JustaDummy

I accept that, to a point. But when barmar said "If we really thought this was worth pursuing" then all bets were cancelled.

Really? From a purely technological point of view, which algorithm would you use in this case? I recount the salient features of my original post, some two years ago: "faster please erna" "if you can’t play faster, please leave" "ugly turkish bidding" I don't believe that this conversation is amenable to computational analysis within the boundaries of the technology available to BBO. But to my mind at least, this series of comments is abhorrent, and the last one is clearly racist. This is not about the friendly use of "foul" language as outlined by mycroft. I personally do not believe that language of itself has foulness associated with it. My view is that it is the intention behind ANY use of language, no matter what specific words are used, which must be deduced from the exchange, which is important. Regarding "banning the situation," that is of course impossible, but members who exhibit clearly unacceptable behaviour, such as telling a player to leave because they are too slow (or too fast, or too dark-skinned, or too Turkish) should, and must, be brought to account, or at least be asked to explain. This will, of course, not happen in BBO. You prefer to play with insignificant filters rather than face the truth of the matter. OK, I'm probably banned now, but I don't care. The only reason I make these comments is because of the paucity of thought that barmar has proffered.

Excellent question! I have many questions like that too. For example, when One Of The Worthies posts a quiz for us lowly types to ponder (thank you, but I can get hundreds of well-constructed quizzes elsewhere, without having to come here), they quite often state "MPs" or somesuch, as though that would immediately switch us into some particular mode of understanding. Well, I'm sure it would, if I were one of them. And then, what follows is just incomprehensible unless that mode of understanding is in place. And I just do not know what is important about being in MPs vs not being in MPs. (And no doubt I'll be assailed from all sides for saying what I just said there. "Why don't you post that question?" I hear them say that kind of thing, again and again. Well, I've looked at the myriad replies to simple questions, that's why.) But I thank you for giving me the chance to realise that I'm not completely alone here. I really do believe that most (if not all) of the regular non-newb posters here are actually trying to help. If only they would calm down a bit and not jump all over some of the other posts made by similarly endowed players, as if trying to make a point among THEIR peers instead of trying to help us. I mean, what chance do I or you or any other real beginner have, in trying to sort out the responses, when the experts just cannot agree among themselves, and attack each other in the process?

Ah, crap. Sorry. I missed. I do not of course want only me to post in N/B, not that my wish has anything to do with it. I have avoided posting there recently, and then, when I wanted to, I got it wrong. But I will refrain, permanently. Please ignore my post, and accept my apologies.

I’ve been watching all the threads in this Novices / Beginners forum and have found the many posts totally fascinating! I want to take a leaf out of Henry Root’s book and say, “Well Done!” We need more of this!! Maybe some posts are a bit beyond your Average Joe, but Nothing Wrong With That!!! And when I read, in one of the posts, that in the case of a hand displayed which N/Bs should assess, the only proper bid (6C, in this case) is virtually impossible to find by any players at any level, I realise that this is absolutely the place for me, as a newbie. How else will I learn what is impossible? Essential reading for every newbie, what? I’d like to donate a pound (sterling, of course) to each of the contributors to this forum, but, alas, the means are beyond me, since I have not spent a career in wet fish. However, I CAN contribute in kind. Here it is. I have discovered a new, possibly rarely-used (but what do I know) construct which simplifies bidding and extracts the essence of that impossible bid, reducing it to a simple algorithm. Yes, I know, algorithms are for the slavish obedience of fools but the guidance of the wise (or some such twaddle promulgated by a war ace who got his legs chopped off for not following the rules). It is the Rockwell Encabulator (sometimes known as the Chrysler Encabulator, depending on which expert you believe actually first stumbled upon it). Or, simply, Rockwell. I won’t attempt to go through the finer details of this convention, since it is beyond me - but as a novice I feel that it will not be beyond me forever, so I am encouraged by the various posts here to work on it. I haven’t quite mastered the negative double yet, but no matter. The Rockwell is, as far as I can see, in my immediate future! I discount the Chrysler variant, since, although it seems to be more complete, it is too simple. We don’t want that! There is, I feel, some work required in order to adopt this convention within a partnership, particularly if it is to be applied in, for example, a duplicate environment. Some of the references I have seen in the existing exemplary videos seem to not bear too much relevance to Bridge as I understand it, but I now know that this is just my fault, having waded through the posts on this forum, in which most comments seem to be beyond me and do not in any way relate to Bridge as I know it. But give me time, and I’m sure I’ll get there! Rockwell, here I come!! Sorry for the paucity of links to the various explanatory videos: there are too many! I simply encourage you to Google “encabulator”. I’m really surprised that this has not been referenced before in this forum (but what do I know). Rockwell for President!!!

I don't care that the OP may have been way off base by starting this thread in this forum (if that is what you are suggesting: apologies if it isn't, but I still don't care). But if the whole discussion based on that original post is beyond me, I do care. That is absolutely what Uwe was getting at. I care that Uwe's completely valid points about the learning process are apparently being ignored, and even discounted. I don't care in the slightest what any individual poster's track record is. I will judge their posts on their own merits, from my own perspective. That is all I can do. If their posts don't help me, or are beyond my comprehension, I will take a negative view of their contribution, even if they are world class players. I'm not here to listen to esoterica. I can't handle it. Uwe was saying that.

I love this discussion. It focuses on the needs of newbs. And there are some gems: Which is what I was hoping for, and suggested, way back, when I thought that a forum like this might be good. I understood that there may be issues about who does the moderation: Voting buttons! I did not know that these were available! I wasn't at all keen on just one Mod making these decisions, but I'm also not too keen on a group of self-appointed posters doing it either! Sorry. Determining the set would be a key issue. Then, sounds great - except that my experience of these forums is that the Mods just don't seem to pay any attention at all. Hence all the flame wars which are allowed to become really well developed. Custard pies do not come in to it. So I have no faith in our Mods' ability to actually do a decent job of filtering out the nuances. They can't even filter out crap. So we're left with poster comments. But: Totally. I don't know what your definition of "broken" is, but I do recognise it when I see it.

Philip Marlowe is right, IMNVHO. (Well, who would argue with that guy :D - and from that reference you can tell my age). I've spent 50 years as a career educationist, eventually working at international level, so if I suggest that maybe Uwe has a point, or ten, about beginners and the learning process, than maybe he does. So listen to him, please. I was horrified by some of the responses to his posts. Just because everyone in the "advanced civilised world" (so let the flames start on that one, but please start a new thread, so that I can ignore it. See? After just a few weeks surfing this BBF, I'm getting the hang of how this environment works) has gone through an education system (you still with me? Sorry about the multiple parentheses (at least they're not nested (oops)), oh and yes, I also understand about Euclid and Newton and Einstein and even Sheldon Cooper, just in case you wanted a real flame war) they just believe that they are experts in the process of education, but instead they are just exposing their ignorance of it - which of course will not stop them (so let the flames… ). I'd be delighted to give you chapter and verse to explain what I and Uwe mean by the above (note that he and I have had no collusion here whatever). Best by PM, if you are interested. And if not, I'll not be surprised.

Thank you! I really don't know, but I think your advice would be welcomed by the other starters too. I'm sure (and hope) they'll find this thread. This is what I mean by that - I absolutely did not know about that tool. But now that I do, I'm going to be all over it like a bad rash. I have BM2000. Within the first ten hands I have learned more than I learned in all the years I played "social" bridge, 40 years ago. It's VERY intense, more so than his "Learn to Play Bridge", but it's all there.

I'm interested in knowing what you as a novice or beginner are using to help you learn to play better. There are probably millions of resources out there (apart from the Bridge Base Forums) and I've used a few and found a few that are good and a few that I found to be not so good. What's your experience? I'll start, in case I'm accused (again) of not contributing, but I'm not looking just for your opinion of what I've used, but also your opinion of what you've used. Firstly, I learned to play basic Bridge years ago (1969) by picking up a book by Culbertson, most of which I didn't understand but which gave me enough to be able to play with friends and colleagues. These games were fun, but not very educational! The good part of playing with pals is that if anyone made a non-natural bid, everyone would immediately chime in, eg. if I responded 2♣ to my partner's 1NT opening, everyone would shout "Stayman!" which was a laugh but it also helped to reinforce things. It also helped anyone at the table who didn't know about Stayman, because they would say something like, "What the F*** is that?" and explanations would ensue. So I suppose that playing has to be high on the list of good things to do while learning - provided that you are in a supportive environment. I'm pretty sure that that kind of table talk at a Duplicate club would get you banned. So where do you play? Then there was a fiendish device made of plastic with little windows which could be opened by sliding a plastic shutter to expose a tiny card symbol. Behind the shutters was a printed card with the hands laid out, and by various arcane methods one could learn the most appropriate sequence of bidding and play. Horrible little thing, but this was before home computers. I think I still have it somewhere. Now, I have Bridge Baron 22, which is horrible in its own various ways. I also of course have Bridge Base Online, and I watch a lot, although a few worthies in these Bridge Base Forums have indicated that that is not a good idea. What software do you use, if you use any? Also, I'm working through Fred Gitelman's Learn to Play Bridge, and I think it's just excellent. But I could really do with about 300 more test examples in both play and bidding. I know I will see lots of challenging stuff if I play over the table or in BBO, but that's very unstructured and no one says why a bid is right or wrong and allows you to try again, with guidance, unlike Fred's software. So playing isn't a great learning environment from that perspective: good for gaining experience but not for developing knowledge and understanding. Do you have any experience of good structured quizzes for bidding and play?

I'd like to meet Highlow - seems to be talking my language!

That will work for posts which ask a question with the hope of getting an answer from someone more experienced. But it isn't the only type of post. If you restrict posts to that shape, do you not restrict the forum?

So what would you like to see in the pinned notice?

Great idea! There is a post or two buried in the forum about how that's done, from MrAce and FrancesHinden. But if you don't happen upon them, you might never know. I know it means work for Admins (probably inquiry, sorry, Ben), but it would help as a sticky (pinned).

I don't think that SAYC is particularly arbitrary, but if I were to make up rules which I felt like following, I'm sure that an independent arbitrator would find SAYC easier to justify. Yes, it can, to some extent. But my problem, at my stage, is that I can't tell how much better. Or what that difference might mean in terms of a search for an attainable contract. So if you say that, I'll believe it, but it won't help me to be able to judge my hand in terms of selecting appropriate bids.

Oh, shoot! Sorry, ma'am. Brain dead as usual :blink: .

I agree with Vampyr, and thank him for his support. I don't think that mechanical bidding is worthless at all. Without it, no novice would ever be able to even begin to play. And you have to accept that some novices will need to stay longer at the mechanical stage than others - but while there, they will be able to enjoy playing. I don't know of any club or online system which presents a novice with a hand, tells them the contract, and then says "OK, start playing." Although that would be nice, if those who tell me to ignore bidding skills at this stage are to be believed.

Thank you! Bookmarked :D

+1 I'm going through LTPB right now and it's just great (AFAIK it's PC only, though). Apart from the well-structured presentation, he reinforces each key point consistently, presents good examples and provides quizzes for you to test your knowledge. In addition, all the specialist Bridge terms are highlighted, and simply rolling over the word pops up an explanation of the term. Then, the menu / chapter structure makes it very easy to browse around, repeat sections, etc. Super piece of work. As Ben said elsewhere, it's a bit dry, but it's a goldmine! I've started taking notes so that I'm being more active in my learning - it's very easy to just scan through the material without really taking it all in!

Sorry, I'm struggling with that. I'm trying to plan the hand and I see the basic principle of establishing two long ♦ tricks, but will I have the entries into dummy when I need them? My only way in is via the long ♠s and to use these I first need to void in dummy's ♥ suit, which looks like your first strategy (ruff 2♥ and one ♦) is required by default. I'm really not sure, but I think that if I start on that route the ♦ route becomes unavailable…

I didn't know that! Neat. Can I ask a quick question without hijacking the thread? If I'm kibitzing South and North makes an alert on BBO, will I see it?

Thank you! I saw that term referred to in another post, without explanation, but decided that I had already made too much noise, so I decided to remain ignorant. And I do have questions on your very useful example. It is certainly an easy hand to play. If trumps are 2-1, it's a lay down. Am I correct in assuming that if they fall 3-0 then I lose a third ♦ to go one down in ♠4? I don't see that (of course I see the useless ♦J!). Surely ♠Q will ruff a ♦ round? I'm trying to see what this means in terms of how the bidding might go. I'm wondering what the differences might be if North had, say, ♦4 instead of the ♣9. I think 4♠ might then go down one even with a 2-1 split in trumps, yet I can't see how that difference would affect the bidding…

Sorry, missed that. It was on page 2 and I was losing the will to live. Out of a cohort of 12000, I take your assessment of my uniqueness as a compliment. But, sadly, you're wrong, sorry - the stats are not on your side. If you examine the current posters in this forum (ignoring the posts dragged in from the previous B/I forum as irrelevant to a forum for novices), you might have a case. But if you consider that only one BBO member in three has ever posted anything at any time in any of BBO's many forums, then my uniqueness decreases to one in 4000. Still pretty unbelievable. So you have to face up to the fact that I'm not alone, even though the BBO forums are mostly empty, from the point of view of an ordinary BBO member.

Apologies to the OP. I hope you got something out of all of this.

What? How does "FYP" (whatever that means) add to clarity? I hope I am not the only one here who has no clue what "FYP" means. I went through http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/18179-useful-abbreviations-wdp-etc/ and it wasn't there. Is this some esoteric forum reference, or some esoteric Bridge reference, or what? Excuse my abrasiveness, but I'm increasingly getting frustrated here in this new NOVICE / BEGINNERS forum with stuff dropped in by advanced players who ought to know better. Read my sig. My advice to advanced players: think twice before posting here, and then, think again. And then, please, PLEASE tailor your post to suit novices and the level at which we bid and play. And remember, please, that we need time to develop to the stage that you have reached. Try to reinforce the kind of stuff we are trying to learn, instead of tearing it all down. Otherwise we really have nowhere to go. We all need foundations from which to build. You cannot expect us to start building before we have fully settled on a foundation. So I guess that this experimental forum has had it. Too much noise. It was a good idea, but…