Cave_Draco

Why? If the regulations and conditions of contest allow you to play a system then it is up to your opponents to design proper counter-measures, if they don't want to do their homework and have an accident for being confused it is self-inflicted damage. If most of your opps play vanilla systems then designing a system to mess them while perfectly adhering to the regulations is legal and it is also ethical. Where are we playing? BBO or Bermuda Bowl? That is the inverse of the reason for banning systems & is equally invalid, :-D. It invites administrators to ban systems! If you pre-alert preemptive transfers? I don't have a problem. If you just alert it? Would you allow opps to discuss there & then? On the other claw, I pre-alert the Weak NT, DONT is not the best defence to the Weak NT... Opps should have a chance to discuss.

With regard to squeezes... there are four defences, since I am about to relocate my bridge books are in storage :'(, if I get one wrong... ty in advance all. a) Discard problem cards early; don't wait & squirm. B) Destroy entries. c) Break up the menaces. d) Don't allow declarer to rectify the count. As to how to recognise an incoming squeeze? I agree with Hideous; if you play them, you see them, :-D.

Misho & Luis your arguments verge on the unethical, ;D. Playing a bizarre system because it messes up opponents would be unethical; playing a bizarre system because it works is another matter! If you play Texas or SA Texas, which can be preemptive, they need to be: a) on your convention card. B) alerted, Playing a preemptive transfer as such? I think your opponents should be pre-alerted, so that they can discuss how to handle them, :-D.

As in "No luck in Chess?" Only one game I know with no luck element, it isn't Chess, ;D. Teams is good, but you have to judge what your other pair will do/are doing! Can be a guess?

I tend to keep a reserve mouse, ;D. Under PnP, I can unplug one & plug in a spare, if it still misbehaves... it ain't the mouse! Mice do require regular cleaning, there is a standard symptom indicating a mouse in need of cleaning... a throw away gesture with the mouse hand/claw.

As per Fred's guidelines... :-D. If I wished to play bridge "seriously"? I wouldn't do it online! My self-rating as Advanced/Experienced is accurate enough but... there should be a sliding scale, my bridge ability varies inversely with my ichor/blood alcohol level. Experienced means that my autopilot is normally ok. Advanced means that I am capable of esoteric plays. Perhaps there should be a consistency rating? Dragon is highly variable, lol.

With a 6-2-2-3; Why am I not opening 1S? :-D

In the system that I designed... :-D 6m & 5m-4M were opened 1S: 4-4M & 5M opened 1D; with < 1NT response, bid your worse Major! Do you not feel that you are overloading 1NT?

Claus said "All bids not standard in SAYC must be alerted and explained." Implying that everyone should know SAYC? I disagree, Majors 4+, minors 3+? fine! All NT ranges should be announced, fine. It would help if ALL systems were pre-alerted, we pre-alert Benj Acol, why not pre-alert SAYC? :-D

The main constraint on the weak 2 is partnership trust, :-D. The Weak 2 is a useful bid, as is the Weak NT, but it requires discipline! If P opens 2H on Kxxx-Jxxxx-Kx-Kx, Draco LQQKS for another P! ACBL alert procedures http://66.147.103.154/misc/alertpamp.htm are a useful guide but as Hrothgar says not a BBO requirement. 1NT-p-2C... if 2C is NOT Stayman, I wish to be alerted to that fact. 1H-p-4C... if that's Extended Gerber, ditto. Active ethics, as opposed to "passive" ethics should be the key. Bridge should not be subjected to the "Fog of War".

The problem is not the 6-card minor, it's the singleton or two doubletons, :-D. Playing a Weak NT? NEVER! Playing a Strong NT? AK-AK-Kxx-xxxxxx? Hmm, could be amusing but misleads P. So, NO!

"The tournament can be treated as a statistical sampling process that seeks to rank the pairs as accurately as possible." Change possible to feasible & I agree, ;D. It is not feasible for 500 pairs to play the same hands in a "live" tournament! Closest approach is probably simultaneous tournaments, which take significant organisation. IMO, most of the luck-of-the-draw comes from who you play what hands against. The statistical approach doesn't allow for the distribution of hands. For example, if the whole room is in 3NT tick, it doesn't matter who you get that hand against... world champions or bunny rabbits. Whereas, a marginal slam? I was just suggesting that modelling computer mediated tournaments on "live" tournaments was to accept unneeded constraints.... Why can't all of the tables in round one play the same board? Ditto round 2... In "live" tournaments it would be unwieldy, but in a computer run tournament?

Promote the idea that good players tend to play faster; probably a fallacy, but billions are spent on advertising, ;D. It would encourage some fast players to slow down and thereby avoid fast/fast (and, maybe, slow/slow) matches? I see no way, in an unclocked, to speed up slow play, :).

Isn't the aim of an ideal movement just to scramble the pairs? Taking that as the aim, why tie pairs to NS/EW? Aim 1. No pair plays the same board twice, Aim 2. No pair plays the same opps twice. Aim 3. Minimise the number of boards. Aims 1 & 3 are easy; each round every table plays the same, new boards, ;D! Most traditional movements are designed to deal with physical objects; people, boards and tables! This is not a constraint in a computer mediated game. The most efficient way for a computer to deal bridge hands, is just a constrained random distribution, why would a computer need to shuffle?

Benj Acol with Albarran responses... 2C-3NT-4H-4NT-5C-6H, ;D.

A clarification, ;D. The question, i think, was less about the "prepared Club" opening than about my rebid... Having opened 1C, with the intention of rebidding 1NT, I felt that to change my mind & bid 1S would have implied a disributional hand. The reasons for opening 1C rather than 1S? Traditionally, with 4-4 in the black suits, Acol opens 1C; therefore, I have not denied a 4-card Spade suit. If the bidding goes 1S-2S-? do I really want to bid 2NT? My Club holding is good enough to cope with an Inverted Minor response, it's almost a 4-card suit, :). Is the "prepared Club" also dead? I reserve it for, specifically, 4-3-3-3 & 15+; not a VERY common hand but one which is awkward to describe. P.S. I did start reading Crowhurst/Kambites... It's no longer "West Hampstead" Acol, :).

P asked me to post this... ;D. The other day, I opened 1C on S ... K J 9 6 H ... Q T 7 D ... K 6 3 C ... A K T Opps were silent, the bidding went 1C-1D-1NT The question was "Why did I not bid 1S?" My answer was, that to bid Spades would show distribution that I don't have!

To extend Eric's argument... If you double at MP & opps make? You just turned an "average", 50%, into a "bottom", 0%. That is the downside, >:). If you double at MP & opps fail? You just turned an "average minus", 40%, into an "average plus", 60%. That is the upside, ;D. The figures are "blue sky" figures, but 3+/1 odds are fine for MP doubles! The blend of caution & aggression is born of experience; MP is tough bridge, :).

A simple first step would be to have a field on the table that named both pair's systems! For a tournament, set at the beginning and "carried" with each pair? Regular P & I normally pre-alert "Benj Acol, 12-14NT"; on one occasion, in a timed tournament, this was greeted by "Get on with it!" :) Even in the lounge, it can be a guess what system opps are playing. Whenever I have played Polish Club players, they pre-alert. However, I don't seem to play against PC often enough to learn the system... Naughty Dragon, ;D. IMO, the "default" system should be BridgeBase Basic... If you aren't playing BB Basic, a pre-alert is needed! Then, if opps know the system, they can ask for only unsystematic bids to be alerted. P.S. Glad that the adjective is Draconic, I would hate to be considered Draconian, except... http://www.kalessin.eclipse.co.uk/images/blue17.jpg ;D

I'm not sure that you haven't got it inverted... <To return to our original example, many primitive societies had a notion of a "true name" which was given to individuals at birth. A magician who knew an individuals true name was thought to have great power over that person. Accordingly, most people also established secondary or even teriary names be which they were normally addressed. Its interesting to note that we seem to be returning to this type of model.> My "true" name is Draco, ;D. Maybe online identity will supercede "real" names?

There are "Games Theory" solutions for incomplete tournaments... My books are in storage, :-[. "Swiss" was a manual attempt at a solution but I feel sure that there is PD code that addresses the problem, ;D. Maybe, hrothgar is aware of a Games Theory solution? The code shouldn't be that difficult, maybe a wait after the first 2-3 rounds?

Astro has always worked for me; Asptro is an "amusing" modification, ;D. One BIG problem with respect to defences to the Weak NT is the "System On" option. How will the NT side take your interference? 1NT-X-p-p-XX... HELP! 1NT-X-XX-p-?... ;D, they are in trouble P!. 1NT-2C-X... Stayman. 1NT-2C-p... wait & see. 1NT-2D-?... Normally, System Off. If the 2C overcall shows Hearts? Another, I think natural, corollary to the Weak NT is Inverted Minors; since 1m promises length or strength... Any defences to Inverted Minors?

I see oldfogey's grumble, ;D. As an "ancient" Acol player, lol, "Ah! An Acol post... will LQQK!" Nah, nothing to do with Acol, let alone "Find a Partner/Teacher"! I was reluctant to play Acol with my reg. P because of the inferences to be drawn from what P didn't bid! That is the only complicated part of "ancient" Acol. "Modern" Acol removes most of the inferences... 4-4 in the majors - bid H? Against other Acol players, maybe; against any other system? Hey, I have SPADES, lol.

Sorry Maureen. I went to college with an online friend, he calls me Draco or D, online: I will be 51 on Tuesday, ;D. That gives an indication! The name you are given, my given names mean Beloved Wolf, are not always the names you would choose to be known by. btw, the correct pronoun for Dragons is... it! In case of doubt... http://members.tripod.com/~gb7337/page-17.html

I assume that the "private" referred to is ability, ;D. Online, I am Draco or Dragon... there are some who know my "real" name, they do me a courtesy by not using it, tya. Ability - private?