silvr bull

A previous partner insisted that I agree to pass of the opp redouble as saying that I want to play in the redoubled contract. That would be a useful agreement if you are often dealt QJTxx in the opp suit, but my experience was sadly different. I would usually hold something like xxx xxx xxx xxxx. After a couple of 2MXX+1 fiascos, I insisted that my pass of a redouble said ONLY that I did not want to bid. If not discussed, I assume that partner's pass also says that he did not want to bid. If a poll option was added so pass says he did not WANT to bid, I would be happy to change my "Other" vote to that new option. In this hand, partner's pass of 2HXX strongly implies that he does not have a 4 card S suit. With xxxx xxx xxx xxx he should want to bid 2S (the lowest bid possible) in hopes that I will not bid higher with 2NT or 3m. Another corollary is that if partner does not pass the XX, but bids 3m (a higher bid level) instead, that would show some values (perhaps QTxxx of the minor he bids) since with nothing he can wait for me to act and then correct to 3m if the opps do not rescue us first. When the XX returns to me, I will bid 3C but a negative result will not be surprising.

A comment about pulling 4SX to 5C surprises me too. Would he have made the same comment if his hand was J9xxxx x J9xx Kx? I think his decision to pass 4HX or correct to 4S is at least as difficult as the initial double or pass decision.

I can't honestly answer the poll questions because I have seen all the hands and it colors my judgement. If I was given only the South hand and the P P 4H bids, I would mentally flip a coin to decide between pass or double. My guess is that if only the South hand was presented here, there would be more votes for double than the 4 now shown. Similarly, if given only the North hand and asked what to do after 4H on my left and double by partner, I would not have an easy decision between pass or 4S. My view is that the pass or double and the pass or 4S decisions are very close in expected value.

You certainly an Ace (Is that the way they spell it where you are?) at negative comments, and pointed criticism, and assuming what my assumptions are. I actually assume that my partners would recognize the potential for a bad misfit, and they would not consider 3NT with any of your example hands. I also assume that partner could have a 3=1=5=4 that would play well in S. After proving your ability to criticize and make negative comments, do you have any positive or helpful ideas to offer? If you were dealt the West hand, would you bid anything, or does an Ace just avoid problem situations?

geoffff is spot on. Having a player create more information, that may be little better than fantasy, could be worse than useless on BBO. A quick glace at the profile should enough to decide if a player is worth the "risk" of partnering for a few minutes in a free tournament. However, I really would like to see one additional detail in the list pf people who want to be partners. That essential addition is the country flag. When I look at profiles, I automatically reject people from a few countries. That is not prejudice, but a simple truth that many bidders in those countries have a different set of experience and expectations than I do, and there are frequent language issues too, so we are usually not compatible. Listing the country flag of people would not contribute to prejudice, but would save time (which is often limited before a tournament starts) for those of us who have geographical preferences.

If opener was my partner, he could have void Kxxx AKJxx QTxx and I must bid Hs. The good news is that my partner and I would not agree to "4th suit forcing to game". Our new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing, of course, but only for one more round of bids. There are hands (like this one) where I need to bid both of my suits, and my suit bids are natural suits even if one of them may be the 4th suit. I bid 2H (one round force) now, and plan to bid 3H (not forcing) over opener's next bid.

This is an easy 2C overcall for me. Overcalling 1D with 2C can create problems for East if he has one 4 card major but only a doubleton in the other, and a hand that is "too good" to pass but not strong enough to force. When partner is on lead, I prefer for him to lead a C than a major. It is also possible that partner has values and a 5 card major, so my 2C bid will make it easier for him to compete in his major. I prefer overcalling 2C than double since I have no 4 card major. Partner could be very disappointed if I double and he aggressively competes with his 4=4 majors because he is "certain" that I will have a fit for one of his suits. I will pass the double of 2D. If E has a stiff D, he may try to rescue and get into a worse situation. If E also passes, then I should have as much defense as partner would expect.

BBO is plagued by people making crazy bids to add "excitement" to the free tournaments because they have nothing to lose when they can forget many bad results and remember only a few lucky ones.Deceptive bids like this is one more reason for BBO to develop the software to offer Decision Point. Decision Point will eliminate the reasons for people to make intentionally bad bids, and will motivate people to try to play their highest quality Bridge all the time.I admit that it is only a little, but you can ask BBO to offer Decision Point.

Another frustration is when chatting with a partner before a tournament starts. After the start, the chat direction is unchanged from before, but trying to send a message results only in the painfully redundant error message "Cannot chat with partner." I prefer that all chat messages default to the table. There is more about that in this link: Default chats to table!

I cannot think of any hand with a 6 card major that is too good to open a weak two, but not good enough to open 1. For me, Ax AJxxxx xx xxx is an easy 2H open but I would open 1H with Ax AQxxxx xx xxx. I would always open Ax AJTxxx xx xxx, but it is almost flip a coin time to decide between 1 or 2. If we are doing well in the session, then I would choose the more conservative 2H. If we need a swing hand, then I would press with a 1H open. In contrast, I will pass in 1st or 2nd with Axxx AJxxxx xx x because I prefer to not open a weak 2 with a side 4 card major.

Are hostile and childish comments like this really necessary for you to express any thought? I offered my opinion, which I have just as my right to have as you have to your opinion. If you don't like my opinion, then by all means, feel free to refuse when I ask you to be my partner in an event (but please do not hold your breath waiting for that invitation). Since you know everything, tell us why your partners would never consider bidding 4S with a 5=1=5=2 after you double 1H and the next opp bids 4H. And for the record, I never indicated that a double of 1H "promised" a 4 card S suit, but that is an inference my partners are likely to draw. I have a clue enough that there can be many different hand types that make different bids. Your obvious hostility shows nothing about bridge skill, but instead only demonstrates your eagerness to jump to unfounded conclusions and to denigrate others with no reason to do so.

2C is my choice too. If I double with this, my partner will have SKxxxx and bid 4S next based on our "known" S fit.

This is the key to my view of the correct bid. Playing a 12-14 NT, a simple raise cannot be a balanced minimum (which would have opened 1NT), so the 2H raise is the equivalent strength of a 15-17 NT hand. In the OP hand, added distribution makes up for fewer HCP, so a 2H raise is a perfect description of the hand strength. Note that the corollary is that a weaker hand (like Qxx KQxx Axxxx x) should pass first instead of opening 1D because this 11 HCP hand is not strong enough to raise a possible 1H response to 2H.

Thanks! BBO seems to not like answering only a 2nd question, but I was able to vote after the third option was added to the first question.

Good comment, but I see a third option. After 1m (1H), our X shows values in the minors and denies a "biddable" 4 card S suit. With a hand like xxxx xxx KJx KQx, I prefer a double to show the minor suit high cards instead of 1S which gives opener a misdirected view of the hand. Imagine his surprise if I bid 1S with xxxx and he bids NT with a stiff SQ, or decides to play a 4=3 S fit with something like AQx X AQxxx Axxx. If opener has enough strength and a S suit, he can bid 1S now or Ss later. If my original hand was xxxx xxx Kxx KJx and X denied 4 Ss, I would pass 1H and hope I can bid 1S after opener reopens with X.

I did not vote in the first question because my choice "It dies not matter to me" is not available. I was a little disoriented the first time I played the hand from dummy's position, but I have had no problems with it since then. I also have no problems with deciding how I would play the hand from dummy's perspective when partner is declarer. FYI, I tried twice to vote "No" in only the 2nd question, but I got a BBO error that deleted my reply. I hope this reply survives without any vote.

to eliminate confusion about Gerber, I ask my partners to agree to a simple rule: 4C is Gerber if, and only if, it is a jump over 1NT or a balanced 2NT. With that rule, 4C here would be a mild slam try with something like AQxxx AQ Kx KQxx, and you would plan to pass if partner rejects by bidding 4NT. In this auction, you have heard that S's hand is good enough for game and that his best suit is Ds and that he is content to play in 3NT. If that limited information is enough to push you to ask for aces, then you may have had a better bid than 2NT. To ask for aces after S bids 3NT, bid 4NT as a quantitative raise. S can pass with a minimum, or answer aces (5C= 0 or 4) if he is willing to bid more.

You are playing in a BBO matchpoints tournament with a good partner and you have these agreements: (1) Open 12-14 NT (so the 1D open cannot be a weak balanced hand); (2) After an overcall, bid a 4 card 1M if your hand is good enough to bid (so the negative double of 1H denies a biddable 4 card S suit). [hv=pc=n&s=sj75h542dk73ck965&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1d1hdp3cp]133|200[/hv] You have not discussed the minimum strength needed for a negative double, or if opener's jump shift is forcing. What are your choices in the two poll questions?

This same BBO bug was reported here two weeks ago, so it may be difficult to fix. As an easier alternative, BBO can develop the software for Decision point and offer better tournaments instead of the Daylong or Survivor.

Assuming S opens 2H, W can que 3H as Michaels (showing at least 5 S and a 5 card minor and approximately this level of strength at a minimum). E bids 3NT, and W completes his minimum picture with a take out to 4C. The misfit should push E to stop in 4S, which makes easily if N does not lead a trump. When asking about a bid, I try to show only one hand with the previous bidding before the question mark. Seeing more than one hand can influence the bidding choices, as it might have in my suggestion above.

My use for that auction is a hand that will bid 3NT if responder has a missing top honor in the minor I bid, but that will play in 3m if no fit. I would have a hand something like Axx KJx AQJxx Tx, or switch the minors for 1NT-2NT, 3C.

All three are easy pass for me. Unless partner has two of the top H honors, opening 1H in #2 would always be a disappointment, and partner will likely overbid with most hands. My approach is to limit my hand as soon as I can, and pass is my first opportunity to do that. There is little chance the hand will be passed out, and then I can bid strongly later without misleading partner about my hand strength. If #2 is passed out, then a score of zero may well be better than the game partner would strain to bid. Preempting to 3H on #1 makes it very difficult to find our 5-4 S fit, and I agree with the guide to not preempt in 1st or 2nd with a side 4 card major. If the black or pointed suits are reversed, then I would open 3H with #1. Opening 3H on #3 could push partner to take a phantom save against an opp game that my surprise defense could be enough to beat.

Partner may need only HAJ and the DK. I did open 4H, and 6H is a walk in the park: [hv=pc=n&s=sjt652hqdk65ct763&w=s9ht98765432dq3c9&n=sq74hjdj742caj852&e=sak83hakdat98ckq4&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p]399|300[/hv] Unfortunately, Murphy's Law continues to be enforced, and our bidding is not shown because it was not optimal. This could be a fun hand to test bid with your partner (to avoid misinterpretations) if West passes first, or opens 4H. Most pairs bid 6H and took 12 tricks. One pair bid and made 6NT when S led a S to East's ace, then won the DK (after the HA&K), but guessed to continue S. A few pairs that bid 7H or 7NT were not as lucky. The prize for "most unlucky" went to an E-W pair that were -2,800 after West passed first (passing the West hand can be dangerous!), East redoubled 5NT (which can be defeated only by a low D lead at trick one or a D shift by North at trick two), West sat for the XX (I wish I had that much self control :D), and East won the opening C lead but then "misclicked" a few times in the play. Thanks for the comments.

This was not a goulash. Really! But BBO often recycles hands that look like they started in a goulash zoo. This was MPs and both sides vul. What do you do with your 9 card H suit? [hv=pc=n&w=s9ht98765432dq3c9&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p]133|200[/hv]

These are only two of the problem messages I have seen recently, but there were many more in previous tournaments. Defaulting chat messages to table in a tournament is an easy fix, and it would help to reduce broadcasting angry messages unintentionally to the full tournament. Players could still select Tournament as the address to send each message they like, defaulting to Table for subsequent messages would keep table related messages from being broadcast inadvertently. This broadcast was while the hand was being played, or perhaps not yet started by slow tables: Tournament: how u know with 2s u partner has 4 card H I have seen much worse comments directed at partner or opps, and those comments should not leave the table: Tournament: do not tell ur p what should be done and what should not