The_Badger

I'm a not a great fan of Match Points and Pairs generally - I prefer teams - for the reason you have stated: You start analysing the potential score before even considering making the contract. I have played many pairs events where I have played against the odds on hands to maybe secure a few tops that we needed desperately to give ourselves a potential chance of winning. Is that good bridge I ask? In my retrospective opinion it is not. I prefer IMPs. It is so annoying to make a contract with a correct safety play then to find that Mr and Mrs Average Bridge Player hasn't even considered that and made the contract with an overtrick :(

I haven't voted, and please correct me if I am wrong, but I have a feeling that a forcing 1NT only appeared as a result of the Precision system, whereas before 2/1 became the main American system, Standard American had a similar non-forcing 1NT (balanced) response as Acol. We are talking about four different systems here, but the main difference is that the Precision system had limited 5M openings. With 2/1 it all depends on other conventions and other stuff (e.g. constructive raises, etc.) that you build round it I feel. Personally, and this is just my honest view, I've never been a ardent fan of the 2/1 forcing 1NT response as a glove that has to fit many 6-11 point hands that can't bid otherwise. This is why I was interested in other commentators' views on an earlier thread. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76994-good-pre-empts-opposite-5m-in-21/page__p__927986__fromsearch__1#entry927986 There are some excellent comments here too.

Thanks Tim. I think Charles Goren must be turning in his grave to think that the gentlefolk of this lovely country have now adopted the Rule of 18 in their bridge clubs. Whatever next? :)

I think the problem here is that GIB with 10 trumps between the two hands cannot think anything but trump suit. The subtlety of exploring a possible 3NT contract instead of 5 of a minor is lost on it.

I thought that the Rule of 18 was only sanctioned by the World Bridge Federation, and the Rule of 19 applied throughout the EBU. Maybe I am out of date?

Welcome to the forum cjc2005 :) I think we can get obsessed with counting hands whereas this is a situation where suit preference maybe is better (as all the honours have been shown in the suit). You don't say if this is a suit or NT contract. But given that declarer can potentially false card here, in UDCA the 7 would be standard.

I think the problem here is there is possibly no potential entry to your hand. A ♥lead followed by a ♦ switch, or a ♦ lead and 3NT could be down. You actually need some lebensohl-style 2NT bid after 2♠ here on this auction (as partner didn't overcall 2NT) to mean something like "I have a big hand but ♥s aren't covered, but bid 3NT if you have them, and 3♣ if you don't" Given the current auction I am inclined to pass 3♣

Double's ok in my opinion. Two things went against you: partner made a flaky bid; the opener was 6-5-0. Don't blame yourself. The BBO forum members have unanimously voted that your partner's bid was a tad too aggressive. On another day it might have worked well.

Maybe it's time for BBO to consign GIB to the garbage bin and have a robot program built either around Jack or Wbridge5 that keep on winning the Robot Bridge World Championships. Or, perhaps more to the point, for BBO to employ the programmers who update Jack or Wbridge5 to update GIB. I like the idea of a Precision system-playing robot, but in fairness it is far better, I feel, to concentrate on one system 2/1, the most popular modern system being in use today and get that right, than to spread a robot's tasks too thinly covering a multitude of systems and conventions.

Welcome Saf. I always have look at a player's profile before replying on here and being a chess player myself love the quote on your profile: At the end of the game, the king and pawn go back in the same box :) As for players rating their own skill level, well there are plenty of delusional people in the world, and sadly a few end up on BBO.

Technique-wise cashing all your tricks in your side suits (as the other commentators have indicated) before embarking on a crossruff is absolutely correct, but what if the ♥J lead is a singleton? By the way, I do realise that is a scenario that would be against the odds (of side suit splits).

There's no such thing as a free finesse

Although this is a discussion about 2/1 bidding, it was strange how the 1♦ opening in Precision became a universal opening for many weak hands, and sometimes only guaranteeing a ♦ suit of 1+ (although I have actually seen it on another player's convention card of 0+ !) Whilst Precision is completely different to 2/1 as the 1♣ opening is already taken for all 16+ hands, when I went back to playing a variant of 5 card Acol with an intermediate no-trump (14-16), we bid the shorter minor with all weak balanced hands, and the longer one with any weak unbalanced hands. At the time we had a multi 2♦ that covered the 18-19 balanced range as well. This seemed to work well, but it's something I used over 20 years ago.

Well, I didn't know that, Barry. Thanks for informing me. I obviously realise that re-jigging any aspect of BBO, especially profiles, could be extremely time consuming and unwieldy, but it is still a personal bugbear that players who play in pick-up games, especially those that have logged in many times, cannot be bothered to put any information about systems/conventions on their profiles. When players specify 'No profile, no play' I know that I'm not the only one who feels strongly about this.

LOL. If there was a box to tick that said 'Desperate' I might have ticked that rather than 'Insane'. Yes, MPs is a game where anything can happen, and usually does, in the course of a session.

I've just voted 'Insane' - apologies. The hand isn't worth an opening bid, so what gives you the right to overcall at the 2 level with a grot suit? I'll quite happily balance with 3♥ if they raise to 3♦and partner can't come in, otherwise have confidence in your partner that he is able to balance if 2♦ is passed to him.

Hi wondermech. Welcome to the forum :) It's sometimes very difficult generalizing to someone who's new to bridge how to bid certain hands and shapes, but a good rule to start with is that when you have plenty of the cards in the opponents' (potential) trump suit, and no good suit of your own and not many high card points that you don't get involved. The best advice that I can give is to buy a bridge book that covers simple and straightforward bidding for beginners, and/or take lessons with a recognised bridge teacher. That will give you a core understanding of when to pass and when to bid.

While many players will make an effort to complete their BBO profile convention section accurately, many others just leave it empty. Which I am sure makes it virtually impossible when you get to play with or against them to know exactly what they are doing. I have a suggestion:- Why doesn't BBO make it compulsory for any player who is registered with BBO to have a convention card of sorts in their profile. I am not suggesting a full card but something akin to the stock market where companies are listed by a four letter abbreviation. A pop-up pick list would need to be completed before any profile becomes live. Most bridge conventions and systems can probably be reduced to a four or less letter/number format. Here's a sampler : 1517, stay, ckbk, xyz, 2/1, blue, sayc, nmf, trnf, mich, 2022, pupp, smol, lebl, prec, acol, rkcb, jaNT, berg, wjos, muid, invm, supX... Standardising the most popular conventions and systems in use today, and being used by BBO players, would make it easier all round for all players to read a profile when playing in a pick-up game as many do. A few players already use something akin to this in their profiles: having it standardised and used by all players would help enormously I feel. Just a thought...

I think we all know that GIB is far from perfect, or perhaps more accurately, error-free both on bidding and play. And that is compounded by some of the explanations of the bids made. It must be very frustrating for the players that use GIB on a regular basis. In my personal opinion, BBO just needs to up their game and get GIB sorted out. I see so many comments on the GIB Robot Discussion forum that the time for talking is well and truly over, and some action must be taken by the programmers in charge of GIB.

It's difficult for us humans to counter a 4♠ pre-empt adequately even in a direct overcall position, let alone a balancing position, so to expect GIB to do so accurately except by having a fixed set of parameters as 20+ total points, strong re-biddable ♣s is probably asking too much of a computer system. I do have some sympathy, Steve, that you were put between a rock and a hard place balancing in 4th against a 4♠ opening bid. I realise it is of little consolation but it's one of those unlucky boards that we all have from time to time.

Up to a point I agree but what if partner thinks 1NT is a better bid than bidding 1♠ with a grotty 4 card spade suit? A high jump 1♦ opener followed by 3♣ suggests at least 5-5. Or maybe I am out of touch with modern thinking here?

Trillions of chemical reactions happen in the human body on a daily basis. Banning anyone that is using a compound that the body cannot produce is completely different than banning someone who may through no fault of their own overproduce a natural compound like testosterone or adrenalin. It's all relative.

In my opinion both the 2NT and 3♣ bids are wrong. With a weak hand partner should have given you ♦ preference over 2NT. 3♣ should show technically a 4-0-5-4 shaped hand.

Top. Lol. :D

You're welcome, Kapi. You probably have a lot more experience than me already as you are playing tournaments regularly which is something I can no longer do. There are far, far better players than me that comment on these forums, and many play regular top-class tournament bridge. Sometimes I just have trouble keeping up. As you say bridge bidding is always evolving.