[kenberg]

I have been reading BWS trying to digest it. They recommend that 1m-2M show 5+ spades, and 4+ hearts, with 1m - 2 S being invitational and 1m - 2H being less than invitational. Now exactly what should constitute an invitation when all we know is that partner opened 1m is a little uncertain but web-browsing suggests that 1m - 2S is about 11-12 highs and 1m - 2H is less. Ok, for the moment I'll go with that. Now consider the auction 1m - 1S - 1NT - 2H. What is it? Presumably responder has 5+ spades and 4+ hearts. But the auction did not begin 1m - 2M. Why not?

Approximately the entire world plays 1m - 1S - 1NT - 2H as a weak hand asking for pass/correct, perhaps allowing opener to raise 2H to 3H with an exceptional hand. The 2H is a weak bid with 5=4. But 1m- 2H is also a weak bid with 5=4. Which is weaker?

Now consider the auction 1m - 1S - 2m - 2H. BWS describes this as forcing for one round. But again, what is it? The resolution of the 1m - 1S - 1NT - 2H matter seems to matter here. I suppose 1m - 1S - 2m - 2H might show a hand where responder had a hand that would have bid 2H if opener's rebid had been 1NT instead of 2m. But I would expect that to be a very weak hand, so why then is 1m - 1S - 2m - 2H a one round force? OK, if not a weak hand then a hand too strong for 1m - 2S? I just don't get it.


The bottom line: When responder has five spades and four heart the BWS approach seems to offer him a number of options after the 1m opening but I am having trouble seeing just how to sort them all out. When does he respond 1S initially and then bid 2H over opener's rebid of 1NT or 2m, and when does he start with 1m -2M?

And of course there is also the checkback option after 1m - 1S -1NT. BWS uses 2C as a puppet to 2D, regardless of which minor was opened.

I tried searching a bit assuming that this has been discussed before but I have not been able to find the answer.

[Phil]

Hi Ken: What you mention is commonly known as Reverse Flannery.

1x 1S 1N 2H is generally 6-4. Some play it as 5-5.

1c 1S 2c 2H really should be GF. Maybe Id bid this way with Axxxx KQx xx Qxx?

[Flem72]

I agree with Phil. The 1m-1S/1N-2H auction is reserved for 5-4+ hands that couldn't stand to pass 1m, 0-5ish. The auction is definitely POC. Over 1m-1S/2m and 1D-1S/2C, the weakest hands (couldn't bid 2H at first response) just preference. And the use of responder's rebid of the other major as GF in 1m-1M/2m, 2om-2OM is a beautiful thing. These structures are at least as valuable when they don't come up as when they do.

I had one partner who fell in love with the 0-5 HCP, 5-5s, and wanted to add them in to 1m-2H. This is not bad -- gains at mps seemed incontrovertible after looking a hundreds of random layouts -- but he wanted to do it without a checkback for the 0-5s. This was a huge loser opposite the balanced 18-19s, and big hands with both majors, and a disaster at both IMPs and mps.

[kenberg]

Phil, on 2018-April-18, 07:03, said:

Hi Ken: What you mention is commonly known as Reverse Flannery.

1x 1S 1N 2H is generally 6-4. Some play it as 5-5.

1c 1S 2c 2H really should be GF. Maybe Id bid this way with Axxxx KQx xx Qxx?

Ah yes. I was thinking that Reverse Flannery would have implications for 1x 1S 1N 2H and what you say fits in with that. I had not thought of the 6-4 possibility.

I have been playing some with the bots lately and they indeed do play 1C 1S 2C 2H as game forcing, as you suggest. Interestingly, they say that it only promises three hearts.
It seemed right that with RF then 1C 1S 2C 2H should be GF, but then I figured maybe there could be exceptional cases where it becomes clear there is no fit. Having seldom occurring exceptions is just asking for trouble, so GF seems right.

In my experience, BWS is one of those things that should have great use on BBO since we often play with people we have had little if any discussion with (well, I do this). But it has not really worked out that way. I'm retired, so I thought why not spend some time trying to figure out just what the system is? It's maybe more of a challenge than I expected.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2018-April-18, 08:25, said:

I have been playing some with the bots lately and they indeed do play 1C 1S 2C 2H as game forcing, as you suggest. Interestingly, they say that it only promises three hearts.

You'd like to have 4 hearts for it, but what are you supposed to bid with 5=3=2=3 shape?

Quote

In my experience, BWS is one of those things that should have great use on BBO since we often play with people we have had little if any discussion with (well, I do this). But it has not really worked out that way. I'm retired, so I thought why not spend some time trying to figure out just what the system is? It's maybe more of a challenge than I expected.

BWS is based on polling expert bridge players, not the general bridge population. So it includes a number of conventions and treatments that most random players are not familiar with.

SAYC long ago became the de facto standard for online pick-up partnerships (although many people who have SAYC in their profiles haven't actually read it and have some misconceptions).

[jmc]

I play that 1x-1S-1NT-2H is game forcing with both majors and can be only 54. This allows you to NOT show the other major in the auction 1x-1M-1Nt-2x checkback or new minor forcing. Concealing whether or not the 1NT opener has a 4-card major is a nice benefit. Of course, this means my 1x-2H bids can have more shape. I thought this was the "normal" way to play this but Phil is a better resource for expert standard than I am.

[spotlight7]

kenberg, on 2018-April-18, 06:39, said:

I have been reading BWS trying to digest it. They recommend that 1m-2M show 5+ spades, and 4+ hearts, with 1m - 2 S being invitational and 1m - 2H being less than invitational. Now exactly what should constitute an invitation when all we know is that partner opened 1m is a little uncertain but web-browsing suggests that 1m - 2S is about 11-12 highs and 1m - 2H is less. Ok, for the moment I'll go with that. Now consider the auction 1m - 1S - 1NT - 2H. What is it? Presumably responder has 5+ spades and 4+ hearts. But the auction did not begin 1m - 2M. Why not?

Approximately the entire world plays 1m - 1S - 1NT - 2H as a weak hand asking for pass/correct, perhaps allowing opener to raise 2H to 3H with an exceptional hand. The 2H is a weak bid with 5=4. But 1m- 2H is also a weak bid with 5=4. Which is weaker?

Now consider the auction 1m - 1S - 2m - 2H. BWS describes this as forcing for one round. But again, what is it? The resolution of the 1m - 1S - 1NT - 2H matter seems to matter here. I suppose 1m - 1S - 2m - 2H might show a hand where responder had a hand that would have bid 2H if opener's rebid had been 1NT instead of 2m. But I would expect that to be a very weak hand, so why then is 1m - 1S - 2m - 2H a one round force? OK, if not a weak hand then a hand too strong for 1m - 2S? I just don't get it.


The bottom line: When responder has five spades and four heart the BWS approach seems to offer him a number of options after the 1m opening but I am having trouble seeing just how to sort them all out. When does he respond 1S initially and then bid 2H over opener's rebid of 1NT or 2m, and when does he start with 1m -2M?

And of course there is also the checkback option after 1m - 1S -1NT. BWS uses 2C as a puppet to 2D, regardless of which minor was opened.

I tried searching a bit assuming that this has been discussed before but I have not been able to find the answer.

1m-1M-1N-2C*-2D* is called the XYZ convention.

It is also used in cases where "any three bids"

have been made at the one level.

1C-1D-1M-2C* 1m-1H-1S-2C*

I believe BW 'suggested' that a pass(after opening) also

counted as "one of the three bids needed" to start XYZ.

1C-1H-(1S)-pass-pass-2C*

XYZ also uses 2D* as an artificial game force.

2C* is used to sign off in 2D or invite later by making any other bid.

[kenberg]

I will give a somewhat lengthy reply, I have my reasons.

barmar, on 2018-April-18, 08:50, said:

You'd like to have 4 hearts for it, but what are you supposed to bid with 5=3=2=3 shape?

I agree. This not the lengthy part of my reply.

Quote

BWS is based on polling expert bridge players, not the general bridge population. So it includes a number of conventions and treatments that most random players are not familiar with.

SAYC long ago became the de facto standard for online pick-up partnerships (although many people who have SAYC in their profiles haven't actually read it and have some misconceptions).

There is also another sizable group. Many on BBO have been playing for quite a while. They have, rightly or wrongly, bought into 2/1. Many would, rightly or wrongly, dismiss SAYC from consideration. Of course "2/1 pard?" "Ok" is hardly adequate. BWS might well be overkill, but something is needed. BridgeWinners is working on a BridgeWinners Standard (also I suppose to be referred to as BWS). I think they may have this group in mind.

But, and here is why I will take advantage of you being here, GIB standard could also work. Now people would not have to agree to play everything, rather it would be like "If it comes up and we have not discussed it, we use GIB standard". Uncontested 1C 2S? Soloway Jump sift. If discussed, it could be a weak jump shift or Reverse Flannery or whatever. But undiscussed it's Soloway.

As you know, but not everyone knows, there is a brief write-up at
http://www.bridgebas...ystem_notes.php
It's pretty clear, clearer than BWS, but it's incomplete. Of course there are limits to how complete something can be but more would help.
Example: Uncontested: Pass 1S 3D. I am pretty sure from playing with the bots that this is a fit showing bid by a passed hand, spade support, diamonds, decent values. That could be included.
Example: We overcall: (1C) - 1H by us - (1S) - 3C. by us. Mixed raise of hearts. The notes don't mention this.

The purpose of the notes is, I suppose, to just give a general view When playing with the bots they tell you what their bids mean. But a moderately expanded write-up could provide a useful default to the large group of people who want to play 2/1 rather than SAYC.

Back to BWS for a moment. First I thought of trying to persuade people to play BWS. As you point out, this was constructed by experts some conventions, Reverse Flannery for example, are not widely known. So then I thought maybe I would put together a stripped down version. A lot of things, although very useful when they come up, are usually not needed. 6 card RKC for example. I still might do that but I am getting a little frustrated. It doesn't seem right to just scrap Reverse Flannery so that 1m-2M becomes, say, a weak jump shift. That would not be a stripped down version of BWS, it would be non-BWS. So I figured to keep it. But then I did not find the explanation adequate, as you can see from my OP.

So I think GIB Standard (or Bot Standard so it could be BS) has potential as a default for the 2/1 folks. People gripe about the bots, but I often find their bidding to be just fine. Although there was this hand:
http://tinyurl.com/y7lobb8h


All's well that ends well.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2018-April-18, 12:12, said:

So I think GIB Standard (or Bot Standard so it could be BS) has potential as a default for the 2/1 folks.

Maybe for players on BBO, but out in the real world it might not be as familiar to people. I've also suggested that to new partners when I found they played robot games frequently, they never seem to be interested. I suspect it may be because they're used to the robot telling them what bids mean -- if we try this in f2f bridge there's no such crutch for unfamiliar bids. I wonder how many of them will remember that after 1M-1NT-2NT, 3-level bids are transfers.

I'm not even sure how much overlap there is between the people who play in random pick-up games on BBO and those who play robot tourneys. Since MBC is free and most robot games cost money, that may segregate the players mostly into two camps.

We've actually had complaints from users that GIB plays a system based on 2/1 Game Forcing, since many (most?) players don't normally play this.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-April-19, 08:58, said:

We've actually had complaints from users that GIB plays a system based on 2/1 Game Forcing, since many (most?) players don't normally play this.

That's ironic - my beef would be that GIB plays an outdated and abstruse version of 2/1 Game Forcing, rather than the simple and effective version that most modern beginners learn (at least here in southern Europe).

[kenberg]

Speaking for myself, I am fine with what the bots play. That's not saying that they play the finest methods ever conceived by man, woman or robot, but rather that is perfectly adequate for most of the hands I encounter.

90 percent of bridge is skill the other half is system as Yogi Berra could have said. What I hope for is that when things go wrong, it is because I made a mistake, partner made or mistake, or we did what seemed reasonable enough but the cards did not cooperate. These things can all happen, but far from destroying the pleasure of bridge I see it as the essence of bridge. The frustrations come when partner and I have totally different views of what a bid means.

Example: I am in second position:
1H - 2D(me) - 2H - X (partner).
I thought it was responsive, showing spades and clubs, partner intended it as a support double with three diamonds.
Naturally I think my interpretation is the standard one, whatever that means. Over 3H on my right I bid 3S and partner then bid 4D. Huh! I passed.+130 for a good score. My good luck fairy was watching over me.

You cannot please everyone, that's just life. But if you just watch a few hands you will see rampant mis-communication. So lately I have been playing a lot with the bots. We do not always succeed, but we seldom have mis-understandings.

I cannot say with confidence that if the bot write-up were more complete then a lot of people would start using it as a default in pick-up games. It stands to reason that some would, and they would appreciate it.

It's easy for a player to complain about a partner who sees things differently than he does. As I see it, if the bots do things differently than I would then I can live just fine with that as long as I know what it is. In pick-ups they do things differently than I do and I have no clue as to what it is.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2018-April-19, 14:44, said:

That's ironic - my beef would be that GIB plays an outdated and abstruse version of 2/1 Game Forcing, rather than the simple and effective version that most modern beginners learn (at least here in southern Europe).

In the US, I think most bridge teachers use Audrey Grant's books. I'm not sure if she's switched over to 2/1 yet. But regardless, I was talking about people who have been playing for decades. In the US, if they're not advanced players, I think they're far more likely to play Standard American than 2/1.

[kenberg]

Which could lead us to a discussion of just what is meant by advanced. I label myself advanced. I learned bridge by reading Goren in 1961, I have at times played a fair amount, at times not so much, at times not at all. I like playing in a decent game, I have a fair number of bridge books and I have read at least some of them. I can, at least sometimes, spot and run squeezes, throw-ins and other such things. That makes me more than an intermediate. But if I tell you how to play a hand and Richard Pavliceck tells you differently, you should listen to Pavlicek. I am not an expert. I sometimes win at the club I play at, I have, when I was younger and playing more, done decently but not won in Regional events that do not have masterpoint restrictions. Advanced is fine. There are more than enough experts out there.

I just enjoy the game. There are a lot of us. The thing with the Goren era was that you could sit down with someone you did not know and be confident that 1M-3M showed 13-15 points and 4+ support. I miss that. Yes I know Goren converted to limit raises late in life, in a Sports Illustrated article I believe, and even made a half-hearted attempt to accept five card majors, but that was, well, late in life.

So I have been looking to do something about this. BWS seemed like maybe it would fill the bill, but as I look into it further I am not so sure.

[Flem72]

kenberg, on 2018-April-18, 08:25, said:

I have been playing some with the bots lately and they indeed do play 1C 1S 2C 2H as game forcing, as you suggest. Interestingly, they say that it only promises three hearts.

barmar, on 2018-April-18, 08:50, said:

You'd like to have 4 hearts for it, but what are you supposed to bid with 5=3=2=3 shape?

I believe that most who play RFR use this sequence as a "3rd Suit GF." The call is artificial and number of H is irrelevant.

[kenberg]

Flem72, on 2018-April-21, 07:50, said:

I believe that most who play RFR use this sequence as a "3rd Suit GF." The call is artificial and number of H is irrelevant.

A very reasonable way of playing it. It also illustrates the problem I am getting at.

I was hoping to sharply cut back on the number of auctions that space out because different people have different ideas of what an auction means. I was hoping that BWS would do that. I am coming to think that agreeing to play BWS would help, as it is intended to do, but also that there could still be quite a few places where two people who agree that they will play BWS might still have conflicting views of what auctions mean. At some level, this is perhaps inevitable. I was hoping to push it back further.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2018-April-19, 18:06, said:

Speaking for myself, I am fine with what the bots play. That's not saying that they play the finest methods ever conceived by man, woman or robot, but rather that is perfectly adequate for most of the hands I encounter.

90 percent of bridge is skill the other half is system as Yogi Berra could have said. What I hope for is that when things go wrong, it is because I made a mistake, partner made or mistake, or we did what seemed reasonable enough but the cards did not cooperate. These things can all happen, but far from destroying the pleasure of bridge I see it as the essence of bridge. The frustrations come when partner and I have totally different views of what a bid means.

Example: I am in second position:
1H - 2D(me) - 2H - X (partner).
I thought it was responsive, showing spades and clubs, partner intended it as a support double with three diamonds.
Naturally I think my interpretation is the standard one, whatever that means. Over 3H on my right I bid 3S and partner then bid 4D. Huh! I passed.+130 for a good score. My good luck fairy was watching over me.

You cannot please everyone, that's just life. But if you just watch a few hands you will see rampant mis-communication. So lately I have been playing a lot with the bots. We do not always succeed, but we seldom have mis-understandings.

I cannot say with confidence that if the bot write-up were more complete then a lot of people would start using it as a default in pick-up games. It stands to reason that some would, and they would appreciate it.

It's easy for a player to complain about a partner who sees things differently than he does. As I see it, if the bots do things differently than I would then I can live just fine with that as long as I know what it is. In pick-ups they do things differently than I do and I have no clue as to what it is.

Bot quirks aside, perhaps a table option to enable bot standard for all players would be useful for eliminating some of the bidding quirks you're seeing in pick-up games. It wouldn't prevent bidding quirks but it would give everyone a chance to see what bids made and bids about to be made mean in bot standard. It might also be useful for encouraging feedback needed to improve bot standard and its implementation in GIB and the software that explains what bids mean.

I admire your goal of creating a larger pool of people who can play a manageable set of well defined, reasonably effective agreements. In the last chapter of At The Table, Bob Hamman makes a similar case for helping bridge grow:

• Remove perceived barriers to entry (too many complex bidding languages that take too much time to learn)
  
• Make bridge comprehensible to the general public (another way of addressing the language issue)

[pescetom]

kenberg, on 2018-April-20, 13:33, said:

Which could lead us to a discussion of just what is meant by advanced.

To the credit of BBO, this meaning is defined: "Someone who has been consistently successful in clubs or minor tournaments."
So it sounds like you are advanced.
Of course one could haggle about the meaning of "consistent success", but it's a lot better than nothing, if only people would respect it

http://www.bridgebas...p/profiles.html

[pescetom]

y66, on 2018-April-21, 10:44, said:

In the last chapter of At The Table, Bob Hamman makes a similar case for helping bridge grow:

• Remove perceived barriers to entry (too many complex bidding languages that take too much time to learn)
  
• Make bridge comprehensible to the general public (another way of addressing the language issue)

The barrier is not just the bidding language but the bridge language itself. Considering that it is a comparatively recent game, it has an extraordinary number of misleading terms and complicated laws. Is it really logical that a grand slam is a contract to make 7 instead of 13, or that the player who won the auction "attacks" instead of defending his contract against the opponents who want to defeat it? A newcomer to the game could continue bewildered with a long list

[kenberg]

pescetom, on 2018-April-21, 11:32, said:

The barrier is not just the bidding language but the bridge language itself. Considering that it is a comparatively recent game, it has an extraordinary number of misleading terms and complicated laws. Is it really logical that a grand slam is a contract to make 7 instead of 13, or that the player who won the auction "attacks" instead of defending his contract against the opponents who want to defeat it? A newcomer to the game could continue bewildered with a long list

When I was 12 or so my friend Stan and I decided we would read about bridge to see if we wanted to play it. The confusion came even earlier. We needed to get a hundred points below the line to get a game. Ok, I won the game. Aren't we done? It seemed not. Something about rubbers. Insert twelve year old chuckle here. We didn't get it. Of course the same is true in tennis, but that was about a year later for us and maybe we had matured some. So we decided to forget bridge and learn chess. This was fine, maybe a little confusing, until we got to castling. Huh? This just made no sense. You have to have moved the Bishop and the Knight out of the way, you cannot have previously moved the Rook or the King, then you move the two pieces at once? Why would anyone want to play such a stupid game? And then there was castling Queen side. Forget it. We understood how to play five hundred, hearts, canasta, that sort of thing.

[pescetom]

kenberg, on 2018-April-21, 13:56, said:

When I was 12 or so my friend Stan and I decided we would read about bridge to see if we wanted to play it. The confusion came even earlier. We needed to get a hundred points below the line to get a game. Ok, I won the game. Aren't we done? It seemed not. Something about rubbers. Insert twelve year old chuckle here. We didn't get it. Of course the same is true in tennis, but that was about a year later for us and maybe we had matured some. So we decided to forget bridge and learn chess. This was fine, maybe a little confusing, until we got to castling. Huh? This just made no sense. You have to have moved the Bishop and the Knight out of the way, you cannot have previously moved the Rook or the King, then you move the two pieces at once? Why would anyone want to play such a stupid game? And then there was castling Queen side. Forget it. We understood how to play five hundred, hearts, canasta, that sort of thing.

I feel for you, having gone through much the same process. In the case of bridge, it was doubly irritating because I was familiar with whist and similar games and bridge was clearly an evolution of the same, but contradicted some principles for no apparent reason: for instance the dealer (rather than the player who was dealt first) initiated the auction.
Chess turned out to be quite simple with no arguments possible, and tennis is taking courageous steps to make the scoring more simple, to use technology rather than human judgement to identify infractions, to simplify the rules to be more comprehensible and immediate in effect. Bridge has done very little to make itself more comprehensible and attractive to the masses - Fred Gitelman did a great job with vugraph back in 1991, but that was basically a catch up job compared to other sports and the rest of the world has moved on again since then.