silvr bull

RHO asked a thoughtful and reasonable question. It would have been rude to just ignore it, so I typed three letters ("Yes") as the least I could do. I would have also replied "Yes" if LHO asked the same thoughtful and reasonable question. LHO had no reason to think that my partner in an individual tourney would have any agreement about the meaning of bids, so clicking my bid the first time was probably a useless thing to do. Clicking it again 50 more times in rapid machine gun like style was worse than useless and rude. LHO already knew that my partner would have to guess what I intended, but LHO demanded that I give him an unfair advantage by telling him my intentions when partner could only guess.

The general question is what information should I provide when an opponent clicks my bid to get more detail Some opponents think that I should say what I intended my bid to mean. I see that interpretation as the equivalent of asking what cards I hold. My view is that I should give the same information about partnership agreements that I would list on a convention card. As a simple example, if partner and I agreed to open 1 NT with 15-17 HCP, and an opp clicks my 1NT bid to ask, I should reply 15-17 HCP because that is the partnership agreement. On some hands, however, I might upgrade a 14 point hand, or downgrade an 18 point hand, and open 1NT despite the partnership agreement. If an opp clicks my 1NT bid when I have 14 or 18 HCP, I will still respond 15-17 because that is the agreement and the same information that partner expects. This question hit hard a few days ago when I subbed into an individual tournament where there are no partnership agreements and I had no previous experience with my partner. RHO opened 1M and I bid 2M. RHO sent sent me a private message to ask if my que showed the other major and a minor, and I PM back to say yes. After some hesitation, my LHO clicked my 2M que bid and I replied "No agreement, so no information." Then my LHO clicked my bid another fifty times before calling the director. The director soon booted me out of the tournament. That could have been caused by an original player returning to his seat, but there was no communication so I cannot know what the director's reason was. So, how do you think I should respond when an opp clicks my bid for more information?

Two way Stayman makes slam sequences easier. How would you bid a hand like Axx KQx Kxxxxx x after partner opens 12-14 NT? With 2D forcing to game, it is easy to bid 2D then 3D as a mild slam try, without going past the safety of 3NT if opener shows no interest in a D slam.

After partner opens 12-14 1NT and RHO passes, my style uses 2NT as an invitational raise with something like a good 11 to a bad 12 HCP. With two way Stayman, I have no need to use 2NT as a relay when RHO passes. My jump to 3m is weak to play, but 2C followed by 3m is invitational. After RHO passed, I would jump to 3m with both of your example hands to gain a little preemptive value, and to make it less likely that I might need to defend against 3M. If RHO overcalled 2M, I would bid 3D (not forcing, but shows forward going values) with your first example, or Lebensohl to 3C with your second.

OK. I will boldly go where no one else on the forums will. :rolleyes: I would not open that load of trash. :D It's not that I think opening it is bad, but that I have had many more unfortunate results than good ones after opening a marginal hand with 11 HCP. I can seldom convince my CHO to lower his level of enthusiasm until it is too late. If the hand was QJx AKxxx JTxx x instead, so I would be happy to have the suit led on defense, I would risk a 1H opening, but even then I would not be enthusiastic about it. With AKx QJxxx JTxx x, however, I think risk is greater than reward. My general philosophy is not to ask how MUCH I can bid as opener or responder, but instead to ask first how LITTLE I can bid. I like partner to expect me to have good values, and I like holding extras too. After limiting my hand first, it is easy to bid more later to show values. But when I stretch to bid too high early, I can never tell partner that I may regret it later.

I substitute often on BBO, and I recommend being a sub to all. Unfortunately, I found a few frustrations that I think could be eliminated by easy changes to the BBO substitute system. Before I offer my suggestions to improve the substitute experience, I would like to answer this question I found while searching the forums about substitutes: When my regular partners are not available, I sub as a way to search for other prospective partners. I sub not to play more hands or tournaments, but as an easy way to meet other players that I would not know about otherwise. I have met several players that make being a sub worthwhile, but I also played hands with players that I have no desire to see again. I view being a sub as a way to kiss a lot of frogs, in hopes I will find a Prince or Princess. :rolleyes: I sent the message below to BBO with suggestions for ways to improve the substitute experience, and BBO responded with helpful ideas and by encouraging me to post this on the forums. Here are my suggestions: 1) Do not offer again to sub where a previous offer was refused. How many times must I say NO! to sub with the same beginner partner in a beginner event? Only one rejection per session, please! 2) Increase the number of rejections before removing a sub from the active list. After only two rejections, usually repeats of the same item, BBO now removes us from the sub list so that we must click again and again to get back on it. Then BBO hammers us with repeats of the same item we previously said NO! too, so that we are quickly kicked off the sub list again. That quick bounce off the sub list makes us feel positively unwelcome!. 3) Please, give us some categories that we can check to exclude some offers to sub. The one that irritates me most is to sub into a team game with an unknown partner. That always plops me into a seat in a new team game that is just forming, and then requires me to wait FOREVER until the empty seats (including my absent partner) are filled. :-( Please, PLEASE, give me the option to not see offers to sub into that dismal situation. At the least, stop pounding me with repeats on a team game with an unknown partner.

If not married to her, was that a bad thing? :rolleyes:

How about a 5C splinter? Without a rock solid agreement, partner will not know if the splinter was a stiff or void, but it is clear that it is a splinter. My KISS rule is that when a suit bid is forcing (like 4C would be here), then a jump in that suit is a splinter. Opener will almost certainly bid 5D. Then a que of 6C will make it clear that you have first round control of Cs. Correcting 6D to 6S should complete the picture of your hand for partner, and he will have an easy raise to 7 holding the SA. On the remote chance that opener has the CA and decides to que it with 6C after the splinter, then you can be sure that he does not also have the SA, so you can stop in 6S with no worries.

It is 100% skill that a good team will win a session with duplicated boards and that has a field with several good teams. It is near 100% luck which good team will win, depending on the results of their guesses in coin flip situations, and random unlucky or bad choices by their opps.

If your system allows very weak minor suit opening bids, then south should pass 4S. In the KS style (which I prefer), the explanation would be "1C is essentially clubs with good values or 15+ BAL" Then the blame on the opening bid is obvious.

I cast my lonely vote for 6C. The people who passed so easily were rewarded on this hand, but mostly because north had fewer Ds and more defense than might be expected. 6D was down 2, and that netted us 17% for beating the pairs that were allowed to play in 4S. If 5S makes, then 6D will be a very good result. Even so, if I (south) was in the pass out seat so that it was a simple question of playing 5S or 6D, then I would have also passed 5S with the same general philosophy that most of the passers here expressed. But I was not in the pass out seat, and West still had an opportunity to make another bid. If west decided to push to 6S, a pass by south over 5S would miss an opportunity to make a lead directing call. If north's hand is xx x AKJxxxxx Kx, or xx x AKJxxxxxx x, or possibly xx x AKJxxxxx QJ, then a C lead may be essential to beat 6S. I am unable to guestimate the probilities of 5S making and 6D down two, or 6S down with a C lead, or 6S making after being pushed there, so I can't properly defend my choice of 6C. However, I think there is more to consider in this hand than the simple guide to not save over 5M. Note that I would agree with those who see no reason to post this hand if north guessed to bid only 4D, so that I had the opportunity to make a lead directing 5C call over 4S. [hv=pc=n&s=s4h987543d82cat63&w=sa98763ha6dq4cj97&n=skjhdakjt7653c852&e=sqt52hkqjt2d9ckq4&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1s5d5s6cppd6dppdppp]399|300[/hv]

Matchpoints, neither vul. Opps are likely better than BBO average, but are otherwise unknown. [hv=pc=n&s=s4h987543d82cat63&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1s5d5s]133|200[/hv]

There was no robot at my table today, but I saw the text partner typed into his alert box several times. The bid was not highlighted so that I could see, but the text was open and visible. That is clearly a bug, and it should be fixed. BTW, I have another issue with the alerts. When one of my opps is a robot, the bids made by the non-robot opp are alerted by the robot. Those alerts may be what the robot thinks the bids mean, but they are not necessarily what the human opp intended. so the alerts may well be wrong. Better for the robot to alert only its own bids, and not give false information about the human's bids.

What meaning does your partnership give to a jump reverse? For example: 1♦-1♠ 3♥ or 1♣-1M 3♦ The hand that raised this question was: [hv=pc=n&s=sat8632ht5dkq8c97&n=sk975hqdaj642caj4&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1dp1sp2sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] None of the pairs with the N-S hands bid the slam. In our K-S style, the 2S bid shows 4 card support and the equivalent strength of a strong 1NT open. A jump to 3S instead would have shown a stronger hand than North had. Even if North stretches to jump to 3S, and South stretches to que 4D, it is unlikely that we would get higher than 4S. The stiff H in North is the key to considering a slam with only 24 HCP. My thought (after the hand) is that a reverse by North would be a one round force, so a jump reverse would not simply be a stronger bid, but would have a different meaning. A H splinter seems right to me, but it could be only an invitational raise to 2.5S and not be a game force. North could use the jump reverse as a splinter that invites to game if South has no wasted values in Hs. Then North could pass if South bids only 3S. Conversely, the jump reverse would set Ss as trump, so 3NT by South would not be natural to play. Instead, South's 3NT would show at least mild slam interest, and would ask North to que on the way to 4S. If we had discussed this meaning, my preferred auction would be: 1D-1S 3H-3NT 4C-4D 4S-4NT RKC to 6S Does anyone have a better way to bid this slam, or have a better meaning for a jump reverse?

Patience! I wanted to give time for comments. My thought process exactly, and I did lead the ♠7, but the ♣ leaders did much better. [hv=pc=n&s=st74hj93dj6cj9764&w=sak83hk4dkqt754cq&n=sj965ht52d932cakt&e=sq2haq876da8c8532&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dp1hp1sp3np6nppp]399|300[/hv]

IMPS in the BBO main bridge club against random opponents. I was on lead against 6NT, but my guess did not work out well. What is your choice? [hv=pc=n&s=st74hj93dj6cj9764&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dp1hp1sp3np6n]133|200[/hv]

I lead the CJ and hope for the best. Since no lead appeals, I can hope that dummy has CQ9x and declarer started with CKx in a 4=2=5=2. Then the CJ would be the killing opening lead. Even if partner's Cs are only Txx, he may still win the ten if Declarer plays me to have started with CJT8x and dummy has 4 Cs with an honor and the 9.

I prefer 2NT because my D suit is not better than partner would expect and my strength is in the other suits. If I jump to 3NT instead, partner might have a difficult call holding Kxxx AJxxxx Ax x. I would hate to be in 3NT opposite that, especially if the opening leader has five Cs to the KJ. If partner bids 3S or 3D after my 2NT, I will bid 3NT. If partner bids 3H instead, I will que the SA.

This isn't at all clear to me. Any suit (including a D) could work out best. If my hand was weaker (with the CJ instead of the K for example), I would lead the top H in hopes of hitting partner's strong suit. A S is my last choice because there is too much risk that dummy might have ATx or KTx of S, and my S lead could give away the setting trick. With this hand, I lead the C5 in hopes of taking 3 Cs plus a S plus a D.

Edit: I decided to report the hand to Abuse, so no need to keep it here too.

Remind me to not play poker against m1cha, because his guesses are much too good for me. :D Here is the full hand: [hv=pc=n&s=sjthkt764dq72ck54&w=s32hj9832dat8c983&n=sak964hdj9543caq7&e=sq875haq5dk6cjt62&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=ppp1cp1np2dp2hppp]399|300[/hv] Since the "system" requires that partner pass a 2♥ bid (because of the high risk that my weak hand with a long ♥ suit is a likely misfit), he saluted like a loyal trooper and passed as commanded (thereby locking us into a serious misfit). I managed to take 6 tricks for a score of -100 (-5.5 IMPs). Several Norths were plus in 1 or 2 or 3♠, 2 pairs took 10 tricks in ♦, and 3 N-S pairs took 9 tricks in NT. I am not sure, but I think the fine print in the "system" contract may have been changed during my absence from the game over two decades. I do not remember from my years of playing money bridge in the 1980s having a system that focused on stopping abruptly at 2♥, instead of allowing a player to look for possible game bids when he has forward going values. I will ask partner for forgiveness from my transgression and also ask that he grant me special dispensation to look for possible game in comparable situations in the future. For example, my 2♥ bid might have had better luck if North's round suits were reversed. :rolleyes:

My vote for 2NT is now added. Before I comment about that, however, I would like to talk about the initial decision to open or pass. I agree with everyone who says I should open a hand with as much playing strength as I have - provided that responder has a doubleton honor or better in ♦. If responder has a stiff small ♦, then my playing "strength" is much weaker than responder would expect from me opening the bidding. Also, my defense against anything other than a red suit leaves much to be desired, and responder would have a right to be disappointed in my hand. If I pass first to limit my hand, I can then make stronger bids later to tell partner that I do have some good stuff. Unfortunately for me, I do not know how to tell partner later than my hand turned out to be less than he should expect from an opening bid. Consider too if responder has 11 HCP in a mirror image "opening hand", like Kxxx AJx void QJxxxx. If I open 1♦, responder will expect his opening hand to result in a good play for game somewhere, but I think he will be badly disappointed by my hand. Also consider what happens when you open 1♦, responder bids 2♣ and RHO calls 2 ♥, or maybe 3♥. I see no good alternative to passing with this (sub) minimum hand (a NT rebid would promise the equivalent of a strong 1NT opening hand), and partner will have little knowledge about my values, so he will have to guess about defensive and offensive strength that I probably do not have. My personal preference in questionable situations is to limit my hand soon, and then bid more later with any extras I hold. My first opportunity to limit this hand was to pass as dealer, and I would do so again. I chose to bid 2NT in the op situation, despite my ♣ void, because I hoped it would be sufficiently forward going for opener to pass with a minimum 3rd seat opener, or to bid 3NT with good values. Passing 2♥ hoping opener will double back in so you can pass for juicy penalty brings to mind the old adage: Be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it. If West has ♥AJ or KJ, we could easily not beat 2♥ doubled into game unless opener has good values, and then we might be cold for 3NT. If I bid the obvious 3♦ in the op, then opener will have a problem if he has good values but no ♥ stopper for 3NT, and I surely do not want to push opener into bidding 4♣.

Thanks for all the responses. I have now added my unrepentant vote for 2♥. :D Can someone tell me how to add a signature to all my posts? I would like mine to read "I am a stranger in a strange land." :rolleyes: I expected a nearly unanimous vote, but in favor of 2♥ :unsure: If my hand was weak (xx Jxxxx Qxx Kxx for example), I would have bid 2S in a flash, and hope it goes all pass. But my hand is stronger than that minimum, and I can dream that partner might have better than a minimum too. Suppose opener has something like Axxxx QJx AKxx x (or possibly Kxxxx Qxxx AKJx void). A 2♠ bid by me will end the auction, and we might eek out a plus there, but I would much rather be in 4♥. I can also imagine hands that would play well in 3NT (with a helpful contribution from my ♠JT), but partner needs to hear something forward going from me to get there. If opener has the dreaded stiff ♥ and a minimum, there will still be no problem if he does not panic about a possible misfit and pass ensuring a misfit, but bids again instead. After making what I consider to be a mildly forward going bid, I can happily pass if opener rebids his 5 card ♠ suit, and no harm would have been done by my shot at finding a good ♥ fit on the way to a sell out at 2♠. If this is a real misfit and I have the weak hand that wanted to play in 2♥, then I can rebid the suit and partner can pass with a stiff, knowing that he too did his best to avoid a bad situation. Getting one trick higher in a misfit is not desirable, but I think the possible gain from treating the 2♥ bid as forward going with a 5 card suit outweighs the possible risk. After a few more replies, I will post partner's hand too so all can see how my 2♥ bid turned out. Hint, it was not pretty. :o

Partner says my bid here is one of the worst he has ever seen! What would you bid as South? IMPs with random BBO opponents. [hv=pc=n&s=sjthkt764dq72ck54&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=ppp1sp1np2dp]133|200|Open 5 card majors. 1NT forces one more bid. [/hv]

I didn’t think of this during the “heat” of battle, but asking partner to undo his bid is a good idea. I’m sure ID:TenT’s hapless partner would have been happy to accept the undo to remove the albatross from around his neck. This is another good idea that I did not think of at the time. Fortunately, two understanding and happily agreeable robots finally found their way to our table, and I chatted to partner (via Table) to play it out so ID:TenT would have the “benefit” of that score included in his BBOSkill profile. But I did have sympathy for his partner. I did email Abuse soon after the hand, and I attached screenshots of the chat sequence along with a screenshot of the hand, just as I have done several times when other players demonstrate they are fraternal twins with ID:TenT. After the immediate form reply that says the email was received and someone will look into it, all the other reports were followed up with a later email that said “Thank you for taking the trouble to let us know about this disturbing incident.”, and then added the equivalent of don’t call us, we will call you, if we care to hear anything more about this, which we never will. Unlike those earlier reports to Abuse, this report about ID:TenT had no follow up from a person, so I can hope that no news is good news, and maybe BBO did something to discourage ID:TenT from repeating this nonsense. PS: I hope you did not report a user who really has ID:TenT. I would hate to be responsible for a slur on an innocent guy who has a great sense of humor. LOL! That would be a good idea for some appropriate guy. The advertising might help him find his perfect soul mate, who might have a user ID like Ima_Idjit_2 (no offense intended to anyone who does have a user ID like that), and they could live blissfully ignorant forever more.