ACBL could learn a lot from the English Bridge Union's attitude - I've seen drafts of the EBU's Orange Book posted on rec.games.bridge with an invitation to try to find flaws.

When playing Acol weak, I like SWINE as a runout. BridgeGuys list it as Twisted Swine, I think that's because Goldsmith's version reversed most of the sequences after pass and redouble. Anyway, here's the link http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/SwineTwisted.html

No, I didn't say that I personally would open 1NT with 4441 shape. In fact, I don't play a balanced 1NT opener. All my 11-15 balanced hands are in 1♦, The gadget I use for a 1NT opener is called the Aveyard 1NT, it came out (in the UK) in the early 1980s, AFAIR. A 1NT opener shows 11-15 and 1) a 4441 or 5440 shape, always short ♣ 2) 5+♦ and a 4 card major 3) 6+♦ Over our 1♦ opener we play 1M natural and NON forcing, unless opener is maximum, and 2♣ and 2♦ are also artificial inquiries. As regards the ways I've used to show three suiters, in order of my preference, they were 1) The Cambridge 1♥ as I posted earlier. 2) The multi twos with Precision. 2♦ was the standard Precision 2♦ or a weak 2♥ or 21-22 balanced, 2♥ was a weak 2♠ or 16-19 any 4441, 2♠ was a 3-level pre-empt in a minor or 20-23 any 4441, 2NT was the Sharif-style 3♣ opener or 24+ any 4441. That left room for Salisbury pre-empts, 3♣=both minors, 3♦ = one major, 3♥ = both majors and 3S = solid minor. 3) Wrap the strong 3-suiters into a multi 2♦, more or less as you (or someone) described previously. 4) Treat the better/only minor as a five card suit. If you want all the continuations, I would have to try to find some old notes.

There was a laptop computer called a Husky Hunter back in the mid 80s that was designed for messy environments. If you went to their headquarters (then Coventry, UK) they had a tank of fish in the lobby, with a working PC sitting on the bottom of the tank. Brian.

I used to use what was called "Multi Twos in Precision" - that was what it was called when licenced by the EBU, AFAIR - to show the strong three suiters. In this setup, all of 2♦, 2♥, 2♠ and 2NT openers were multi-way. I think the EBU made that scheme illegal at some point. What I prefer now is that 1♣-1♦-1♥ forces responder to bid 1♠. Opener's rebids are then 1NT = a normal 1♥ rebid, 2 of a suit = 4441 suit below the shortage and 16-19, 3 of a suit shows 20-23, and so on. The NT rebids except 1NT are used to show balanced hands, combining those with the direct NT rebids after 1♣-1♦ you can show 2 point ranges all the way from 20-21 upwards.

1) The overwhelming majority will open 1♦ (I say overwhelming majority because there are a few gadgets around, and some will open 1NT with 13-15 (assuming that's their 1NT range). As regards continuations if you do open 1♦, then as you'll have seen from the rest of this thread, opinions differ. :) 2) Strong 4441 hands have been a problem ever since strong 1♣ systems were invented. I can think of at least four different methods that I've used with them at one time or another. My favourite is to use the Cambridge 1♥ complex (there's more than one version of that, too!). In the version I play, 1♣-1♦-1♥ shows a normal 1♥ rebid OR some balanced ranges OR any 4441 shape.

Yes, I'm the ex-pat Limey. I thought Wei's team was active in the early 1960s, but it was actually the 1969 Bermuda Bowl where the Taiwanese team achieved their shock second place (according to Wikipedia, at least). The Goren book on Precision that I have is one with (AFAIR) a red cover, I don't recall it having Wei as a co-author. I am as near certain as I can be without finding the actual book that in that writeup, Goren advocates a 12-15 1NT opener, 1♦ as 4+♦, and the rest of it more or less as you say. Balanced 11 counts were supposed to be passed. Without checking, I can't remember what the recommended opener was on your x KQJx AKx xxxxx hand. I never really played Goren's or Wei's write up in any case, as I learned Precision while still living in England (about the same time as you did) it was Terence Reese's tweaked version of Blue Team Precision that was the widely available writeup.

Mike, I guess I just got a little needled by the combination of Art stating that he hadn't played Precision for many years and then calling my version of the system unplayable. Yes, you can construct hands where bidding the major first costs. I don't disagree with that. To understand why I prefer the major first approach, you would have to look at other parts of the version of Precision that I use. It's quite a distance from "standard Precision", if such a thing exists. As a general principle, though, I wouldn't put catering to opponents' pre-empts as a major consideration. If I'm that worried about 4♥ overcalls, I'm not going to play Precision in the first place, because they're far more of a concern to me over a 1♣ opener than on the occasions I hold a limited ♦+major two-suiter. Brian.

Art, The comment about what you thought was tongue in cheek. I'm aware that British and American humo(u)r is different, so I even put a smiley on the end. No, I absolutely do NOT say that the "current version" of Precision calls for a 1♠ opener. I've stated very clearly that I accepted it was NOT a majority method. Precision has fragmented over the roughly 50 years since Wei's Taiwan team came on to the scene. I don't think there's any such thing as "the current version". I also think you're a little off beam in calling this Canape. It isn't. If it was Canape, then I would guarantee another suit of at least the same length in a two suited hand. That means that if I were 5-1-4-3 shape (in suit order) I would have to open 1D, assuming any other requirements were met. I'm most definitely not advocating that! Finally, I don't have my copy of Goren's Precision writeup to hand, we moved a little over a year ago and reorganising my books hasn't come to the top of the list yet, but from memory I'm almost certain that Goren advocated a 4+ card 1♦ opener and a 12-15 HCP 1NT opener. As and when the book comes to light, I'll check.

So, let me get this right, Art. Despite the fact that I explicitly said I realised it wasn't the majority method, and from your undoubted position of strength of having "not played Precision in many years", you're able to suggest that the agreement is "unplayable"? Well, having played Precision for the vast majority of the last 40 years, I beg to differ. What *I* think is unplayable is violating system just on a whim, as you advocate. If those spades were 9xxxx rather A9xxx, I'd agree with you. You probably still think 1♦ shows 4+ ♦, as per Goren's write-up. :D

I'm not claiming this to be the majority method, but in the version of Precision that I play, 1♦ denies a 5 card major. I'm opening 1♠, planning to jump shift in ♦ if I can do so at a sensible level.

Maybe South thinks the robots play SAYC in which, AFAIR, 1m-2NT is 13-15 and forcing.

For some of us, due to personal circumstances, it's all the bridge we have. Given Ms. Rohan's attitude, I'd like to suggest that a flag be added to all user profiles, indicating whether or not a player will report suspected cheating. That way, people who share this apparent liking for opps who play double dummy can have their wish, and (presumably) those of us who prefer a fair game will be more likely to get one, as the cheats will prefer to get their IMP fix against people whom they know won't report them. Sounds like an all-win situation to me.

Do you have any indication as to what this limit is? No, I don't play a relay system, but we've got a lot of asking bids plus openers that vary by seat and vulnerability.

The one thing which would have made FD really workable is to have had it pick up explanations of undefined sequences automatically from the bidding box. Yes, there would have been a possible clash when each member of the partnership defines a bid in a different way. In that case, first definition counts. Such opponents are being rather naive, IMO. If people are going to use their FD CCs as aide memoires, there is nothing to stop them using a file on their computer in the same way. There is a setting in FD to turn off explanations of your partner's bids. That box should be removed, and the option to display FD explanations of your partner's bids disabled. I'm sure I speak for many other non-Americans when I say that I don't see why the ACBL's opinions should hold sway. *IF* FD is to be replaced, or even just removed, then we need some method of automating explanations. Those of us who play something a little unusual need a way of cutting down the typing - and whether it's FD or cut/paste from a text file or keystroke macros, there's going to be an element of memory assistance. This seems to me to be a small price to pay for making the game flow at a reasonable rate.

I suspect the answer to your questions are the reason why a lot of people choose to play on BBO - a freedom from arbitrary systems restrictions (unless you're Australian, they have the most liberal national regulations. AFAIK). There's also the fact that many partnerships may be separated by large distances. I play a system with my regular partner which the ACBL would deem illegal on multiple counts - but since she's in New Zealand and I'm in the USA, we don't really care what the offline regulations are.

Yes, I guess they must overcall 2C, unless they're going to disregard the heart suit. Different Asptro to the one I knew. in that case. I can easily believe I'm well out of date, I haven't played it for something like 30 years. The rationale given for its superiority over Astro and Aspro back then was always that you could anchor to your longer/better major with both majors.

You seem to have bent Asptro from the version I know (or knew). AFAIR, 2H denies 3+S, so you should respond 2S. Do you really have to treat 5S and 4H as one-suited in S, as the quote above seems to suggest?