[pclayton]

While I like much of the aspects of BWS, I don't think its detailed enough for a dedicated partnership. I would hope that BBF-ADV (or whatever its called) becomes more than a 'backbone' system, and has many supplemental notes.

However, since BWS is a very playable system, perhaps (through frequent polls) systemic understandings can be enhanced.

[luke warm]

use bws if you want... it doesn't affect me, except in understanding why someone would make one bid in lieu of another... i'd personally not play it tho, i much prefer the bbo 2/1

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Apr 30 2005, 07:09 PM, said:

Well of course I'd like to support BWS but its bidding style is different from my own.

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

* Cappelletti
* Strong jump shifts
* 1D not promising 4 cards
* That convention that sounds similar to my name

I'm sure if I go through the script I'll find many more...

I also have some major "issues" with BWS. Most notably, I prefer a Walsh style after 1♣ openings. However, its important to note NO bidding system is going to please everyone.

The Bridge World has gone to enormous lengths to try to define a system that represents expert standard. I don't think its fair to criticize it because they didn't bow down at the feet of almight MOSCITO...

[Double !]

Please correct me if I'm wrong about this (I'm sure someone will), but my memory is that, at least in it's earlier days (circa late 60s-early 70s), the earlier form of BWS were derived from polls of the various members about various preferences for bidding certain hands or conventions that they used. The majority then won (or ruled), and the resulting preference or convention was then added to what was called BWS regardless of whether or not it integrated well with other components, sort of like creating a clone system. I don't know whether or not this is still the procedure, but I just recall feeling that BWS and some of the voting/ ruling members were a bit strongly committed to certain things. Look at how much resistance there initially was to changing from forcing double major raises to limit----heaven save you back then if you suggested something like Marty Bergen's structure.

Heresy!!!!

Hopefully, any system or approach that the forum devises or that the polls advocate will be integrated, and not just a clone based upon a multitude of polls.

Everyone have a great day: Don

[Walddk]

Let me suggest this: Ben "dictates" a reasonable natural system with various gadgets as he sees fit. I trust him to compose something intelligent. Then we take it from there as long as we get everything in detail.

100 people = 100 opinions, so let Ben decide. Makes life much easier.

The best news I have seen so far today is that Fred, time permitting, will be on the Master panel (see MASTER SOLVERS FORUMS). We are all delighted!

Roland

[bearmum]

inquiry, on Apr 30 2005, 08:27 AM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 29 2005, 03:20 PM, said:

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]

Free, on May 2 2005, 12:50 AM, said:

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]

Walddk, on May 1 2005, 10:49 AM, said:

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]

helene_t, on May 2 2005, 09:33 AM, said:

Walddk, on May 1 2005, 10:49 AM, said:

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]

Gerben42, on Apr 30 2005, 04:09 PM, said:

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

* Cappelletti

Ditto.

I will only play cappelletti at gun point

[P_Marlowe]

Chamaco, on May 2 2005, 04:45 AM, said:

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]

helene_t, on May 2 2005, 05:33 AM, said:

Walddk, on May 1 2005, 10:49 AM, said:

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]

inquiry, on May 2 2005, 01:27 PM, said:

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]

inquiry, on May 2 2005, 03:27 PM, said:

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]

helene_t, on May 2 2005, 09:52 AM, said:

inquiry, on May 2 2005, 03:27 PM, said:

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?