Modification to BBO-ADVANCED Polls

[inquiry]

One of the problems (BPO-002B) we had a number of questions about if the "optional" serious 3NT should be manditory or not on these bidding contest hands. Second, if BBO advanced uses Last Train to Clarksville.

 

This poll will quiz our readers (and our experts) to see what it is WE think this optional part of BBO Advanced will be used or not in future polls.

 

Ben

[Rebound]

I am abstaining from the voting (not that as a non-expert my vote would carry a lot of wieght) principally because I only just recently read here and elsewhere what it is. Fred's articles have been most informative and make a great deal of sense. Come to that, while I wish Fred good luck in his current endeavour, I'm wishin' he was around now to tell us what he thinks of using Serious 3NT in the situation that came up in the poll.

 

All that having been said, I do have an opinion on the matter FWIW. First, I'm big on having bids in similar situations mean the same thing for consistancy's sake. So, it seems to me that if the basic requirements are met, i.e. 8-card fit, game forcing auction, unlimited hands, S-3NT should be on in competition as well. I know the 3♥ bid in the given hand was not a GF, but it is so close to fulfilling the requirements for S-3NT I would include it given it so closely fits in philosophically with the reason for using it. I know that the argument against losing 3NT as a natural call is stronger in competition, but I am still inclined to agree with Fred that whether or not you get to play in 3NT on such hands is the least of your worries, since the whole point appears to be avoiding bad slam tries. I personally can handle never playing 3NT with an 8-card major suit fit again (I very rarely do anyway) if it means never again going down 1 at the 5-level in a freely bid major suit contract.

 

Re: LTTC - No clue. I need to play Serious 3NT for a while and learn the nuances of the various cue bids but it seems like a great idea to me.

 

I hope you don't mind my unlearned ramblings. But I figure it's the best way to get feedback on my thinking about this. TIA

[helene_t]

I voted "Maybe, what the heck....". I think it's a nice convention but only if it is obvious in what situations it applies. Maybe it would be useful to let the bidding polls clarify this. But maybe not. There a couple of conventions allready on the card (notrump structure, lebensohl, FSF, checkback structure) which need elaboration so it's probably premature to add yet another convention. With that said, if we have to add one extra convention I would vote for serious 3NT. Good-bad 2NT would be second btw.

[Chamaco]

I like Serious (or frivolous) 3NT a lot, when major fit is found.

 

Sacrificing the chance to play 3NT as natural signoff is more than cunterbalanced by the possibility of showing a cue denying a good hand so that pard will be warned before taking off.

So I like it even after opps competition: actually, I think it is much easier to remember an agreement if it ALWAYS apply, even in competition...

 

On the other hand, I think much more issues might be raised for LTTC.

While serious 3NT is relativley easy for anyone, LTTC is much more complex because the message can be different for each sequence.

 

I like LTTC and I voted for its adoption, but in my opinion the whole thread should be centered much more on LTTC and the gadgets associated to it(rather than on serious 3NT), e.g.:

- "Lackwood"?

- what would then be the meaning of non-jump new suit at 5-level ? EKB or cue ?

If cue, what does it promise ?

- etc etc....

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

personnaly I play, that 3NT is never natural, when a fit in

a mayor is found. => 3NT would be on, even after competition.

 

I voted, for No in a pickup partnership.

 

Regarding LTTC: I have no clue, what this is, maybe I play it,

maybe not...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[luke warm]

yes, never in comp, no to lttc (mainly personal, i usually forget it)

[whereagles]

I actually prefer frivolous 3NT.

 

But still, without serious/frivolous 3NT it's much harder to bid slams with precision. As for last train, I'm neutral.

[hrothgar]

Couple comments here

 

1. I think that both Serious 3NT and LTTC should be part of theoretic standard system. I'd also be fine with frivolous 3NT...

 

2. This may be a pet peeve, however, I have a real problem with panels who chose their bids based on the asusmption that partner isn't smart enough to understand the "correct" bid.

[pclayton]

My partnership uses Serious 3N (and 3♠). We will be switching to frivilous after Atlanta.

 

We do not use LTTC - its too vague - better to keep the one-under call as a cue bid unless you work out specifics.

 

I am looking at using LTTC at the 6 level to look for a grand. This is more sensible than a 3rd round control ask. The message is simply "we have all the keys and I'm not worried about your kings". Hayden / Lair could have used this on Wednesday in the trials:

 

[hv=d=w&w=sktxxhakqjxdckxxx&e=saqxhtxxdaqxxcaqx]266|100|[/hv]

 

1♥.....(3♦).......4♦

5♦......................5N

6♣......................6♦

6♠......................6N

 

We never got a good explanation of what 6♣ or 6♦ were.

 

5♦ was presumably EKCB and 5N showed 2 without the Q.

 

If West had a LTTC of 6♥ over 5N, East could bid the grand with the two black Queens.

 

The grand is not cold, but its excellent with the diamond preempt on the left and would have made in comfort.

[Free]

Regarding  LTTC: I have no clue, what this is, maybe I play it,

maybe not...

It's "Last Train To Clarksville", and imo this should be used! It's the best and most logical method in cuebidding anyway...

[mike777]

http://www.imp-bridge.nl/articles/2over1b.htm

 

http://www.imp-bridge.nl/articles/2over1.htm

Here are articles by Fred.

 

Another example:

1c=1s

4d (splinter)

 

4h now is LTTC with

 

QJ954

J54

T54

A3

 

Notice on hand 2D

1D=1S

(4C OR 4D)=4H BECOMES LAST TRAIN AND 4S BECOMES SIGN OFF.

 

If player makes a Last-train cuebid and then acts again, it confirms that the previous effort was a real cuebid, showing a control in the first bid suit.

 

Serious/Frivolous 3NT

Because it is unusual to want to play in 3NT after agreeing on a major suit fit, many pairs like playing this bid to qualify their slam tries. In Serious 3NT (the most common version), after the major suit is agreed, a cuebid says "partner, I'm sort of interested in slam. If you are too, let's cuebid - I have this control." whereas a bid of 3NT says "I'm interested in slam. Cuebid, please!" This is useful in staying out of 5-level contracts (and impossible slams, too, where the controls are there, but not the playing strength).

 

You can play this backwards, too, as Frivolous 3NT. There are two major advantages to this style:

 

Serious 3NT always has at least one suit cuebid, even when they stop in 4M. With Frivolous 3NT, many auctions go 1M-3M; 3NT (you interested?)-4M (No), giving much less information to the pesky defenders.

It's more fun to explain to the opponents :-).

 

 

The corollary to this 3NT bid is that if you cue bid immediately without using 3nt first, you have only mild slam interest and are economically showing your good control structure in case partner has more serious aspirations toward slam.

 

BTW, I hope no one is suggesting we never want to play in 3nt with a 5-3 major fit.

1H=2H

3NT=?

OR MANY OTHERS SEQUENCES ARE CHOICE OF GAME I HOPE.

 

BTW2, Jeff Meckstroth popularized LTTC, and Jeff Rebens wrote about this issue in some detail over 25 years ago. BWS 2001 75% of experts favored it. Look forward to this, good/bad 2nt and serious 3nt being abused and misused in future polls.

[luke warm]

i don't have mike's understanding of serious 3nt, re: "In Serious 3NT (the most common version), after the major suit is agreed, a cuebid says "partner, I'm sort of interested in slam. If you are too, let's cuebid - I have this control."

 

my understanding is, to cue instead of bidding 3nt seriously means "i'm NOT interested in slam, but here's a cue in case you are"... the cue is not optional, either you bid to show slam interest or you cue (if you can) to show no slam interest... in either case, partner can judge

 

lttc is fine, i just forget it too often

[awm]

There's a big issue here about what we want BBO Advanced to be. I guess there are two viewpoints:

 

(1) BBO Advanced should be a system packed with all the conventions that a majority of experts polled think are "good" and/or play with regular partners.

 

(2) BBO Advanced should be a system which essentially any advanced player can understand, and which can be played with a pickup partner after a minimum of discussion.

 

I think these two goals are quite different, and in some ways incompatible. Personally, I am inclined towards the second, because I would like these bidding polls to be something non-experts can sensibly participate in (and which test judgement more than understanding of complex system agreements). Also, I would like BBO Advanced to be a system actually played by pickup partnerships, rather than a sort of "hypothetical" system built from some sort of consensus best conventions. For this reason, I would vote against serious 3NT and LTTC, even though both are popular among top partnerships and I play the first in almost all my own regular partnerships. I think these require too much discussion to be easily played -- in which sequences do they apply? what merits a "serious" slam try? what does LTTC exactly promise? Of course any serious long-term partnership playing these conventions will have an agreement about this, but I wouldn't guarantee these agreements are all the same...

 

Another good example might be kaplan inversion. After a recent post on the forums, the reaction to this convention was overwhelmingly positive. So should it be added to BBO Advanced? No... I doubt the majority of advanced players know about it, there are different ways to play the followups (transfer continuations and natural continuations with 1NT showing spades would seem most popular), and it's not allowed in regular games in some parts of the world (ACBL being one example).

 

I guess my view is: keep it simple!

 

For this reason, I was rather disappointed with this week's problems. An awful lot of them had more to do with system than judgement.

[bearmum]

Have JUST found out what 3NT serious " is (thanks to Jilly asking in another thread) but LTTC?? --- that sounds FAR too esoteric for me to even attempt to learn :(

 

I am having enough trouble trying to understand BBO Advanced -- so much so that I probably will stop entering the polls (as I don't think I have a HOPE of getting any answers right and even when I look at the answers a lot of them don't make sense) --- seems to me that are not encouraging anybody except experts to enter.

 

 

IMHO perhaps it would be an improvement to ask the panel what answers would be if only playing BBO standard as well ??

[mike777]

Have JUST found out what 3NT serious " is (thanks to Jilly asking in another thread) but LTTC?? --- that sounds FAR too esoteric for me to even attempt to learn  :(

 

I am having enough trouble trying  to understand BBO Advanced -- so much so that I probably will stop entering  the polls (as I don't think I have a HOPE of getting any answers right and even when I look at the answers a lot of them don't make sense) --- seems to me that are not encouraging anybody except experts to enter.

 

 

IMHO perhaps it would be an improvement to ask the panel what answers would be if only playing BBO standard as well ??

Great post.

 

IMHO the goal of these polls and this forum should be to improve our bridge judgement and entertainment value.

 

The goal is not to get a high score or understand all of the comments by Masters and others.

 

Do you feel you are getting any entertainment value out of this?

Do you feel your are improving your bridge judgement at all?

 

If not, then these polls are failing in giving you value.

If yes, then hope you stick with us.

 

As an older player trying to come back to bridge I learn much more from my very poor scores (often) then my 100 scores.

 

Any forum where I can discuss Mike Nesmith, Peter Tork, Davey Jones and Mickey Dolenz has entertainment value for me.

 

Again great post.

[luke warm]

i like the polls *because* i get to see how hands are evaluated by different people paying the same system... i greatly enjoy reading all the comments

[bearmum]

Have JUST found out what 3NT serious " is (thanks to Jilly asking in another thread) but LTTC?? --- that sounds FAR too esoteric for me to even attempt to learn  :)

 

I am having enough trouble trying  to understand BBO Advanced -- so much so that I probably will stop entering  the polls (as I don't think I have a HOPE of getting any answers right and even when I look at the answers a lot of them don't make sense) --- seems to me that are not encouraging anybody except experts to enter.

 

 

IMHO perhaps it would be an improvement to ask the panel what answers would be if only playing BBO standard as well ??

Great post.

 

IMHO the goal of these polls and this forum should be to improve our bridge judgement and entertainment value.

 

The goal is not to get a high score or understand all of the comments by Masters and others.

 

Do you feel you are getting any entertainment value out of this?

Do you feel your are improving your bridge judgement at all?

 

If not, then these polls are failing in giving you value.

If yes, then hope you stick with us.

 

As an older player trying to come back to bridge I learn much more from my very poor scores (often) then my 100 scores.

 

Any forum where I can discuss Mike Nesmith, Peter Tork, Davey Jones and Mickey Dolenz has entertainment value for me.

 

Again great post.

 

I totally agree --- BUT if the bidding is TOO advanced the 'entertainment' value is impaired and MY 'bridge judgement' is not improved if the answer is dependant on conventions not readily understood by anybody but experts OR long time partnerships.

 

Honestly my score is totally UNIMPORTANT and I do enjoy comments by ALL the experts who give of their time to this terrific site - ALSO appreciate Ben's time to post the quizzes and Elainna's time to collate the answers BUT still don't know if BBO Advanced is the right system if those who put in the time wish LOTS of BBO folk will resopnd to the quizzes :D

[awm]

I'm going to stop participating in these polls in protest.

 

Ben seems to have unilaterally decided that LTTC shall be included despite the fact that most intermediate/advanced players have no understanding of the convention, and that a majority of the votes on this poll rejected LTTC as part of BBO Advanced.

 

In addition, I felt that the second poll (BBO-02) placed a lot more emphasis on whether people understood and agreed with the bidding style advocated by the moderator, even though that style (i.e. serious 3NT in competition, LTTC) was not at the time indicated in the notes.

 

I am not particularly interested in participating in a poll where:

 

(1) Questions have more to do with system than judgement.

(2) The system involved is at the discretion of the moderator, and not clearly documented.

(3) The system involved is not familiar to the majority of players.

 

It does seem that the latest problems (BBO-03) are more judgement-oriented and less "do you know what XYZ means in the system Ben imagines we are playing." Nonetheless I feel disillusioned and have little desire to participate.

[luke warm]

i have to say that serious 3nt and lttc probably *should* be in the system, if for no other reason that that's the way bbo advanced reads on the playing site... i'd also like to say that while i respect adam's decision, i personally think that since ben is the moderator of this poll, a certain amount of unilateral action is to be expected...

he has volunteered to do a tough job, i hope he continues

[hrothgar]

I'm going to stop participating in these polls in protest.

 

Ben seems to have unilaterally decided that LTTC shall be included despite the fact that most intermediate/advanced players have no understanding of the convention, and that a majority of the votes on this poll rejected LTTC as part of BBO Advanced.

Lets be PERFECTLY clear

 

The BBO Advanced notes clearly state that Serious 3NT and LLTC are part of the system being used. I QUOTE the BBO Advanced notes:

 

"We play Serious 3NT. Serious 3NT is a way to allow the partnership to investigate for slam even if one of the hands is minimum"

 

When you participate in something like the Masters Solver's Club you make your bids based on the defined system. If the system incudes Serious 3NT, you make your bids under the assumption that serious 3NT is being used. As for the "poll", I consider the results pretty much meaningless. I for one don't make play bridge assuming that my partner is so incompetant that he doesn't know the "basics". BBO is a very short, very simple system. (Personally, I think that BBO Advanced is too vague to use for something the the MSC. I'd MUCH rather see us use BWS or some such)

 

In short, if this system is too complex, I question whether you're qualified as a "Master Solver"

[Elianna]

(Personally, I think that BBO Advanced is too basic to use for something the the MSC. I'd MUCH rather see us use BWS or some such) In short, if this system is too complex, I question whether you're qualified as a "Master Solver"

Whoa! Wait a minute here! I thought that the original concept was to create a poll that was accessable to the majority of Bridge Base (or at least Forum) users. I don't really care if they're called "Master Solver" or what, but I do think that calling the winner of the first one "unqualified" seems a bit much.

 

I think that Adam has a point in that the questions from the second poll DID seem to be based on how well one knows the system being played, and he had hoped that they would be more on how much judgement one has, regardless of system.

 

I don't really know how I feel about what questions should be asked, I just know that I like questions that make me think of pros and cons of what I'm bidding, rather than make me pull up system notes and see what the system bid is (I'm a mathmetician, not a researcher! :rolleyes:). I also know that I would be very sad if even two people decided not to participate because the questions were too hard, or covered conventions that they had never heard of much less played. And I'm not talking about people that just learned that a bridge hand is 13 cards, I'd rather that the questions be asked at the level of your average, intermediate players, but ones that more advanced people could enjoy, rather than ones that experts find challenging, and intermediates find unsolvable, or worse yet, have an answer, but find that the "real" solution is something that they had never heard of. It's a total turn off.

 

But what I would REALLY be sad to see is if the polls turned into yet ANOTHER place to throw insidious remarks around, that seem solely intended to offend people.

[cherdano]

I'm going to stop participating in these polls in protest.

 

Ben seems to have unilaterally decided that LTTC shall be included despite the fact that most intermediate/advanced players have no understanding of the convention, and that a majority of the votes on this poll rejected LTTC as part of BBO Advanced.

Hi Adam,

 

I think criticizing "unilateral decisions" seems a bit harsh. Ben is in the position that he HAS to make decisions either way -- I think leaving it unclear again would not be helpful at all. Also, while the voting in this thread didn't give a big majority either way, IIRC quite a few of the panelists' comments last time assumed last train.

 

Also, I don't quite think LTTC is that difficult for intermediate/advanced players, if you just define it as "last cue bid below our major suit game is a general slam try, not promising or denying a control". (On the other hand, I understand your concerns that BBO adv should remain a simple system easily playable for less-than-expert pickup partnerships.)

 

Arend

[inquiry]

I'm going to stop participating in these polls in protest.

 

Ben seems to have unilaterally decided that LTTC shall be included despite the fact that most intermediate/advanced players have no understanding of the convention, and that a majority of the votes on this poll rejected LTTC as part of BBO Advanced.

 

For the point about my "unilateral" decision to include Serious 3NT and LTTC. Nothing could be further from the truth. The poll result as of right now is 5 no voites on Serious 3NT and 22 yes (well 4 maybes and 18 yes). That is hardly a unilateral decision. Furhter, part of what I deleted suggested the panel didn't consider serious 3NT was part of the system. Again, I disagree. Some panelist hadn't read BBO advanced. Some were so serious, they jumped to 4NT, some like awm himself, considered serious 3NT, but thought on the auction in last panel that it would be best NOT to play serious 3NT on that auction. But, in the first post here, I made it clear, we the BBO voting members would decide. In my opinion, the votes were heavily in favor of Serious 3NT.

 

As for LTTC, at the time I responded to this comment there were 5 nooooo votes (so I assume no to LTTC too), and 8 more that said yes to Serious 3NT in some form, but no to LTTC. That was 13 clear no votes on LTTC. But there were 11 clear yes votes to LTTC and then the 4 that maybed to Serious 3NT with no comment one way or the other about LTTC. So 13 no voites, 11 yes, and 4 "maybes". I add to this the fact, that in my opinion, Serious 3NT simply is not playable without LTTC... so with the overweleming yes to Serious 3NT and the indifferent result towards LTTC, I went with both.

 

Further, when considering the LTTC issue, the 5 "no votes" really need to be discarded, since the Serious 3NT decision had been made by a clear majority, changing the LTTC votes to 8 no, and 11 yes.

 

 

I am not particularly interested in participating in a poll where:

 

(1) Questions have more to do with system than judgement.

(2) The system involved is at the discretion of the moderator, and not clearly documented.

(3) The system involved is not familiar to the majority of players.

 

It does seem that the latest problems (BBO-03) are more judgement-oriented and less "do you know what XYZ means in the system Ben imagines we are playing." 

 

I certainly hope (anticipate) that the polls have little to do with system. But I think number 2 and 3 we can dispense with immediately. The "system" picked was the "standard" system provided by BBO for pick up expert partnerships. The documentation provided IS THE documentation provided for such pickup partnerships, so is what available to every pair that agree to play together using BBO Advanced. This IS the model for these polls.

 

As for the "do you know what XYZ means in the system Ben imagines we are playing." I take personal offense at this remark, and let me tell you, it takes quite a lot to get me to take personal offense. I picked "THE SYSTEM" so that there would be no disagreement about what the basic system was. I overlooked serious 3NT as "optional" and assumed it was part of the picked system. Certainly XYZ is part of the system... this is a system devised by FRED and offered for pickup partners. I cut and pasted the ENTIRE BBO Advanced system I put in this forum DIRECTLY from what is found on BBO Gaming site (I modified it today to include a link to LTTC and to make for the purpose of these polls Serious 3NT part of it).

 

Nonetheless I feel disillusioned and have little desire to participate.

 

If you THINK you are disillusioned, imagine me. I have to deal with users angry I will not use their hands they submit (to easy, too impossible), people mad that I give 3♥ a 40 score rather than a 60, and now, after opening up and getting votes, people made that I made an executive decision based upon the logical outcome in a poll to seek information on how to procede. Add to that problems I am having unrelated to bridge the last few weeks and I wonder why I to to all the trouble.

 

Ben

[cherdano]

When you participate in something like the Masters Solver's Club you make your bids based on the defined system.  If the system incudes Serious 3NT, you make your bids under the assumption that serious 3NT is being used.  As for the "poll", I consider the results pretty much meaningless.  I for one don't make play bridge assuming that my partner is so incompetant that he doesn't know the "basics".  BBO is a very short, very simple system.  (Personally, I think that BBO Advanced is too vague to use for something the the MSC.  I'd MUCH rather see us use BWS or some such) 

 

In short, if this system is too complex, I question whether you're qualified as a "Master Solver"

Hey Richard,

 

that's also a little harsh. Have you ever looked at Richard Pavlicek's bidding polls? Although they allow only the simplest conventions, I enjoy them more than any other bidding poll out there (with the exception of BBO poll, of course! :rolleyes:), because he chooses excellent judgement problems. And some 1000s regular participants seem to agree (among them quite a few names more famous than you and me)!

 

About "Master Solver" -- no I certainly don't qualify for that, as otherwise you would have read about my tournament results in Bridge World.

 

Arend

[hrothgar]

(Personally, I think that BBO Advanced is too basic to use for something the the MSC.  I'd MUCH rather see us use BWS or some such)  In short, if this system is too complex, I question whether you're qualified as a "Master Solver"

Whoa! Wait a minute here! I thought that the original concept was to create a poll that was accessable to the majority of Bridge Base (or at least Forum) users. I don't really care if they're called "Master Solver" or what, but I do think that calling the winner of the first one "unqualified" seems a bit much.

My understanding was that the point of the MSC was to demonstrate how to bid challenging hands "properly" given a specific system. Please note that this is VERY different question than how best to "operate" opposite a some random partner.

 

I will note that my original posting was not intended to slam AWM. I apologize if the posting was interpreted that way. I was, however, directly commenting whether the opinions of players who have never heard of serious 3NT was necessarily relevant to discussions regarding when to apply it...