FelicityR

Just poor defence, in my opinion, as the cards lie. As mikeh as indicated there are situations where inserting the ♥10 is the best option, but it's easy enough to fathom out using the rule of 11, Declarer will have two ♥s higher than the ♥3. So given all the ♥ cards that the defenders have - ♥AK10987 - and that the lead is more likely to come from strength ♥K than a suit headed by ♥J, most declarers would have tried putting up the ♥Q at trick one surely if they had the ♥A, too?

Play for the odds, which I guess - too hot to work them out today, phew 93F! - that ♦s are more likely to be 4-2 than 3-3, and the ♣ honours are split (or East has ♣KQ). I agree with AL78 that is the way to play the hand. What players forget at match points is that making the contract is just as important as overtricks. There's a needy way to play this board where you need a top desperately, and a considered way of playing.

Yes, that is how I see it, too. It actually can be made if West alerts you to the presumed 4-1 break by doubling - not a wise move. Hope this is right. If you play carefully and end up with this position, West is helpless when you lead the ♠8 from dummy, with only one trick for West in the ♦ suit. [hv=pc=n&s=sk98hqd9c&w=shdkt7c98&n=shdqj84c5&e=sqt5hdcjt]399|300[/hv]

It be interesting to note whether with the same shape 3145 and 13 HCPs (perhaps more?) and a singleton small ♥ it does the same thing? The hand given ♠KJ5 ♥8 ♦A1098 ♣A10732 comes out at 14.95 on the Kaplan and Rubens evaluator. A similar hand with 13HCPs ♠KQ8 ♥8 ♦AJ103 ♣K8762 comes out at 14.90 on the evaluator. Would it pass this, too?

I would play it as forcing as partner's jumped, but there again I am no expert with specified bids at this level. Yes, 3♥ would be obviously forcing, too, but that's implying a completely different message about the hand.

I was watching a friend last night and this hand turned up. They play at Intermediate Level so it seemed a good one to illustrate how the bidding should go given that neither side were playing any advanced conventions. Please put yourself in the East seat primarily, and the South and North seats, too, and tell us how you expect the bidding proceeds after North's 2♦ transfer bid. (I think most North's would be bidding 2♦ here but if you feel there is an alternative...) Both sides can make game, so to me it's an interesting contest. And as usual thank you for your replies. (IMPs scoring on BBO) [hv=pc=n&s=sq432haq5dq8caqjt&w=st7ht642djt94c842&n=s95hkj9873d2ck965&e=sakj86hdak7653c73&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1n(15-17)p2d(Transfer%20to%20Hearts)]399|300[/hv] Edit (after a few replies): I am curious how each side would bid up to the game level (if possible), or would sacrifice accordingly here. I feel it's a difficult hand to bid for both sides though North has probably the easiest option of advancing to 4♥ opposite a strong no trump.

It's been a free for all for years, well before this pandemic. That's why I rarely play here. I do not blame BBO, I put it down to human nature. It's just a (smoke and) mirror image of the wider world. I tended - when I used to play - to avoid players who couldn't bother to fill out their convention cards whatever their level. At least by looking at a player's system and convention profile you do get some idea of their status. And when you suspect that players have been cheating or deluding their level/experience at the game, just change their relationship profile to 'ignore'. And welcome to the forum and good luck.

Thank you for pointing this out, smerriman. (Apologies Nigel I honestly didn't know) 'Wow' 'Beautiful' 'Very cool' I think Nigel will be chuffed to bits :)

Responder is in control of the auction - as you limited your hand with the 1NT opening bid - and you're not. Simple. Given partner a 4414 hand with something like ♠Qxxx ♥AJxx ♦x ♣Kxxx and a ♦lead with the ♦ honours split will put you on the back foot straightaway in 3NT.

Thanks for posting, Nigel. I worry for mankind when bridge robots make plays like that :) But, in all honesty, given the lack of solidity in the trump suit, and the need to crossruff to establish tricks, it's the only way that this contract is likely to be made. Though it's quite beautiful as well as 'Wow'

I do not see why I should Dbl. at MPs. Trying to turn +100 into +200 is pushing things too far. If partner has any sort of hand to balance here, we're at the right vulnerability. I'm not even hesitating when passing***. West can be a lot more stronger than a normal pre-empt given that East has passed. As boring as it sounds I'm playing with the room this time around. ***Edit***(as per mikeh see below) I am always waiting the obligatory 10 seconds after a jump bid. What I perhaps mean to say is in my mind there's no hesitation that 'pass' is the bid that I would make here.

Surely the easiest way to handle cheating allegations is to appoint an independent arbitrator to look again at WBF cases. If the pair wish to appeal then it goes to a bridge federation that is not connected to the players or those that feel they have been cheated. And one appeal only, not some protracted excuse to get lawyers and barristers who probably know every little about bridge involved. There's plenty enough brains within the bridge world to see that justice and fairness are seen to be done. It seems that at national level the whole process turns into a parochial farce where bridge friendships perhaps sully decision making. There's so much forensic evidence available including video evidence that hopefully cheating will be eliminated, but I don't hold my breath while there is not a WBF sanctioned format for dealing with alleged cheats. Simply, if you are accused of cheating at world level and found guilty, then you should be banned from the game for life. No ifs or buts.

Totally agree. There are so many other game forcing auctions available to good partnerships here. I, too, believe in the principle of slow, methodical bidding in these situations. The problem with using a jump force here, in my humble opinion, is that partner will never exactly know whether you want to be in ♦s or ♥s, or dependent on the scoring, no-trumps at MPs. With a slow approach both hands can be described in better detail.

If partner only bids 2♥ in support on the second round, there's no need to play catch up with RKC straightaway. Answering a splinter with a cue bid will automatically tell partner that the hands are probably fitting well and even though you made a minimum response on the second round, slam is a distinct possibility with the two hands. He's probably going to bid 4♦ next, and then you bid 4♥, etc. I actually don't like taking charge of the auction with this hand with 4NT RKC, I'd rather the stronger hand make the enquiry. It actually sounds a bit too macho for me, Nigel :) You could have signed off with 4♥ instead of 4♣ on the previous round. If partner doesn't get the hint after 4♣ then maybe we should review our slam bidding. A cue bid after a splinter after a minimum response on the previous round is not just making a noise but suggesting slam needs to be investigated, in my humble opinion. I'm actually really surprised a few of our experienced commentators have opted for signing off in 4♥ in the poll. Maybe they are right. But I wouldn't.

I remember vaguely a Jimmy Cayne 2/1 hand from a few years ago where the auction went 1♣ - (1♠) - Dbl. with the doubler holding ♠Jxxx ♥KJxx ♦Jxxx ♣x. I won't say who the other player was, but Cayne was furious afterwards that his partner had doubled with this hand. The gist of the argument, as I remember, went that Cayne expected to see a hand with at least an ace and a king in it, one-and-a-half quick tricks opposite him. I remember, too, one of the Italian masters of this game, either Duboin, Bocchi or one their regular partners playing an exhibition match against, I believe, a Bill Gates, team on BBO where all the expert commentators expected a Negative Dbl. with a one-an-half quick trick hand, but responder passed! So learning from these players, I do not see any option other than 'Pass'. It is an underused bid. This hand has some defence against a possible ♠ contract by the opposition. You don't want to give partner the impression that you are stronger than you are in a competitive auction, so I would 'let sleeping dogs lie' in a bidding sense and wait to see what happens next.

Precisely. But even I am forgiving your partner for trying to make a spectacular play to try to defeat the contract on this occasion.

Personally I think you are looking at BBO in the wrong way. The statement I'm struggling with the idea that anyone joined BBO to make friends with a person they will never meet but each to his own doesn't ring true. Just because someone lives 100s of miles away doesn't mean you cannot meet except if you have some disability that prevents you from travelling. I know of many people who have met online friends here. Having the common interest of bridge is a great start. Many years ago I played bridge on another site and I even had the genuine offer from a lady who I played with regularly to come over to Australia - I live in the UK - and stay with her family. (I admit that was a bit too long a journey to undertake.) People join BBO to play bridge primarily, but it's impossible not to develop online friendships here, or am I missing something? If you don't want to that's your prerogative, but hrothgar is right that the bridge clubs on BBO are social structures, just online versions of bricks and mortar bridge clubs around the country. Actually I feel developing clubs around bidding systems isn't such a stupid idea as the Acol Club on BBO works on that basis. The only problem with that is that you then don't get to play against opposition that are using a different system - something that will happen in the wider bridge world - so it becomes a little too parochial. But perhaps many novice/beginner/intermediate players feel more comfortable having something they understand played by the opposition, too.

I like the idea but there better be a few 2/1 system/ability clubs amongst them otherwise many players from the USA, and some from other countries, and even the robots, would feel excluded from BBO... :D

Third hand plays low :) But all seriousness, partner is not expecting you to have 6♦s... I don't quite understand the lead of the ♦10 at trick 2 if you are thinking the ♦Q is singleton. That gives declarer 3♦s in his hand... However, to be perfectly honest, sometimes it would be right to peter with a doubleton Qx, and sometimes it would not. If my partner leads from AK against a suit contract I tend not to waste the Q on the first round holding a doubleton Qx except - as your partner did - I could see a way of defeating the contract.

3♥ seems right - to reflect the level of the 9(+) card fit - even though the hand is ace less, a 4441 shape and the ♠s are potentially dead. 3♥ is non-forcing so the decision is then left to partner whether to proceed to game. 2♥ isn't doing justice to the hand, in my opinion. You have to try to bid vulnerable games at teams. It's probably a borderline game even if partner turns up with extras, and a trump lead could be the only way to defeat it. If partner turns up with ♠xx ♥Qxxxxx ♦xx ♣AKJ it's a case of c'est la vie and move on to the next board.

This was the The Independent's article in 2014 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coughing-german-cheats-shock-genteel-world-of-bridge-9225805.html It comes as no surprise that the German players are still allowed to compete when the appeal against Fantoni-Nunes was upheld. http://www.eurobridge.org/2018/01/10/4798/ I expect the 'fuzzy' - in my view - legalese wording of such appeals that 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' was not met so the players were neither innocent nor guilty allows alleged bridge cheats to continue playing. It again echoes what happened in Buenos Aires in 1965 with Reese-Schapiro when internationally the players were accused of irregularities, but absolved nationally of their alleged wrongdoings. Despite the sterling work of Boye Brogeland and his followers exposing these alleged bridge cheats, it seems that barristers and the legal world can always find some legal loophole to play down the allegations, thus watering down their seriousness.

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the rule of 11 here as yet. In contract bridge, the Rule of 11 is applied when the opening lead is the fourth best from the defender's suit. By subtracting the rank of the card led from 11, the partner of the opening leader can determine how many cards higher than the card led are held by declarer, dummy and himself; by deduction of those in dummy I hope your bridge instructor has mentioned it! Even though the ♦ suit hasn't an honour card, it's always a worthwhile mathematical exercise to get into a habit of as a novice/beginner when defending a no-trump contract. Top of nothing, the ♦9 doesn't always tell partner the other cards you have whereas the ♦6 does. Partner will probably be able to deduce that you hold a longer suit than ♦9876 alone, too.

Not everyone plays the same rebids to a Jacoby 2NT enquiry, but to me 3♠ is the wrong bid as having the 10th or 11th trump in the suit is not the same as having cards outside the trump suit. We play 3♣/3♦ as showing a singleton possibly a void in the bid minor. Our sequence would go 1♠ - 2NT - 3♣ - 3♦(cue) - 3♠ - 3NT (temporising) - 4♠ (nothing more except perhaps extra length in the trump suit.)

Good luck, Stephen. Enjoy the experience and hope you do well.

Your bidding was quite reasonable though North's hand is one of those 14 HCP 6m322 hands where opening a strong 1NT (15-17) is also something that I would consider. It is definitely worth an upgrade. It is betwixt and between a rebid of 2♣ and 3♣ when partner responds 1♥ (or 1♦ or 1♠) to your opening bid of 1♣. Looks too strong for a 2♣ rebid and just a fraction weak for a 3♣ rebid. The Kaplan and Rubens evaluator puts it at 17.10 for what its worth.