broze

My current style is to never make 2/1 GF bids with 4 cards in my partner's Major - I will always go through Jacoby 2NT or a splinter, and no I do not play fit jumps. However our convention card also has "picture jumps" written on it simply because fast arrival with weak hands makes little sense - then again picture jumps haven't come up yet. I have recently seen two or three missed slams while kibitzing players of very good standard in PJ auctions or where a player made a 2/1 with 4 card support. Here is the most recent mishap from a Jec match, West deals: [hv=pc=n&s=sjhkt7djt6cqt9762&w=sa8643ha53d7cak53&n=s952hqj962dk543c4&e=skqt7h84daq982cj8]399|300[/hv] Jec's teammates found the slam after a Jacoby sequence. In the other room slam was missed after 1♠-2♦-3♣-4♠ (the picture bid - clearly a perfect hand for it) and it's difficult to assign blame. So what went wrong? So some questions: Does it make sense to play Picture jumps if you never make a 2/1 with 4 card Major support (do you ever do that)? On the other hand would you ever make a picture jump with only 3 card support?

Hang about isn't 4NT keycard there? Else how do you ask for aces after 1m-1♥-2NT for example?

Not playing numbers 2, 3 and 4 from your list I am delighted you think that this treatment helps here. I have to admit though, I am struggling to see how?

Good point - edited accordingly.

Some auctions that came up today. Answer any or all. :D 1) What is the difference between: [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d2h3c(Nat%2C%20GF)p3hp3np4c]133|100[/hv] and [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d2h3cp4c]133|100[/hv] 2) How do people play this scramble? [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1sp2sppdp2n(%3F)]133|100[/hv] 3) What is the standard (2/1; strong NT) meaning for 3♦here if you play support doubles? Is it just a hand that wants to play 3NT with a ♦ stop opposite (e.g. Axx Kx Jx AKQJTx) or do you include a good spades raise too? [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1cp1s2d3d(%3F)]133|100[/hv] 3i) Playing good-bad 2NT (and support doubles) what is the difference between the auction above and [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1cp1s2d2n(Good-bad)p3c(Forced)p3d(%3F)]133|100[/hv]? 3ii) 3♠ here - GF and start cue bidding? [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1cp1s2d2n(Good-bad)p3c(Forced)p3s]133|100[/hv]

Nope. I would never open that hand either. Having said that I just looked back at a hand I failed to open today and surprised myself! [hv=pc=n&s=skt8haj7dt84ckj93]133|100[/hv] Looking at that hand in the light of day with those great intermediates and 4 controls I'm surprised I passed, although it is a pretty crummy 4-3-3-3 12 count.

Clearly RHO did not see the hand as such an open book. I can't think what hand declarer would have to have where a trump return beats the contract and a ♦ doesn't.

This was indeed what I had in mind but as FM75 points out the changes will definitely make it easier to get Team Games going. Although, you were of course able to message the organisers of Team Games before the change, and ask to play - the problem was there are never any team games in the "Pending Team Games" list! The 'notify me' looks to be a great addition. I wonder whether the "facilities for filling [team games] up with interested players" that Fred mentions will ever include a "take me to a new Team Game" option à la the current HMFAG feature. Of course they would have to become popular enough for that to be effective but I know I would use that a lot. I don't really see the point in the lobby but I understand that this was a particular lobbyhorse of those stuck on the Windows client. With bigger cards and a lobby their excuses are running out. :P Join the progressives you guys!

So if I want to play a team game with a specific partner does the new version assist me to do that?

Sorry to go off topic (happy to be redirected to the appropriate one) but what is this cue-bidding style and when should it apply? You've piqued my interest.

Low from three is the common treatment in this instance? I've never really understood why this is supposed to be better, just followed convention.

Perhaps not strictly applicable to this post but is turning your cards face up and saying something like "you can't do anything" tantamount to a claim of all the tricks? Are you allowed to play the hand with your cards face up? For example, if an opponent has been thrown in for an endplay, or is considering a discard on a squeezing (or perhaps strip-squeezing trick) I might turn my cards face up to show him that there is nothing to do. This is not (I think :P) showing off but I am just trying to save time and the opponent some brainpower. Bad form?

Hmm. No. It seems to stay the same size whatever I do.

Sorry - should have been clearer. I am not after realism in cardplay noises; I just cannot believe that between silence and this horrible sandpaper noise BBO chose the latter. I don't think anyone finds this noise enjoyable to listen to, but I am happy to be proven wrong (anyone?) And yes, I know I can turn off all sounds but I find the *it's your turn* sound extremely useful. It is a shame to hear that BBO will probably never have the option to have the best of both worlds. :(

I am a long-term user of the web client but I really like the new cards. However I won't be using them because I really dislike the actual layout of the board. The review of the bidding in the top right-hand corner is far too small. It sounds like I want it both ways with big cards and a big bidding box but there does seem to be rather a lot of grey space around the green board. Otoh, I am delighted to hear about the up and coming changes to team matches, a feature I've been waiting to see on the site for ages and I know I will make full use of. Now if only we could have an option to turn off that horrible *chh*, *chh*, *chh* sound that happens when playing I'll be happy. Seriously it sounds absolutely nothing like cards being played at a table - more like someone trying repeatedly to strike a match.

Well, I suggested 5♠ (did you read that part of my post?) which is clearly best but without this gadget I can't see that you're any more vulnerable to pre-emption when you open 1♠. If you do, partner will never believe you're this strong. If it does go 2♣-(4♥)-P-P-5♠ partner should still raise you to 6 with A or K and 7 with both, even if you don't specifically have that agreement. The downside is that he might raise you with the A♣ which is why opening 5♠ obviously works best.

I think my p and have an agreement that opening 5 of a major asks partner to bid 6 with the A or K of trump and 7 with both. It has never come up... EDIT: Without that, how about. 2♣ - whatever 3♠ (setting trump) - whatever 5♣ - exclusion RKCB.

Heh - didn't realise that had closed. Didn't have the energy to trawl all the way to the end. What I will say for 4NT = minors is that it is about a thousand times better than 2NT = 5-5 minors which I toyed with for a while.

One of my greatest peeves is people throwing around black or white unsupported statements like this in internet fora (I know - I am riled a lot). Several good players are advocates of the method - sure, I can see problems with it, infrequency being well up there, but I'd hardly call it stupid.

Yeah, pretty ashamed that I failed to recognise that quote. When I was 10 I spent every spare moment I had reading and re-reading the Holmes short stories before I became obsessed with Lord of the Rings. Perhaps it's time for a repeat reading of both.

Are you trying to get in someone's sig bar? :P

Brilliantly done Phil - I'll keep an eye out for any more created by yours truly.

Another trump.

Yeah, I ran the ten and later ran the 9, finding KQ offside. It probably isn't a very interesting problem given the high rate of success (as Mike said 75% or better) but of course I'm always on the look out for improvements and seeing the full hand made me wonder. Here it is: [hv=pc=n&s=sq7haqj76d9832ct9&w=s9632h53daq54c642&n=sak84hkt9dt6caj53&e=sjt5h842dkj7ckq87]399|300[/hv]