EarlPurple

On that day (22 April) I was waiting 15 minutes before the start for it to appear, and it took 2 minutes to appear and was already full - 3 times. Only when I typed Duplicate into the search to get a "filter" did I get to see it a bit sooner. The other problem is that in the minute or so before it starts, they often "boot" a few players, but I get an error if I try registering then, so they play not full.

so ok for the fourth one I typed Duplicate in the search which gave me no tournaments but then 15 minutes before the start it appeared and I could register. Without the filter it wasn't showing until 13 minutes to go by which time it was often too late. So found a "workaround". Came 2nd in it too..

This is totally ridiculous. I was waiting and waiting for the registration to appear. The second it appeared it already had 40 registrations, i.e. full. Do other members have bots to get in? Or they just see them before? How did 40 others get in whilst I was waiting for it to show? That's 3 tournaments in a row.

Probably been asked before but I can't find it here. By the time the very limited BBO robot duplicate finally appeared on the screen, it was full. How did anyone else register for it if it wasn't yet on the list? At best of times I see 25+ already registerd when it appears on the screen. I don't know why it has to be limited to just 40. And that at least you could have a priority system to be able to register for the next one. I also wonder if anyone can have 2 sessions open so they can register for one whilst playing.

Perhaps like there are many systems that use 1♣ as a strong bid, and Polish that uses it as a variable bid, there are different systems that use 1♣ to show a 4 card major and 1♦ to deny. You see the advantages in finding the major fit. It is of course possible to play that this scheme covers all opening bids that don't open NT. So if you play it for 12-14 hands and 18-19 hands (but open 15-17 hands 1NT) you'd have to have a way to show the stronger range, and also work out what to do with unbalanced 15-17 hands assuming 1NT is always at least semi-balanced. That is the case with any system, and phony club systems also suffer from a problem of intervention when partner wants to compete, in fact I find that a problem after 1NT openings too, particularly when responder knows we have approximately 20 points (so they are evenly balanced) but doesn't know if we have a fit or not (and competing when not can turn out a bad move). Anyway, if anyone would like to try playing against this system, it is always constructive to see where we do run into a bidding problem. If two others would like to play the system (rather than compete against it) we could arrange a team-game (which I assume could be board-a-match). For a proper analysis though you'd want our side to also be playing wide-ranging jump overcalls so when it comes up, it gets used against both the club-major and the normal system, and we can see which system copes best with it. In particular if the auction has gone, say, 1♦ (no 4 card major) 2♠ (opponents) I know partner does NOT have 4 hearts. I might have long hearts but if I have 4 I know our fit, if any, isn't there. If I have both minors I know partner definitely has one of them with me, and I can cue-bid their suit if I think 3NT might be the right contract, or do something else to ask partner for a minor. Yeah, they may bid more but there's a limit how high one can pre-empt before you just get hit for a large sum. If my partner bid 1♣ and they bid 2♥ or 2♠ I know partner either has the other major or 4 cards in theirs. Questionable of course whether partner can pass it for penalties if it's theirs, but that would be the case in a normal system. I think finding the minor fit in this auction is harder of course. I don't know partner has a 4-card minor at all. e.g. ♠ 9 6 4 2 - 10 x ♥ A Q x - K x x x ♦ K Q x x - J x x ♣ K x - A x x x bidding goes 1♣ ( 2♠) I double, partner has 4 poor spades, might bid 3♦, we end in a Moysian fit. Partner could risk pass but might lead to -670 (or -470) and never more than one off assuming a 6-card suit overcall. In a regular auction the bidding would start 1♦ (2♠) Dbl. Then what? 3♥ with only 3 or 2NT (whatever that means here).? Or rebid diamonds with only 4 of them?. I think I mildly prefer diamonds as trumps to hearts here - spade ruffs in short trumps (and if overruffed probably with long trumps) hearts ready to cash as quick tricks along with ace king of clubs. Even at matchpoints I think I prefer diamonds especially if we're at the 3-level. With regards to the 2-level bids as I have encountered them, the biggest issue I find is competing on over 2♦ when you don't know what partner's suit is so it's harder to pre-empt further. I've always found that to be an issue with multi compared to regular weak 2s. Interestingly, multi 2♦ bids became very popular in the UK where traditionally opening 2♠ and 2♥ bids were "Acol 2" bids, showing a good suit and about 8 playing tricks. Novices who didn't want to give them up but wanted to be able to also open when holding a weak 2 wanted to play it and they had to make it general licence so as not to upset these people. It was also considered common enough that players could expect the opponents might use it and have a defence prepared.

Yeah, in the auction 1♣ pass 1♦ it's good to find the fit but neither of us has shown a suit or strength at this point and if we don't have a fit we need to find somewhere else to play and still determine the level. On this case we found the fit but not the level. Should we use 2♣ as a 2nd round respnose after double to show game-invite values? Or should it show a lack of fit in the major and looking for clubs to compete? Maybe a poor 4-card spade and 5 or more clubs. And then should it be forcing (I don't think so). Of course most these issues occur in "natural" phoney-club systems too. I don't think we'd need 2♣ as a natural bid that often. If you have 4 spades you'll probably be able to bid 1NT most of the time (I doubt you'd pass for penalties) and so have 2[clubs as game-invite strength, even if you know we have a heart fit, and 2♥ simply minimum to play. (I can't remember what you actually had, only that you made 11 tracks). By the way I have looked at MIDMAC and there are major differences. He says 1♥ and 1♠ response can show just 4, I think that it shows 5 is the big plus in the system. He uses 1NT as the artificial strong bid and is the only strong bid in the system. Sounds interesting but I'm not used to it. As for the other question about last week, I think 2♦ multi 3♦ by opponent, double needs to be take-out asking for partner to compete to 3 of a major. Yeah you lose the option to double for penalty. Their overcall in some ways is a pre-empt of its own as you can't bid 2NT asking anymore so we're all in a bit of a guessing game here. Anyway I open 2[diamonds with hearts and my LHO has diamonds, someone has spades and it may well be my partner and so I take 3♠ as natural, at match-points which it was probably competitive, at IMPs possibly invitational if I'm not minimum but definitely not forcing in either case.

I'm interested in popularising the system I regularly play with a partner here, and also invoking some discussion on it. Although it fits into the category of a non-natural system I feel it is a very simple system to play, and that actually relative beginners would be happy to play it and do reasonably well with it. The general system is as follows: 1♣ opening promises a 4-card major, normal "opening bid" values (rule of 20 or even 21), a hand that doesn't qualify for an opening of 1NT or a stronger bid A response of 1♥ or 1♠ promises a 5-card suit. This is one of the advantages - that the responder can show their 5 card major right away. A response of 1♦ promise at least one 4-card major, asks partner to name, and the values for a response. A response of 2♣ is artificial and this response is commonly used in the system to show game-invite values. In this case no 4-card major or you'd bid 1♦ A response of 2♦ is artificial, game force (but not necessarily interested in slam) and no 4-card major. That leaves 1NT which is a general weak "to play" response, bids of 2 of a major (pre-emptive) and 3 of a minor (pre-emptive) and 2NT (both minors, pre-emptive). 1♦ opening denies a 4-card major. It could be bid though with 3-3-0-7 distribution. The response pattern is the same. Of course here the 2NT response guarantees you'll find partner with at least one minor. 1NT could be bid with a 4-card major, there is no need to show it. 1♥ and 1♠ are 5-card major bids. 2]clubs] and 2♦ responses show game invite/forcing values and don't deny support. The 1-level bids are all relatively limited. See the 2♣ opening. Although you can vary the system, of course. 1NT opening is usually 16-18 balanced 2♣ opening shows either: 18-22 unbalanced 19-20 balanced (will rebid 2NT) Weak 2 opening in diamonds Responder will respond 2♦ unless he holds a hand that does not want partner to pass with a weak 2 in that suit. The system is not properly defined after that point other than the obvious opener bidding 2NT on the balanced hand and passing on the unbalanced one. Most of the time it comes up it is actually one of these two, the unbalanced 18-22 seems surprisingly rare. 2♦ opening is either: Game force weak 2 in either major. Followed by 2NT is usually 23-24 with opening 2NT used for 21-22 balanced. Not determined what opener should do with a better balanced hand. I don't like 3NT as a response, as it cuts out Stayman and Transfers by responder's hand below game. 3-level opening bids are just pre-empts like in most systems.

Well the hand itself is not GIB but Argine, the system designed by Jerome Rombaut and used on funbridge. The hand came from the last Elite serie (yes I'm an Elite there..) so someone might play it if they try "challenge Elite players" but such is unranked anyway. I have no idea how my system differs to others but I'm the only one of the 20 who played it whose partner did not open the bidding 1♠. Partner has 11 points and 6 spades to the AQ10 and at every other table East overcalled 2♣ over 1♠. E/W make 6 tricks in clubs so defending here is not going to be good. I scored well on this board playing in 3NT (rather than 4♠)

With that hand I'd pass 3♣ quickly and be glad we're defending and not having to play 2♠ doubled at this vulnerability. Not enough to know I can beat 3♣ and certainly not wanting to compete any further on what looks like a misfit.

Thank you for all the responses. I do not think partner made the right bid to pass initially on the hand as I don't believe there is anything between an opening bid and a weak 2, therefore if he has AQxxxx in spades he either has enough for an opening bid of 1, or not quite enough in which case he should open 2♠. I am interested to know what you think the system should be because where I played this hand I was told what Dbl would mean should I bid it. The system said it was take-out and I wanted it to be penalty due to the fact I had KJ10x in clubs. I did also have Jxx in spades though, and 12 points. If double is take-out my choices seem to be aiming for 4♠ or even 3NT (especially being MP but even at IMPs there is a risk of a club ruff playing in spades). Nobody else was able to double either (due to the nature of where this was played) but 3♣ or 3♥ if they run both go 800 down which doesn't compensate for any game we can make and we can't make slam. Of course, what works best on this hand isn't necessarily what works best most of the time. (As the hand may still be played by some people and they might read this I will not show the hands nor say whether 3NT or 4♠ is the winning contract).

Both sides vulnerable, board 4, dealer West. Scoring is match-points. I am not showing my hand at this point. It's obvious what I want double to be if you look at my hand. The auction goes: [hv=d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp1cpp2s3c]133|100[/hv] Is "double" by South take-out or penalty. (I cannot reveal the actual hand until at least 16th July and possibly even then I should not as someone might still play it afterwards).

This site is supposed to be fun. Self-proclaimed ratings are far better than auto-calculated ones, as auto-calculated ones lead to pressure on the participants to acquire them, thus they avoid playing with weaker partners and often will try to play against players worse than themselves to increase their ratings. You come here, meet various people, try playing with various partners etc. and find ones you are comfortable with. Then you play together in the tournaments you find to be the right challenging level to yourself. Thus I prefer self-ratings. I would prefer them on chess sites too if it would prevent people trying to cheat using engines to help them win more games. If I enter a chess tournament with players rated 2200 I will probably not have much fun as I am likely to lose every game. And whilst it might be nice beating up a load of 1300 rated players, I wouldn't find it particularly challenging. So I'd probably set my rating around 1700 and win a few and lose a few. If I find I'm losing too many, I might reduce it to 1650. I would like to think it would work the same way at bridge too, albeit it gets more complicated because you play with partners. However you should try to work out your level. By the way, it is of course all relative too to the environemt. I may be considered an expert in my local bridge club but I'd be a complete novice in the world championship. Of course I'd get a few good boards against anyone, because that is the nature of the game, but I'd lose far more than I'd gain playing in such an environment, and similarly in a weak club setting I would gain far more than I lose even though I'm bound to get a few poor scores along the way.

when I thought about it, a much simpler version of what I am trying to achieve would be ximps with the existing scale but cap the IMP scale at 6, so any swing 220 and above is the maximum 6 imps. That will overcome the issues of certain "big" hands because there are potentials for part-score swings in far more hands. Your tactic will be in general closer to IMP tactics.

Having a 2NT on your convention call as "unusual" does not mean you have to bid 2NT everytime you hold 5-5 in the minors. It just means when you make that bid, it is what you are supposed to hold. A lot of these "butt-in" conventions can help place the cards if you lose the auction. It can also sometimes lead to the opponents making correct bidding decisions, e.g. play in NT rather than a major if they are likely to suffer ruffs and bad breaks.

There are variations on the theme. I knew of the system having been used in teams events. When I say "what do people think" it's not so much which is the perfect way to implement it perhaps as much as whether such tournaments would be a good idea. I like the idea myself as it combines what I like about both forms of scoring and eliminates much of what I don't like. A situation in MP is when you are competing a part-score and the opponents are vulnerable. Say we bid to 2♠ and they compete to 3♦. We might bid on to 3♠ but if we double them and it's touch and go whether we'll beat them, we're shooting tops and bottoms. In rubber of IMPs you would never go for the extra 100 risking doubling them into game, but at MP it is a potentially good tactic if you think the chances of beating them are a bit more than 50%. Certainly in a Patton form of scoring you'd need better odds than that. +200 beating 3♦ versus +140 making in 3♠ is a small win (3-1) in my second proposal but -670 would be a full loss. If you go down -100 against their -110 that is considered flat, so pass also becomes an option.

This topic discusses various Patton style scoring systems: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/31514-board-a-match/page__st__20 The pure "Patton" system is normally used for team games. I am saying it would work well in a pairs tournament (where you play a few boards against a pair then move on, and score against the field). In MP, you score "board a match" against every other pair playing the same hand. In X-Imps you play IMPs against all the other pairs (which then gets averaged). My suggestion would be a form of Patton on every hand against every pair. The first option is similar to board-a-match with a 10-point swing counting as a tie. The second is closer to regular Patton but I have only introduced two levels of "victory" on a board.

I live in London. I would be interested in playing your diamond system but only on BBO where I can play with printed system notes, and not in a club where that would be forbidden.

I think allowing partnerships to choose their "skill level" is a good thing - they are showing the skill level where they would like to play. If they are not up to that level they may well keep getting hammered. They will then either improve their game or find an easier game. They should expect to come up against more skilled players and potentially more complex conventions and bidding systems, and they know that when they enter an "advanced" field. It is only when someone is advertising themselves as a "pick-up" partner that you want to know their real level. If you organise it all as "swiss" style teams tournaments the better teams will end up playing each other soon enough anyway. If you are building teams through different partnerships, it may hurt one partnership if their team-mates turn out to be of a poorer standard than they had advertised themselves, so I guess it may be possible at a later stage for people to change their team-mates. You may also find players wanting to play in one-off or experimental partnerships, or playing an experimental bidding system where they may do badly on a few hands when they have one or two disasters.

A major issue here is that the opponents have not found a fit. The regular "responsive" double is made when the opponents have found a fit. Partner doubled for take-out and the next player raised. Now you have more than one place to play and a few values so you double to show such a hand. In the auction above, the double of 2♦ should be penalties. Of course we could find ourselves "swindled" with hearts being our best suit, either because the 1♥ bid was psychic or because they are breaking 4-4-4-1 round the table. You may also find diamonds 6-4-2-1 round the table. At least 2♦X isn't game should it sneak through.

The purpose of the 3♣ and 3[dimaonds] response to 1NT is to show a potentially running suit that will be a source of tricks if partner has a partial fit for it, and enough stoppers elsewhere so the opponents don't get 5 tricks first. It is likely we are trying to shoot a game with fewer than 25 combined points. Typical example would be responder having AQxxxx or KQxxxx in a minor and little outside (extra jack or queen). If I as opening bidder have this: ♠AKxx ♥QJxx ♦Ax ♣Kxx and partner bids 3♣ in response to my 1NT opening, I can happily bid game expecting to make it. If partner bids 3♦ I cannot guarantee making it but hope to do so anyway, particularly if I get a club lead and diamonds break 3-2. And you may happen to have the ♠Q as an extra (or ♣Q enabling me to establish my 9th trick there). If I have no support for your minor I will pass, as it will play best as trumps where the opponents cannot cut off entry to it. Whilst the same situation could occur in the major, it is more common to seek a major-suit game when you have a running major. There may be occasions when 9 tricks is still the limit, however in a major we won't have to try to make 11 in order to make game which would be the case in the minor suit.

Interesting, I used to play a strong diamond system. I would probably be willing to try out yours on BBO.

I am sure this kind of things has been discussed before, but I have failed to find anything on it in searches, because it is difficult to know what to search for. I am thinking of a pairs scoring that is somewhat hybrid between Match Points and IMPs. The issues with both I see as follows: 1. In MPs, there is a lot of "gambling" involved over tiny differences - having to guess between NT and major games, for example. Plus obviously a lot of emphasis on overtricks and magic scores. The plus side and what I like about this scoring is that every hand matters. 2. IMPs is good for long team-of-4 matches. For pairs tournaments though of limited numbers of boards, too much emphasis on one or two "big" boards and often out of your control if the opps bid a good slam against you missed at other tables which essentially can destroy your entire tourhnament chances. With a hybrid scoring, it is the same as MP in essence but with slight changes. With computers scoring, it is of course easy to calculate the results of a hand. Option 1: (simplest). Same as MP except that a difference of 10 counts as a tie. So if you score 430 you tie with scores of 420. If you score 120 in 1NT+1 you tie with scores of 110 or 130, although those with 130 still beat those with 110. You still beat anyone with 100. You score by either winning, tying or losing against other pairs thus determining your score on the board. Consequence on tactics: You'll play pretty much the same but won't necessarily strive for the NT games or slams, and be content with playing in the major suit instead. Of course you may suffer a ruff and find you make a trick fewer than the NT makers, but in general you'll be more content to play in the major. A score of -100 (going down in a part-score) would tie with those making -90 in 1NT or -110 in 2 of a major or 3 of a minor. Option 2: (more complex). As above but now we introduce a "small win" and a "big win". A small win is 3-1, a big win is 4-0, a tie is 2-2. As before, equal score or difference of 10 is a tie. A small swing is considered a small win. I think the maximum for a small swing could be considered 40 or 70. Consequence on tactics: If you are an overtrick short you will make a "small" loss on those who made the overtrick. Similarly if you concede an overtrick trying to beat the contract. However you will gain a lot more for actually beating the contract and getting into the right "zone". You would have to weigh up the odds accordingly. You'll get 25% if you concede the extra ovetrick but 100% if you beat the contract (against others who pick the opposite tactic). In general, in an "everything equal" situation you are less likely to gamble for an ovettrick. I think in addition, the general feeling that you don't lose the same for losing an overtrick as you do for losing the whole contract will make the scoring feel more "real" to the spirit of bridge. However unlike full IMPs, you will be able to recover from one or two bad results more easily.

I play a similar sort of system to the "magic club", i.e. it also uses 1♣ opening to show a 4-card major and 1♦ to show no 4 card major and 1NT as 16-18 balanced with 5 card majors. The responses are slightly different to that in the article, but it is a very simple system to play effectively, and it is much easier to find your major suit fits this way, in particular as partner responds with 5 card majors to one of a minor. The only time it is hard to find a major fit is when opener has 5 hearts and 3 spades and responder has 5 (unless you incorporate flannery, but I think it is too rare of an occurence to bother with) and when opener opens 1NT and responder has to pass with a 4-card major and misses the 4-4 fit. With the system, when you open 1H or 1S, you are then in a "5-card major" system so the continuation is UP TO YOU. When these people write systems they document the ENTIRE system. I don't see why there is any need to document an entire system that starts with a common 5-card major bid. You document the new parts e.g. the 1♣ and 1♦ opening and then you leave the common parts up to the users to pick from existing systems. Therefore you can choose 2/1 continuations or Standard American continuations or any other 5-card major system.

The danger of passing is that the next hand will bounce up the level and it will then be harder to enter the auction. If there is a bid available that shows shape but not values then it would be ideal. 2NT might be used as such a bid here. Unlikely you'd need it as natural, so it is useful as part of a good/bad sequence (2NT shows the bad hand whilst 3-level bids show values).

One option in this situation is to treat the situation like an overcall of a strong 1NT and use Rubensohl-style responses, i.e. 2♠ is competitive and 2♥ would also be competitive. 2NT starts a relay sequence and other bids at the 3-level are usually stronger and are transfer bids. As partner will often not have a balanced 16-18 there must be also a way for partner to show this by breaking the transfers, either to show a fit or to show a suit of his own. Partner may have a strong hand with hearts and that may well be your place to play.