dageaux

this thread kinda ties in with the one on ratings, don't you think? if we implemented some sort of rating system and then set the table to (for example) 'skill level 2 or higher' that seems to do the trick. we already have the ability to create private clubs, and i'm very surprised it isn't used more often. i'd personally hate the idea of not being able to kibbitz really good players in a private club, but i'd never object to not being allowed to play in a game that's obviously out of my league.

interesting topic. i like the idea of skill ratings, but i tend to agree with inquiry that a tournament setting should be the method used. here's an idea (probably impossible to implement, even if it's a good one). skill should be based on result. why not either randomly or with forethought choose 10 hands an hour and designate those hands as 'rated' ones? the number 10 is arbitrary, it could be any number. randomly choosing them seems best. something like 'hands 1,3,5,7,9 for first the 30 minutes between the hours of 11 am and noon, hands 10, 12, etc for the second 30 minutes' as an example, by the end of the week i'll have played maybe 200 hands of bridge. of those hands, 20 will have been randomly chosen by the administrators (the same 20 that others are rated by). my scores on those 20 hands would be averaged, etc. i don't know, what do you think?

like many (i suspect), i began playing online bridge at the zone. for a very long time i played matchpoints exclusively. but on the zone the 'advanced' rooms were anything but. the expert matchpoints rooms didn't seem to attract very many players, so i began going into the expert imp rooms. i continued doing so because the competition was better. when i first came to bbo i noticed the same thing fred is speaking of, the almost total absence of matchpoint games. it seems that the better players prefer imps, but i think i personally need to mix it up more. maybe when the geniuses who write the software (f.g. et al) get the time, we'll start having duplicate tourneys. when that happens i think the format will probably be matchpoints. at least i hope so ;)

i guess i've just been lucky, i've not encountered any of the things skrshawk spoke of. i know firsthand how thankless the job of hosting/moderating can be, and i'd like to join the others who have already offered words of support and encouragement. thanks guys and gals, you do a great job. our bridge world (the best online) owes you a debt of gratitude. please let us know how we can better show our support for you and for bbo.

i agree with fred's comments concerning the pard who raised 1s to 2 with 3 trumps and a 3 count, and with what he says about the law's purpose. but i'm a big believer in the law both as a competitive bidding tool and as a preemptive one. so give the above hand one more trump and the same 3 count and i bid 3s almost every time. about the only time i wouldn't make that bid is when i'm flattish, but even then there's something to be said about setting the groundwork for an advance sac.

concerning wotan's post about the auction 1h p 2h 2s p p 3h 3s i play the much maligned 2 over 1. opener knows responder has *exactly* 8 or 9 hcp and *exactly* 3 card support. i can't envision a hand that has responder bidding 3h here. double, maybe. now opener is a different story. but double by either has to be to play (not that it can't be pulled by either, but it's hard to imagine responder pulling a dbl). i do agree with wotan concerning weakness and 4 card support. get it all off your chest at once and content yourself with pard's judgement.

bergen raises do those things also, eh? 3c shows 10-12 hcp, 4+ card support, no stiff or void i know a lot of people don't like/play them, but i'm fond of the whole bergen structure

in almost any endeavor the better player(s) will win in the long run, usually in the short run also... i view conventions much the same as i view improvements in golf clubs, for example... the newer clubs help my game, but tiger can still tape up a coke bottle, use it off every tee, and beat me 9 and 9 i'd be interested in all your opinions as to the best books/software available for the play of the hand and for defense

i think i got lost. did the bidding go: 2C - 2D 2S - 3H ?? if this is the case, i'd probably bid 4H (although 4C isn't a **bad** bid). 4H has the virtue of showing a minimum 2C opening. it also puts the ball in partner's court, always a good thing :) (that was tongue in cheek, kinda)

on my cc it says "reverse bergen." this means 3c is 10-12 limit and 3d is 7-9 constructive. if i read 'bergen raises' on someone's card i assume it is the opposite of mine. 1h - 2h shows 8-9 with exactly 3. with fewer points i start with 1nt.

1) i read it to mean the hand is flat with 13-15 hcp, period. opener can now be more comfortable that a 2 over 1 response is at least 5 cards in length 2) flat, 13-15 hcp hands can (and often do) contain 4 card heart suits after 1S 3) they can, but if i have a game force hand i'll usually bid my 5 bagger. let's look for a fit 4) i like this treatment, it's an excellent way to show an otherwise difficult hand and usually keeps the guesswork (viz dist in responder's 2 over 1 suit) to a minimum. i think 3nt is usually the landing spot anyway. i also like fred's treatment to show the hands that used to be shown with jacoby 2nt, jump shifting in the cheapest suit.

for what it's worth, i will usually open 1nt if the hand is otherwise suitable for no trump. this includes a 5 card M OR a 6 card m (sometimes). i've found it easier to later show shape than to later show strength.

if you agree to play serious 3nt, it (and the bidding sequences when there is no serious slam interest by either pard) should be played everytime there is a game force auction in which at least an 8 card fit is known to exist so while fast arrival (1s/2c/2d/4s) has merit, it is (imo) not the right way to go... a simple raise to 3s allows opener to bid 3nt with slam interest... jumping to 4s pushes the auction too high too fast with no real upside... again this is just my opinion