Bridge Base Advanced

[bearmum]

this system is too advanced for me.

Does this mean you are not going to particpate? IF so that is unfortunate, as I am sure we were all looking forward to your participation.

LOL Ben - But I agree SOME things in BBO advanced are conventions I have not learned (mainly because they are not needed with my F2F partner -- and others are too advanced for a pickup P online :) )

 

However I would still find it great to participate in such a forum (EXCEPT for the 9 weeks when I will be on vacation and away from ANY computers ) and I am sure I would learn LOTS from comments from the panel :)

[Free]

Seems just fine, but I'd like BWS as well... Don't really care much about the system, it's usually about handevaluation and making the best possible bid that describes your hand anyway. Some systems might help more than others, but if there was a perfect system, there wouldn't be any bidding problems. :)

[Walddk]

Seems just fine, but I'd like BWS as well... Don't really care much about the system, it's usually about handevaluation and making the best possible bid that describes your hand anyway. Some systems might help more than others, but if there was a perfect system, there wouldn't be any bidding problems. :)

Well said, so let's get on with things. Create a system with gadgets we can all live with, Ben. You can't please everyone anyway.

 

Roland

[helene_t]

Let me suggest this: Ben "dictates" a reasonable natural system

I agree with Roland. Ben's draft is fine.

 

The only things I would like to have added are:

- A link to a description of Lebensohl since there are several versions out there. Personally I prefer somthing with transfers but that's not so crucial.

- In what situations does Gerber apply? (Maybe it's better to drop Gerber altogether, my impression is that it isn't that popular).

- How to proceed after partner's overcall. Is it obvious that "everything" is non-forcing? Most French and Dutch players play certain advances as forcing.

[Chamaco]

Let me suggest this: Ben "dictates" a reasonable natural system

I agree with Roland. Ben's draft is fine.

 

The only things I would like to have added are:

- A link to a description of Lebensohl since there are several versions out there. Personally I prefer somthing with transfers but that's not so crucial.

- In what situations does Gerber apply? (Maybe it's better to drop Gerber altogether, my impression is that it isn't that popular).

- How to proceed after partner's overcall. Is it obvious that "everything" is non-forcing? Most French and Dutch players play certain advances as forcing.

 

Ditto.

 

A few general guidelines on forcing passes would also be nice, but I suppose not fundamental.

 

On the contrary, I would *strongly* recommend a clear definition of when doubles are for takeout, when clear penalty, and when cooperative.

[whereagles]

Some things that are BWS that are simply not my bidding style:

 

* Cappelletti

Ditto.

 

I will only play cappelletti at gun point :)

[P_Marlowe]

On the contrary, I would *strongly* recommend a clear definition of when doubles are for takeout, when clear penalty, and when cooperative.

 

Which is not really possible.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[inquiry]

Let me suggest this: Ben "dictates" a reasonable natural system

I agree with Roland. Ben's draft is fine.

 

The only things I would like to have added are:

- A link to a description of Lebensohl since there are several versions out there. Personally I prefer somthing with transfers but that's not so crucial.

- In what situations does Gerber apply? (Maybe it's better to drop Gerber altogether, my impression is that it isn't that popular).

- How to proceed after partner's overcall. Is it obvious that "everything" is non-forcing? Most French and Dutch players play certain advances as forcing.

Well, let's clarify some things.

 

1) I didn't "dictate" BBO Advanced. This is the "standard" system as written on BBO. There is a BBO Advanced convention card saved on everyones computer.

 

2) I prefer not to play Capp.. and ask each partner I fnally trick into playing BBO Advance to change to somthing esle. But here we are "stuck" with it.

 

3) As far a defining how to continue after "lebehnshol" and the like, we could do that, but that would ruin a lot of the fun to see how the EXPERTS play it with only the information provided on the web site.

 

4) I guess we may be defining, based upon how these experts and non-panelist vote, what the BBO (or at least BBF) standards will be.

 

First set of problem hands are nearly ready. They will be posted in the next couple of days. Question for the readers, how many hand should be in a problem set?

[shoeless]

Think 5 or 6 is plenty

[Chamaco]

First set of problem hands are nearly ready. They will be posted in the next couple of days. Question for the readers, how many hand should be in a problem set?

Knowing that each hand tends to lead to interesting debates, I would suggest at most 8 hands per set.

[helene_t]

3) As far a defining how to continue after "lebehnshol" and the like, we could do that, but that would ruin a lot of the fun to see how the EXPERTS play it with only the information provided on the web site.

I'm not sure if I understand this. Is it fun to see if two experts happen to be playing the same version of Lebensohl?

[inquiry]

3) As far a defining how to continue after "lebehnshol" and the like, we could do that, but that would ruin a lot of the fun to see how the EXPERTS play it with only the information provided on the web site.

I'm not sure if I understand this. Is it fun to see if two experts happen to be playing the same version of Lebensohl?

Is it fun? Maybe. But BBO advanced is "pre-described" in the sense that what is posted in the thread is all that is given on BBO describing the method to be played. The point is, that "should" be enough information for players to sit down and play with each other. So let's take lebehnshol as an example. Without any furhter description, other than "we play lebehnshol", how would you handle a situation that comes up.

 

The answer to this is you will handle it in what you ASSUME is "standard" for lebehnshol (certainly, for instance, you would not respond as if playing rubenshol). So what this will show is if there is disagreement between experts (and the non-panelist as well) as to what lebehnshol auctions should mean. Sure, for instance, some players have immediate action show stopper in opponents suit (1N-2any-3N or 1N-2any=3cue bid), while others have it deny the stopper. Sure some play 1NT-(2C)=2NT still as lebehnshol, while most do not. But the question of what I consider "STANDARD lebehnshol" (my choice is immediate denies stopper, 2NT over 2C is not lebehnshol, etc) is rather immaterial. And I certainly don't want to be the person choosing what the bids mean... that is up to the experts who have invited.

 

I would think as we move along, we will come to a consensus (based upon the votes of the panelist) that will answer questions like this. Bidding misunderstandings happen on BBO becuase of confusion over what a bid might mean with the limited partnership agreement (as given by "let's play BBO advanced", reply "ok"). Let's see how the panelist handle bids in such situations.

 

Ben

[helene_t]

Thanks Ben, now it's clear even to me. (I forgot to read the title of the thread, sorry :) )

[Free]

I'd say 5 at most! 3, 4 or 5...

[whereagles]

Ben, how do I play in the minor after a michaels. (e.g. week 1, problem E)

 

1S 2S pass 2NT... OR

1S 2S pass 3C

 

I'm used to play 2NT as artificial strong and 3C as pass/correct. Is that the system?

[inquiry]

Ben, how do I play in the minor after a michaels. (e.g. week 1, problem E)

 

1S 2S pass 2NT... OR

1S 2S pass 3C

 

I'm used to play 2NT as artificial strong and 3C as pass/correct. Is that the system?

It's like i said above, while i will pose the questions, i am not responsible for deciding the expert standard (treatment). Of course the experts should play it exactly the way I do... lol. This is like the lebehnshol question above. We are going to see how the experts treat such situations. (I will of course, add my 2 cents to the discussion when I post the results of the expert poll).

 

Ben

[whereagles]

Well, check BWS and copy their follow-ups to a michaels cue.

[inquiry]

Well, check BWS and copy their follow-ups to a michaels cue.

We are using Bridge Base Online - Advanced, not BWS. It maybe that our panel will follow the guidelines of BWS, it may not. We didn't choose BWS for simplist of reasons... "bridge base advanced" convention card is on everyone's computer. You can load that convention this afternoon and play it with a pick up partner. If you have ever kibitzed me when I play with a new parnter says they play 2/1 GF, I ask if "Bridge Base Advanced" is ok? This allows quick, uniform agreement on the basic system, which was its purpose.

 

There is no doubt that helene and you are both right when you say, in essences, that this is just a framework of a system without the underlying details. But on line that is what your are going to get. If you have your own, favorite partner, you will have highly specialized agreements. That is not the case in this contest. This is to see how you would bid with an expert partner with the agreements listed on that CC, and no further discussion. The bridgeworld standard is highly defined so that at the end of the day, they questions being asked are about bridge judgement not conventional agreements. This contest, will be about judgement as well, but unlike with BWS, some will be judgement based upon what the experts believe is the "STANDARD" treatment for situations just like you suggest.

 

For instance is 2NT over your partner's michaels 2NT tell me your minor, or game try (or force) relay? Is 3♣ pass/correct, and if so what is (1S)-2S-(Pass)-3D? A paradox bid, advancer's own suit? This stuff will be as interesting as a decision to open light or to open 2NT with a singleton. And our panel will decide (by their voites) what is "standard" treatment. Seems like a good idea to me... let the experts decide rather than you our I. Maybe they will refer to BWS or maybe their own experiences, or mabye they will make the most "pragmatic bid" instead of worrying about what the actual treatement is. Time will tell.

 

Ben

[bearmum]

Think 5 or 6 is plenty

I agree 5 or 6 would be OK :) and I will TRY to post replies as I think it important to participate if folks are putting in time to post problems AND collate replies :D

 

CAN we have the poll pinned at the TOP of the list when logging in for "view new posts" please???

[whereagles]

Ben, while I understand your point that not every bid is to be agreed, I wish to stress that responses to a michaels cue are a very simple thing that OUGHT to be defined. It is not a matter of judgement, it's like playing Stayman and not having agreed what 1NT-2C-2H-3C is.

[joker_gib]

Ben,

 

Is it ♥+minor or ♥+♣ (precised michaels) ??

 

Alain

[inquiry]

Ben, while I understand your point that not every bid is to be agreed, I wish to stress that responses to a michaels cue are a very simple thing that OUGHT to be defined. It is not a matter of judgement, it's like playing Stayman and not having agreed what 1NT-2C-2H-3C is.

And so should I simply "impose" my judgement? I think not. Should I impose the Bridge World Panel of expert's judgement? that is closer to maybe.

 

Let's see what a panel of experts have to say. That is why we are using champions in the panel.

 

Look at it this way, you are playing in a topflight level individual where everyone agreed to play "Bridge Base Online Advance" and have loaded the BBO ADVANCED convention card. Your agreements are simply what is stated on that CC (and in the accompanying notes), nothing more, nothing less. I am certain that you have played on line with a lot less agreements than what is written on the BBO Advanced convention card.

 

I guess on question "BP0-001-E", it would be nice to know if your parnter promised specifically hearts and diamonds or if this showed hearts and a either minor. Since BBO Advance does not play roman jump overcalls, or raptor 1NT overcall, it would seem to me (this is not the official answer, however), that this would be what I (and I characterize this for myself only) consider to be standard michaels. And for me, standard michaels cue bid wihen cue-bidding a major, shows the other major and either minor. I can fully appreciate that for some players, standard micheals will mean the two highest unbid suits (in this case hearts and diamonds). We will get a feel for what the panel thinks "michaels" mean when agreed too based upon their reply, and we will quickly learn what their response schedule to this common bid is.

 

No doubt an "off-spring" of these polls and subsequent discussion will be to establsih answers to just the questions you raise.. What should the BBO-advanced (or in this case, maybe we should call it BBF-advanced) system include as the response schedule. Here what the experts have to say, what I have to say, and what the users have to say, will come into play. This is why I locked the poll thread until after the voting stops....... to see what people thing without being influenced by what is said before.

[bestguru]

Ben,

 

   When we get to the discussion phase, having a number of hands in the same thread could get confusing. Maybe it would be easier to leave the poll locked and update it with links to individual updatable threads for each of the individual hands. I think this would lead to much more linear discussions. If two hands are very closely related then they might go into the same thread. Of course if all the hands are very closely related then this point would be moot.

[joker_gib]

OK Ben, I understand the philosophy now !! :D :)

 

Alain

[inquiry]

Ben,

 

   When we get to the discussion phase, having a number of hands in the same thread could get confusing. Maybe it would be easier to leave the poll locked and update it with links to individual updatable threads for each of the individual hands. I think this would lead to much more linear discussions. If two hands are very closely related then they might go into the same thread. Of course if all the hands are very closely related then this point would be moot.

This is a very good idea. I think I will implement it....

 

Ben