whereagles Posted May 3, 2005 Report Share Posted May 3, 2005 Ben, as I said I understand your point. Now I hope you understand mine: for me, something as trivial as michaels responses isn't a thing you set at table after a bidding disaster/sucess. It's something you agree in advance with pard :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted May 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2005 Some great news, at last count, 17 members have already submitted votes to Elianna for the poll. Further great news, gold star experts are readily agreeing to participate in the poll. The biggest news in that area is that, Phillipe Cronier and Beverly Kraft have agreed to join the panel!! Along with a lot of BBO personalities, Shep, Rado, ppilot, tobi, and others. Fred, justin, ritong, Phillipe, luis have already sent in their choices, and we will have lots of interesting differences to discuss. So it looks like this will work. One word of advise to the members submitting votes. 1) please save your comments for when the threads is opened2) please make it clear what votes go with what question, 3) DO NOT SUBMIT multiple answers for a single question, this is not an either or proposition, you can only submit one answer. If you submit more than one we will choose the one that gives you the LOWEST SCORE. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elianna Posted May 4, 2005 Report Share Posted May 4, 2005 To clarify some things that Ben said: Index your answers IN THE SAME WAY that Ben indexed the problems. It makes it a lot easier to quickly verify that your answer to E is in the E answer column, rather than have to remember that E is the fifth letter in the alphabet. This is minor, but it would be helpful to me if you could try to maintain continuity. Please also be sure to click the "private message" link, not the "send email" link. It's very helpful to have all replies in the same place. Anyway, I look forward to hearing from more of you. I may rant, but I accept all forms of answers! :) Some of you (and you know who you are) regularly post, and have yet to send in your answers. I look forward to hearing from you! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted May 4, 2005 Report Share Posted May 4, 2005 To clarify some things that Ben said: Index your answers IN THE SAME WAY that Ben indexed the problems. It makes it a lot easier to quickly verify that your answer to E is in the E answer column, rather than have to remember that E is the fifth letter in the alphabet. This is minor, but it would be helpful to me if you could try to maintain continuity. Please also be sure to click the "private message" link, not the "send email" link. It's very helpful to have all replies in the same place. Anyway, I look forward to hearing from more of you. I may rant, but I accept all forms of answers! :) Some of you (and you know who you are) regularly post, and have yet to send in your answers. I look forward to hearing from you! :) Hi Elianna, hi all I am not very comfortable with the HTML Editor, but maybe osmeone could make a template, which one could use via the quote option. This is of cource just a minor improvement, in casethe forum gets going and the number of answersincreases to a level above the sky. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted May 4, 2005 Report Share Posted May 4, 2005 Phillipe Cronier is joining? That is great. He's one of the game's greatest theoreticians of today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandal Posted May 4, 2005 Report Share Posted May 4, 2005 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. I'm not sure I fully understand the meaning of the thread. Is it to "build" a BBO-standard-for-all-system? Or is it basis for discussing hands? Both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted May 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2005 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. I'm not sure I fully understand the meaning of the thread. Is it to "build" a BBO-standard-for-all-system? Or is it basis for discussing hands? Both? It is not to build a BBO-for-all-system. There is two of those already.. BBO-basic and BBO-advanced. It is to probe bridge judgement and what factors might make an expert choose one bid over the other. However, it is clear from the replies to this thread and from what happens day-to-day on line, not all players who play some of the standard conventions mentioned in BBO advanced (or basic) play the follow up the same way. While there are multiple "right" ways to respond to a conventional bid, you need to settle on one or you run into the problem that Wherreeagle has with michaels above. So a side effect will be will find what the "experts" think the follow up on such conventions are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandal Posted May 4, 2005 Report Share Posted May 4, 2005 It is not to build a BBO-for-all-system. There is two of those already.. BBO-basic and BBO-advanced. It is to probe bridge judgement and what factors might make an expert choose one bid over the other. However, it is clear from the replies to this thread and from what happens day-to-day on line, not all players who play some of the standard conventions mentioned in BBO advanced (or basic) play the follow up the same way. While there are multiple "right" ways to respond to a conventional bid, you need to settle on one or you run into the problem that Wherreeagle has with michaels above. So a side effect will be will find what the "experts" think the follow up on such conventions are. Ok thanks Ben I guess the BBO systems already in place catermost pickup-partnerships,we're just too lazy touse them. For those who always wonder if my head's screwed on right,I did NOT mean everyone should play the same system,I meanta system designed for pickup partners/indy :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearmum Posted May 4, 2005 Report Share Posted May 4, 2005 Some great news, at last count, 17 members have already submitted votes to Elianna for the poll. Ben I may be stupid - but HOW do I put my vote in to Elianna? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elianna Posted May 4, 2005 Report Share Posted May 4, 2005 Go to the main post that lists ALL the poll questions, then send me a private message. If you still need help, come back to this post, and you'll see a button that says "pm". Hit that, send me a message with with your responses. I hope that this helps! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chamaco Posted May 6, 2005 Report Share Posted May 6, 2005 Ben, don't you think that the System notes to refer to for the Bidding Polls should be in a separate PINNED post ? I mean, if you leave those notes into this thread, this thread is likely to get buried by the dozens of threads on the various hands to discuss ? B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 Hi, one further remark regarding new convetions in BBO Advanced:Do not overcomplicate the system, keep the description of the system fairly simple.The entry level for Newcomers, who want to participate, should not be to high.I know adding, one further agreement doe not hurt, but the 2ndone does not hurt as well, ... The main focus of the poll should be on judgement calls. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 Bridge Base Advanced (and Bridge Base Basic) date back to the very first days of BBO. My original plan was to eventually turn these areas of our site into comprehensive system notes with plenty of example hands and quizzes so that people could test their knowledge of these systems. I recall thinking that this was an important goal to achieve. (...) Probably there are people out there who would be interested on working on this project (which would involve trying to come up with a consensus as to what various bids should mean and then creating .lin files to present the information). Then again, perhaps we should use Bridge World Standard. We have excellent relations with The Bridge World magazine and they have already done a lot of work to try to define an effective system for advanced players that most experts (in America at least) are comfortable with. Any thoughts on this? Something in me thinks that BBO advanced would have the best chances of being useful/successful if it just tries to fix what the majority of advanced and expert players would expect when playing "Let's play 2/1 and udca, fine p?" with a pick-up partner on BBO. (This would make it substantially less advanced than BWS, I guess, and different enough that it deserves to exist independantly.) Exceptions are situations where everybody likes to play some convention, but there is no default choice (defense against 1NT, continuations after 2NT rebid etc.). I think BBO adv comes pretty close to this goal, with some exceptions (EKCB, 4♠ as kickback when hearts agreed,...). Arend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted May 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 My feeling is also that we should not try to convert BBO Advanced into a complex, complete system like BWS. The point is to have something fairly basic that you can play with a pickup expert partner on line. If it wasn't a pick up partner, you could customize it to fit your desires. I use BBO advanced as the basic system with several players, and we have added things to it over time (first to go is cappelletti). Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted June 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 After reading the responses to the question should the panel include the "optional" serious 3NT (and by extension, LTTC) in their replies, I have decided the answer should be yes. The reason is fairly simple. We needed to decide if it was on or off (for sure) to make the answers make sense. But by turning it on, we get to see when the pro's would consider 3NT NOT to be serious even after a major fit is found (if such situation could exist), and how they would judge when to use this convention this convention and when not to use it. Since these last two issues are something I am interested in (so you can imagine some future borderline hands in this area), I thought making this addition would be a good idea. IF last train to clarksville is something you are not familar with, you might want to read this (part II of improving 2/1 by Fred) article .... What is last train to clarksville New BPO poll will be posted in ~12 hours. Votes must be four days (~96 hours) after posting of the poll. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double ! Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 "Take the Last Train to Clarksville, and I'll meet you at the station.You can be there by 5:30 'cause I've made your reservation, don't be slow, oh no, no, no. Oh no, no, no" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted September 15, 2005 Report Share Posted September 15, 2005 Ben are long/short suit game tries part of system? I do not see them here but perhaps I am missing them? If not discussed do we assume what we want for the poll? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted September 15, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2005 Ben are long/short suit game tries part of system? I do not seem them here but perhaps I am missing them? If not discussed do we assume what we want for the poll? I recall no comments concerning long and short suit game tries. So the assumption is no, they are not part of the system. What exist is what is in the first part of this post. With the development of Full Disclosure we will have to be clear on such actions, so the group approving what might become the "official" BBO advanced FD version will have to make a ruling on such issues I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecalm Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (first to go is cappelletti). Yeah this sucks and no world class partnertship play it. Let's change it to something simple and much better like landy or multilandy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Wow a thread revival after 4 years!Let's change it to simple like ... Multi Landy Not that the convention is light years better than Capp, but it's not "simple". Simple is Dbl for the majors, rest natural. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 I think Landy is simpler, 2♣=majors, rest (even x)=natural, I mean artificial 2♣ is almost natural nowadays isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (first to go is cappelletti). Yeah this sucks and no world class partnertship play it. Let's change it to something simple and much better like landy or multilandy. correction: capp sucks beyond belief prefer simple landy and 2♦ overcall = natural (KISS principle) advances to landy should include 2♦ = you pick major kthxbai NOW... how about some new set of hands? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecalm Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Simple is Dbl for the majors, rest natural.I think Landy is simpler, 2♣=majors, rest (even x)=natural, I mean artificial 2♣ is almost natural nowadays isn't it? Whatever is fine by me. I would prefer Landy as I like penalty double. Another option is 2C majors, 2D = d+M, rest natural. Capp sucks hard especially in casual partnerships. So many problems after 2C overcall and their bid (what suit partner have ? how to get to know this ? what if they are in 4H and we would like to defend if partner has spade ? How to inquire for longer major/invite game opposite 2D? is it standard ? etc. etc. etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted October 8, 2010 Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 Please provide a link to a topic that describes poll-format, how to participate, and a rough schedule. If, currently, there is no such topic, I would be grateful if somebody would provide one and Inquiry would pin it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 (2) After 1M-2x, which bids show extras? We had a thread on this earlier, and there was a pretty strong consensus that three-level high reverses in new suits do show extras (although I know some people who play that they don't). But how about 1♥-2x-2♠ (Max Hardy says doesn't show extras in the classic 2/1 book)? How about 1M-2x-3x? 1M-2x-2NT? Is it permissable to rebid 2NT without a true balanced hand? The point is, that "should" be enough information for players to sit down and play with each other. I think that when something like the above is unknown, it's not enough information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.