Leaderboard

In occasional moments of weakness, when feeling particularly bored, I play BBO tournies with randoms. Of course I realise this is a bad idea, but I need to be reminded sometimes. On this occasion my 'expert' partner produced these two classics: [hv=pc=n&n=sk3hkj2dkj8732cj4&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d4spp5ddppp]133|200[/hv] -6 for 14 bills. to punish me for my contribution to that board, he then did this (I had a void club so the 3NT opener was actually plausible from my side) [hv=pc=n&n=st76hj43d8543ca96&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=3np5cdrppp]133|200[/hv] with AK A and partner's A of trumps, i essayed a claim for 4 tricks and -3400 which the opps rejected, evidently desperate to extract the full 4k for the extra matchpoints.

It all depends how the word 'expert' is defined in each country. In my country (Turkey) if u learn and use any convention beyond stayman and xfers you are promoted to advance level. If you perform an endplay or a simple squeeze that has name in books such as 'coup de vienne' even if accidentally, you become expert. Worldclass level is even easier than all of these, you simply watch a worldclass player in BBO and wait untill they make a mistake that you would not do. As soon as you see this you can claim your world class status but knowing how humble my countrymen are i am not surprised to see most of them settled with only expert status.

I would lead a low club, our best chance of beating this is surely taking 4 clubs and some other trick. RHO usually has 4 clubs on this auction (unless 3343 or 3352), but if partner has an entry we can take 4 clubs as long as he has Tx or Jx (if declarer ducks then we are likely to be able to get 3 clubs and 2 other tricks). I usually like to lead an honor here but on this hand it's right to play low.

I was bored this AM so I did an analysis of skill levels by selected countries. Below is a list sorted by percentage of players online at that time professing to be Expert or World Class. COUNTRY % Expert+ Turkey 28% Italy 21% Israel 20% NZ 18% Greece 17% Spain 15% India 14% France 14% Germany 13% England 13% Australia 12% USA 12% Denmark 10% Canada 9% Average 18% There are either a lot more really good bridge players on BBO than I imagined or a lot of ego maniacs. Go figure.

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp2h2n]133|100[/hv] Generic 2/1. With no specific agreement, how would you intend or interpret 2N?

Oreck would love to have the patent

You've never played with me, it seems :)

First, and to get it out of the way, I agree with blackshoe's original response to the original question, and of course E should have acted differently in the Correction Period. The simple answer to this is because he had to bid something. The problem he has is that, whatever he bids next, you're going to rule that he has an agreement about it. The very simple answer from looking at his actual hand is that East should have no problem bidding 4♣ if the partnership understanding (in his opinion) is that this shows a side suit in clubs. (In that case he should simply have offered a correction to his partner's explanation of the 4♣ bid before the opening lead.) If instead the partnership understanding is that a 4♣ bid is artificial in any way then it appears to me that his hand is perfect for a 3♠ bid. So what is his real problem? You keep starting from the position that there must be a partnership understanding, and then try and view everything in that light. To the man with a hammer, everything is a nail. If, instead, you entertain the shocking possibility that, notwithstanding W's statement, there was no partnership agreement about the bid you get a perfectly sensible picture. There is evidence for this: first, and quite tellingly, W thought it was a cue bid whilst E, who made the bid, clearly did not. Unless and until they are forgotten, one of the main characteristics of partnership agreements is that the partners agree on them. Second, as a result they've had a bidding misunderstanding whch has led them to a failing NT slam instead of a decent ♥ one. Last, we also now have the advantage of the OP which tells us so. The answer to your question "So what is his [E's] real problem?" is that he doesn't agree with you that his hand is perfect for a 3♠ bid. He is faced with the necessity, as I said earlier, of bidding something to keep the auction going. I'm not an expert player, least of all in the bidding, so that probably qualifies me to fill E's shoes. Obviously, his bid needs to be relatively cheap, and I suggest that none of his choices are going to be perfect: if we can agree that he thinks neither 3NT nor 4♥ are realistic options, it really comes down to choosing between 3♠ and 4♣. He probably concludes that re-bidding ♠ is what he would do with a hand that has semi-solid ♠s but nothing else, so opts for 4♣ since that at least reflects the limited other feature of his hand. AlexJonson and others may well regard this as a bad bid, but it's a perfectly understandable one if you bid as badly as I do, and if I were to bid like this with a scratch partner I would expect them to conclude as a matter of logic more than GBK that, since I had passed up ♥, ♠ and NT, then I had nothing further to say about those denominations. And as I'm nevertheless having something more to say with my hand, then I might therefore be indicating that whatever else I've got in it has something to do with ♣. This is not a partnership understanding, its just common sense. W is then faced with deciding what E's saying about the ♣. In the absence of any agreement, I'm not surprised that W concludes that the only sensible thing E could say about ♣ in this auction is that he's got a control, and bids accordingly. However, being one of a pair inexperienced in the ways of tournament bridge (remember E didn't know to call the TD and correct W's explanation before the opening lead), instead of saying firmly "we have no agreement about 4♣ in this sequence" he said, when he was asked later on, what he thought the bid showed. Big mistake - but that, of course, is what you (though not the Laws and the regulatory authorities) want him to do. He may possibly have genuinely believed that that was their agreement; if so, E disagreed and the OP tells us that it was E not W that was correct. But this, of course, is fantasy. Obviously, they have a concealed agreement, one of them has forgotten or lied about it, and they've pulled the wool over the eyes of the OP as well. Fortunately, pran, you're there to see through the charade.

I've replied given my partnership agreement (penalty) but you've missed out "two-way" as an option in your poll, i.e. either - 4 or 5 good hearts, penalties, or - void heart, very distributional, not strong enough to act over 1H which is playable

[hv=pc=n&s=s7643hj42dat5cj75&w=sqjhk963dkqj7cqt3&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1d2c2s3cpp3hp4hppp]266|200[/hv] By agreement, 2♣ denies a 4cM. You lead the ♣5 to the 10, king and 2, then the ♦9 comes back. Now what?

Everyone ast the table should have a pretty good idea what everyone else has at this point. The 7/5 concept is ok for starters but restricted choice needs to play a part in this equation. Both opps know decarers problem and that the % action is to play rho for the spade Q. Sitting idly by and doing nothing will result in declarer getting the problem right most of the time. The defense needs to steer declarer away from the proper LOP and they can at least give declarer a viable option to go wrong by using reasonable carding. If RHO started with Qxxxx (no T) there is nothing they can do to dissuade declarer from finessing them but their p might be able to help. On the play of the spade A LHO can drop the T (from Tx) to at least give declarer pause that they have QT. If LHO started with Qx (rho should try very hard to convince declarer they started with QTxxx and they should play the T at trick 12. The abscence of these plays would seem to indicate the opps were unable to create anything special with their actual holdings. I would draw the conclusion that lho did not have the spade T and their small card was forced from Qx. If the spade Q is with RHO the failure of LHO to play the T under the A would border on criminal. RHO might have just a bit careless knowing the % play was to finesse them for the Q and they were so confident the finesse was going to lose they carelessly played small vs the T and thus failed to continue the illusion that the finesse was destined to succeed. IMO I would play to drop the Q if playing readers of this forum but finessing rho for the Q would be better overall in most regular games:)))))))))))))))))))))))) To me, a more interesting problem would have been what to do if the spade T dropped from LHO on the A:)))))))))))

You'd just have to bid 3NT. If you want a slam, you'd have to hope your partner made a different opening. 1NT is nice in that it can preempt the opponents from being able to bid a lot of things they could probably make. But with that hand that opened 2NT, it can probably easily outbid whatever the opponents would be willing to bid, and you're more likely to find a slam with a level 1 opening, which is a big gain, but there's no real big loss.

3♦ NF, the best of whats available. It has the considerable advantage of keeping the auction relatively low, does not exagerate my ♣ or ♠ holding, may even be our best spot. If Partner continues I'll be happy to but him in game in that strain.

I would pass. I don't like the wasted cards in clubs that you'd need to get rid of most, if not all of in order to make a slam. If your minor were diamonds it'd be a lot more worth investigating.

2NT is a lie in the sense that it lacks a stopper, but it has some advantages. It limits the hand strength and suggests balanced shape with 2-card spade support. Above all it is the cheapest bid so it is flexible. We can get to spades when partner rebids his 6-card suit. We can get to diamonds when partner corrects. We can get to hearts. We can get to 3NT with partner just bids it with a stopper and we can stay out of 3NT when partner cuebids first showing doubt.

Why not playing takeout doubles in last seat? :-/. I dont even like penalty doubles behind the 1NT opening

For me its minors.

minors.

For me the choice is between 2NT and 3♠. I think I would pick 2NT.

Interesting ?: how did you infer that RHO had 5 spades?

Damn it Jilly! You can't exclude me! I'll exclude you!

And in conclusion ....... Forget about it. There are only 3 real solutions to this problem: 1. Find a regular partner and develop your own agreements and only play online with that partner on BBO (or some other site of your choice) in for pay tournements. This way you have a partner you know and nobody can refuse to let you play at their "Holy" table. 2. Play with whoever sits across from you and try to act civil and not treat a casual game as if the World Championship of the Bridge Playing Universe was at stake. This means don't jump table everytime something happens that does not meet with your egotistical approval. 3. Give up online Bridge and play online poker where you have no partner and all the mistakes are your own.

I would open 1NT with the South hand, and accept down whatever in 3NT if that happens. And , while I do bid game opposite 1NT with most 9 counts , with this particular North hand I would invite.

♣ I'll assume 5224. If 4234 then auction very different! 1c-1nt 3nt all pass! That hand doesn't look like a 2nt hand to me. It's got a 2 good suits and xx & Ax in the others. Looks like a suit based hand to me, why open 2nt? I'm happy to open that 1♠ and take the risk of it being passed in (in which case 2nt is probably being passed in too) so as to be able to investigate a better spot. Reckon I'm in 6♠ but maybe it goes - 1♠ 2nt* (10-12fit or 16+ fit) 3♣ (LST opp 10-12) 4♣ (4card ♣ support forcing to 4♠) 4nt (key card spades) 5♦ (whichever shows 1, I use 0314) 5♥ (Q♠ ask) 6♥ (Q♠+K♥) 7♣ to play!

Partner might have thought our minor was ♦, and have wasted values there. I pass.

Yeah I tend to agree--> you could bid again, but it's possible partner has Kx♣ and is going to be unhappy to see the K♣ ruffed. Nothing stinks more than to investigate slam, stop at the 5 level, and go down one trick. Besides, the K♠ could be completely worthless to your partner. As could the diamond singleton. Overall, I just don't think it makes sense to disturb partner's game when it seems just as likely to me that 5♥ will fail as it is that 6♥ will succeed. Note that if you had Axxxx♠ KQ10♥, 7♦ 9876♣, that is an entirely different issue: partner bid game in competition knowing he had 3 holes at the top of the trump suit. He had no reason to believe you could necessarily fill any of them. Every high card is guaranteed to be working and you have a nice distributional surprise to boot.

I also have this agreement but have never had clear discussions about exactly what hands to do it on, so I'm interested to see what the replies say. It has come up a grand total of once for me when, at favourable, I doubled a strong 1NT in pass out with a decent 5332 15 count, hoping that the range change worked like it did when doubling a weak NT. The consensus amongst the people I asked was that I was light but not massively so and that, given that the 1NT bidder was a weak declarer, it was probably OK. Dummy hit with a 4 count and I misdefended ridiculously to let him out for 1100.

The odds haven't changed from the beginning. RHO started the hand with 5 spades, so is a 5/7 favorite to hold Q♠.

Maybe he thought your username was indicative of the style of play expected?

That's easy enough to address: just give each player a rating that is between 50 and 100. That's the equivalent of what already happens with self-ratings.

I realize that bridge knowledge does not necessarily translate into performance at the table, but what if ....... A rating system was devised based on results of a bridge quiz. This quiz could be broken down into sections such as: 1. Basic bidding and play 2. Popular conventions 3. Advanced card combinations 4. Leads and signals 5. Other categories Such a quiz could be online and taken on an honor basis and computer graded. Ratings would then be assigned based on percentage of correct answers in a given category and overall. The quiz could be taken many times as a player learns more about the game and the latest score would used for appying the rating. If you look up all the answers as you take the test, you would at least have read about that aspect of the game once. Personally I would prefer to play with a beginner that knows how the game is supposed to be played and lacks experience than with a player that has been playing 30 years and has yet to master the basics.

I'd Open 1NT (Playing a 14-16 so I feel less bad about the tight QJ). I'm trying to steal here just as much as get to play 3NT. Isn't that auction going to start 1NT - 2H; 2S - 3H; and now you can bid 3NT to try and communicate that you have the minors?

Unsurprising results and a topic we've discussed many times before but, for a change, I'll defend the hyperinflation. A number of my friends are just ordinary club players. They don't play in national tournaments but, occasionally, do play in local events (c.f., sectionals). They regard themselves as solid intermediates and this should be their BBO level. However months of playing with other intermediates has been frustrating, as it seems a lot of intermediates have barely finished their third bridge lesson. So they upgrade themselves to Advanced. They are quite happy here, as most of the real advanced players have defined themselves as Expert for precisely the same reasons. No-one really likes to put Beginner when they know how to follow suit. Inflation is inevitable. But I still prefer this system to any other that has been proposed or used at other sites.

1NT, no question. I'd rather lie about my exact shape than my HCP; also with clubs so much better than diamonds and not strong enough to reverse, you have a rebid problem no matter what partner says over 1C opening. The only time I get into real trouble is when partner is 5-5 in the majors and forces me to choose between them at the 4-level.

Playing with randoms is a habit you can break. I've managed to break the habit by resolving to read forums, The Rodwell Files or goof off playing bingo when no partners are available. Subbing into random team games was the last to go, for a while I fooled myself into thinking these were better than other games. I need to increase my list of both live and bbo partners, at least live you often have some idea of what sort of player you are getting.

Is it possible that after the first board you might have inadvertently given your partner the impression that you were disappointed with his action?

wank, after 3NT, 5♣ is Super Gerber. Then when he wasn't sure whether it's ROPI or REPO that's on after a NT opener, so his head exploded.