haka9

Hideous Hog once said (as I can remember): "My second greatest pleasure in bridge is winning. My greatest pleasure in bridge is seeing my opponents lose."

Thanks, I'll try that next time.

When I earlier played with Flash version in arbitrary tables, the system warned two times for slow bid or play. After that kick out. Now I play with that (*#¤!/*!) new version. We start a table in Relaxed Bridge Club and begin to play. We chat during and after every board (outside BBO). Then without any warning the player who is in turn to bid is kicked out. Neither we get warnings. Instead of warnings one of us is kicked out. Can that be avoided?

How can co-directors be added to a match?

Did I miss something? I don't understand three first paragraphs. I also do consider it bad bridge to open this hand 2 ♣ Strong Artificial and (Game) Forcing as we play it. I wouldn't shoot the pianist. Every player bids on his/her own cards and on his/her (and partner's) account. If You open with one of Your suits and: 1♣/♥ - 1/2 ♠ - p - 4 ♠; so what? Once in a blue moon they have 12 tricks in ♠. For me "absurd" is not the appropriate word for this deal and whatsoever bidding. I hope all will learn especially from their own bad bidding.

I will try to buy that book (Amazon?). I have lots of favourite books. The oldest is Elimination by Roger Trezél in Swedish, Jannersten Bridgebibliotek. I was a young and eager player working for a while in Sweden years ago. I bought many bridge books and this was one of them. This was one of my first "advanced" view of how to play. Last week I played a classic "elimination och inpetning" 4 ♥. Then some years later I was visiting London and of course a book shop. I opened a bridge book just to look at it. On page 13: Oscar the Owl, senior kibitzer at the Griffins: 'Curious hand. Both sides can make 4 hearts.' Peregrine the Penguin, senior kibitzer at the Unicorns: 'A technician is a man who knows exactly what to do the moment he has done something else.' Of course I bought it and many others. Victor Mollo is still my favourite bridge writer, both Menagerie and serious-minded books. Mike Lawrence books on overcalling and balancing are also my favourite books. The last to mention is "Bid Against the Masters. The Best of Bidding Forum." by Keith McNeil & Terence Reese. Deals from Bidding Forum in Australian Bridge. It contains a lot of McNeil's (sometimes brilliant) comments to expert players' answers of bidding problems and a Sum Up from Terence Reese to every deal.

2 ♣ opening is by no means absurd nor psyche. I think any player has a decent right to overestimate (or underestimate) the value of his/her hand. However neither I would open 2 ♣ (overestimation). With 6-6 or 5-5 suits I always open with the higher and repeat the lower as far as reasonable.

I would'nt open with 2 ♣: (almost) GF or 22-24 hcp. 1 ♥ - p - 1 ♠ - p - 3 ♣ and so on.

I would happily bid 4 ♣ showing 4+ ♠ and 6+ decent ♣, if my partner could understand it. I think not so I bid 4 ♥. Now I don't have play that as in 1 ♠ - p - 4 ♥ -ppp.

I remember a deal kibitzing in BBO. NS, very good players but not a constant pair. EW was an intermediate couple with a long mutual history. S opened 1 ♣ (at least 3). W bid 1 ♦ and then it started. N doubled and E bid 2 ♠. S passed (forcing) and so W. N doubled, and E bid 3 ♥. p-p-D (in rage)-4♦-D-passout. Home, sweet home. E had anything but majors.

Off-topic: I started playing bridge with a strong club system (now I know that it isn't the best system to start with). Then we could open with 11 hcp and a decent 5 card suit. After that I changed my residence and joined another bridge club. At that time 4 card openings were standard. I never heard of the rule of 19. Instead most players in the new club followed the rule of 15 when opening with slight points: If hcp + number of ♠ is at least 15, open. More off-topic: I know an experienced player who said in an interview that he can upgrade a "good" 14 hcp to 15-17 1 NT. I think his system description should say: 1 NT (14)15-17 hcp, but no. In-topic: I can think three bids to 1 ♥ opening: I can bid 1 ♠ to tell 5 cards. I can double with a mighty hand, now with ♠. I can bid brutally 4 ♠. In most cases I would double. However, after double my partner should not pass to 1 ♠.

A friend of mine, a very good player played in his own words: "mini multi". That was 1 ♦ opening: 5 cards major, less than opening hand.

Bidding with partner first: 1 ♠ - p - 2 ♦ - p- 5 ♦ - passout. King of ♠ lead, low ♥ next and you see: QJ9xx xx KJx AQx and xx AKxx A10xxxx x You take ♥ and now what?

#1: I prefer 4 ♠ at these colours. #2: I will compete as neither they have anything (I hope).

I would feel not at all surprised, if the bidding goes: 1 ♦ - p - p - p. After two passes the last bidder makes a decision. That's why I open 2 ♣.

Whenever I have 5xx4 and less than 5 HCP, I pass.

That's exactly the two most important issues to consider. Either a squeeze or a brutal mask.

I agree and think 1 & 2 are the same. I have a question: Is reverse by responder forcing one round or forcing to game? I and my partner had different views.

Someone suggested RD. That might succeed in live bridge, not in BBO. I bid 6 ♦ to make clear (hopefully) I have majors. They made us guess, and I did.

I have played negative doubles through 7♥ with one partner. Playing with anyone else I pass. "When fixed stay fixed." (Was it Al Roth?)

I read a book by Victor Mollo and was impressed with a new (until now unfamiliar by me) kind of Lavinthal. N (dealer)64

That is a good view. I would lead a diamond according to our 10-12 rule. But against 1 NT-passout you really don't lead from shortness. So I should first talk with partner and lead the 9, top of sequence.

Whatever lead can be right or wrong. Dunno, so ♥.

With limited time I would bid 1 ♥. And when I have more time, I have always believed it is "Michael's cue" in short Michael's btw in my system card. But that reminds me of a good bridge book by Keith McNeil and Terence Reese. The book "Bid against the masters" is about Australian bidding competition in "Australian Bridge". The best part of the book is McNeil's comments. This is a cut from the book. Paul Lawings commented a deal: "Yes, Virginia, You can double 1 ♥ with a singelton spade." McNeil: "I knew a Virginia in my schooldays. We called her Virgin for short, but not for long." In the book there was also a better comment, but I don't dare to release it here.

It is easy. I witnessed a pair (unfortunately we) IMP counting playing 0-2 ♥ fit after 1♠-pass-4♥-passout. I bid a splinter and partner took it as natural. But I'm not alone. I read an interview in a Bridge Magazine. She was a player with championships in three countries. Her catastrophe in bridge was just alike.