FD - Bridge Base Onlne Advanced

[inquiry]

BBO Advanced documents says it plays 3♣ as "bergen raise" - limited.

 

Do we think this means 11-12 and support, with 3♦ being the weaker "constructive four card raise" (what I thought was called "reverse bergen"...or do we think this means normal bergen where 3♣ is the weaker of the two options.

 

Any opinions?

 

Next issue is game tries over 1M-2M raised yesterday?

 

Anyone have a rough draft FD version of Bridge base advanced they would like to post as a starting point (I have one, but it is not very deep).

 

Ben

[david_c]

Anyone have a rough draft FD version of Bridge base advanced they would like to post as a starting point (I have one, but it is not very deep).

I suspect it might be better to start off with something which isn't very deep, as there are probably lots of standardization and style issues that have to be sorted out. You don't want to post a very deep file and then have everyone say how it should have been done differently ...

[hrothgar]

Bridge Base Advanced is a fairly nebulous system. However, by definition, the Full Disclosure application requires that specific meanings be assigned to bids. Accordingly, it might make sense to work with a better defined system.

 

Bridge World Standard is well documented system which is intended to reflect "expert" standard. The notes are freely available online. I certainly don't agree with every bid chosen in BWS. Case in point: After 1M - 2M, I prefer a system based on 2 way game tries. Step asks for the first short suit game try that partner would accept. Step+1 (or higher) = Long suit game try. BWS uses the following -

 

"After a single raise:

 

A. a reraise to three is preemptive;

B. two notrump is forcing, ostensibly a game-invitation;

C. a simple new-suit bid is a game-try showing length (or a suit where honor strength would be helpful)"

 

However, I prefer to support/follow an existing standard rather trying to create yet another system variant.

[cherdano]

Ben, why don't you post yours just as a starting point for discussion?

Btw, for the good of bridge I hope we have a BBO adv file ready as soon as possible, while SAYC will be stalled forever on the debate whether 1M-2m-2NT is forcing -- this would be a good chance for everyone to switch to a better bidding system B)

[cherdano]

BBO Advanced documents says it plays 3♣ as "bergen raise" - limited.

 

Do we think this means 11-12 and support, with 3♦ being the weaker "constructive four card raise" (what I thought was called "reverse bergen"...or do we think this means normal bergen where 3♣ is the weaker of the two options.

 

Any opinions?

I am sure this means 3♣ is the limit raise (it says "limit" not "limited"), i.e. invitational, so 10-12 support points I suppose. (Even though I agree this is usually called "reverse Bergen").

 

Arend

[hrothgar]

Btw, for the good of bridge I hope we have a BBO adv file ready as soon as possible, while SAYC will be stalled forever on the debate whether 1M-2m-2NT is forcing -- this would be a good chance for everyone to switch to a better bidding system B)

Agree completely...

 

SAYC was able to ressurect itself from the dustbin of history based solely on the fact that Matt and Wirt needed a system and they found online documentation for SAYC...

 

I very much hope that the advent of Full Disclosure lets us put a stake through SAYC's heart once and for all.

[david_c]

BBO Advanced documents says it plays 3♣ as "bergen raise" - limited.

 

Do we think this means 11-12 and support, with 3♦ being the weaker "constructive four card raise" (what I thought was called "reverse bergen"...or do we think this means normal bergen where 3♣ is the weaker of the two options.

The summary says "Bergen (3♣ = limit)". I'm fairly sure this means 3♣ is the stronger raise (10-12 or so) and 3♦ is weaker.

[Gerben42]

Ah so it's reverse Bergen or Gerben raises ;)

 

Well anyway, I think 3♣ as the invitation is fine.

[pigpenz]

I very much hope that the advent of Full Disclosure lets us put a stake through SAYC's heart once and for all.

yes but those poor soles and those playing at the last second with a new partner need a starting place and that is one of the easiest to start at.

[cherdano]

The following post is my start to a BBO adv system file. So far it only covers the 1M openings, responses, and openers first rebid after 1M-1NT response. Plus most of these for 3rd and 4th seat opener.

 

It has some style differences to the one Ben posted in the other thread.

 

I usually don't write things like "preempt" or "weak", or anything else that is already clear from the checkboxes. These things seem to be displayed automatically when FD is used in the integration with BBO, and are easily enough checked when using FD.

 

I tried to use suit symbols consistently.

 

I give shape first, strength second when desribing a bid.

 

I used some common sense, e.g. Bergen off by passed hand, given we play dury -- does that make sense? But no so much common sense as for having them replaced with anything yet.

 

I think discussing these style things is most productive now.

 

Arend

[cherdano]

*00{Bridge Base Advanced}=NYYYYYY2/1 Game forcing

501H=NYYYYYY35812-20 points.

501HP1N=NYYYYYY56-12 hcp, no 4!S\\May have 3!H if min or max

501HP1NP2C=NYYYYYY228

501HP1NP2D=NYYYYYY238

501HP1NP2H=NYYYYYY268Minimum

501HP1NP2S=NYYYYYY548

501HP1NP2N=NYYYYYY4balanced 18-19 HCP

501HP1NP3C=NYYYYYN648

501HP1NP3D=NYYYYYN648

501HP1NP3H=NYYYYYY468

501HP1NP3N=NYYYYYY1

501HP1NP4H=NYYYYYY178

501HP2C=NYYYYYN648

501HP2D=NYYYYYN648

501HP2H=NYYYYYY3338-10 points\\Rarely 4!H

501HP2N=YNNYNYN6Jacoby 2NT\\4+ !H.

501HP3C=YNNYNNY408Bergen limit raise\\4 hearts, 10-12 points

501HP3H=NNNYNNN948

501HP1S=NYYYYYY548

501HP3D=YNNYNNY308Bergen raise.\\4 !H, 6-9 points.

501HP3N=NYYYYYN2balanced 16-17 HCP

501HP3S=YYYYYYY701Splinter.\\4+ !H, 9-12 HCP.

501HP4H=NNNYNNY948

501HP4C=YNNYNYN001Splinter.\\4+!H, 9-12 HCP.

501HP4D=YNNYNYN701Splinter.\\4+!H, 9-12 HCP.

501HP4S=YNNYNYND08RKCB for hearts.

501HP4N=YNNYNNNDExclusion RKCB for !H with void in !S.

501HP5C=YNNYNNND00Exclusion RKCB for !H.

501HP5D=YNNYNNND00Exclusion RKCB for !H.

501HP2S=NYYYYYY968

501S=NYYYYYY35812-20 points.

501SP1N=NYYYYYY56-12 hcp\\May have 3!S if min or max

501SP1NP2C=NYYYYYY238

501SP1NP2D=NYYYYYY238

501SP1NP2H=NYYYYYY248

501SP1NP2S=NYYYYYY268Minimum

501SP1NP2N=NYYYYYY4balanced 18-19 HCP

501SP1NP3C=NYYYYYN648

501SP1NP3D=NYYYYYN648

501SP1NP3H=NYYYYYN648

501SP1NP3S=NYYYYYY468

501SP1NP3N=NYYYYYY1

501SP1NP4S=NYYYYYY178

501SP2C=NYYYYYN648

501SP2D=NYYYYYN648

501SP2H=NYYYYYY655

501SP2N=YNNNYYN6Jacoby 2NT\\4+ !S.

501SP3C=YNNNYNY408Bergen limit raise\\4!S, 10-12 points

501SP3D=YNNNYNY308Bergen raise.\\4 !S, 6-9 points.

501SP3N=NYYYYYN2balanced 16-17 HCP

501SP3S=NNNNYNY948

501SP4H=YNNNYNN701Splinter.\\4+!S, 9-12 HCP

501SP4C=YNNNYYN701Splinter.\\4+!S, 9-12 HCP.

501SP4D=YNNNYYN701Splinter.\\4+!S, 9-12 HCP.

501SP4S=YNNNYNY948

501SP4N=YNNNYYNDRCKB for !S

501SP5C=YNNNYNND00Exclusion RKCB for !S.

501SP5D=YNNNYNND00Exclusion RKCB for !S.

501SP2S=NYYYYYY3338-10 points.\\Rarely 4!S.

501SP5H=YNNNYNND00Exclusion RKCB for !S.

501SP3H=NYYYYYY967

601H=NYYYYYY34810-20 points.

601HP1N=NYYYYYY36-12 hcp, no 4!S\\May have 3!H if min or max

601HP2C=YYYYYYN408Drury\\3+!S, 10+points

601HP2D=NYYYYYN448

601HP2H=NYYYYYY3338-10 points\\Rarely 4!H

601HP3H=NNNYNNN948

601HP1S=NYYYYYY348

601HP3S=YNNYNYN701Splinter.\\4+ !H, 9-12 HCP.

601HP4H=NNNYNNY948

601HP4C=YNNYNYN001Splinter.\\4+!H, 9-12 HCP.

601HP4D=YNNYNYN701Splinter.\\4+!H, 9-12 HCP.

601S=NYYYYYY34810-20 points\\

601SP1N=NYYYYYY36-12 hcp\\May have 3 spades if min or max

601SP2C=YYYYYYN408Drury\\3+!S, 10+points

601SP2D=NYYYYYN448

601SP2H=NYYYYYY448

601SP3S=NNNNYYN948

601SP4H=YNNNYYN701Splinter\\4+!S, 9-12 HCP

601SP4C=YNNNYYN001Splinter.\\4+!S, 9-12 HCP.

601SP4D=YNNNYYN701Splinter.\\4+!S, 9-12 HCP.

601SP4S=NNNNYYN948

601SP4N=YNNYNNNDExclusion RKCB for hearts with void in spades.

601SP5C=YNNYNNND00Exclusion RKCB for hearts.

601SP5D=YNNYNNND00Exclusion RKCB for hearts.

601SP2S=NYYYYYY3338-10 points

[fred]

Sorry I haven't been more involved with the discussions concerning creation of default convention cards. This is going to require organization and that is not one of my stronger skills.

 

Here are some random thoughts:

 

The original idea (4 years ago) was that there would be detailed system notes and interactive facilties to learn the BBO Standard systems (BBO Advanced and BBO Basic) through what is now Explore Bridge!. Needless to say, I never got around to doing that.

 

As Hrothgar correctly points out, BBO Basic and Advanced are not well-defined or well-documented systems. I don't think that any major FD file work should be based on these systems (since the definitions are so poor).

 

The way I think about it is that FD files will become BBO Basic and BBO Advanced (rather than the other way around).

 

In my opinion, working on Bridge World Standard makes a LOT more sense. There are detailed and fairly deep notes available for this system, thousands of players already know it, the system was created by polling famous players so it's quality is pretty good (and it represents contemporary expert opinion - at least in America).

 

This post is not motivated in any way with the relationship our company enjoys with The Bridge World magazine. I think it is important to start with a well-defined system, especially if lots of people are involved (as I hope they will be). Otherwise there will be problems with people disagreeing on the best meanings for the many undefined or badly defined sequences.

 

Some of you have already discovered the power of using "components" (for example, a "Bergen Raises" FD file that can be attached to another FD file with the Merge command).

 

I am thinking about integrating this idea with the "open file" command of the BBO FD file viewer. The idea is that people could pick their basic system (SAYC or BWS for example) from one of the default convention cards and then customize those systems by adding components for their favorite conventions. The interface would shield the poor user from the actual files in the same way it does now when a convention card is opened.

 

It might actually be fun for some people to fill out a convention card by clicking the basic system and then the optional components that they want.

 

I am going away for a few days soon, so you won't hear much FD news until next week some time.

 

Thanks everyone for your FD-enthusiasm!

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[luke warm]

kewl fred, wonderful idea... i just used the 'merge' command to add the keri file to helena's precision file... works like a charm

[stev_hav]

Btw, for the good of bridge I hope we have a BBO adv file ready as soon as possible, while SAYC will be stalled forever on the debate whether 1M-2m-2NT is forcing -- this would be a good chance for everyone to switch to a better bidding system :D

Agree completely...

 

SAYC was able to ressurect itself from the dustbin of history based solely on the fact that Matt and Wirt needed a system and they found online documentation for SAYC...

 

I very much hope that the advent of Full Disclosure lets us put a stake through SAYC's heart once and for all.

At least IMO, a "basic" system--either BBO Standard-Basic or SAYC--is in fact worthwhile for specific and limited purposes.

 

For individual tournaments--either "live" or online--it allows strangers to play together with little or no discussion of methods.

 

As the basis for development of "sample" convcard/convention files, for use with FD, recording of the more-frequent sequences can be accomplished with relatively little effort.

 

I have actually created, and sent to uday for posting, at least a "starter" version of such files. These are also accessible, in the form of actual files, in a Yahoo discussion group:

 

BBO_FD_Files

 

Membership in this group, including file uploads and downloads, is open to all. As mentioned in its description, this is intended to be short-lived; to be de-implented as soon as a comparable facility is actually made available within BBO.

[cherdano]

I have just come across this old post by Fred:

Sorry I haven't been more involved with the discussions concerning creation of default convention cards. This is going to require organization and that is not one of my stronger skills.

 

Here are some random thoughts:

 

The original idea (4 years ago) was that there would be detailed system notes and interactive facilties to learn the BBO Standard systems (BBO Advanced and BBO Basic) through what is now Explore Bridge!. Needless to say, I never got around to doing that.

 

As Hrothgar correctly points out, BBO Basic and Advanced are not well-defined or well-documented systems. I don't think that any major FD file work should be based on these systems (since the definitions are so poor).

 

The way I think about it is that FD files will become BBO Basic and BBO Advanced (rather than the other way around).

 

In my opinion, working on Bridge World Standard makes a LOT more sense. There are detailed and fairly deep notes available for this system, thousands of players already know it, the system was created by polling famous players so it's quality is pretty good (and it represents contemporary expert opinion - at least in America).

Fred, I am still very skeptical whether you are right here. My reason is very simple: I have very often seen pickup partnerships agree "ok, lets play 2/1 with udca" (and subsequently have an automatic set of agreements on many auctions). I have NEVER seen them agree "ok, let's play BWS".

 

In my opinion it would make a lot of sense to create a FD file, let's call it BBO advanced, that basically represents what such a pickup partnership is agreeing on and additionally clarifies a lot of things that this partnership would have to guess while playing ("1430 or 0314?").

 

I think your BBO advanced writeup is a better start towards this than BWS (e.g. I haven't seen a pickup partnership playing BART), I think it actually comes pretty close. There are only a few things that might be better left out from BBO adv, e.g. 4♠ as kickback when hearts agreed comes to my mind.

 

Of course, there are many necessary agreements about natural bids that are completely undiscussed in BBO adv, but well worked out in BWS (does a high reverse after 2/1 show extras?, etc.). When working out the file, I think it would make a lot of sense to follow BWS at these points.

 

So as summary, I think BBO adv makes sense as the conventional framework (maybe slightly stripped down), and following BWS should help to refine treatments of natural bids.

 

Of course, a FD file representing BWS would make a lot of sense, too. I would just think that its target group would be a lot smaller. (Aside: Is there a way to find out the number of subscribers of The BridgeWorld?)

 

Arend