irdoz

Having played on 5 online sites I find none of the available cc's very impressive - including here. It seems to me the concept of automatically providing an explanation and a defense where necessary is a good one even if only a limited version was available that restricted itself to 20 opening bids (fron 1c through 4nt) and required three things for each bid... description, defense if necessary and follow up bids and meanings. If only the description was automatically available (eg upon mousing over the bid) with the option for the opps to click for the defense and further click for a more detailed explanation...the problem with 12 pages is that it is too much and I'm not lazy...when I have a flat hand with few hcps and the opps get into some relay auction and Im on opening lead then I can wait till the end of the auction to ask for an explanation. Add to the 20 opening bids (which for most people would not have to be filled in) the common competitive bids (2 suited calls over 1m and 1M, and defenses to strong 1c and 1nt) and you have enough to cover most situations. Additionally a clickable defense database covering common conventions or conventions that had caused problems (eg multi, flannery, transfer openings, transfer walsh etc.) would seem like an easy thing to construct. I play transfer walsh reponses to 1c on one site and I have a set of notepad defenses that I cut and paste onto the table chat. I also have a cc for multi defenses - and I load this cc when our side opens multi so the opps can refer to it.

I saw an analysis of okbridge hands on bidding at the 3 level in IMPs in competitive auctions (ie part score battles) which indicated in IMPs the 3-level belongs to the opps when their suit is the lower suit. In MPs and nv I'll often bid 3 of my suit over 3 of their suit. In IMPs I'll often bid to the 3 level when our side owns the lower suit (in the typical example where we make 2h and they make 2s)... the only hope of going plus is pushing them to bid one more. But in IMPs I'll rarely outcompete them on the 3-level unless I have some game interest. There are other aspects of competiting in part scores in IMPs - for example balancing - Ill rarely balance in IMPs when it forces partner to the 3 level.

If you tabulate the round robin results just between the 8 pairs who made the quarter finals then USA1 was clearly in front Bulgaria was second and Italy equal 6th! (out of 8) Quite clearly the Italians did far better against the non-qualifiers. At this level there are still major differences in standards.

Here's my observations on the VUgraph, systems and the never ending argument about complex systems. I keenly watched the Vugraph for numerous hours and found it a very rewarding experience. I tabulated a lot of the swing boards (gains/losses of more than 6imps) because I was interested to try to make my own judgement about what caused the differences. My observations would be: 1. Luck plays a big role. A large number of auctions are highly competitive - particularly where both sides have distributional hands. There were at least 15 slam hands I found in highly competitive auctions (bid but not makeable or not bid when cold) that produced large swings where the decision to bid slam can only be made on a guess - and these decisions are (almost) totally independent from any system method. 2. Aggressive preempting at the 3 and 4 level often paid...and again its judgement, evaluation and luck rather than system that seems to be more important in bidding over preempts than system. I didn't see positive swings produced by brown sticker preemptive type 2 level bids - there may have been some but of the 20 matches I reviewed I saw not a one. I did see five swings caused by the method getting the opening side into trouble. 3. In general bidding systems made little difference to the final contract in non-competitive auctions and natural systems did as well as highly artificial ones. 4. There were numbers of swings caused by arrival in different contracts - particularly in competitve auctions. I think two factors operate to produce this difference - one is mainly judgement and guessing and state of the match factors and mostly independent from bidding systems - and the other is indeed system dependent - artificial systems or different methods can induce large differences in competitive auctions that are totally system dependent - and it may be the case that an artificial bid lets the opponents "in" rather than being an aid in finding the right contract. 5. There were three slams I found in non-competitive auctions in the early rounds where only one or two pairs bid them and the system methods were very helpful in finding an otherwise hard to bid slam - but these boards are very rare. Most systems seem to do well at finding the same contracts in non-competitive auctions. 6. Many differences in score were due to difference in card play - the majority of the small swings are definitely due to this (and these do add up)... Again some luck on opening lead plays a large part - I saw numbers of game and slam swings caused by opening leads (although here one might argue that these are skill and judgement -Im not competent enough to judge). Finally a comment on the interminable argument about complex versus simple systems. I am one of the few 20-something players at my local bridge club. Of those I know around my age, many of whom are relatively new to the game, a consistent part of their keen interest in the game is an interest in systems and methods. I love the 'cleverness' of complex relay systems. At the same time I don't like playing against methods I am totally unfamiliar with. I also have taught bridge online (for free!) to retired folk who are returning to the game and who have no interest in grappling with a range of complex system methods. It does not mean they don't love the game. I mention these two groups because of how different they are and what motivates their interest. There are and always will be a range of newcomers, with a range of skills and a range of interests. The argument about 'complex methods' versus 'restricted approved methods' often becomes a silly binary opposite with emotionally charged arguments that ends up - like all binary opposities do - obscuring real understanding - and producing solutions which ultimately please nobody. Whatever solutions are proposed need to both cater for those people who want to play and play against the most complex systems, and those people who are new to the game for whom this would be inappropriate or those who have no desire to play against complex methods - and those who want to sometimes and not other times. There isn't a one size fits all solution. There needs to be a number of creative 'solutions'. And no one side of this argument is 'right'.

I've played Astro and Asptro and certainly prefer them to CAPP and DONT which both have flaws. I've recently being experimenting with Woolsey (it might have another name) - it caters for more hand types and doesnt have some of the problems of DONT and CAPP. Its basic structure is... dbl = 4M/5m opening hand+ or a good diamond one suiter (Resp Pass convert to penalty, 2c asks minor; 2d asks major, 2M to play) (Can also include very strong hands in dbl in which case 2nt over any response shows this hand) 2c = 54 in majors (Resp 2d asks longer major) 2d = one suiter in major or strong major/minor hand (Resp 2s = spades; 2h = pass or correct) (If overcaller continues with 2nt shows strong hand) 2M = 5/5 major minor (Resp 2nt ask minor) 2nt = minors 3m = 6+ cards preempt

I'd be really interested in attending any lessons on Moscito. I'm in Australia....best times for me are late at night East Coast USA time.