EarlPurple

I agree with the comments about players who will apply this unethically (asking lots of questions or playing out a hand instead of claiming). I disagree in the situation where they have a tricky slam to bid. True that their opps do not have so much to think about, but all the other pairs in the room who have also been dealt the slam will be in the same situation as them as far as time constraints are concerned. And the opps at the table will suffer from a bad score if the pair dealt the slam end up doing the right thing (while other pairs do the wrong thing). Fortunately, for the first situation we have the discretion of the director. If a pair are really asking lots of questions. Same with a pair who refuse to claim. In fact, if they're doing it obviously, such pairs could gain a reputation as unethical and get on ban lists, so it's not advised.

Simple: defenders have to think first. Let me make a couple of points: Whenever you signal you show the situation not only to your partner, but also to the declarer. And declarer can intercept these signals and a good one (not even necessarily an expert one) will. I certainly know I do. Have made lots of tops at MP by taking lots of "good views" except they weren't really views at all - the defence had nicely signalled to me where all the cards were. And it's helped at IMPs too, of course. Not every card you play in defence has to be a signal. And not every discard, or even the first one, has to be a signal, whether it be suit preference or count or otherwise. There are some hands on which partner will defend better if he knows which cards you hold or your suit lengths, but there are many where he doesn't need this information but declarer does. Now, having said all that, there are also many occasions where you do want to signal. A signal can either be help for partner (helping partner know what you have to make an informed decision) or a command to partner (I want you to lead a diamond, now!). Not saying that either approach is right or wrong all the time - many would say that a signal should just show partner a holding, but there are occasions when you simply want partner to lead a diamond now, not because you have anything in the suit, but because you know his other choice, a heart, would be wrong. i.e. you know the situation better than partner does. Someone above suggested odd/even against suits but Lavinthal against NT. The logic behind this is that in NT you often don't want to discard anything from your long suit, as you want to make all the tricks in it, but against a suit you hope to make a couple of tricks at most from the suit. My own experience is that the suit-preference signal comes into its own early in the play, when declarer is drawing trumps or setting up his long suit in NT, and one player has a winner in the suit while the other is short. When the defender with the winner in the suit gets in, he needs to know what to lead. I think, in this situation, Lavinthal usually works better - you can almost always find a card to show it. (Not the case with odd/even). Later in the play, when you are trying to show each other what suits you are holding on to, firstly you should consider count-showing discards. But odd-even may well work better here than Lavinthal, because you will often want to throw from the suit where you have length values and want to show partner you have it under control. You should consider though playing revolving Lavinthal. This method always allows you to throw a low card, even when you want a spade. It works as follows: the 3 remaining suits go round in a circle, and a low discard shows preference for the suit immediately below, while a high discard shows preference for the suit immediately above. So when discarding on hearts, a diamond discard would be as with regular Lavinthal - low for a club, high for a spade. But a club discard or a spade discard would be the reverse. A low club asks for a spade (the suit immediately "below" clubs, while a high spade asks for a club (the suit immediately "above" spades).

I'm still for having automatic fines for overrunning your allotted time. After all, lag aside, when you are playing slowly you are seeking to gain an advantage (same as with a chess player). If, as a result of thinking longer, you find a better line and get yourself a better score, you are also giving a worse score to your opponent, as well, of course, as denying them their own allotted time (eg if you think 10 minutes of a 16-minute round, they can't think for more than 6 minutes). An equal playing-field, in my opinion, is the way to go. Of course, this could be a settable option. Unlike in chess, "bridge clocks" are not practical in live play (unless electronic tables are used), but are perfectly feasible to implement for online bridge. It would encourage players to play faster, and if that did, on occasion, lead to them picking an inferior line, it would only be on par with the rest of the field (who would also be similarly restricted).

Strange but I'm the other way round. I kib with text mode. It's then easier to feed hands into my DD solver.

You meant that, but not the player at the table.

I agree, but why run the ♠9 ? Why not low to the queen?

on the first hand, 3NT can be beaten in 3 ways: - lead a diamond. Partner takes the ace and plays another one. Easy 2 off. - On a spade lead perhaps a heart shift? 1 off. - West doubles 3NT which asks for a lead of dummy's suit. Heart duly led, now no way back to East's diamonds if you lead ace and another, but at least you beat the contract, and doubled to boot.

And to Free's point, which I think we have discussed before. Let's consider 4 cases: 1. Their opening 1♣ is strong. 2. Their opening 1♣ is Standard American style i.e. could be prepared and a wide range 3. Their opening 1♣ shows one of many hand types which could be weak and balanced or could be strong. 4. Their opening 1♣ is natural and promises at least 4, and will not be a weak balanced hand because the opps play a weak NT. 1. In the first case, your methods may be primarily destructive, because you do not expect a game on for your side. But of course there will be occasions when your side does have game, and cases where your intervention will now prevent you finding a good sacrifice because you cannot show such a constructive (yet weak) overcall. 2 & 3. Here you need to have methods for when you have a good hand. And you may decide to defend differently depending on whether or not partner has shown a passed hand. However you should have semi-destructive/semi-constructive methods, in my opinion. When partner has not passed, you can overcall aggressively but within limits, eg a 6-9 point range (approximately) for weak jump overcalls or 2-suited pre-emptive overcalls. When the opponent does have a strong hand (which includes an 18-19 balanced hand in Standard American systems, or such strong hands with clubs), 6-9 will be your most common point range. When partner has passed, you can stretch this a bit more, either by being a little stronger or a bit weaker or either. Here you will be giving up chances of game, although you might stumble into one as a sacrifice which happens to make (or getting doubled into game). Your 1-level overcalls should be sound, but there is something to be said for giving a conventional meaning to a 1♦ overcall of 1♣. You give up the natural bid, but this might not be a great loss and the purpose is to show a hand which cannot bounce to a high level but invites partner to do so with the right fit. For example, a 6-9 point hand with at least 4 cards in both majors. These are just ideas. Haven't tested them. But I will tell you that intervening their 1♣ in these auctions will also cause disruption, whilst still enabling you to reach your own best contract when it is your hand. In (4) the same applies to some extent but exercise more caution here.

I don't like a negative response being 0-8 either. The most common range is probably 7-10 and if the strong club is 17+ rather than 16+ it is not that unreasonable to suggest that any positive response should be game forcing even if though there might be only 24 combined points. (Hey, a lot of the time game makes with 24 points!) I therefore have a liking for most of the rebids to be 7-10 because this is what will probably occur most of the time. Perhaps some 6-point hands can also be allowed into positive responses, of course. KQJxxx and nothing else, for example, if you play that jump-response shows a one-suited hand, then you can make one with such a holding. I hadn't thought of using 1♦ also to show the super+ response, but I guess there is a lot of attraction in it. As you will see, with this general type of system, most of the positive responses are limit bids, i.e. 7-10 (or your own preferred range) and shape-showing. Intervention is thus far less effective as one of the opponents has now pretty much shown their hand, and therefore the strong club opener is well placed to judge the situation based on his own hand. Of course, there will still be times when pre-empts are effective - there always are. But we have reduced it down now much further.

Are you sure they have methods to combat intervention? The reason most strong club systems fall to intervention is because their system (try reading one of them) is not based on logic and concepts but on masses of sequences of bids and responses, and any bit of intervention blows it to bits. Let's say the bidding goes: 1♣ pass 1♠ 3♦ where 1♠ shows 9-10 points. Don't know if it does, but this is an example. Let's say, for the sake of it, that 3♦ shows a 6-card suit, and that's pretty much it. Right: so we have a sort-of limit bid, and the 1♣ opener knows the general strength of the hand, i.e. we are definitely in the game zone, slam will probably need specific cards. So do we have a method to combat intervening bids? What does pass mean? And double? And are 3♥ and 3♠ natural bids? Do we play any kind of forcing bids? What do we do with a shapely 1-suited hand? 2-suited hand? Extremely strong hand? 4♦ can't show everything, but we must have clear methods. We could also double 3♦. In fact that will be the right thing a lot of the time. If none of our methods allow us to do that then of course the opps are going to jump in with it as much as they can. (Much less to lose). I have played against intervention like that. And the number of times the intervention has helped me place the cards (especially at MP for an extra overtrick!) has probably outweighed the rare occasions we reach a bad contract. Having methods to combat intervention is far more important, in my opinion, than having convoluted relay systems (or just long sections of bids and responses which I can't possibly memorise, and no notes of logic or approach) which are best reserved for computers. (I can never learn them and every time someone sends me system notes that's all I ever seem to see, after which I subsequently don't play their system). 1st generation: Players brought in strong club systems with control or strength responses and they worked very well. 2nd generation: Opps learned to combat the system with intervention. 3rd generation: Strong club users learn to prepare better against the intervention rather than having pages and pages of system notes for uncontested auctions. 3rd generation again: More players realised the advantages of pre-empts against all systems, not only forcing club. By the way, it's that last point that also emphasises why strong club systems can work so well - sequences when you do not open 1♣ and particularly the ability to play all opening 2 bids as weak.

the language of BBO is English, and therefore while not every player has to learn to speak English in full, they should learn enough terms to understand what a club, a diamond, a king, a transfer, etc is.

Every time there is another new version I am hoping this feature has been added, but in vain.

I don't really see how it would be abused. If it's a 3-board round and a 24-board round then both sides have 12 minutes think/play time. As long as you don't exceed those 12 minutes you are safe. True, I can see a scenario where a side has exceeded the 12 minutes and thus the opps purposely play out the clock on the last hand, but then you should not have exceeded the 12 minutes. Yes, playing a bit quicker may cause you to make a mistake, but that's part of the game. If the director wants to make 30 minute rounds instead then you'd have 15 minutes for the 3 hands. In chess, if your flag falls you lose, no matter how tricky the position was, and regardless of whether or not you are winning the game at the time. If your opponent refuses to resign or accept a draw that's his prerogative. I don't know if we would see a situation whereby one side purposely tries to play up the other side's clock by asking them bundles of questions, but clearly if someone is abusing the system, the director is there to use his discretion. From the point of view of most tourney players though, a fine for slow play would be a good idea. Incidentally, directors might find that having these fines for slow play will encourage players to speed up and they can actually set 10 minutes per hand but the rounds would be over quicker anyway as most pairs would not be using up their allocated time. (Once every table has finished the round can move on regardless).

I was watching the USA vs Norway match. The Norwegian N/S played in 6♥ for an easy 12 tricks. The US pair did play this in 6NT by South (as the hands are shown) and did get the ♦10 lead, so there was no problem of the diamond finesse. I thought declarer might try a spade to the queen and if it loses to the king, hope clubs are 3-3. Declarer however found a completely different line of running the ♠9, which on this case was also inadequate - a big 16 imps to Norway. If clubs are 3-3 we will always make on any line, so I guess the question is who is more likely to hold the king of spades, and whether there's any justification for playing the line that actually works. Maybe play a few rounds of hearts and see what they actually throw on them?

I have played my own strong club system whereby you show points (not controls) in response to the opening bid, and this in practice has worked well. The theory is that you know potentially how high you intend to bid, and it should then be relatively easy to find your fit. Of course, if a perfect fit comes to light, you can bid higher, but you can still use the overall strength as a guide. I think points work better than controls, because the strong club hand will tend to hold most of the high cards, and therefore queens and jacks will potentially play a useful part. Yes, it might be useless, but then an ace can be totally useless opposite a void too. In my more recent system (which I have still yet had no opportunity to use, and actually uses a strong diamond rather than a strong club) and also in my old system following any serious level of intervention (at least 1♠), the response is a mixture of shape or strength. Most of the bids show shape, and around 7-10 points (considered the point range you are most likely to hold). (After an intervening bid this range is actually 8-11, simply beacuse they are split into 0-3, 4-7, 8-11 and 12+). With a stronger hand you show this massive strength first. Yes, the opps might sometimes be able to pre-empt you but that will usually only be when they have a big fit, which usually means you will have one too, and at least enough strength to compete with it to the 5-level. This sort of thing might happen: You: 1♦ (strong, could be 1♣ in your system LHO: 1♠ (some bid that shows spades and perhaps something else) Partner: 2♦ which we will say shows 8-11 points and 5+ hearts RHO: 4♠ (pre-emptive raise). Now say you have an unexciting ♠ Jx ♥ KQx ♦ AQxx ♣ AKxx That's a balanced 19-count. Partner might have all the right things and 6♥ might be making but the chances are 5♥ is a good bet by me. It is true, of course, that I have not yet shown my hand. But if this were a standard system (2/1 or SAYC) I'd have opened this hand also with 1♣, and the bidding might have gone the same, except that partner's 2♥ would presumably be a "negative free bid" if we played them. If we don't and partner made a negative double instead, I'm totally stuck on this hand. Partner might have this: ♠ x ♥ AJxxxx ♦ KJx ♣ xxx In which case 6♥ is pretty cold. But opps don't always follow Larry's rule and have 10 trumps between them to bid to 4♠ (and they don't always need them, particularly if they are green). Partner could have more points but: ♠ Qx ♥ AJxxxx ♦ Kxx ♣ Jxx and we might not make 5♥.

How difficult would it be to implement clocking individually for N/S and E/W in a tourney. Then, if in a clocked tourney they could not finish playing the hands, the offending pair could be identified and penalised, and the non-offending pair could get Ave+. For example, you would see two clocks, a N/S clock and an E/W clock, and they would increase when it was their turn to bid/play. Thus on a 16-minute round, a pair who exceeded 8 minutes would be penalised. They manage this on chess servers so surely it can't be that impossible to do at bridge?

Allowing players to sign up as a substitute before a tourney starts (when registration is full) would also be useful.

double for a diamond lead? Then put partner in with a heart (or a club if he led a low diamond) for another ruff? By the way I am not sure I want to play this in 4♥ anyway. 5♣ likely to play better. What if partner has: ♠Kxx ♥ AKxxxx ♦KJx ♣Q how often is 4♥ making? 5♣ on the other hand is cold unless they find a heart ruff. By the way I don't think that is partner's hand if he made a forcing pass of 4♠ as with that hand he'd clearly double.

yes sorry ♦10 lead. I will edit my post.

N/S don't need any points at all. [hv=n=s5h76d109876c97532&w=sakqj432hak32dcaq&e=shqj54dakqj432ckj&s=s109876h1098d5c10864]399|300|[/hv] West leads a low spade and declarer takes 3 rounds while East throws 2 heart honours and a club. (Dummy throws diamonds) Now declarer crosses to dummy taking 3 rounds of diamonds (East follows low, of course) while West also throws 2 top hearts and a club. (Declarer throws spades) Next declarer cashes his 3 heart tricks and the opps part with their remaining club honour on the last round. And now our clubs are good and we can enjoy 4 rounds of them.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sa9hkqj62d74ck854&w=sk762h87d109653c106&e=sj1083h54dkj8cj973&s=sq54ha1093daq2caq2]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Hand rotated to make South declarer. 6♥ would probably be made easily enough but declarer finds himself declaring 6NT. Should declarer make this, and can it be made double-dummy? I am putting the solution below in hidden text. If you receive the ♦10 lead does it change your line of play (now you know the finesse is right) from, say, a passive heart lead.

In the initial hand posted only South can make 4♠. North is defeated on a diamond lead ruffed by West.

Get West to play it in 7 of a major and lightner-double for a diamond lead. (Though obviously if you double West in 7♥ his partner might pull it to 7♠, but at least they can't run to 7NT.

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=s865h10dkq9652cq109&w=sj103hj72d74caj654&e=sa742haq854dj10c83&s=skq9hk963da83ck72]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] When this hand was played in a tourney, at a few tables South was declarer in 3NT after East had bid hearts, and West duly led the ♥2 East won with the ace and returned the 4, but South goes in with the king, seemingly blocking the suit. At both tables where this defence was found, declarer went on to make his contract. Did the defenders misdefend or can declarer always make? (I know the answer, by the way, which is in hidden text below).

If you are playing IMPs (team-game) your opps bid a vulnerable game against you which your team-mates don't manage to reach (sure you wouldn't miss a game!), you score -620 while they get only +170 and you've lose 10 imps. But on the next hand when you bid the non-vulnerable game you score +420 and the other table that misses it so you get just 6 imps. Now what happens if you push to a game that doesn't make? Assuming the opps don't double and you go just 1 off, you lose -100 and -140 as the other table stops in the part-score. That's 6 imps non-vulnerable. So the odds are about 10 to 6 vulnerable, i.e. 37.5% for the game to make. But in reality the opps do sometimes double (and you might go 2 off) and so your odds should be a bit better than that. If non-vulnerable you lose -50 and -140 which is just 5 imps. So it's only 6-5 in favour of bidding the game. Given the possibility that they might double, you can treat that as fairly even odds.