Leaderboard

In a thread full of deep-fried Mars bars and what constitutes the midlands I am surprised it was my post you found irrelevant. A pair who have learned the responses to basic Stayman and correctly deduced that it doesn't matter which major they bid when holding both (aside from deciding which to play in with two 4-4 fits) may not be aware of the inferences of a pair who play non-promisory Stayman and are constrained to bid hearts first. I see no reason why they should be less entitled to an alert than a pair in the premier league playing against a known system geek who happens to play a variation which constrains him to bid spades first. This suggests that everything should be alerted in all but the most familiar circumstances, but as Barmar says, this is self-defeating. So it follows that neither variation should be alertable: the pair playing basic Stayman must learn to enquire about the nuances of the opponents system, whereas the premier league pair should have already done so.

When a tax-cutting president hell-bent on military intervention wherever he sees fit puts your economy at the bottom of a huge hole, I find it hard to believe anyone can believe that a tax-cutting candidate hell-bent on military intervention wherever he sees fit will be the right guy to get you back out of that hole...

You're missing the option I want to choose. "3♠ or 4♠ but 3NT is not ok"

When you play robot tournamnet, with best hand for human, you have a powerful piece of information that you won't have in real human playing bridge games - no other hands have more HCP than yours. How about randomly assign best hand or 2nd best hand for human? benefits: 1. Removed the guarantee than no other hands have more HCP than yours; 2. Shifted a few hands from declaring play to defense play. Anyone agree?

So how does one bid these hands when a natural weak 2♦ screws up the opening side? This hand was recently dealt at the table. North knows about a 10-card ♦ fit which makes a cross-ruff a nice prospect for those who have ways to explore for the slam despite combined minimal values. Or do you just give up on slam automatically because of the weak 2? [hv=pc=n&s=s9864h3dak9863cj6&w=skq752hqj7dtc9875&n=sahat865dj742cat2&e=sjt3hk942dq5ckq43&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2d(Natural%20Weak%202)p5dppp]399|300[/hv] Should North not perhaps have tried something else before bidding 5♦?

FINCH DISCARD SIGNALLING SYSTEM (English Bridge Union registered 1981 by Vivienne Finch) You always exclude the suit you are signalling with, and, either the trump suit in a Trump contract, or, the suit led in No Trumps, which leaves just 2 suits remaining. Suits are ranked alphabetically CDHS, as in bidding, ♣♦♥♠, an even card showing preference for the higher of the two remaining suits, and an odd card for the lower. An easy way to remember this is EVEN=HIGH(er) of the other 2 suits, both have 4 letters; ODD=LOW(er), both have 3 letters; or HELO = (Higher Even Lower Odd). For example, when ♣s are Trumps, or, in No Trumps, when a ♣ is led and you can’t follow suit; if you want ♥s use an odd ♦, preferring lower of the other 2 (♥s and ♠s), or an even ♠ requesting higher of the other 2 (♦s and ♥s) The advantages are that you can mostly use low, medium and unimportant cards to signal with, and you can, express your desire for the lead of a suit in which you are VOID, choose to signal from either of 2 suits, and get to keep a precious card, a potential trick-winner, in the suit that you want led back to you. Experienced partners are able to signal a suit preference on partner’s opening lead of an honor (AKQJ10). Although you’re following suit, an EVEN card still requests the HIGHer of the other 2 suits (this time ignoring both the led and trump suits), and an ODD card the LOWer of the other 2 suits). If ♥s are trumps and your partner leads the ♦A, an odd ♦ shows a wish for a ♣, and an even ♦ says please lead me a ♠. However if you hold a doubleton, you Peter (High-Low, play your higher, then your lower card) hoping for a ruff, as your partner will now know you had a doubleton, and will realize your first card played was in fact probably not a preference signal after all. A further enhancement can be utilized. When your partner eventually leads your requested suit, they can also indicate their own suit preference. Taking the above example with ♥s as trumps, your partner leads the ♦A, your odd ♦ asked for a ♣. Then, if they lead an even ♣ they might want ♠s, whereas an odd ♣, could mean a ♦. Yet another refinement can be the signal given when leading into a situation, where partner is going to ruff (typically after a doubleton). For instance, when holding ♠AK72 opposite partner’s 85, the 3rd lead of the EVEN ♠2, may indicate a request for a ♦ return, HIGHer of other 2 suits (with ♥ trumps), the ODD ♠7 maybe for ♣s. Suit preferences can additionally be signaled by which trump is used to ruff. For instance on (partner’s) ♦ lead, when holding trumps ♥965 and no ♦s, the EVEN ♥6 could call for a ♠ return (the HIGHer of other 2 suits), and similarly either the ODD ♥9 or the ODD ♥5 might invite ♣s. In the event of partner’s lead being covered or trumped by the 2nd player, one can still establish another suit preference, with the remaining odd/even cards in that suit. The final sophistication available, is on your (opening) lead to show your real desired suit, for example, when opposition are in say ♦s and you have NO ♥s, the lead of an ODD ♣ or EVEN ♠ requests ♥s, whereas an EVEN ♣ is for ♠s, and ODD ♠ for ♣s. This may very well be highly advantageous when leading to partner’s indicated suit. Of course this system, as with any system, needs you to have the appropriate cards, which unfortunately is not always the case. Occasionally you might be left with only even cards, but bear in mind that a Jack is an odd card (and a Queen is an even card). The Finch Discard Signalling System does NOT, needlessly use High cards, force you to waste a card from the very suit you’re requesting, neither does it have any color prejudice or need you to guess whether 5s, 6s and 7s are low, medium or high, and nor does it make you old and Doddery or demand your brain to be constantly Revolving. It does however, give you the ability to show a void, a choice of 2 suits with which to signal, and it can be utilized with the opening lead, and can also tell partner that you have nothing to offer in the way of assistance, by signalling an implausible suit. The only thing it can’t do, is show a like or dislike for the suit being discarded, but as you can readily indicate your required suit, the word discard can finally be taken literally. During the course of play many opportunities are presented for the Finch Discard Signalling system. [removed dead URL]

All I could find was this, under "Definitions": This doesn't at all seem to prohibit an agreement to open with a singleton.

♣J ♣J Please have the ♣J

Good news! Only 48 hours and we can kickoff a new thread for 2016 election and how bad whoever the new current Pres is. :) Hillary anyone? Cant wait for 538 to start putting up odds.

I'm not sure why I bother responding to you. Stupidity is doing the same thing in the same circumstances and expecting a different result! You have just demonstrated that you understand that partner will have 2 or 3 hearts, and that he 'obviously' has a 5 card suit, which is going to be spades or diamonds and you still insist on bidding 2♥ on 10xxx. I know I am repeating myself, but imo had he bid 2♦ or 2♠ at his 3rd turn, that would have revealed the power one suiter which is consistent with both an initial double (too strong to overcall) and the second double (expects to beat 1N, possibly a lot). Since he actually doesn't have the power one suiter, and yet doesn't want to sell to 2♣, his correct course of action is to double a 3rd time to get you to choose between the remaining two suits. While he no doubt was hoping that you'd have something better to choose between than xxx xxx, sometimes that's all you get dealt. it doesn't invalidate his actions, anymore than you holding xxxxxx xx xxx xx means that he shouldn't double 1♠ for takeout holding 1=4=4=4 13 hcp. As for his not bidding 2♦ with his 4=5, I have answered that by reference to the hand that 2♦ would show, but if you want to focus on what you might hold (as opposed to what you actually hold.....I trust you see the difference between the two concepts), what if you held xxxx xxxx xx xxx? He'd far rather you played in your 4-4 fit than your 5-2. I suspect that this may be the last time I try to discuss bridge with you. You seem to be cut from the same cloth as Lukewarm, whose contributions are found almost exclusively in the watercooler area. But maybe I'm wrong and you possess some ability to recognize and admit when you are mistaken. If not, you are never going to become even close to being as good a player as you already think you are.

You are getting confused with a formal Prof!

I think you're right about it being down to changing views / preferences (fashions?). I have the 4 bridge books that Penguin published in the 1960s; of the 3 that cover bidding, both GCH Fox (Bridge: Standard Bidding) and Norman Squire (Bidding at Bridge) say to bid ♠ with both majors, whilst Terence Reese (Bridge) treated Stayman as a sideline detail and doesn't cover it to that extent. These books would have been likely texts for British players learning at the time. However, by the time of Reese & Dormer's 1973 The Complete Book of Bridge, whilst again the point isn't explicitly addressed, the example cited shows responder bidding 2♥ with both. The much later (1996) Dormer & Klinger edition make this explicit. In all these cases, the context is that the Stayman bid is essentially promissory. Interestingly, Reese's & Dormer's earlier (1961) The Acol System Today states "On the rare occasions (rare because there is generally a better opening bid) when the no-trump bidder has four cards in both majors we recommend that opener should bid Two Hearts ... but in general he should not take Two Clubs to guarantee a major suit in partner's hand". I play a fair bit of bridge in English clubs / congresses, and have the impression that a significant majority of opponents would bid 2♥ with both (as my partner and I do). But I wouldn't assume that an unalerted 2♠ was automatically ruling out 4 ♥s, and, though I think that alerting it if it doesn't is good practice, I don't think that it's obviously required by the OB regulation as it stands. Similarly, if a 2♥ response denies 4 ♠s - and I've encountered both 2♦ and 2NT as the system response with both majors - I think it better to alert it, though again it's not obvious to me that the regulations require it. I look at it this way: whatever the regulations may in fact be held to require, in neither case would I want to rely on getting a ruling that I was damaged by a failure to alert and my consequential assumption about the bid; so if I really needed to know I would have to ask, UI consequences notwithstanding. I'd prefer it if we didn't have the grey areas of "potentially unexpected meaning", but while we do it seems the most practical approach.

Wick Allison, former publisher of National Review under William F. Buckley and current publisher of The American Conservative, said it best when he re-affirmed his decision to back Obama: "My questions about Obamacare and my disappointment that we are not already out of Afghanistan are not enough to make me embrace a candidacy that even George W. Bush would have been repelled by—and, having had time to reflect on his own record, perhaps is.”

You can pick and choose your polls any way you like, Luke. Nate Silver has Obama's chances of winning Michigan at 99%, so I have a few thoughts about where you can put your polls. Overall, the latest analysis by Nate Silver's computer model has his overall chances of winning the election at 86.3% as of about 1 a.m. this morning. I think that David Axelrod's mustache is safe.

Are you looking forward to all the free time you'll have once Obama has been reelected, Luke?

Have you considered making the ask 2♥ and having a 2NT response show hearts? Then you can get in, say: 2♠ = any medium (2NT asks for a shortage; 3♣ asks for a feature) 2NT = max with shortage (3♣ asks) 3♣ = max, no shortage, club feature 3♦ = dreck 3♥ = max, no shortage, heart feature 3♠ = max, no shortage, spade feature 3NT = max, no shortage, no side feature Not only is more information available, it is also passed at a lower level. As long as you do not want 2♥ to be non-forcing it seems like a good trade-off. In this case, you would get the auction starting with 2♦ - 2♥; 2♠ - 2NT; 3♥ for medium and heart shortage, or 2♦ - 2♥; 2NT - 3♣; 3♥ for maximum and heart shortage.

I like Frances' auction. North has a 5th heart with the singleton. It may be more pragmatic to play any hand worth forcing to 4♥ is worth showing the singleton along the way. East should pass 4♣. South can how bid 4♦.

The 'find a game' function should let one specify the bidding system that they want a partner to play. That would save having to get placed at a table, check the partners profile, and leave if they do not play my system (or have no system listed, as is common). I often have to go through several tables before I find someone who plays SAYC. Less common systems must be much worse. Even better would be to allow the find a game request to specify multiple attributes for a partner match. Bidding system, listed skill level, completion percentages, number of logins, or whatever else BBO tracks on players. Better partner matching would greatly improve the appeal of the site for individual players. Sort of like a dating site :D

What about adding approximately 4 characters to the user name which shows up in the Who's Online/table lists? Those 4 characters could be used for such system designations as: SAYC, SA, 2/1, acol, SEF..... etc. Being able to quickly scan the tables for this type of system overview would be extremely helpful.

Finch Cue Bid (alertable) is used to show a hand with two 5-card suits with one bid, some partnerships do allow 4-5/5-4 when holding both majors. It can be used when you are stronger, but generally it’s used as a weak, pre-emptive, 6-11 point bid, with both vulnerabilities being taken into account. It replaces CRO (all types), Michael’s Cue Bid/Unusual 2NT, Ghestem and Questem. Please click here for full details of the FINCH Cue Bid beautifully presented in Rich Text Format .rtf or here for an Adobe .pdf version or if you prefer click here for a Microsoft WORD .doc version AND for a COMPARISON chart click here for an Adobe .pdf spreadsheet

Campaign slogan: Are you younger now than you were four years ago?

When I feel the rule as it is is logically untenable, then I'm going to break it. They can't say it's legal, and also illegal at the same time. Civil disobedience in my view.

I'm confused by the thread title: I see neither a take-out double nor a cuebid I would start 1C 1H P 4C If East doubles 4C, south redoubles showing first round control & slam interest If East passes 4C it's slightly more awkward, but South will drive the 5-level and you should get to slam.

Proper procedure in claiming: 1. Indicate that you are claiming some or all of the remaining tricks. This can be via a verbal statement regarding the number of tricks to be won, a suggestion that play be curtailed, or by showing your cards (Law 68A). 2. State a clear and complete line of play through which you propose to win the tricks claimed (Law 68C). 3. Play ceases. 4. If the opponents agree to the claim, score the board as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play (Law 69A). 5. If anyone (dummy included) objects to the claim, the director should called at once (Law 68D). 6. The director shall require claimer to repeat his line of play statement and hear opponents' objections to the claim (Law 70B). He may require all players to face their hands (same law). 7. The director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer (Law 70A). 8. The rest of law 70 deals with specific situations, such as when there is an outstanding trump, or changes in the line of play, or an unstated line of play (Law 70C, D, and E). Irregularities: 1. If the claimer is interrupted before he finishes his line of play statement, he should call the director immediately and inform the director that he was interrupted. The director should instruct the opponents to allow claimer to restate his line of play without interruption. Any objections from opponents that he may have changed or added to his line of play statement at a point after the interruption should be ignored. If there was a substantial change to the part of the line before the interruption, Law 70D1 may apply. 2. Objections to the claim shall be heard. When the opponents have the floor, the claimer shall not interrupt (they're entitled to the same courtesy he is when stating his claim). Arguments shall be quashed, and if necessary a disciplinary penalty issued. 3. Players are sometimes clumsy in indicating that they are claiming or in stating a line of play. This does not mean the other side gets the gravy — the TD has to listen to and pass judgement on what was said. In the case at hand, for example, it's pretty clear the claimer intended to play his good side cards until a defender ruffed in, if either defender had a trump, and then ruff in himself if the defender led a winner in a side suit.

All these players with "girl" in their screen name that I've seen during my years on BBO. I should have known that wasn't by accident...

Ah, as against the Norfolk de facto rule which states that after opps have psyched, you can be as unethical as you like as the psychers will never win a ruling whatever you've done. Bitter and twisted, Norwich.

Don't give up on me yet. Let's see if we can find a solution using "Feature Showing" and allow the ♥ singleton as a feature. North will probably assume that it is the ♥K and attempt a sign-off in 3NT, able to count a possible 10 tricks. When South pulls 3NT to 4♦, North needs to sit back and think, "Hey, what's this idiot partner of mine up to?" Having had some time to think the situation over, North will hopefully come to the conclusion that 3♥ showed a singleton. Now North knows of shortness in both hands and the cross-ruff potential opens the door for at least a slam probe. Now I pass the ball back to you: What does North use to ask for keycards that would not be ambiguous? 4♥ as kickback? Will South interpret it as kickback? 4NT won't work because South will again read this as an attempted signoff. So in a situation such as this one, do you violate all accepted bidding practices and bid 4♠ as RKCB? It's still not clear how South will interpret the bid. So after 4♦ if North can find a way to ask for keycards, the slam may still be found. Hopefully someone can help here.

I don't see any way to get there no matter what either player does. After 2 ♦, responder could try to get more information about opener's hand by making a forcing bid. The choices are basically some form of 2 NT (feature ask or Ogust) or a new suit bid if played as forcing. After, say, 2 ♥ forcing, opener will simply bid 3 ♦ because of no fit with partner. Responder won't have any better idea of what opener holds and is stuck into raising Diamonds at this point. After 2 NT Ogust, opener will likely show poor hand, good suit or good hand, good suit depending on how the partnership defines good hand vs. bad hand. The problem is that most pairs have no agreement about the follow up auction over the Ogust response. Even if responder could somehow learn that opener had a stiff ♥, there's no way to find out whether there is only 1 ♣ loser. After 2 NT for a feature, opener simply returns to 3 ♦ if a feature is limited to an A or K. Opener would bid 3 ♥ if shortness is OK to show. In any case, responder faces the same problem as before -- there is just not enough information for responder to be sure that there aren't 2 tricks to be lost. After a weak 2 bid, slam usually depends on responder being able to see that 12 tricks are at worst probable, if not certain. Responder's hand just isn't good enough to see that here even with the info opener can provide. If weak 2 bidder passes initially, responder will bid 1 ♥ and the partnership might be taxed to bid game let alone slam. This is one of those perfect hands where 6 can be made on 21 points but is unbiddable.

Sometimes picturing 2 losers is just a matter of keycards. Assuming 2/1, the action should go like this: 1♠-2♥ 3♣-3♥ 4♣-4♥ (No other fit except hearts, and best game avaible, dont have any extras to bid anything else) 4NT-5♥ (2 without ♥Q) pass

Isn't this because we already know that it's going to rain in Manchester and snow in Scotland, supposing that anyone there is sober enough to care?

With the latter you finch before playing your card.

The probability of being dealt two 5-card suits is considerably lower than being dealt a 6-card suit. So to chuck away the natural weak jump overcall into your 6-card suit in favour of a silly convention which is less likely to occur (or which can be covered by the Michaels/2NT combination), is losing bridge.

The polling figures just go to show how absurd the current laws on LAs are. If one more person had considered passing, the TD would have had to disallow the 3D bid.

How illegal? It's clearly a dual-message discard, so it's illegal on discards beyond the first. Any other situations in which it's illegal? (Not that I would ever play it. Even if I wanted to play a suit-preference heavy carding system, it's surely easier for partner to tell that a 4 is a high card when I'm stuck with 432 than to tell that I have no odd card.)

Well thought out convention, but I personally find the price too high. 3♣ natural WJO over 1♦ can be absolutely murderous to bid against if responder has one but not both majors--I too thoroughly love "putting it to them" with the natural bid to sacrifice it to show a two-suiter. Ambiguous Michaels is good enough in a casual partnership, and Bailey is less costly to use than Finch (in each case giving up no natural WJO's), though not as efficient when a two-suiter is held. Ambiguity can cut both ways, and while the advantages of showing both suits right away are obvious, telegraphing 10 of your cards is more likely to hurt when they buy the contract anyway. Works rather better in those cases to let them know about five of your cards and let them guess what your second suit is, they may have a fair idea but they can't be sure and will sometimes really be on a guess. If it is really a partnership goal to show to show all two-suiters unambiguously, sacrificing the cheapest WJO seems less costly. After RHO's 1♦ opener, if 2♥ is used as a two-suiter bid, I can go low with 1♥ or go high with 3♥ with a string of hearts; with a string of clubs, the choice is 4♣ or pass if 3♣ is unavailable, as 2♣ needs some high cards to go with that suit. Non-jump overcalls at the two level on preemptive type hands are quite dangerous unless your whole style is geared toward it, for example the Overcall Structure.

A system with only two messages doesn't work, in my opinion, when 3(+) messages are needed. Messages needed in carding include: - please continue this suit, partner - I have nothing in this suit, partner - PLEASE stop playing this suit, partner - I have no preference what you shift to; try not to give away anything out of your hand - please shift to the lower ranking side suit - please shift to the higher ranking side suit - please shift to a trump (to cut down ruffs or for other reasons) - I have an even (or odd) number of this suit, partner There are refinements on most of the above, as well. Many in my local peer group are insane with suit preference signals. I am a believer in the value of "give partner the info they need most", and it's my job to know what that info is most of the time. I would prefer my opponents to play a system that stresses suit preference at the expense of attitude and count.

How about at least an option to 'exclude blank profiles"? Tired of spending 10 minutes jumping in and out of tables to find a game. Lots of good ideas in this forum. Do any of these suggestions ever get implemented?

It sure is tedious jumping in and out of many 'find a partner' tables before finding someone who does not have either a blank profile, or a system that I don't wish to play.... I can't believe that it a tough coding task to add a check-box bidding system selection to profiles and optionally use it in find a partner.

in america the people playing weak no trump are doing so because they've thought about its tactical consequences. in uk most of the people playing weak no trump are doing so because that's what they learned and they've no idea what the tactical considerations are.

Very cute. However the mathematician in me wishes that the score approached 20 asymptotically. :unsure:

The function is VP(Winner) = 10+10*((1-Tau^(3M/B))/(1-Tau^3)) with a maximum of 20 VP(loser) = 20 - VP(winner) where Tau = (5^.5 - 1)/2 which is the "golden mean" and approximately 0.618... M is the margin B = 15*(number of boards^.5) Both values are rounded to 2 decimals and truncated Occasionally because of the rounding the rule V(i+1) - V(i) <= V(i) - V(i-1) will be violated. In that case the value of V(i) is increased by .01. Usually this will eliminate all violations; sometimes it takes as many as four iterations of this procedure to eliminate all of them. A VP score of 15-5 will be achieved when M = B/3 (five times the square root of the number of boards) A margin of 2B/3 will get a VP score of 18.09 A margin of B or greater will get a VP score of 20

This is a good idea - especially if there were pre-loaded convention cards for a number of systems (with just the basics), and when placed with a pickup partner, the system you had in common had its CC loaded automatically for you. No need for conversation with your non-english speaking partner, then.

My point is simply that having "SAYC" in a profile is better than nothing when placing one at a table. I'm not looking for a lifetime partner, just less time table hopping, trying to find someone without a blank profile or something that I don't want to play. Once the match narrows down the selection, I can always read the fine print in the profile. I usually just stop by the site for an hour or so to pass some time & don't want to spend time finding a partner who knows at least the basics. After a career in software, I try to ask for small things, that the site can do easily. Yes, some major profile definition improvement could match people who play all sorts of complex convention combinations. That would be great, but I just want a simple first step. 20% of the work may yield 80% of the possible benefit. I do like the profile check box suggestion, though.

I'd settle for just being able to select partners with a top level bidding system in their profile. As suggested - show me openings where the partner has "SAYC" in their profile. That alone eliminates the 50% that I find with no profile at all. I often have to jump through dozens of open spots before finding a player with the same system. Just a simple string search of available profiles when assigning a seat would be of great benefit. I agree that any more complex partner matching may require a change or addition to the current profile capability. While more complex matching would be great, just start simple. Bidding system is the characteristic that I care about most. Country is not something that I'd use, as I enjoy meeting people from different countries. Maybe online bridge can help international relations :)

I agree, but certainly something can be done here. If you can figure out what (among the data that you have) makes two people stay at the same time playing with each other for an extended period of time after using the "find a game" function, that would be great. You have access to lots of data, so you could make some hypotheses and test them out, and then build them in as (probabilistic?) preferences for the "find a game" function. Some example hypotheses: 1) Two players with the string "sayc" in their profile are more likely to play together longer. [similarly for the strings "2/1" "sef" etc] 2) Two players with a non-empty name field which contains no numbers or symbols [other than those commonly found in real names, like ' and -] and at most three contiguous strings of letters are more likely to play together longer [supposed to model people who put a name in their name field]. Similarly for two players with non-empty name fields which do not meet the criterion in the previous sentence [supposed to model people who put system data in their name field]. 3) Two players from the same country. 4) Two players of the same level. 5) Two people with multiple instances of capitalized words in their profile (i.e. instances of a capital letter followed by lower case letters) will play together longer. Similarly for two people with no instances of capital letters in their profile. Similarly for two people with all caps in their profile. And so on.

What about filtering by country instead of system ?