[wank]

Wayne_LV, on 2016-May-15, 10:23, said:

Well done. This hand was indeed in the Bridge Bulletin and 3♠ was the most popular choice of the expert panel.

The North hand

---

I realize the hand was contrived to showcase the Bluhmer bid, but as I tried to solve it I could never convince myself from the bidding and the south hand that there was even a sure game, let alone a slam and my choice was 3♥ showing a delayed 3 card raise in hearts and inviting to a heart game. For a slam to be possible I could not conceive of a North hand strong enough to make a slam that would not have opened 2♣


My regular partner and I would have bid the hand as follows per our partnership agreements:

---

opening 2C and rebidding 4D is gross

[Wayne_LV]

wank, on 2016-May-15, 10:26, said:

opening 2C and rebidding 4D is gross

You posted while I was doing a correction to the bidding, but the opening bid and the final contract are the same.

It may seem gross to you, but jump rebidding over 2♣/2♦ to show a strong single suited hand and and the number of tricks in that hand has served us well for a long time.

Opening such a hand with 1♦ could well mean missing a diamond game if partner has only 1 trick and would not respond to 1♦ opening. If partner has NO probable tricks, she may pass. On this particular hand with one sure trick and another possible trick, exploring for slam is in order.

[JonnyQuest]

Wayne_LV, on 2016-May-15, 10:23, said:

Well done. This hand was indeed in the Bridge Bulletin and 3♠ was the most popular choice of the expert panel.

The North hand

---

I realize the hand was contrived to showcase the Bluhmer bid, but as I tried to solve it I could never convince myself from the bidding and the south hand that there was even a sure game, let alone a slam and my choice was 3♥ showing a delayed 3 card raise in hearts and inviting to a heart game. For a slam to be possible I could not conceive of a North hand strong enough to make a slam that would not have opened 2♣


My regular partner and I would have bid the hand as follows per our partnership agreements:

---

I had forgotten about the "Bluhmer," which would seem a nice use of that call here.

The 4♦ jump is bizarre. Even more so with this hand. A 2♣ open already takes up plenty of space (and I am not sold on opening this 2♣.) Slam exploration must be painful a wild ass guess using these methods! It's a 1♦ open for all but those who only use LTC as a measuring stick (not ideal).

Also, the alert for 4♦ seems wildly optimistic. "10 tricks"?? Where? Count them for me. Wank calls it "gross." Obscene is more like it.

Do you wonder why the experts opened 1♦?

[GrahamJson]

Wayne_LV, on 2016-May-15, 10:45, said:

You posted while I was doing a correction to the bidding, but the opening bid and the final contract are the same.

It may seem gross to you, but jump rebidding over 2♣/2♦ to show a strong single suited hand and and the number of tricks in that hand has served us well for a long time.

Opening such a hand with 1♦ could well mean missing a diamond game if partner has only 1 trick and would not respond to 1♦ opening. If partner has NO probable tricks, she may pass. On this particular hand with one sure trick and another possible trick, exploring for slam is in order.

But this is not a strong single suited hand. It is a good hand playable in three suits. By opening 2C and rebidding 4C you are in effect committing to 6D regardless of partner's hand.

[Wayne_LV]

JonnyQuest, on 2016-May-15, 10:50, said:

I had forgotten about the "Bluhmer," which would seem a nice use of that call here.

The 4♦ jump is bizarre. Even more so with this hand. A 2♣ open already takes up plenty of space (and I am not sold on opening this 2♣.) Slam exploration must be painful a wild ass guess using these methods! It's a 1♦ open for all but those who only use LTC as a measuring stick (not ideal).

Also, the alert for 4♦ seems wildly optimistic. "10 tricks"?? Where? Count them for me. Wank calls it "gross." Obscene is more like it.

Do you wonder why the experts opened 1♦?

I love BBO "experts" who never play on BBO and prefer form over function. Neither you nor Wank have played ONE board on BBO in the last 30 days.


As to the point of 2♣ opener taking up bidding space: What further bidding space do you require after a rebid that describes the strength and texture of the hand as well as if the hand were face up on the table?


LTC is not perfect but neither are the myriad of varieties of point count methods. It is a method of determining the PROBABLE trick taking capability of a one-suited hand. Nothing about bridge is exact.


The main advantage to opening strong one-suited hands with this method is to avoid the hands where you are within a trick of game in hand, open with a 1 bid and have partner pass a hand holding only one Ace or even a supported King.


After the jump rebid to show tricks in hand, partner may pass with a hand that contains NO probable trick and we often get a good score not what we bid, but for what we did not bid.


I dare say at any given time, you might not find a single player on BBO that has ever heard of Bluhmer Bids, let alone one that knows how to use it.


Bottom line: I prefer methods that win boards over methods that dazzle the followers of bridge columns.

[1eyedjack]

Wayne_LV, on 2016-May-15, 11:48, said:

I love BBO "experts" who never play on BBO and prefer form over function. Neither you nor Wank have played ONE board on BBO in the last 30 days.

I don't understand
(a) how you can conclude with confidence that any particular individual has not played on BBO in the last 30 says, nor
(b) why playing on BBO (as opposed to elsewhere) is a necessary qualification for their opinion to have value.

[Wayne_LV]

1eyedjack, on 2016-May-15, 11:54, said:

I don't understand
(a) how you can conclude with confidence that any particular individual has not played on BBO in the last 30 says, nor
(b) why playing on BBO (as opposed to elsewhere) is a necessary qualification for their opinion to have value.

It is very easy to see who has played on BBO and when, just go to BBO myhands and type in the BBO name and ask for hands for the last month.

http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands

I think anyone that plays on BBO for any significant number of hands should know that playing bridge on BBO in club rooms only vaguely resembles the high level bridge exhibited on Vugraphs and live tournaments.

I have merely illustrated the bidding sequence my partner and I would have made on this hand, nothing more. I just resent the snide remarks that insinuate that I must be some sort of a bridge idiot.

I give the respect I receive.

[JonnyQuest]

Wayne_LV, on 2016-May-15, 11:48, said:

I love BBO "experts" who never play on BBO and prefer form over function. Neither you nor Wank have played ONE board on BBO in the last 30 days.


As to the point of 2♣ opener taking up bidding space: What further bidding space do you require after a rebid that describes the strength and texture of the hand as well as if the hand were face up on the table?


LTC is not perfect but neither are the myriad of varieties of point count methods. It is a method of determining the PROBABLE trick taking capability of a one-suited hand. Nothing about bridge is exact.


The main advantage to opening strong one-suited hands with this method is to avoid the hands where you are within a trick of game in hand, open with a 1 bid and have partner pass a hand holding only one Ace or even a supported King.


After the jump rebid to show tricks in hand, partner may pass with a hand that contains NO probable trick and we often get a good score not what we bid, but for what we did not bid.


I dare say at any given time, you might not find a single player on BBO that has ever heard of Bluhmer Bids, let alone one that knows how to use it.


Bottom line: I prefer methods that win boards over methods that dazzle the followers of bridge columns.

I did not claim to be an “expert.” But your snide way of referring to me as a BBO “expert,” in an impotent attempt to belittle me, falls flat. My remarks were a commentary on your methods. But if you wish for me to redirect, I shall.
Also, where I play is entirely immaterial. And you know it.
As to what further bidding space I require? Plenty, if our best strain is something other than ♦, or quite possibly 3NT. Partner might have ♠AQxx ♥Kxxx ♦x ♣ATxx as one of many examples.
Now, back to the jump bid, to show, what was it . . . “10 tricks”? I am still waiting for the count. Leave your socks on, you only need fingers for this calculation.
Additionally, if this were a preferred method (opening this hand 2!C intending a jump to 4!D) then experts would presumably use it, yes?
Why don’t we post it to find out?

[1eyedjack]

Wayne_LV, on 2016-May-15, 12:17, said:

It is very easy to see who has played on BBO and when, just go to BBO myhands and type in the BBO name and ask for hands for the last month.

http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands

I think anyone that plays on BBO for any significant number of hands should know that playing bridge on BBO in club rooms only vaguely resembles the high level bridge exhibited on Vugraphs and live tournaments.

I have merely illustrated the bidding sequence my partner and I would have made on this hand, nothing more. I just resent the snide remarks that insinuate that I must be some sort of a bridge idiot.

I give the respect I receive.

I was only asking.

To my mind, and it may just be me being stupid, you have not answered to second question "(b)" at all.

As to the first question "(a)" you have made an attempt to answer it but I believe failed in that endeavour, because your conclusion is predicated on the assumption that their username when playing on BBO is the same as that which they use when posting on BBO forums. Which premise may by coincidence be correct but I see no reason why you should so assume.

[gwnn]

I think you're supposed to post under your BBO username here, unless you ask for special permission from the forum admins.

That doesn't make Wayne's auction great, however.

Quote

What further bidding space do you require after a rebid that describes the strength and texture of the hand as well as if the hand were face up on the table?

This hand is 0364. Even if I grant you that it is worth 10 tricks and that it is a one-suited distribution, there are still other distributions (I guess you wouldn't bid this way with a 4-card major):

3064
1273
2173
3073
0373
2272
2362
etc

Surely you can see how partner can't just add his/her tricks to our presumed 10 and bid as if the hand were face up on the table?

[Wayne_LV]

JonnyQuest, on 2016-May-15, 12:42, said:

I did not claim to be an "expert." But your snide way of referring to me as a BBO "expert," in an impotent attempt to belittle me, falls flat. My remarks were a commentary on your methods. But if you wish for me to redirect, I shall.
Also, where I play is entirely immaterial. And you know it.
As to what further bidding space I require? Plenty, if our best strain is something other than ♦, or quite possibly 3NT. Partner might have ♠AQxx ♥Kxxx ♦x ♣ATxx as one of many examples.
Now, back to the jump bid, to show, what was it . . . "10 tricks"? I am still waiting for the count. Leave your socks on, you only need fingers for this calculation.
Additionally, if this were a preferred method (opening this hand 2!C intending a jump to 4!D) then experts would presumably use it, yes?
Why don't we post it to find out?

'Wank calls it "gross." Obscene is more like it.' . Sounds a lot more like a zinger than a commentary. I realize this is not a popular method and I agree no Expert would probably play it. But I play a lot of things that experts don't play and they play even more things that I don't play. I seriously doubt if there is another pair on BBO that plays our method. I also seriously doubt there is any pair that regularly plays on BBO that plays Bluhmer Bids. Our method of bidding strong one suited hands works for us more times than it fails. What more do you want in a convention or partnership agreement? My comments about playing on BBO are not without relevence. If you do not play on BBO, how do you know how you should play on BBO?


Footnote: Our method of bidding one-suited hands requires an SQ (suit quality) of 10+ to qualify as a stand alone suit. SQ = length of suit + honors. The posted hand has an SQ of only 9 in diamonds and is technically not a one suited hand. But as is often the case in bridge, close counts, and I still prefer a 2♣ opening bid to a 1♦ bid for long term good results with that hand.


Bridge is a game where perfection is totally unattainable. On BBO, on any given day, the best player in the world can be mauled by bad cards, bad splits, and bad bidding and play at other tables. On the other hand, the worst player on BBO can have a magnificent day with great cards bad defense, lucky breaks, and gifts by opponents and bad play at other tables. Of course this all evens out over a large number of boards, over which the methods that have the highest percentage of success will prevail. I don't think there has been enough computer simulations to evaluate even the most popular bidding systems, let alone conventions. Bridge is a game of many opinions and very few facts.

[1eyedjack]

gwnn, on 2016-May-15, 14:08, said:

I think you're supposed to post under your BBO username here, unless you ask for special permission from the forum admins.

That is odd. In one respect I see the logic. But on the other hand this is the first time that I have seen it suggested, prompted by which I have just taken the trouble to see if I could see some forum posting guidelines and ... I could not find them. No doubt there is a link somewhere, but it certainly ain't "in yer face". If someone can post the link I would be grateful.

I recall that some time back, admin instigated a rule that you had to register a user name with BBO in order to post to BBO forums. That rule only applied to new applicants (I think that there remain a few residual BBO forum user names with no corresponding BBO player ID, dating back to before the rule was invoked). As I recall the policy decision was more as an attempt to curb spam postings to the forum than any desire to ensure that their hands could be traced back to myhands database.

Then again, BBO has never prevented individuals from signing up to more than one BBO ID, which enabled them to play under one (or several) IDs, while posting to the forum under another, valid but dormant, ID. I know for a fact that this is common practice, because I frequently try to trace posts back to MyHands without success (and yes I know that for certain tourneys I cannot access them, but that does not explain away the observation).

[manudude03]

If I were to have a bid that shows 10 tricks, I prefer to actually have 10 tricks. 10 tricks and 3 losers are a long way apart. If you use the EBU's definition of clearcut tricks, it comes to 6 (4 diamonds and 2 clubs). Also, not to mention you are ending in a no-play slam (or even game if responder is really negative). if opener's majors were switched (is it really going to bid differently?)

[nullve]

Wayne_LV, I suggest you create a bidding or teaching table on BBO and use the following simple script,

predeal north S, HQ85, DAKQ842, CKQJ2

, to check if it's really a good idea to open 2♣ and rebid 4♦ with that hand. (I've already done it.)

[Wayne_LV]

nullve, on 2016-May-15, 15:17, said:

Wayne_LV, I suggest you create a bidding or teaching table on BBO and use the following simple script,

predeal north S, HQ85, DAKQ842, CKQJ2

, to check if it's really a good idea to open 2♣ and rebid 4♦ with that hand. (I've already done it.)

I did not know that you could predeal a specific hand using practice or teaching table with that script. I tried it and it is a fact that it is both gross AND obscene to open that specific hand wiith 2♣ and rebid 4♦. I owe both Wank and JonnyQuest an apology. The mistake I made was thinking close was good enough. Our partnership agreement for such hands is:

1. Must be a one-suited hand
2. The long suit must have a SQ (Suit Quality) of 10 (the example hand has a SQ of only 9)
3. The hand must be within 1 trick of game in hand (10 tricks for minors, 9 tricks for majors)
4. To raise the opener's jump rebid to game, the responder must have at least 1 probable trick
5. With no probable tricks responder must pass
6. With enough probable tricks for slam, responder must use RKCB and/or cue bids to explore and never assume that all probable tricks are working (as may be the case if the opener has a void).

The example hand did not meet the requirements in our system for a 2♣ opener and a jump rebid to show tricks. The hands that do meet the above criteria are extremely rare and the number of hands we have used this method on are few in number. Therefore my conclusions may be incorrect as to the success rate of the method. It has worked a majority of times it has been used, but that may be more due to luck that to probabilities.

Since you have made me aware of a way to repeatedly deal a specific opener's hand and random distribution for all of the other hands, I will be able to generate enough sample hands to better evaluate the method. This technique can be used for many other types of bidding sequences and should allow me to sort the wheat from the chaff in our bidding system.

Perhaps I am making too much of the situations where a good hand is opened with 1 of a suit and is passed out when a game is makeable, since the majority of the field should also pass out those hands.

The real purpose of this survey was to try to find a name for the jump to 3♠ bid in the hand in the Bulletin. That purpose was accomplished and I thank you all and Mr Bluhmer.

[gwnn]

Hey what's up with all the reconciliation lately on the forums?! Can we have some more fights please.

[msjennifer]

With no agreement ,I feel opener wants to show a nonreversing maximimum hand I.e. 17 or so working HCP and asking me if I can offer decent help in heart suit.Since I have it I am not ashamed to bid 4 D now.Although some have suggested a bid of 3C ,I think it will be a more confusing bid not telling partner of excellent values in hearts at all.In Super Precision system opener would have opened this hand of his as1Club (16 plus) and the problem would not exist.In that system, opener NEVER bids the Fourth-suit-forcing artificially.

[Caitlynne]

This is very clearly that rare psuedo-Splinter bid - in this case, 3S. This impossible jump rebid in a suit in which you have announced length but could not previously rebid - and instead took a non-forcing preference to partner's first suit (i.e., 2D) - shows a lack of values in your (spade) suit and a maximum featuring values in all of partner's suits.

My second choice bid would be 3C, of course, but when you recognize the possibility of the pseudo-Splinter, the 3C bid becomes even more revealing. It suggests real club support - the 2D preference was a false preference - with just under the game invitational values necessary to have raised 2C to 3C immediately.