[Elianna]

hrothgar, on Jun 9 2005, 06:29 PM, said:

(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! ). 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]

awm, on Jun 10 2005, 01:15 AM, said:

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]

awm, on Jun 9 2005, 08:15 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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).

Quote

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]

hrothgar, on Jun 10 2005, 02:29 AM, said:

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! ), 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]

Elianna, on Jun 10 2005, 04:41 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 9 2005, 06:29 PM, said:

(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...

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, I seem to be taking a much stronger position regarding the "need" for a well defined/structured system for use in the MSC...

My reasons are fairly simple: In the absence of a well defined system, its extremely difficult to come to any closure on the problems. If you are actually playing the hand you can at least use the score that you achieved to evaluate success...

Here, with a structured system to apply all we can do is make some kind of hypothetical judgement regardng what some random players thinks that we might be playing... I recognize that (to some extent) this means that many of the problems will necessarily revolve arround "system" rather than "judgement", however, a well designed system can still provide plenty of opportunity to apply judgement.

[luis]

I really don't care about serious 3NT, I'm fine with it if its used only when the fit is in a major and a game forcing situation is already stablished. Example after 1M-2NT or similar situations.

Abuot LTTC I'd say that it doesn't need to be asked, in some situations it's clear that a bid is LTTC for example:
1♠ - 4♦
4♥

What would you guess 4♥ is? Opener has only one option between a 4♠ signoff and asking for aces with 4NT so it's clear that 4♥ may or may not be related to the heart suit at all and is showing a hand that has doubts about going to slam or signing off in game. In competition there're some similar situations, for example.

3♦ - 4♠ - 5♦ - 5♥

Again between bidding competitive 5♠ and deciding to go to slam there's only one bid: 5♥ os it may or may not show a heart suit or control but it does show an invitation to slam.

I think most people that have said "I don't know what LTTC is" are capable of figuring it out at the table without any agreement as in the situations I describe. Not knowing the name of something is not a crime for some players some "bridge" bids don't need a name and I think this is one case.

So in conclusion I think serious 3NT is fine with a major suit fit in a game forcing situation and LTTC is part of bridge so I wouldn't even ask.

Luis

[bearmum]

cherdano, on Jun 10 2005, 02:56 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 10 2005, 02:29 AM, said:

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! ), 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

I too enjoy Pavelic's polls (and normally respond to them) and his system is much more simple therefore gets a LOT of responses I believe

However I do agree that BBO is entitled to use whatever system they choose and since Ben posted the system I am TRYING to use it
However is the purpose of the poll here for "EXPERTS" only? -- because HONESTLY although I COULD look up all the conventions that's (to my mind anyway) not much fun {mainly because I do not play at a level where I really need to learn a raft of new conventions which my senior brain would have trouble remembering }

As I asked earlier in this thread -- would it be possible to see what the panelists would bid if playing BBO Standard?? -- maybe really instructive for a person like me and maybe others as well -- who MAYBE don't want to play ALL the "bells and whistles" of what to me is more than (to quote hrothgar) "a very short simple system"but "BBO Adv is much too vague" [seems contradictory statements tho ]

[Chamaco]

awm, on Jun 10 2005, 12:15 AM, said:

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

Ben seems to have unilaterally decided that ......
......................................................................


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.

Adam,

I think you are offtrack.

Ben is coordinating this task alone with his efforts, helped monly by Elianna.

Certainly there will be times when his decisions won't be shared by each and every BBF poster, including you and me, but so what ?

As the "unclear documentation of the the system" as well as its discretionality, I partially disagree: true, the system has undefined parts, but that's exactly to avoid that it becomes superspecialized and too much advanced.

Whenever some "gray areas" seem to become critical according to the panelist (e.g. their votes are VERY dependente on the agreement), such as for serious 3NT/LTTC, then a poll is issued to try to verify whether people here would like to use or reject the proposed agreement/convention.

Finally, you complain about the quality of the questions in the BBO-01/02 set.
I think we should not forget that:

1- a significant share of these quizzes do not come directly from Ben's mind but they are proposed by the BBF posters;

2- if I remember well, the purpose of these polls was exactly to try and define better the BBO-advanced system, therefore, system-oriented questions /rather than hand evaluation questions) are not out of order.

Hope you still participate.

Mauro

[badderzboy]

Hi all,

I'm a BILlie and I don't know Serious NT / LTTC and probably won't recognise the situation when you should use them. Does this mean I should not participate, NO because I'll make my natural bid and if the answer demonstrates why this is a great convention / option then I'll get some expert views in the latter analysis which will support it.

One mild suggestion is when people post a 'conventional' bid that the reply is annotated as such and so lesser mortals can make a natural bid who don't know that convention. This will allow BILlies etc to respond with the poll and compete with the xperts...


How many people use conventions properly anyway .

[bearmum]

badderzboy, on Jun 10 2005, 10:04 PM, said:

Hi all,

I'm a BILlie and I don't know Serious NT / LTTC and probably won't recognise the situation when you should use them. Does this mean I should not participate, NO because I'll make my natural bid and if the answer demonstrates why this is a great convention / option then I'll get some expert views in the latter analysis which will support it.

One mild suggestion is when people post a 'conventional' bid that the reply is annotated as such and so lesser mortals can make a natural bid who don't know that convention. This will allow BILlies etc to respond with the poll and compete with the xperts...


How many people use conventions properly anyway  .

Biggest problem with your suggestion is the fact that the answers have to be in accordance with all the conventions of BBO Advanced (including some that "nonexperts" like me have never even heard of and even { reading this thread} that the experts sometimes say the impementation of which depends on partnership agreement!

[joker_gib]

There are a lot of conventions in BBO advanced that I don't play (I don't even play 2 over 1 FG but only F 1 round !!) but it's a good reason to have a look at them !!

Alain

[helene_t]

badderzboy, on Jun 10 2005, 11:04 AM, said:

One mild suggestion is when people post a 'conventional' bid that the reply is annotated as such and so lesser mortals can make a natural bid who don't know that convention. This will allow BILlies etc to respond with the poll and compete with the xperts...

In the Bridge World Master Solver's Club, the problems come with footnotes about what agreements apply in the situation in question. Not only artificial stuff but also BWS-specific agreements about the forcing character of various bids etc.

With one of the BBO-001 problems, Ben supplied the footnote "Of course, in BBO-advanced 2♠ is Michael's".

[bearmum]

joker_gib, on Jun 11 2005, 12:30 AM, said:

There are a lot of conventions in BBO advanced that I don't play (I don't even play 2 over 1 FG but only F 1 round !!) but it's a good reason to have a look at them !! 

Alain

I agree but that's NOT what this whole string is about OR have I had a compete "SENIOR" MOMENT? ?? ---------------- see my previous posts

[bearmum]

[B]

joker_gib, on Jun 11 2005, 12:30 AM, said:

There are a lot of conventions in BBO advanced that I don't play (I don't even play 2 over 1 FG but only F 1 round !!) but it's a good reason to have a look at them !! 

Alain

WTG Alain -- I too only play 2/1 forcing 1 round only

BUT
I have NO problem with the answers to bidding quiz being according to "bbo Advanced" EXCEPT that there seems to be a difference of opinion {as I read the boards on the subject} as to the meaning of "system bids in BBO Advanced -- like LTTC and 'serious 3NT" BUT if the "experts" can't agree what HOPE have as an "intermediate+/Adv- " player have of understanding BBO Adv?

As I said in previous posts I do not want to remember all the conventions that BBO Adv entails when I play bridge to win BUT also for FUN {I am over 60 remember and do not want to play at National level here in Australia and was happy to win a few games at C level at NACB'S in USA in years between 2000-2003}

[PriorKnowledge]

First time here with no access or knowledge of "BBO-Advanced". Forgive me. I was thinking, what the F... is LTTC? Reading farther I realize it is "Last Train". I have never heard it called "LTTC".
IMHO, Last Train, Serious 3N, Mixed Qs, RKC, 4SF are all part of the advanced player's slam toolkit.

I do not think Last Train is "obvious". In the auction, 1C 1S 3S 4D 4H, it is not "obvious" that 4H does not necessarily show a heart q-bid.

[joker_gib]

I understand your concern but don't you think that the most important is to see how good players think rather than win the poll

All those "special" conventions are not so frequent and most of the time bidding "naturally" does it !

Alain

[Chamaco]

PriorKnowledge, on Jun 10 2005, 02:21 PM, said:

I do not think Last Train is "obvious". In the auction, 1C 1S 3S 4D 4H, it is not "obvious" that 4H does not necessarily show a heart q-bid.

Right, in fact, Last Train does not deny nor promise a control here
The concept of LTTC is very much similar to 4SF: 4SF does not promise nor deny a control, this becomes clearer at a later round of bidding.

[fifee]

Mike, I agree, entertainment and knowledge are my goals and BBF does give us lots of food for thought ! Keep those synapses firing !

Serious 3NT is a great convention and so is Last Train to Clarksville but I would not want to see it as part of BBO Advanced because I don't think either are agreements to play with a casual partner. Too easy to screw up and cause a catastrophe. I voted no to these but would be happy to include them both with any regular partnership.

awm, I agree with your post:

Quote

(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.

Good judgement at the table is more important than complex agreements, but I would like for BBO Advanced to address some basic responses and rebids and treatments and set some limits there.

Quote

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

bearmum, great idea !!