dlks

You are never going to please all of us old dogs, and even some young dogs are averse to change. The new design is just fine with me, as intuitive as ever. Although I suspect there will be some older-version functions that users need help finding, they seem few to me. I do have one concrete observation and request for change associated with the selection of what info is displayed on the rightmost pane. I don't mind that the rightmost pane initially displays the News Feed items (you want people to see the items right away), but I would prefer that your re-order the selection tabs at the far right so that Who's Online is at the top, My Results is next, and the News Feed tab is re-positioned as the bottom tab. Just the old dog in me, I guess, wanting things to be in the order of my established personal priorities. And for other members: I believe it is fair to assume that BBO would not undertake a major user-interface re-design unless there was a good reason. Trying to add new functionality into an existing structure might be one of those good reasons, and changing the way we see the screen on start-up is also a good way to let us know that we're using a new version (we're not in Kansas anymore).

I agree with wank. We play: 1NT 2♣ 2♥ 3♣/♦ shows 4 Spades and 5 ♣/♦ game-forcing 1NT 2♣ 2♠ 3♣/♦ shows 4 Hearts and 5 ♣/♦ game-forcing Along with this, we play 4-way transfers (2NT is a transfer to 3♦), so to show an invitational hand (9 HCPs or 8 HCPs with a 5-card suit), we start with a 2♣ bid, then rebid 2NT. This sequence does not promise any 4-card Major.

There is clearly no one "best" way to play 2/1 -- your method just has to be one that both you and partner are comfortable with. Other than the expert authors already mentioned, Paul Thurston wrote a good introductory book in 2002 called "25 Steps to Learning 2/1" with a forward from Kokish. The number of different and truly expert opinions on 2/1 led me to write this poem a while back.... Personal Thoughts on Learning 2/1 © Donna Sherman August 8, 2013 Lawrence, Hardy, Grant, Rodwell, Thurston, Holland.... Ring a bell? All of them experts, of this I am sure. As to their differences: there is a cure! Talk to your partner. Work out a plan for 2/1 bidding. Then, when you can, play it and play it and play it some more. Tweak your agreements. Open the door to debate and discussion and changes in methods. If that doesn't work, at least you tried. Find another partner. Good luck!

In this sequence, partner's cue bid of opener's suit shows a limit raise (here 10-11 points) with at least 3-card support for my Spades. I bid 2S, with no interest in going any further. Partner is not required to pass, but likely will.

Forgive me if I have missed something, but.... Can't declarer play the J♣ on the first trick instead of the 3 and duck if East plays the King, thus assuring the contract? I know that wasn't the question, but it seems to beg being mentioned.

I read this subject with great interest because like the original poster, katonka, I played SAYC in its full sense for many years and was fairly happy with the results. Over time, I added additional (non-SAYC) conventions like Bergen raises and Inverted Minors because I came to see how important hand shape is. But I realized that my preferred partnership methods only worked well when we either opened the bidding at 1NT or above or when we had the hands for using a conventional response; we weren't consistently finding the right contracts when one of us opened with a simple 1-level suited bid and the responder had a vanilla hand. We were missing bidding makeable games, and we were too often overbidding or playing in the wrong strain when we didn't have enough strength for game. My excellent bridge teacher on BBO (no ads here) had acceded to my wishes to start lessons playing SAYC, but he was pleased to hear that I wanted to check out the Two-over-One Game Force system. I now love it and wish I had learned it years ago. I shouldn't actually call what I play "the" 2/1 GF system. There is no official or universal way to play 2/1 beyond a few basic tenets, and even those are subject to partnership agreement. The more I studied what the experts wrote about 2/1, the more I realized that they all play it differently. My confusion over the multitude of different treatments led me to write this poem last year, which pretty well sums it up: Personal Thoughts on Learning 2/1 Donna Sherman August 2013 Lawrence, Hardy, Grant, Rodwell, Thurston, Holland.... Ring a bell? All of them experts, of this I am sure. As to their differences, there is a cure! Talk to your partner! Work out a plan for 2/1 bidding. Then, when you can, play it and play it and play it some more. Tweak your agreements. Open the door to debate and discussion and changes in methods. If that doesn't work, at least you tried. Find another partner. If you're thinking about playing 2/1, look for its benefits in preserving bidding space so you can find both the right strain and the right level at which to play without zooming right past your best contract. No more strong jump shifts where you're already at the 3-level without knowing about a fit or stoppers for NT. No more guessing whether your partner's 2-level response is merely invitational or if he has a bigger hand. No more opening bidders having to desperately hunt for a 1-round-forcing bid -- if an unpassed partner has made a 2/1 response after a pass by his RHO, ALL bids are forcing to at least game. You show your shape, you show your stoppers, and you are much more likely to end up in the right contract than when playing other standard American systems. Forgive me for not addressing any of the previously posted issues about how to bid specific hands. Two-over-One GF is a system that different partnerships will tailor in different ways. You need to work with your partner to decide what rebids work for you. Happy bidding! Donna Sherman

I know the compatibility rating is a very new feature and some people could find it useful, but I actually dislike the entire concept for several reasons. 1) Partnership compatibility is too subjective a concept for any sort of statistical data analysis to be useful. IMO, such ratings fall into the third category of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. (Forgive the slight profanity, that's an old quotation.) 2) "Compatibility" is widely recognized as a positive attribute; conversely, a lack of any compatibility rating or a low compatibility rating in a given player's profile could easily be seen as something negative about that individual. We have enough negative opinions about individual players floating around BBO already. 3) The factors listed as being taken into consideration have little or nothing to do with how I form my personal opinions of compatibility with a given partner. I don't care about a potential partner's "profile-country, real location, language, masterpoints, avg adjusted points earned per hand, #people who mark u as a friend vs enemy , award symbol," or "starriness". Some of these things are already available in player's profiles if they are of interest. 4) The most important factors for me in determining partnership compatibility are whether we can agree on the same approach to bidding/carding and whether my partner recognizes that bridge is actually a partnership game wherein we should respect and trust each other and just generally be civil and courteous. It's also nice if our levels of expertise are compatible, but we find out all of these things after just a few hands. So I'm agin' it. I am FOR creating a richer profile format (system/carding/languages spoken) but I do understand that would be a major undertaking.

You are absolutely right on both counts! As with everything on the internet, do your research before making any commitment. Teachers' profiles should show their entire real names. Use your browser to search on any prospective teacher's name and get his/her history, bridge accomplishments, awards, published works, etc. I also recommend that you talk (via skype, for example) to the prospective teacher before signing up -- an actual conversation can give you a good idea whether you can establish a rapport or if that teacher is not for you.

One way you might be able to find bridge teachers on BBO is to look for tables where there are a lot of Kibitzers. Click on "Help me find a game", then "List interesting tables". While this is frequently used to seek a seat at a higher-level game where the you need the permission of the host to be seated, the table list also indicates how many Kibs are watching each "interesting" game. Lots of Kibs means something very interesting is going on! Join a high-Kib-count table, making yourself another Kib, and click on each Player's name to see the player's profile. Most teachers will so indicate in their profiles. If you find a teacher you're interested in, rest assured that most of them are very approachable. You can even ask fellow Kibs if they know anything about the teacher, most students will be happy to provide a reference (one way or the other!). As a matter of manners, I strongly suggest that you DO NOT privately chat to the teacher (or to any player you do not know) during the lesson -- use the "My BBO" Mailbox feature to compose and send a message to the teacher after the lesson. And here are two more things it's good to know if you use this method to find a teacher: - Good teachers will adapt their teaching styles (number and type of table comments) to accommodate the needs of their immediate student, and - Beware those teachers who kibitz at other teachers' tables and make snide comments -- They are "trolling" for students! Good hunting!