[inquiry]

whereagles, on May 3 2005, 05:48 AM, said:

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]

whereagles, on May 3 2005, 07:31 AM, said:

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]

shoeless, on May 3 2005, 02:38 AM, said:

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

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]

whereagles, on May 3 2005, 08:37 AM, said:

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 !!

Alain

[inquiry]

bestguru, on May 3 2005, 09:01 AM, said:

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

[whereagles]

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

[inquiry]

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 opened
2) 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

[Elianna]

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!

[P_Marlowe]

Elianna, on May 3 2005, 10:27 PM, said:

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 case
the forum gets going and the number of answers
increases to a level above the sky.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

Phillipe Cronier is joining? That is great. He's one of the game's greatest theoreticians of today.

[Brandal]

inquiry, on Apr 29 2005, 02:27 PM, 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.

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?

[inquiry]

Brandal, on May 4 2005, 07:13 AM, said:

inquiry, on Apr 29 2005, 02:27 PM, 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.

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.

[Brandal]

inquiry, on May 4 2005, 06:29 AM, said:

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 cater
most pickup-partnerships,we're just too lazy to
use them.

For those who always wonder if my head's screwed on right,
I did NOT mean everyone should play the same system,I meant
a system designed for pickup partners/indy

[bearmum]

inquiry, on May 4 2005, 04:17 PM, said:

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?

[Elianna]

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!