broze

How should the bidding go on this hand after S opens 2♠? [hv=pc=n&s=skqj986hqt7dt53c9&w=s742hak95dacaqt54&n=st53h2dq987ckj872&e=sahj8643dkj642c63&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2s]399|300[/hv] Looking at the EW hands it doesn't seem unreasonable to reach 6♥. If the auction starts (2S) - Dbl, North bids 4S.

Saw the title of this topic and immediately knew exactly who the OP would be. I'm officially initiated.

Wasn't there a BBF league once upon a time? What happened to that?

Yes, but a large amount if the time the information that the opponents consider relevant is just not. I am asking their partner what information that bid conveys to them. I don't want anything else! I certainly don't want a list of followups or anything else that might convey UI. I would consider a 'yes' or a 'no' to be a full answer to a yes or no question. I understand the difficulties that might arise from this scenario when the players disagree about what a particular convention is, but it's clearly the question that's inappropriate not the answer. I don't like the ACBL regs here and I'm glad they don't apply to me! :) Wonder if EBU has anything as daft to say on the matter. EDIT: Feel free to move these posts to a topic in the Laws forum if you think it merits a discussion and won't derail this topic.

I am sometimes guilty of this. I say something like "please explain the 2♦ bid" and the opponent in question provides an explanation of the bid (e.g. asking about majors) but then launches into a descripition of the followups ("partner will show a 5-card major or bid 2NT without one"). I'm sure your explanations are not so outrageous but the point I'm making is don't be offended when I stop you mid-sentence. As a corollary to this I make a point of answering yes-or-no questions about my methods with the words yes or no. This can be taken as abruptness but it is what I would want vice versa and do-as-you-would-be-done-by.

I don't see why. As has been mentioned if it's that much of an irritation for you to scroll down just minimise the BBO discussion tab. If you never read that forum then no change, if you read that forum infrequently then just maximise it when you want to browse it as opposed to scrolling down like you used to. Seems to me you pretty much break even.

B-but... it's still there guys, just one calorie of scrolling away...

Vladmir "happy with a draw" Kramnik. lol So refreshing to see him gunning from the beginning with the black pieces. Aronian was just outplayed today. Yesterday was a clear case of tilt though with those bizarre pawn pushes.

Do you not just show ♠ support immediately with 2♠ and then 2N from pard relays? I thought the jump to 3♥ denied holding 3 spades. Doesn't that make more sense? Perhaps this is just a different Gazzilli to the one I am (vaguely) familiar with.

duplicate. please delete

North opens. 1♦-1♠-2♠-4♠

duplicated for some reason Original Here

[hv=pc=n&s=sa543h6dat8432cj8&w=shakqj9532dk7c964&n=sqjt762h7dq6cq732&e=sk98ht84dj95cakt5&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1d(precision)4h4sdppp]399|300[/hv] Matchpoints. EW took 4♠ off 1 for a bottom. Assign the blame given that East does not open his 11 count. EDIT: 1♦ was precision.

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dd1h(Nat)2h(Nat%2C%205+%21H)p3d(%3F)]133|100[/hv] 1) How do you play 3♦ in the above auction? 2) Is it game forcing? 3) Can it have a heart fit? 4) If not how do you show a slam try in hearts without shortage - indeed is there much point devoting bids to this?

Well I already play all my bridge to have fun and improve, but I have to say that the experience of going through hundreds of random pickup partners and opponents to find someone that is at all decent, not rude and allows you more than 3 seconds to think about the play at the beginning of the hand without saying "play please" is a gruelling one. So FWIW I'm in. I think it would be a good idea to allow regular partnerships.

Better, sure. But simpler? And is systematically rebidding 2♣ with 4522 so much worse than rebidding 2♣ with 3523? I can certainly see why people don't add system here to address this pretty infrequent problem.

Of course we should all really be celebrating June 28th instead.

I agree with Wyman that if you were going to bid a limit raise and you suddenly discover that p has an extra trump I hardly think it is going to cost you to just bid game in this spot. In fact I would always do so at teams. As for your problem , what would 2♠ have been for you? My p and I have been flipping between playing it as minors and as the 3 card limit raise. If you don't need either of these perhaps it can fill the spot for this hand.

Fair enough, but that would not be true in EBU land where 3♣ would not be alertable in the example above because it actually shows a club suit (3+). In practice I probably would do as Andy suggests and inform the opponents at the end of the auction that my partner's bid does not promise a stopper. However, I doubt that failure to do so would result in any redress or indeed warrant any? Nevertheless as an opponent on lead I might feel hard done by if I discovered that the NT bid systematically says nothing about stoppers, regardless of whether that's just a "style" or a proper agreement.

I am not familiar with the desktop client but if this feature is directly available through that then I agree it is a mistake not to have it accessible via the browser client. As it is it is essentially impossible to find unless you already know about it. This is the case with a lot of the features available through www.bridgebase.com but not immediately visible on the client.

I was faced with the same decision in this spot after a similar but shorter (and therefore slightly less informative) auction. I think 6♥ is completely clear at IMPs because as Phil says it is going to cost very little in the long run. Then again partner's double is going to be very closely affected by the form of scoring so perhaps we would face a different problem. At MPs I really found this a tough decision. Bidding 6♥ has two ways to win: 1) It makes (perhaps doubled) OR more likely 2) 5♠ was making and one way to lose 3) 5♠ was -1 and 6♥ is either -1 or -2 surely doubled. No. 1) seems a thin chance but perhaps might tip the scales... I couldn't tell whether 2 or 3 was more probable.

Ok - I think this scheme makes sense to me. Is this the "Gucci" lebensohl variant I've heard of. That is "gives up invitational with clubs"? I doubt this is much of a loss. You say a downside is complexity but seems to me like an upside is simplicity!

QQ: If we have the agreement that a NT bid says nothing about stoppers in the opponent's suit, should we alert it? I wouldn't have thought so but I would feel ethically uncomfortable having an opponent on lead without this knowledge.

What would you define as "forcing for one round only"? I play that the 2/1 bidder cannot pass partner's rebid if the opponents do not enter the auction again. i.e. the 2/1 promises a rebid.

I am suspicious that this is what's happened to the unevolved grades at the top of the EBU National Grading System which have been ~76% for a long time now.