Leaderboard

Yeah, on top of bidding game just being horrible hand evaluation, this is another reason that it's bad to do so. There is really no need to stretch to some really thin game at MP when if partner plays it really well to make 10 or 11 tricks you are getting a near top anyways. The risk/reward is just way off. It seems to me like people have absurdly bad judgement over game tries. They look only at the suit partner showed, and if they have something that looks good they bid game regardless of anything else. Part of the problem is most holdings that aren't xxx have some upside to people. Kx? Sure looks good. Axx? Awesome. Qxxx? Great. xx? Maybe we can ruff some stuff. Etc. And the other problem is, of course the rest of the hand matters. I mean which hand is more likely to make game opposite a game try in clubs, xxx Axxx Axx xxx, or Jxx JT9xx Jxx Kx? Obviously the first hand, it's a much better hand. In general with a complete max you always bid a game, partner has game tried, and with a complete min you never bid a game, but you see people doing stuff like signing off with 3 small and a max hand, or bidding game with a yarborough with Kx of clubs all the time. Then they use words like HELP SUIT and ASKING bids etc lol. If people just thought in normal terms like "ok my partner has 5S and 4C and about 16, how likely are we to make game?" or w/e like we think about in all other scenarios, rather than OMG WHAT ARE MY CLUBS, they would do a lot better. On this hand it was very lucky that the JT9 of hearts were all working so that game even had any play, and even then partner just gets tapped and we have no entries and it's really awful. Imagine how bad it would be opposite the (much more likely) hand of AKxxx x Kxx AQxx And one more thing about my rant, the gradations of game tries should be accept, reject, and counter game try. So someone who bid 3S on this hand instead of say 3H is saying that of those 3 ranges, they have the BEST. In my opinion it's a clear worst but at least counter game try if you want to show life, don't bid 4S. Also, it is probably correct in this auction when you have 2 counter tries available for 1 to just be totally artificial to avoid information leakage.

I would be defending 1NT undoubled on the auction 1NT P P P For everyone making dogmatic comments about what is right or best against 1NT, I can explain why their methods fail on some other hands. There is no perfect defence against the weak NT (just like there is no perfect defence against any other opening bid). Mine fail on this one but I think overall I gain, and I have a lot of experience defending the weak NT.

What kind of bizarre rules are you using?

I was kibbing an I/A game when this hand came up, so it seems suitable for the I/A forum. It is a particularly strong example of a common problem. [hv=pc=n&s=sqt652hk7d8caj987&n=skj43hq4dkq52ct54&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1sd]266|200[/hv] At this point there are quite a few possible bids for North 1. 2♣, Drury, played on over a double, anticipating either traditional response of 2♦ or the reverse response of 2♠ if the opening was light. 2. 2♦. reverse Drury with four card support. 3. 2NT, often called Jordan over a double, played as on opposite a third hand opening. 4. 3♦, Bergen, on after third seat openings and a double. 5. 3♣ Reverse Bergen, on after a third seat opening and a double. 6. 3♠, played as a limit raise. Of course it's a frequent problem, and perhaps a somewhat unavoidable one, but I am thinking there should be at least a partial solution somewhere. I was playing pick-up recently and partner wanted to play Bergen. I try to avoid this in pick-up games because of problems such as the above. "Let's play Bergen". "OK". Uh huh. On over a third seat opening? On over a double? I attempted toclarify this with partner but the communication wasn't working. This I/A Forum has a pinned topic called "A primer on reverse bidding". This primer does not match my preferences in every detail (nothing ever does, I suppose), but I would happily agree with a pick-up "We do reverses as stated in the primer". It would be good to have more such guides. Convention cards, and certainly profiles, lack room for such detail, FD has room but is not practical for pick-up. Actually FD doesn't fit my way of thinking in general but that might just be me. Anyway, I offer this up for discussion. I am not so much interested in which of 1 through 6 you regard as the best, or even in concentrating on third seat openings and doubles, rather I am interested in how to avoid having so many misunderstandings. I don't really mind, in a casual game, if the opponents explain their own bids to everyone including partner but when it has to happen on hand after hand I feel it fuels bad habits and detracts from the game.

[hv=pc=n&s=sak53hat93dj7ct64&w=st987hk5dt64ckqj3&n=sqj2hqj4dakqc9872&e=s64h8762d98532ca5&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(12-14)p3nppp]399|300[/hv] IMPs; Table Result 3NT-1. There was a bit of a disagreement here at a local club last week, with SB, South on this hand, being "hoist with his owne petar" as the bard might have said. Before West could lead to 3NT, East was writing down the contract and exposed the ace of clubs when reaching for his pen. At least it could be seen by SB, who was quick to argue that it could have been seen by his partner, although the latter denied it. The TD came, ruled it was exposed, and SB decided to leave the ace of clubs as an MPC. West, familiar with the "Lille minute", led a low club, and the contract went one off on the obvious defence. In the other room the contract made when West led a top club and East played low, as it was far from obvious what West should do next. SB was not happy, especially when West goaded him by saying that he would have definitely made the contract if he had insisted on a club lead. The ace of clubs would be picked up, and West would have to lead a top club (as the fact that East had the ace of clubs would be unauthorised). Also West would be unable to continue with a small club for the same reason! How do you rule?

[hv=pc=n&s=sj63hjt952dj62ck6&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1sp2sp3cp]133|200[/hv] 3♣ is standard game invite with clubs. druri was available. You can play the rest of the hand here: http://www.bridgegod.com/playprob.php?probid=231

All you need to know is how many spade honors partner has. Surely, there must be some bid that allows you to find out... Oh wait, there is.

I find it amazing how people who overcall 2♣ on AKTxx opposite 1♠ are scared to do the same over 1NT. It is the complete opposite. When opponent's open 1NT you know that all suits are breaking evenly, so it is a lot safer to act, while overcalling where RHO could be short is a lot more dangerous. I insta overcall 5 card majors at MPs to get those juicy +110. Here it is a different matter, others have much more experience against weak NT than I do so I trust their experience better than myself, but if I had this hand last week I would had made a constructive overcall. I have just too many bad experiences missing games against weak NT, and very few ones about going for a number.

I think you should consider The Minutes of a meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Beijing on Friday, 10th October, 2008. Law 50E ‐ Mr. Di Sacco asks that examples be provided of the application of this law. A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from K Q J x to partner’s A x is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3 applies. Mr.Bavin observes that the player must convince the Director that he has not gained from the information that the player possesses the card. This continues the WBF Laws Committee decision made in previous years.

Sorry, what was South’s case?

best defence - double as a suggestion of penalty with any appropriate hand and be prepared to be gracious when you collect a big penalty lol

Pass. Generally a good approach against polish club is to pass with strong defensively oriented hands. You are guaranteed another chance to bid and may well catch them for a number.

[hv=pc=n&s=s632hktdc&w=sak4ha2dc&n=sqj5hd2c2&e=s8hqjd4c4]399|300[/hv] South needs 2 tricks, no-trump.

Exactly. The assembly instructions come with an allen wrench, but it isn't clear whether I put the sides or the shelves on first.

I’ve had some painful moments at the hands of BBO tournament directors. In the most memorable, holding something like AJTx x KJTx AKJx, fourth in, the bidding went P P 1♣ to me. Rightly or wrongly, after a long tank, I bid 1N, which my P raised to three. I received the dreaded ♥ lead, and P revealed something like Kxx Jxx AQxxx xx. Two or three tricks into my hammering, RHO suddenly alerted 1♣ as Polish (either nat, weak NT, or 18+ any dist). I immediately called the director and said that had they actually disclosed their system, we might have bid the hand very differently. She looked at the four hands, and observed that RHO in fact had some ♣s. Therefore, she said, ‘the bid was natural’ and there would be no adjustment. I forget my exact reply, but I’m now banned from that tournament.

We play 2-way-reverse Drury after a third hand opener (frequently agressive) so we can stop at the 2-level. We play Jordan 2NT, too, but why in this situation? We play this convention cause we want to avoid the 3-level, right? I am a fan of "Drury is on in competition"... :)

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

I regard Suction as a primarily disruptive tool. Nothing wrong with disruptive tools, per se, except when used in a context where constructive methods are indicated.

I fail to see how I can "back away" from something I never seriously proposed in the first place - but then I gather my sarcasm was lost on at least one reader. You don't "make" the free market work, you let it work.

Yeah I suppose that is the root of our disagreement. If 2♠ promises 11-15 points and six spades I would play 3♣ as forcing as well. With most partners I play Landy which means that 2♠ will often be a 5-card suit. Obviously, the more likely it is to be a 6-card suit the more attractive to play 3♣ as forcing. When I moved to England 7 years ago and had to get used to the weak NT I thought I would have to play a constructive defense. But after some time I realized that it happens quite rarely that we can bid and make game after they open 1NT, especially when we don't have a major suit fit. In the meantime we lose a lot of matchpoints if we don't overcall with shapy 8-counts. Maybe it ought to depend on scoring and vulnerability, though. If we are going to play clubs it is almost always 3♣ we want to play - AFAIR it has only happened once to me that a 4m or 5m contract was right for us after their 1NT opening. It is of course different when advancer has hearts, and I can imagine that 3♥ should be forcing although I play that as NF as well for consistency.

No. I would double with W hand. I debated this long time ago, where Justin said he uses the upper range of their weak NT as minimum values for starting a double and i debated that i do it with equal hands to their NT range or stronger. Perhaps setting their upper range as our minimum start point for double is wise, but i did not have the chance to change what i played in past, neither i had so many problems with it to play it the way i do, so this is exactly how it would go if i played as W in this hand. The city i learnt bridge, is a Precision Club land. I myself had to start with learning precision first. And most of my life all i played and defended was weak NT in the ranges of 11-13 12-14 13-15 (You know precision systems vary as much as the pairs who plays it http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Note that back then weak NT openers did not use any vulnerability restrictions.(at least not in the city i played ) I don't know if that had any effect on how i defended vs it looked OK.

I don't know the situation at the OP's club, but at our local club a playing director in such a position would be entitled to A+, since it doesn't seem fair to punish people for volunteering. That is a good way to run out of volunteers!

First you need to identify the problem. Are we "over"-heating the planet? Are we "heating" the planet? Are we able to control the heating of the planet? Are we better able to adapt to changing conditions or to change the conditions? What is the "correct" [CO2] in the atmosphere? When does that [CO2] become deleterious? How much can we affect that [CO2] relative to natural variation (past and present)? Should we try to increase [CO2] or decrease it and by how much? How much will that increase/decrease cost and what effect will it have on the various parameters of interest?

Just a suggestion: put the actual hand (or the hands you want us to consider) in the OP. It is easy to do using the hand editor, and that allows you to insert the bidding as well. Putting a link requires that we call up another screen which, for me at least, means having to either memorize the hand, or futz around with different windows/screens, all of which is a minor annoyance and will and did detract from my willingness to invest any effort in responding to the substance of your post. Please don't take this as a personal criticism: I hope this advice makes it easier for you to post, and I am sure it will make it easier for almost everyone to read/follow and maybe respond :D

Interesting datum/IMP calculation. Maybe I am just old, but a datum was the highest/lowest two scores ignored then average of the remaining. That would give 9 IMPs to the slam and Minus 3 or 4 to everyone else. But heck, I couldn't even find the wording staring me in the face on that law thread, so what do I know?

Zel raises: 1♥ - 2♥ and 1♠ - 2♠ = normal weak raise 1♥ - 2♠ and 1♠ - 2NT = mini-splinter or maxi-splinter 1♥ - 2NT and 1♠ - 3♣ = GF raise 1♥ - 3♣ and 1♠ - 3♦ = limit raise 1♥ - 3♦ and 1♠ - 3♥ = mixed raise 1♥ - 3♥ and 1♠ - 3♠ = PRE raise 1♥ - 3♠ and 1♠ - 3NT = void splinter 1♥ - 3NT/4m and 1♠ - 4♣♦♥ = singleton splinters If using the relay response structure then also 1♥ - 1♠(relay); 1NT/2♣ - 2♥ and 1♠ - 1NT(relay); 2♣♦ - 2♠ = 3 card limit raise 1♥ - 1♠(relay); 1NT/2♣ - 3♥ and 1♠ - 1NT(relay); 2♣♦ - 3♠ = 3 card GF raise plus sticking in relays is also an option (often a good one) with a good raise.

Not being used to playing at such a high level, maybe I'm missing something. For me the 5!h bid is denying Ac so 7d is surely doomed. 6nt seems a big guess and requires partner to have quite a lot in clubs, certainly KQ. I agree that the double probably shows a diamond void hoping for a ruff. So I guess the opening lead of a club to his partner's ace and a diamond ruff is the plan. What can we do about it? Anything else may take us out of the frying pan into the fire! My vote is to pass.

In 1st or 2nd seat I like a preempt to be a good suit, 2 of the top 3 honours - for exactly this reason Partner has not passed and may have a big hand and if the preempt could be weak he will not know how to proceed. If a partner I trusted opened 3h on this, missing K, Q and J, then I would wonder what was going on. Maybe he also has an ace. Axx in spades as well as A 7 times in hearts would make a sure slam so I would certainly go looking for it with 4nt and expect to hear 2 keycards. Surely h could not also have a K in a minor as with 10 points and 7 hearts he would open 1h. So the grand can;t be on.

Time for the rest of the hands?

Last month I joined a few private bridge clubs on BBO. In general I am very happy I play tournaments there, the game level, the atmosphere are more than expected :). But I have encountered a major problem with one of them, and it is strictly related to the personality and manners of the TD. I know - you can say: "leave it, go somewhere else". But I like everything: the time of the day, the partners/opponents, the level of the game, you name it... The only thing is the actions of a person in charge that I have problems with. These are some of the issues: 1. you cannot challenge his decisions, if you do - you are expelled for life, 2. you cannot argue with him, if you do - see #1, 3. whenever there is a discussion in the tournament chat, he is either patronizing or rude, 4. you cannot be late at a start of the tournament, if you do - you are expelled for a week, at least, 5. you cannot have any connectivity problems, if you do - the same as #4, 6. TD arbitrarily sets the number of players participating on a given day (there are over 1200 members, the maximum number of lucky players allowed = 120, sometimes 100) 7. One day, TD did not show up, and there was a bunch of players on a reservation list ready to start so I started chatting with two of them. Apparently, there was a problem with in the past, he was suspended or something 3 years ago. I understand, TDs are volunteers, they spend their private time allowing others to have a good time. But this man evidently strives to exercise his power while directing. So my question is this. Do we need something like an appeal/review committee that monitors and assists TDs to do the best possible job and the BBO members to have the chance to continue playing with a group of friends even if there were some (minor) problems in the past?

I have seen several top players now opening 1c on balanced hands in the 15-19 range and use transfer responses. However, I have struggled to find much online by way of replying to this. I have managed to piece together something that seems to work ok to me and would be happy to email this to anyone else interested. I would also be happy to hear from anyone else that plays, or is thinking of playing, this. It can be used with any other bidding system but my version includes 5 card majors and a 12-14 no trump, multi 2d, Lucas 2s' etc.

Thanks for that. I was interested in this system as it goes well with a weak nt - the 1c opening includes hands in the 15-19 balanced range so that would include a strong no trump. Normally I feel that 5 card majors do not go well with a strong no trump but this may be the answer

I am looking for an online partner. I consider myself an intermediate. I want to learn 2/1 after playing SAYC. Pretty much KISS. I am on EST. Let me know. JNQ

Hi JNQ, I am interested. Also intermediate and play 2/1. I can play most weeknights. Jess

1♠ is forcing. What do you do with 1♦ : (X) : ? ♠ K Q J x ♥ x x ♦ A Q J x x ♣ x x If you redouble to show 10+ then the bidding may come back to you at 3H and now what do you do. D/

I googled "transfer walsh" and got some bare-bones descriptions. Many players at the local club essentially play that 1C-1D denies a four-card major (call it Walsh Extreme) and it would seem sensible to use transfer responses if that's your style. The basic issues seem to be: (1) What does a simple acceptance of the transfer denote? Is it forcing? (2) What do jump acceptances denote? (3) What do 1S, 1NT and club responses show? A very simple scheme would be to play that simple acceptance shows exactly three card support, unlimited strength, and is forcing. Jump acceptances (1C-1D; 2H or 3H or 4H) are the same as standard raises by opener (1C-1H-2H 3H or 4H), promising four cards. Other (non-acceptance) rebids by opener deny three card support. Many variations are possible; simple acceptance might include minimum hands with four-card support, allowing jump acceptances to show extras. For the other responses, I've seen 1S described as 4+ diamonds or 5+ diamonds or as a transfer to 1NT. The best scheme probably needs to consider what hands open 1C.

Yes, we play online (BBO) because is free, thank BBO, thank you Fred. For me and for all my friends here in Canada and North America playing bridge on BBO is the one of the most fantastic things that happened to the bridge community at large, worldwide. What I am concerned with is the fact I have discovered lately that the free tournaments organizers/managers/directors have and in some cases exercise absolute and totally non-democratic power on the tournament members. And that I cannot accept, not just me - many, if not majority of the group(s) in question. Would it be possible to have a few members named and registered with BBO and within a specific tournament to act as an appeal/review committee? These are very well established groups (one of them I am referring to has over 1200 players registered). The problems I described before are not new. People do not complain because they either don't know how to or they are afraid of possible negative consequences. This is nothing to do with the TD's certification (maybe it is, but not necessarily related to the Laws), more - in my mind - with maintaining and promote an open, democratic and friendly culture of BridgeBase online :)!

I have no problem with your and Helene's replies. Don't take me wrong, as a "brick and mortar" bridge club director I understand all efforts the BBO TD's put into efficiently running tournaments days in days out and I appreciate it very much! But my main frustration comes from the fact that a TD has the power and, to my mind, exercises it freely to ban an individual for life for mostly minor and sometimes innocent actions! Thank you!

These are free tournaments - for one East European language speaking players, basically.

4♦ better than dbl

Agreements are a must over hi level preemetives. A very good one is (3♣) 4♣ = ♦+M Then 4♦asks M and 4M is natural. 4♦= ♥+♠ (3♣) P (3NT) follows the same logic as before (3♦) 4♣ =♣+M Then 4♦ asks M and 4M is natural. (3♦) P (3NT) follows the same logic as before (3♥) X P 3NT 1-suited slammish or ♦ ♣ Then doubler chooses his/her best minor (3♠) X P 4♠ Then 1-suited slammish or 4NT=2-suited I do not put the defense over (3NT) as it is too large to include it here...but it is a kind of complex RIPSTRA and italian GHESTEM. So, if you have SOME agreement alike, 4♦ would show a maximum of 3 losers and a 2 or 3 suiter hand, not a major minor hand. Then (3♦) 4[♠] shows a 4 or 5 losers hand (3♦) X and then 4♠ shows a GOSH hand (3♦) 4♦ shows a 3 or less losers hand (3♦) X then 4♦ shows a slammish hand (3♦) X (3NT) P 4♦ same as above (3♦) X 4(♦) P P X shows a 2-suiter slammish (3♦) X 4(♦) 5♦ shows a 1-2 loser hand So here I would bid 4♦ then over 4♥ would look for 6/7 ♥. Over 5♣ I would bid 5♦ or 5 ♠, depending on the losers count. I would fall off chair if p bids ♠. Probably many will find a different approach to this situation. The real main point is the fact that you need consistent prearranged agreements with your partner to deal with this kind of situations at the 4 and upper levels.

What are the downfalls of just a second X? Then another bid after partner responds.

the guide should this : with 6-4 Major-minor, rebid the M with minimum hand with a king more than minimum (so 15+ pts), rebid minor and, over 2nd bid by partner, rebid the M partner will know then you have 6-4 with a good hand bernard

I don't think the hand is as weak as it looks on the first glance. You've got the HCPs in your long suits. You've got 6 loosers only. You've got some support in your partner's suit and a singleton outside. You will most likely make 4♥, with a possible overtrick, opposite an 11-HCP hand such as ♠ Axxxx ♥ Ax ♦ QJx ♣ xxx Your opponents did not bid, they are probably below 10 HCP, so chances are good that your partner is strong, and even 3NT can be an option. I suggest you bid 2♦ with this hand, upon a reply of 2♥ or 2♠ relax and pass. If your partner has 6 ♠s, fine with you. Over 2NT or 3♣ (4th suit forcing) show your 6-card ♥s by bidding 3♥, and your partner will know what to do.

Kryztof Martens are proposing that the double in this sequence is negative with four ♠, or a game going hand without a stopper in ♥. After the double 3♠ is forcing from opener, and responder can then bid 3nt to show no 4 card ♠ and no stopper in ♥.

Over the years keen rivals have tried all sorts of defences to VFP in an effort to prove its fallacy. One defence which has been in place for several years is to produce a variable forcing pass over our pass. The idea is to catch us bidding on nothing. This had never come up until last Monday Board 11 Love all Dealer South K643 J52 532 Q109 A98 Q5 A87 Q94 AK107 QJ98 A64 K875 J1072 K1063 64 J32 W N E S Pass Pass! 1C Pass 1D Dble Pass Pass Rdble Pass 1S Pass Pass Dble All pass West thought that Christmas had come at last. The contract went two off for 300 and they made 430 in the other room. Perhaps the only fallacy that this demonstrates is that it is a waste of time trying to penalise the opponents if they have all of the one level to choose from