Chamaco

Devo dire che da un lato comprendo le motivazioni del disappunto di Turbin. Tutti coloro che hanno giocato su BBO sono incappati, prima o poi, nel maleducato o scorretto di turno. Ciononostante, dissento con Turbin al 300%, per tantissimi motivi: 1) tutte le manifestazioni su interner passano attraverso l'uso di "nick" anonimi; se non lo si accetta, meglio rinunciare all'uso del mezzo: 2) il grossissimo vantaggio di internet è ESATTAMENTE l'anonimato. Non è uno svantaggio, ma un vantaggio, specialmente per i giocatori scarsi. Ovvero: non esiste quella barriera cjhe esiste ad un circolo reale, in cui se sei il (meschino) reuccio locale tutti vogliono giocare con te. La belleza del gioco su internet è ESATTAMENTE IL FATTO CHE NESSUNO SA A PRIORI CHI SEI E VERRAI GIUDICATO SOLO SULLA BASE DELLE MANI CHE GIOCHI. 3) Se qualcuno si approfitta dell'anonimato, è possibile sia segnalarlo ai "gialli", sia inserirlo nella propria lista "nera". In sostanza: il gioco su internet deve rimanere tale, ovvero legato all'anonimato, salvo la volontà dei partecipanti di rivelare il proprio nome.

Claus, thanks a lot for your responses, but I was not referring to 4441 of responder. The question is: in Viking Club, how does *opener* (not responder) show a 17-19 4441 , when bidding goes 1C-1D ? Thanks ! :)

I am sorry, I really feel stupid :) , but I do not get what opener should bid 1) after a 1C-1D (negative), holding a 17-19 4441 (so the strong 1H relay can't be used) , avoiding rebidding 1NT with a small singleton and guaranteeing a 5 card suit if natural suit rebid. 2) holding a 20+ 4441, I guess one can just use relays after the strong 1H sequences

Hi all, I am reading the Groetheim-Sontag book on Viking Club, but I could not find a sequence that describes opener's strong 4441 hand. Any pointers (web site or any tip) ? Thanks ! :D

Hi all, I have one more question on responding to Takeout Doubles with awkward shapes :) Say you hold, all vulnerable: 65432-xxx-xxx-xx Bidding goes: 1♠:Dbl-pass-? Among the partners I played with so far, I have found 2 schools of thoughts: 1) you should bid 1NT, as a "desperation :D bid". Bidding anything else raises the level too high. The problem related o this case is that the HCP range is not well defined: could range from 0-7/8 HCP. Pard may have a strong balanced hand, say 18-20 HCP, and does not know whether you hold the above hand (when bidding on, or even doubling to show HCP, would be lunacy :huh: ) or something like QT32-Qxx-xxx-Ax, in which case game is likely. 2) you should keep at any cost the 1NT response as constructive (say 8-10 hcp with decent stoppers, but unsuitable to a penalty pass). Therefore you should strive to bid a suit at any cost; in this case, 2H would be the least of evils. I'd like comments by the experts on this! :P Thanks !! :D

Thanks to all who contributed, it was very nice to hear comments, I found bidding this hand very cumbersome :D , so you were all of great help !! :D

Is it possible that responder holds AJT9x-x-KQJT9x-K ? Should responder bid differently (rather than bidding 2♦ followed by 3♠ and 4♠) with this hand which is one ace off the grand ?

Thanks ! :)

Obviously, in the latter cae, I was referring only to opener's hand, dropping the previous definition of responder's hand B) I was giving up the problem of responder and putting myself in the shoes of opener who should bid after this sequence: 1♥:2♦ 3♣:3♠ 3NT:4♠ Holding the given hand: KQ8-AKJTx-x-ATxx and forgetting the hand I showed you before for responder :D

Good point. :) Let's assume opener's hand is slightly stronger: KQ8-AKJTx-x-ATxx which does qualify as a full 3♣ bid. after 1♥:2♦ 3♣:3♠ 3NT:4♠ 1) is 4S forcing ? 2) how shd the bidding proceed ?

Thanks, this pointer is useful !! But something is still unclear. 1) Would 4♠ be forcing or can be passed ? 2) Opener's hand is something like: KJ8-AQJTx-x-KTxx What shd opener bid after 4♠? Responder needs a cue in diamonds, but textbooks say not to cuebid shortness in partner's length. 5♦ could be read as signoff. Or It could be read as honor cuebid, filling the diamonds if responder had AQJTxx rather than QJT9xx. 5♣ still leaves the diamonds as a problem for responder. Anyway I think we should be in 6 spades, there are too many chances (dummy reversal or dropping of diamonds honors). Of course one may say that this hand shd not go to slam , but the same questions would arise if opener's hand were a bit stronger: KQ8-AKJTx-x-ATxx Any thoughts ?

Ok, so 1♥:2♦ 3♣ What do you bid now ? 4♠ is Splinter and 3♠ is 4th suit forcing. If you bid 3♠, pard responds 3NT and you want to investigate slam.

Mike Lawrence per le situazione di licita su barrage fornisce la seguente "Regola del 7": Licita (o passa) il contratto che faresti se il compagno ti porta 7 punti utili (per esempio un A e un K o QJ appaiati). Ne consegue che su barrage a livello di 3 la forza necessaria per parlare a colore dipende se il colore va nominato a livello 3 o 4: - per parlare a livello 4 devi avere una mano che valga 17-18 punti (contando la distribuzione) - per parlare a livello 3 una mano mlto vicino al rovescio, di punti o distribuzione. Con un'apertura "normale", meglio passare e lasciare al compagno il compito di riaprire nel caso. Con 18 belli o + p.o. bilanciati, meglio chiamare 3NT facendo affidamento sui famosi "7 punti del compagno". Questa regola aiuta anche il compagno a regolarsi: 3♣-3♥-pass-? Ora se ho 7 punti passo, se ne ho di piu' cerco manche a SA o a colore. Un ragionamento analogo viene fatto nel caso dei contre e nelle decisioni in riapertura (in riapertura si "rubano" 3 p.o. rispetto alla posizione diretta, ovvero si licita facendo conto che il compagno porti 10 p.o. invece che 7). ---------------------------------------------------------------- La "regola del 7" non è una regola infallibile, ma è provato da tests statistici (cosi' come la regola che dice che con 26 p.o. dovresti chiamare manche) che nella maggior parte dei casi funziona. Che si rischi un bagno ogni tanto è evidente, ma è un rischio altrettanto grande quello di non chiamare manche.

KO Team match, all Vuln, 24 boards left, we are behind about 10 imps Pard deals and open 1H, RHO passes You hold AQT9x-x-QJT98x-A You are playing SAYC + conventions (not 2/1). 3 diamonds would be a reversed Bergen raise (= 4 card raise in hearts, 6/7-9 hcp). What do you bid ? And what is the plan if pard bids clubs at his second round ?

After a good sleep this morning I was able to login again :) Hard to say whether the good sleep helped ME or my PC or my internet provider :unsure: , however I want to thank everyone that contributed, especially UDAY!!! :(

Ty Uday :) But it did not work: replacing in the bbover.ini file the port 80 with 9999 had no effect (BTW: yes, the BBO files are in the default folder, all installations and updates have always being done in default mode). I already dowloaded and reinstalled everything before posting this thread, yet... nothing :unsure: I think I'll have some sleep now, for once in a while I'll sleep rather than play on BBO! :(

Yes, the problem started after the last BBO Client upgrade, but I have never had any firewall programs installed on my PC... I only run AVG Antivirus (the free edition), that's it, so I have no idea of which settings should be changed.... :unsure: However, I was able to open regularly the link you provided: http://bbo.bridgebase.com:81/. Thanks anyway for the suggestions :(

Hi all, today I have been trying for the last 2 hours or so to login in BBO with no success. Internet nbrowser and email clients work well, all the instant messengers I have work fine, and I have even been able to login in Chess Playing servers (FICS) with no problems at all. Briefly: the BBO client is the *only* internet application that does not work on my PC... :D Does anyone knows if it is related to the current BBO upgrading and/or server maintainance or is it only me ?? ;) Thanks anyone will contribute ! :)

Let me try to explain why I thought this specific type of hand (single suited with solid trumps, max 5 losers) could have been suitable for CABs. I figured it by analogy to the suggestion by Zenkel & Anderson in their book on preempts. They say that if pard opens a weak 2 or a weak 3, a jump bid by responder should be a CAB (considering only 1st and 2nd round controls, 3rd round controlk would take up too much bidding space). This CAB may well occur at the 3 or 4 level. In that case, the preemptor hand is rather clear and responder needs very little additional information, as he knows pard has a good suit and at most an outside Ace. (Thinking aloud...) In the current case, opposed to a strong JS showing a single suiter, could it be made a case that the hand of the jumpshifter is also easy to visualize so the opener can just go ahead and use CABs ? After all, in both cases, we have a single suiter, but in the JS case the hand is strong and there may be crucial features outside trumps. Yet, opener would be able to figure the crucial features to ask. Or am I missing something ?

Thanks again ! :P Is there a specific reason why in this sequence you recommend the use of that framework rather than CABs ?

Thank you very much, I appreciate all suggestions. As far as the trump support is concerned, the CAB question is limited to the case where the jumpshifter has shown precisely ONE TYPE of hand: a single suited hand that has a self-sufficient (solid-semisolid, max 1 loser) suit that can be trump in a suit contract even opposite a void. This kind of hand is shown by rebidding the suit at the second round of bidding. (There are 2 other types of JS hands, e.g. 18+ semibalanced, and 5- loser hand with support for partner, but for the time being we do not plan to use CABs for those types of hands). So a sequence like 1♣:2♠ 3♦:3♠ Shows a slam-going hand (4♠ wd be weaker) with self sufficient spades as trump (solid/semisolid, max one loser) and sets spades as trumps, even if opener has a void there. So the CAB question should read as follows: Now that spades are trump for sure and pard has a single suiter, who should be the Captain ? The jumpshifter or the opener ? Thanks !!

Hi all, I would like an opinion by expert on the subject of CAB (control asking bids). With my regular partner, we have chosen to follow the approach suggested by Andersen-Zenkel in "Preempts from A to Z", where a opposite a weak 2 o or weak 3, CABs can be a more useful tool for slam investigation rather than cuebids. In all other cases, we use regular cuebids for slam investigation (so far). Recently, we have decided to use 2-level responder Jump Shifts (JS) as strong rather than weak as we did previously. So now , after an opening 1♣/♦, the response 2♥/♠ is a natural bid which sets the scenario for slam exploration, and has the meaning of either: 1)semibalanced hand (5332/6322) with 18+ HCP and a good suit (the suit bid, ♥ or ♠), shown by a NT rebid at the second round; 2) single suiter solid-semisolid (the suit bid, ♥ or ♠), max 5 losers, shown by a rebid of the suit 3) good suit (the suit bid, ♥ or ♠)+ good fit for opener, max 5 losers, shown by 2nd round support; This approach follows the guidelines laid down by Mike Lawrence in his "2/1 workbook". We do not have available the same for minors because 3-level JS are artificial, so we use it only for hands unbalanced or 5332/6322 in a major. The question is the following: we think that in case B (single suited hand), the sue of CABs can be more useful than cuebids, but it is not clear who should be the Captain of the auction. In fact, in CAB sequence, the slam exploration is controlled only by one of the partners rather than being a cooperation such as in cuebidding. Yet, it is not clear whether the control of the bidding should be in the hand of the opener or in the hand of the "Jump-shifter" that holds a single suiter. I'd appreciate comments by people that are experienced with CABs. Thanks !! Mauro

Hi all, I'd like to know what is the standard approach (if any) to responding to a takeout double when you hold a 4 card major and a longer minor, in the three cases outlined below. I am aware that any partnership is free to adopt any agreement, but I would like to understand what I am supposed to expect in occasional partnerships which are guided by "standard" approaches. Thank ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Responding to pard's t/o dbl with 5m4M and various HCP ranges 1) minimum hand, but not a yarborough (say 5-7 hcp) 1D-Dbl-pass x-QTxx-xxx- ATxxx Bid spades or clubs, and why ? If the answer is spades because we stay at the one leve, would you bid spades anyway (at the 2 level) holding the same hand if the bidding had gone 1S-Dbl-pass ? 2) invitational hand 1D-Dbl-pass x-AJxx-xxx- KJTxx "Textbook treatment" would be that a jump bid is invitational. Jump to 2H or 3C ? Instict would tell me to sump to 2S because of the lower level and risking the major fit is to big of a risk, yet this distorts the shape. 3) GF hand 1D-Dbl-pass x-AJxx-Axx- KJTxx "Textbook treatment" would be that a cuebid is the Game forcing bid. However it is not clear to me how then the doubler shows which is his major or if he has both OR if he needs a stopper in the opener's suit. E.g.: 1D-Dbl-pass-2D pass-3D Is 3D "pick a major" or "bid 3NT if you've got a diamond stopper"? Would 4D be the "pick a major" bid while 3D is stopper ask, or is it a splinter ?

I post this because it might be useful to some SAYC-2/1 players who will hapen to play with Italians. In italy, beginners are taiught a different version of stayman: a) it is forcing to game (not invitatonal) :D it does not guarantee a 4 card major c) it may contain a 5 cad major (since no Jacoby xfers are taught to beginners and 2 of a major would be SIGNOFF) In this context, after 1NT:2C a) 2D = balanced without 4 card major :D 2H/2S = 4 cd major, denies the other major c) 2NT = five card minor (3C asks which minor) d) 3C/3D = 4-4 major, minimum/maximum I prefer the "normal" nonforcing stayman + transfers structure but I guess it is just a matter of taste.

Hi all, an italian expert (RIOLO937 on BBO) is writing an article to be published in Italy on some differences between SAYC (+conventions), 2/1 and some advanced version of italian 5-card major. He has asked me to inquire about the following problem: say you hold and open 1H and p responds 1 spades x-AKQxx -AKxx-xxx 1H:1S ? 3D would be game force showing more than 16 HCP, and you do not want to force game opposite a minimum. 2D would be non-forcing. If pard has an average 7-8 count in misfit he will pass. Yet, it is easy to construct many 16-17 hcp hands that will be laydown 3NT even in misfit, but that do not justify a 3-level game force. SO, HERE IS THE QUESTION: IS THERE ANY CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT THAT ALLOWS TO DISCRIMINATE GAME FORCE REVERSE FROM MINIMUM REVERSES IN THIS CASE (e.g. 2NT Ingberman is not available) ? Thanks all