[kenrexford]

5NT is always my choice here. "Choice of slams," plus I declare if 6NT is the choice. This makes partner pick.

[Trpltrbl]

Too many gadgets and [people start forgetting which we do and which ones we don't play.
Play bridge first.
Common sense will tell you that a 4♠ cuebid will wrong side the contract most of the time.
Basing your decisions on thinking that maybe pd forgot the system is not good.
Most play parttime bridge with parttime pds on BBO, so I really don't get why all these gadgets need to be played.
Maybe you want to play them with a longer and steady pdship that has worked on system for a while.
Again, keep it simple and play bridge.

Nobody being impressed that you play switch or whatever other gadgets, impress with declarer and defending play. That's where you win and lose bridge, not some crazy gadget that sometimes might be forgotten

GBB

[Winstonm]

Switch, huh? So my pass shows club support, and 4S shows heart supprt? Hmmm. I'd just make a responsive double......

[Al_U_Card]

hrothgar, on Nov 15 2005, 08:49 AM, said:

What do you explain to your opponents if they ask you about your agreements? Anything that you say is going to create a severe ethical problem.

What if partner did forget and then suddenly remembers and takes your bid like you were playing your agreement.....not just hard to explain but hard to live with.

[Walddk]

Or switch everything while you're at it; like one Australian pair we had on vugraph yesterday (Richman-Nagy). 1♣ 15+, 1♦ 11-14 with 4+ hearts, 1♥ 11-14 with 4+ spades and 1♠ 11-14 with 4+ diamonds.

Not sure how much our spectators grasped, but as far as I'm concerned it's not very meaningful and rather boring to be a commentator, especially when you don't have the convention cards at hand.

Roland

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Nov 17 2005, 06:15 PM, said:

Or switch everything while you're at it; like one Australian pair we had on vugraph yesterday (Richman-Nagy). 1♣ 15+, 1♦ 11-14 with 4+ hearts, 1♥ 11-14 with 4+ spades and 1♠ 11-14 with 4+ diamonds.

How evil! Even worse, consider: I know some pairs who play that after a 1NT opening, 2♦ shows hearts, 2♥ shows spades, 2♠ shows, gasp, clubs, and 2NT shows diamonds! Even worse, after 1♦ opening by opponents, 2♦ shows both majors!

Arend

[Chamaco]

Walddk, on Nov 17 2005, 04:15 PM, said:

Or switch everything while you're at it; like one Australian pair we had on vugraph yesterday (Richman-Nagy). 1♣ 15+, 1♦ 11-14 with 4+ hearts, 1♥ 11-14 with 4+ spades and 1♠ 11-14 with 4+ diamonds.

Not sure how much our spectators grasped, but as far as I'm concerned it's not very meaningful and rather boring to be a commentator, especially when you don't have the convention cards at hand.

Roland

I such cases, if the system is known before the Vugraph broadcast, I suppose it would be worthwhile to ask to some player who knows the system (Moscito in this case) to participate to the comment ?

I am sure that some BBO friends would have gladly volunteered to explain to the audience the bidding nuances of Moscito .

[Winstonm]

cherdano, on Nov 17 2005, 11:20 AM, said:

Walddk, on Nov 17 2005, 06:15 PM, said:

Or switch everything while you're at it; like one Australian pair we had on vugraph yesterday (Richman-Nagy). 1♣ 15+, 1♦ 11-14 with 4+ hearts, 1♥ 11-14 with 4+ spades and 1♠ 11-14 with 4+ diamonds.

How evil! Even worse, consider: I know some pairs who play that after a 1NT opening, 2♦ shows hearts, 2♥ shows spades, 2♠ shows, gasp, clubs, and 2NT shows diamonds! Even worse, after 1♦ opening by opponents, 2♦ shows both majors!

Arend

No, I'm quite certain this is illegal.

[Walddk]

Chamaco, on Nov 17 2005, 05:42 PM, said:

I such cases, if the system is known before the Vugraph broadcast, I suppose it would be worthwhile to ask to some player who knows the system (Moscito in this case) to participate to the comment ?

I am sure that some BBO friends would have gladly volunteered to explain to the audience the bidding nuances of Moscito .

What makes you think that the organisers tell us that in advance? Sadly, they don't, and rest assured that we encourage them to do just that in our standard vugraph guidelines.

Roland

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Nov 17 2005, 08:13 PM, said:

Chamaco, on Nov 17 2005, 05:42 PM, said:

I such cases, if the system is known before the Vugraph broadcast,  I suppose it would be worthwhile to ask to some player who knows the system (Moscito in this case) to participate to the comment ?

I am sure that some BBO friends would have gladly volunteered to explain to the audience the bidding nuances of Moscito .

What makes you think that the organisers tell us that in advance? Sadly, they don't, and rest assured that we encourage them to do just that in our standard vugraph guidelines.

Roland

Seriously, if you are supporting a Vugraph that contains Aussies or Kiwis, you should expect to run into some "weird" stuff... Its a pity that so many commentators are helpless if not bitter when confronted with something unfamiliar.

I'll note in passing that the transfer opening style that is popular down under really isn't that "odd". This feature of the system is very obvious, but rarely effects the auction that much. Where life does get complicated is the response structure to the constructive openings... There are lots of nuances (subtle and otherwise) surrounding the decision whether to relay or make a GF raise with a Jacoby NT type hand...

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Nov 17 2005, 06:22 PM, said:

Seriously, if you are supporting a Vugraph that contains Aussies or Kiwis, you should expect to run into some "weird" stuff...  Its a pity that so many commentators are helpless if not bitter when confronted with something unfamiliar.

I disagree. It's not fair to ask unpaid volunteer commentators to prepare if they don't have a clue as to which pairs will appear in the final. And most importantly, when they can't find a relevant convention card anywhere.

If we know in advance that X-Y will play against K-L, and we get a link to convention cards, then I agree. Then assigned commentators should have a look and familiarise themselves with the systems.

Roland

[han]

(sarcasm coming up)

Players who are allowed to play on Vugraph should be forced to play SAYC or 2/1. The commentators should restrict themselves to basic bidding, basic declarer play and basic defense. In a long event, such as the Bermuda Bowl, the participants should be allowed to play a couple of conventions after the round robin, and commentators should focus on advanced bidding, advanced declarer play and advanced defense in the second week. No transfers in competition, and no squeezes allowed!!

Also, participants should refrain from bidding very light games, as commentators may go berserk. An exception is made for very well known pairs such as Meckwell.

[Al_U_Card]

Hey, if erudite commentators have trouble understanding bids (plays don't really change, do they?) then that is half of the fun of the Vu-graph.

There were 9000 or so kibbers for the BB final, if BBO had charged $1 for unlimited access, how many kibbers would there have been?

[Nadreck]

Hello

As an aussie who watched the entire 4 segments mainly for a chance to see 2 of the leading exponts of Moscito (Marston-Thompson were also playing ) I had no difficulty with the bidding. Most Australians who have played a resonable level of bid will have played against Moscito and had very little problem. The implications of the relay structures may be a problem but grasping the concept of transfer openings is not difficult.

I understand that the commentators are all volunters ( and do a wonderfull job!!) and will not necessarily have the time or sufficient information to explain the bidding but I am sure that their would have been plenty of kibitzers watching that could have explained the bidding.

As an aside if the third placed team had gained two more victory points you would have got to see a much more complex relay system that is played and understood only by the pair playing it.

[FrancesHinden]

Speaking personally, I'm not prepared to do any work on Vugraph players' systems if I don't know who is going to be playing. For the amount I get paid, it's definitely too much effort to read through and understand 6 convention cards (3 per team) knowing that only two of them will be used. It's a different matter if you know who's going to be playing in advance, and you have their cards.

By the way, the 'posted' CCs in the BB vary from 2 pages with the absolute minimum filled in to something rather more comprehensive (Meckwell's was 29 pages, I think). There was one pair I was commentating on (I think possibly Argentinian) whose card had their responses to a strong club, but nothing about the further auction other than "artificial".

While it's true that spectators often know the nuances of the system, I'm afraid it's quite common to be told many different things, and if I don't know the person messaging me I don't know who to believe. At one point I had two different people telling me absolutely authorititavely ("I play with these guys", "I know the coach"...) diametrically opposed interpretations of a bid. There's no substitute for having the system notes.

[Nadreck]

I can understand and accept these comments . If competing explanations are being offered then the situation is probably worse than no information.

In an ideal world we will see each pair apperaing on Vugraph supplying a Full Disclosure file of their system so that the commentators can have sufficient info to fully discuss the bidding and play.