FM75

OCP 1♣ - 1♦ 0-7 1♥ - 1♠ 19+ balanced or will describe later, relay 1N - 2♣ 19-21, stayman - does not promise 4cM 2♦ - 3N

I do not play on one. But it would be nice, if when kibbing, the screen would stay on like a TV - i.e. without having to touch it.

OCP 1♣ - 1♦ 1♠ - 2♠ 2N - 3♣ agrees to SSGT 3♥ - 4♠ club shortage

OCPp - 1♣ 2♣ - 2♦ asking 2N - 3♣ 3 controls (passed hand) majors? 3D - 3N - none

Neither of the opponents called for a director, either!

The software does not allow you to load a CC if you are playing both North and South, or East and West. I have an FDCC that my partner and I use that was created on a PC by a third party. Other than using a laptop to upload that card, I never use the old version of BBO. The convention card has some bugs. I wanted to force various bidding sequences to trigger the announcements by setting up a teaching table without actually having to have anybody else sit at the table. Unfortunately you can't load a CC to play with yourself. You can't even create one to play with yourself (maybe that is the actual problem). I suppose I could create an artificial second account for myself, but even if I did that, it would require using two different computers to make it work. OK, I am assuming that BBO would not let me run two windows on one computer using 2 different logins. This might seem a silly request, but it would be a very helpful way to work on fixing the CC. We also anticipate that the CC will be changing in the near future, as we are planning to make some changes in our system. (Could we dream that constructing one might be an option added to the new software? Or even that uploading one, might be possible with the new software?)

The existing hand record form will display hands played by a single user in some time window. It might be convenient to be able to specify a 2nd user - most likely, but not necessarily partner - to filter further the results. Specifying 4 users might be convenient to download the results of a single non-tournament match.

1♣ - 1N should be 8+ and 5+ ♠ - judgment upgrade 2♣ - 2♦ 0-2 2♠ - 2N trump asking, no top honors 5+ length. 3♥ - 4♥ control ask in hearts, first round - void or Axx(x) 4♠

1H 2H 4H

1♣ - 1N - 8+, 5+ spades 2♣ - 2♦ - 0-2 controls 2N - 3N - Handover control, partner knows about spades, did not seek heart fit.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif This forum needs an icon with tail between the legs slinking off... Thanks - bad analysis on my part.

Maybe the truth is that it isn't a great slam? Even if your system will describe 4=4=4=1, AND your system will not count any honor in clubs describing a 20-23 point hand, and you can figure out that P has the 3 queens, you need diamonds 3-2 68% (or the jack falls singleton + 7%), and you need to pick up the hearts missing the JT (48%, I think) So if I got the above correct, you have 75% times 48% = about 38%? Better if partner has a jack or two, but...

OCP 1♣ - 1♠ 8+ balanced GF 1N - 2♦ relay, 3 controls 3N - no slam interest, no interest in major suit game.

Nice problem. Discussing this with partner and raising it with Oliver Clarke as well. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif We like: ... X - 2♦ takeout and opener has "more than minimum", 5 diamonds (forced < 7) (p would have doubled 1♥ by E to show 5-7) 2♠ - 3♣ No spade interest, 5-7 at least 54 minors now it gets murky and judgmental - could rebid spades showing 6, 3N looks risky in rounded, coin toss. 4♠ or 5♦ (I think I prefer 5♦ "Bergen counting" it to 28-29 assuming p has 5 hcp and probably useful shape in the minor contract. There might also be something to be said for 4♦ (strong invitation) allowing partner to show a good 1 spade or 2 spade holding.

You can tell your opponents, hello, a summary of your CC - style, carding, in just a couple mouse clicks using the chat manager feature. Just store in it what you want. Click, click, click.. You have told them what they should know. It would be rude of them not to reply in kind. If they asked how you typed it so fast..You can store: [HowTo] [My BBO..., Chat Manager...] As a stored chat. Would it be nice if BBO identified what software the players are using at the table? IMO - yes. It could show old, new, mobile. Then you could even pick the right directions. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

OCPrecision 1♣ - 1♥ 8+, 5+♥ 1N - 2♥ control ask, 4 2♠ - 3♦ asking spades. Hx or xxx, does not set trump 3♥ - 3♠ trump ask, no top honors! (that is a surprise - thinking ... ) - p has ♠K and ♣AK since ops have the other controls ♥AK 4♠ (This auction does disclose to W that dummy will not have ♥ K or Q ...)

OCPrecision 1♣ - 1♠ 8+ balanced 1N - 3♣ Control ask, 7 3♦ - 4♥ suit ask, HHx or Hxxx, sets trump (H = A,K, or Q) 5♣ - 5♠ specific control ask, 2nd round only 6♦

I should have been far clearer and more succinct. There is no point in trying to establish whether bidding systems have a transitive property until you can define the ">" operator. Until you can establish a metric that will order 2 systems, the transitive concept has no meaning. It should be apparent, but sometimes it it important to state the obvious: If the greater than operator is to establish that a > b, then it must always be true that a > b. Though this might seem obvious, it is an extremely important restriction on the definition of "greater than" in the context of bridge bidding systems. Presumably this makes it clear that Monte Carlo style simulations can't serve as a metric.

I find the question interesting. Your method of testing the concept seems flawed. I think if you want to determine whether a bidding systems have a transitive relationship, you need to test the bidding systems only. To do this, you need a measurement of the system's bidding performance. Perhaps this means that you really should do something like pass off the hands to a double dummy analyzer after they have been bid in A vs B, B vs C, and C vs A "contests". It is not clear that rounds and "population dynamics" addresses the question at all. For example, if you started in the extreme case with one hand rounds, and two robot teams per contest, it is entirely possible that A, or B, or C was "eliminated" in the first round (assuming elimination instead of proliferation). So a random event that was a weakness of a system could rule it as the weakest system. Suppose in the most extreme imaginable case - system A could win 95% of all possible bridge hands against B and C (or 96 and 93). (I will concede that the example might be computationally impossible.) Then there is a 5% chance that what you probably would agree is the strongest system would be eliminated as the weakest at the outset. Substituting in multiplication instead of elimination does not seem to me to alter the approach materially. It front loads extreme randomness problems. So if you were to repeat the exercise serially, you would have a reasonable expectation of different outcomes. (Kind of the butterfly wing boundary condition effect.) You might first try picking 3 truly trivial systems - such as always pass, always open 1N, always open 1M, with each never competing and each making at most one bid. Then see if you can show that transitivity was violated. It only takes one violation to disprove the conjecture.

It does not always work. For example, if you just join a table in the club, I think you can't chat to club. Maybe if you own the table. Examine all of the ways to get into a club. Some of them do not give the chat to club option.

Discussions of topics like this always end up with simplistic arguments. Very few have even learned to think in terms of complex systems, much less solve them. So they focus on one variable of a system, usually one in which they have a particular interest or knowledge, ignoring the fact that the system has hundreds or more significant variables, and make extrapolations based on a one variable model. There was a deer population control problem in our community. Both the human and deer population densities are high. Hunting is nearly non-existent, as are natural predators. Needless to say, the inevitable result was thousands of deer being killed by vehicle collisions. But the Bambi lovers would protest that reducing the population - by very aggressive hunting - would cause deer fertility to increase. It is true, of course. Healthy well fed deer will have more multiple births than less healthy deer! What they seemed to miss was the inanity of that argument, since the large growth rate was dependent upon a smaller population. For fun, try modeling a predator-prey population. Predators can multiply in the presence of prey. Prey do better in the absence of predators. Trying to achieve a stable solution is very hard. If the predators are too successful, they multiply and eradicate themselves by eating all of the available prey. Of course, that model is too simplistic, because the prey has to eat as well. To make it realistic, you have to include feeding resources for the prey. Now, you have to throw that in the model, because they prey can eat themselves out of existence as well, or reach the point where their fertility balances the replenishment of the resources. The argument of course needs to continue, to include the resource that the prey can consume - perhaps shared by other consumers. Weather and other stochastic processes play a significant role. Prediction is very hard - especially about the future.

What do you care what other people think? (Title of a Feynman book). :) I play it this way with my regular partner. That said, I have not seen it suggested anywhere except in the precision system that we use. What do you give up? A natural 2NT bid. I am no system expert, but I think a natural 2NT is a really narrow target, especially after a preemptive opening. How does either partner know to stop there? It opens up many options that can be used to describe more narrowly a fairly broad range of hands. To use it, just agree with partner that in any competitive sequence where the last bid made was at the 2 level, lebensohl is on. Once you have that agreement, what you bid, and what you don't bid both are informative. Yes, you have to decide what the immediate versus delayed bids mean. And if a two level bid is available between the last bid and 2NT, you need to define that as well.

You probably could find several people starting Jan 5 Though they will all be learning just one version. That said, you might find some who already play a different one.

They did. But it runs on their Chrome Books. No native apps. Only cloud based. That could be good or bad, depending on what you need. Boots lightning fast. I think in their current version, they have some local storage implemented so you can work "on a clear day" (when you aren't on the internet). There are a ton of really fine things that work on all devices from chrome books to windows (pick a version), to Mac, to tablets, to phones. I would not be happy doing word processing, spreadsheets, or even long emails on a tablet. (Even this post would be annoying to me, without a keyboard.)

Do you play lebensohl? If so, this auction might be a nice place for it. Lots of choices. Immediate raise, delayed raise, immediate cue bid, delayed cue bid, immediate to 3N, delayed to 3N. And you can do most of the same with clubs and diamonds.