The_Badger

hi ggwhiz, I'm for XX to show strength (at least 9+ points) as it doesn't take the bidding higher. Yes, it isn't the right sort of hand for XX, but with 3 card ♦ support I will risk that it doesn't turn into a penalty (re)double if partner has opened on a 3 card suit himself. As Phil says: Even if 2C is non forcing I expect a lot more bidding. But the XX could well curtail any competitive action by the opponents, I feel too. (And even if they do compete, there's a solid ♣ suit on standby, and also an option in ♦ if partner rebids the suit.) I'd rather tell partner immediately that we have the balance of strength, point-wise, but perhaps not distribution-wise, How the auction proceeds from there is anyone's guess.

On reflection, wank, I agree. Given that one of the opponents has passed already (I missed that), a 1♠ opening bid is better. With so many minor suit cards missing, I was concerned that if we were involved in a competitive auction, partner would expect me to have a stronger ODR to open at the one level. Given that the two hands are a total misfit and the opponents are never going to compete, it's just one of those hands where you accept the result and move on to the next.

Hello Ash, Apologies for not being able to answer your question directly, but as an advanced player you recognise that the 2♦ auction bid is slowly going the way of the 2♣ auction bid, more conventional than final contract. It's perhaps strange to look at opening bids, as opposed to auction bids, but a 2♦ opening bid has been well and truly hijacked for conventional purposes, so the propensity of ended up in a 2♦ contract has diminished over the years. In auctions too, 2♦ has become a more conventional tool. So just looking at these base facts, I believe you are statistically less likely to end up in a 2♣ or 2♦ contract when others are available. The fashion for Inverted Minors too have also prevented 2♣ or 2♦ contracts from being played. And with favourable shape and vulnerability, few opponents will leave a 2♣ or 2♦ contract to play, and will invariably balance knowing there is a good possibility of a 4-4 major suit fit for themselves. Good luck with your bridge :)

With you mike777 all the way. Once upon a time it was extremely frowned upon ( :( ) to open with a pre-empt in one suit with a 4 card major as your second suit. Things have changed! It happens all the time now. That ♥Q6432 is hardly a good 5 card suit, so perhaps should be downgraded to 4, though the 6-5-1-1 shape is one I am fond of :) A 2♠ opening looks wrong, but the hand hasn't much defensively outside the ♠ suit, so it's more a pre-empt than an opening bid. My theory is that you have two opponents and only one partner, so the odds are 2-1 on in your favour that the opponents will have more difficulty dealing with a 2♠ opening bid than your partner. Yes, you may miss a ♥ game, or even a decent sacrifice, but there's a fair chance you might be able to introduce that ♥ suit later on, depending on which way the auction follows. There are those who believe that the hand qualifies for an opening 1♠ bid due to the rule of 20, even 21. I'm not a great believer in the rule of 20 if there are insufficient honours and intermediates in the long suits. As one suit is inherently weak in this instance, I am against opening at the one level.

Hi Euclidz, Never say never, say never again :) It's total tripe to be told this lead's right and that's wrong, etc., etc. There's a time where a lead from a small doubleton or an honour doubleton (Ax, Kx, Qx, Jx) is absolutely right. All hands are different - and I realise I am stating the obvious, but it's funny how everyone is obsessed with conventions, when choosing a decent opening lead gets less coverage. It's just as important. Leads can be lucky, too, can make or break a contract, so if you are in a regular partnership (or even not) you should try to aim at consistency with opening leads. Buy an up-to-date bridge book on leads. Discuss with a partner what you do in different types of auction. Most of it is commonsense, not rocket science. And above all, don't fret if your lead turns out to be bad. As much as good bridge players analyse the bidding before leading, trying to make a distributional picture of the hands before committing that first card, even the very best get it wrong from time to time.

Ok, 1eyedjack, I shall take this on board. I was only trying to add a bit of a personal touch to the forum. (But given my own name is not in The_Badger profile these days, and for a very good reason, and I play under another name, I should respect others wishes to anonymity too.) Thank you for bringing it to my attention :)

I'm glad that I've opened up a small can of worms over the 2♦ waiting bid: perhaps it deserves a forum question all of its own. Thanks to wank, Stefan O and kenberg for your replies. The reason why I bought this up is that the Larry Cohen response seems simplistic. 2♦ waiting except if you have 8+ HCPs and a good 5 card+ suit with 2 honours then bid it. Happens all time - not! :( More often than not responder has anything from a Yarborough to something that may be useful but isn't substantial. (And yes, the Yarborough can be useful if it has the right shape.) I have also noticed in the Cayne games that hands where many players would open 2♣ just on points and controls, especially with a minor suit holding, are opened with 1♣ or 1♦. And that inconveniently brings us back to another question: 2♣ or 1♦? The jury's out.

hi Pam (onoway) My father used to say "If it seems like nonsense, it usually is nonsense." I played on another bridge site many years ago where this sort of thing happened regularly - 7NTxx contracts. It was totally ludicrous! I left. I say "Once bitten, twice shy; twice bitten, let it fly [go]" If it happens again please take action as this sort of behaviour ruins the enjoyment for other people. Keep a note of the hand for future reference. Hopefully it's a one-off: if not, BBO staff need to get involved.

hi Kenberg, As much as you probably dislike this comment, but I'm going to say it: I find it totally bizarre that players employ a 2♦ waiting bid over a 2♣ opener. I'm not sure how and when this deviation (for want of a better word) came in, but to me personally there's absolutely no logic in employing it. The one thing you don't want is confusion when bidding, especially with one big hand opposite a lesser hand. That's perhaps where the problem lies: you're trying to bid on behalf of your partner not knowing exactly what he's got. Does the Jimmy Cayne team have this problem? Of course not, because they use controls response to a 2♣ bid. Given that control responses were invented by Blue Team (?), I think they have stood the test of time. I will concede that occasionally a control response will wrongside the contract, but there's no guarantee that a waiting 2♦ bid will rightside a contract too.

Hello Keith, As Cyberyeti says it's a complex question, and there's a range of bids where forcing passes are used, some simple, some complex that even advanced/expert players get it wrong. The complex ones usually appear in competitive auctions where both sides bid to game, and a decision has to be made whether to double for penalties or to sacrifice. I was once booted ignominiously from a table by an 'expert' a few years ago for getting it wrong, but once in a lifetime it is also prudent to pass a forcing pass, as this case proved to be. Especially, vulnerable against non-vulnerable. The gist of it was: My partner opened, I responded in a new suit, the opponents intervened and we bid up to 4♥, and the opponents bid up to 4♠, partner then passed. I reassessed the hand and passed too. I won't repeat what the player called me, but on examining the results, I was correct. 4♠ always made, and doubling it would have given the opponents a top, whereas 5♥ doubled and played by us would be 2 down vulnerable. If we had got away with 5♥ undoubled it would have been a good result, but every pair arriving in 5♥ was doubled. The moral of the story is "passing a forcing pass is not always a crime" :) Enjoy your bridge.

Hi Terry (Liversidge), As the other commentators have said, a direct 2NT overcall is reserved for a strong balanced hand over a weak two opening. However, lots of other factors come into play such as whether IMPs or MPs, vulnerability, whether overcalling or balancing, whether you and/or your partner have passed already, the actual shape of the hands - there's a world of difference between a 5-5-2-1 hand and a 6-5-1-1 - and the quality of the suits, etc. That said, except if you have an exceptional hand that lends itself to the direct 4NT pick a minor bid, the best option - usually - is to pass and see how the auction pans out. To bid direct over a 2♥ or 2♠ opening bid with ♠x ♥xx ♦AJxxx ♣ AJ9xx would be extremely frowned upon :( Once in a blue moon you will get lucky, but more often than not you will get penalised.

Totally agree, Mark, It is definitely not always a simple matter in such cases. Given how many pieces of technology can connect to the internet these days, and the ways people can avoid detection through encryption, and/or onion routing, both trolling and "cyberpsychosis" are on the increase. Let's hope the Police aren't involved and BBO can get the matter sorted quickly. However, from what Diana said, I have the impression that it's a bit more involved than one idiot with a grudge.

Diana said: "Hi Mat, nice to see you drop by :) If I knew all it takes is a swear word filter... :P Kidding aside, this was a bit of an emergency measure aimed at blocking something more serious than friends banter or people yelling at robots. Sorry about that, it's a temporary filter and we'll lift it when safe to do so." And I totally agree with her. It's only temporary because some idiot(s) are presumably causing genuine distress with their language to other players, and yes that is serious. So, for the time being, we will all have to accept it is temporary and once the matter is resolved it will hopefully be lifted. (Has anyone considered that the abuse may be so bad that the Police are now involved? I wouldn't bet against it.)

Not sure if the pdf address pasted will work (it looks abbreviated). If not, enter into Google "Chiaradia Bermuda 1961" and search "Images". The English Bridge Union Magazine appears in the 5th row, 2nd column "Snap, Crackle and Pop at the Seniors". Download pdf and find page 31 :)

hi Frank, Success! Found it in an old English Bridge magazine. http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ebumagazine/2000-02.pdf Page 31 of 53. Article by David Bird (who commentates on BBO matches) And yes, I agree, probably the worse lead in World Championship bridge history :(

Hello again Frank, Tried everything, including using Google Translate - to see if any Italian bridge books would solve this puzzle. Nothing yet. However, Henry Francis and Brian Senior, both bridge players and bridge journalists, published a book in 1999: Bermuda Bowl. The All Time Best Deals. (Maybe you have this already?) Anyway, available on Amazon.com for just a cent (you read that right!) + postage. However I would view this as a start as Henry Francis is the author of the Encyclopaedia of Bridge too, and therefore a person possibly to contact. Where did he get his archive material for his Bermuda Bowl book I would ask? Is that Chiaradia hand amongst it? (Possibly not used) Etc. Will give it a few more hours myself to see if I come up with anything else. If I do, I will post again.

On this hand I am bidding 5♠. However, hindsight is a wonderful thing. It seems automatic to bid 4♠ over 4♥, but would you have bid 4♠ knowing that the opponents are going to compete to 5♥? Perhaps not. A star partner would have understood a bid of 5♦ instead of 4♠. If you're always bidding 5♠ over a X of 5♥, 5♦ is a far more descriptive bid when you have the gut feeling that the opponents are going to sacrifice white vs. red. It is the sort of bid featured in partnership Bidding at Bridge, The contested Auction by Andrew Robson and Oliver Segal. It may go wrong, but it might be exactly the right bid partner needs to bid slam. And yes, I realise you could be missing 2 aces too! But fortune favours the brave.

Not in the slightest, Barry. I can't multitask myself (being a man). But too much chatter can interfere with the game. I always chat at length about hands played and everything else away from the table. Banter at a table is great, but intricate discussion just slows the game down, even when a friendly table gets together. There's a happy balance of general banter and bridge that makes for a good table :)

Hello Geoff, I believe all of us on here (except if we are playing in some important/arranged game) have to tolerate the idiosyncrasies of BBO pick-up bridge. It can be annoying at worse, frustrating at best. (Bit like computer dating, I am led to believe.) Try playing in the main room where the opponents are having a discussion during the game in Swahili, Polish, Italian, Mongolian, Welsh, or mainly English :) And not just about the bidding or play! Medical conditions, deaths, family holidays, shopping, the weather, etc. The list is endless... I have no problem players asking is that so-and-so bid, as long as it is legitimate (and is part of their profile or non-profile). And yes, I am not totally happy with blank/sparse profiles, but all singing-and-dancing convention cards on BBO would slow things down to a snail's pace. And for many, many players English is not their main language. What I do get annoyed with are players opening 2♠, have "weak" on their profile, and then announce it as "strong". I might make a sarcastic comment at that point... However, except if you feel exceptionally cheated, or the opponents are obviously cheating, I would let sleeping dogs lie, and I try to remain chilled about playing on BBO. I find the Acol Room to be a lot more reliable place to play cards than many other places on BBO, where "musical chair" partners, who dip in and out of various games for a couple of hands at a time exist. That's a lot more annoying than a player asking if 4♣ is Gerber when patently it is not (in context). And that's why I usually lock a table as host in the main room, only allow 95%+ players to join - my own reliability is 100% by the way - and check their profiles before allowing to sit. That usually guarantees a good table for all. And happy players :)

hi Timo (MrAce) I was watching the Spingold yesterday, and a very-experienced commentator made an error and I thought "That's rubbish, xxxxxxxx" His fellow commentators then suggested the best line of play, and he graciously admitted his error. As experienced players ourselves I think we should let the odd erroneous or ridiculous comment fly over our heads. Nobody as a commentator is going to be 100% perfect. Sometimes the wrong keystroke is entered, etc., etc.... On the flipside, I would like to say a big thank you to Al Hollander as a commentator: the Auken/Welland system is a finely-tuned enigma that Al has deciphered (with his notes) and fascinated me no end. As for the commentator saying "♦ lead was needed" a couple of tricks in, I agree it might be a bit of a superfluous comment, and seems to appear in the wrong tense - and that's the confusing bit - as in English it looks like she was questioning why a ♦ wasn't led (when it was), but it can also be interpreted as she's agreeing it was the best lead, for whatever reason. In effect "A ♦ lead was required (needed) and was led".

hi Sasha (jinksy) Playing rubber bridge at red there's a case for both 2♥ or 1♠. Drury at red in rubber bridge - not in my name :( Though I'm more inclined to bid 2♥ though. There hasn't been a peep from the opponents yet, but 1♠ gives them more chance to intervene, than raising to 2♥ immediately. If partner turns up with a flannery type hand 45(22) or similar and is minimum(ish), the last thing you want is for your partnership to be making decisions at the 5 level if the opponents get their act together. If you have the majors, and they have the minors, there's not a lot of defensive tricks around. +60 and vulnerable at rubber is a very nice score :)

I tend to agree with you, Cyberyeti. I have tried running through the sequence of bids in my head to reach a small slam or a grand slam with the right cards. Is it at all possible to reach 7♠ after 3♣ or 4♦? Cuebidding and RCKB help so far, but the key cards are the ♥AK and ♠KQ, and then you may still have a ♣ loser, if partner has ♥ AKx - surely far too much needs to be right. There are plenty of hands where 6♠ does not make too, but at least by bidding 4♦ you are clarifying matters quickly instead of skirting around the edges trying to bid a perfect grand slam.

hi Stephen, (smerriman) With GIB's propensity to turn up with the hand that you don't desire opposite you - I'm joking when I say this as it is a wonderful bridge program and bids and plays better than many partners, I would just bid 4♠. (Cowardly, yes.) But knowing my luck, on this occasion, it will turn up with the hand cold for 7♠( :( ) and I would consider stamp collecting as a less stressful hobby :) But with a human partner I would bid 3♣ and take it from there. No point in splintering with 4♦: it just wastes space, and splintering with an singleton x is preferable to splintering with a singleton ace when you already know that ♠ will be the suit contract. As for you suggestion d) 1♦ - pass - 2♠ - GIB takes this as the Soloway jump shift, 17+ and rebiddable ♠. Does this help? Probably not if GIB has trouble cuebidding. Ok, I am blasting to 6♠ directly with GIB. (Unscientific, yes, but would it understand a 5♠ bid? Doubtful.) I've had my morning coffee. If it goes down I will mutter C'est la vie... :)

hi Richard (dickiegera), I, too, believe it is (without agreement) showing a similar hand to the one Timo (MrAce) says, but could as a result of South's bid - and South being under the NT opener - enhanced West's hand slightly (which I believe would have to be absolutely maximum NT opener to make the 3♦ bid.) As both the normal 2♥ or 2♠ bids have been bypassed, maybe West was concerned with the possible bidding sequence. 1NT - pass - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥/2♠ - 3♦ - ??? By bidding 3♦ immediately himself, he is taking all the pressure off of himself and partner. ( Except his partner interpreting the 3♦ bid correctly :) )

Hi Timo (MrAce) I'm with you all the way on this one. Playing with random partners, especially those that you do not know, compromises your own ability, I feel. To play with or against weaker opposition can be frustrating at the best; mind-numbingly catastrophic at the worst. It's surprising how many players who have some rating on BBO - not just their own personal assumption - and you can feel them playing the cards and bidding well below their supposed ability. It might be an age thing, but that could be construed as ageist, as there are plenty too who are not seniors. When I started playing in the UK in about 1976 (age 14), the one thing I was disillusioned with was how bridge status was achieved. With chess you have an ELO rating that changes every year. With bridge, you just collect points upon points for playing tournaments, so with enough time and money anyone with moderate ability can technically become a Life Master. You don't actually need to read a bridge book, just play and bid a bit better than the (usually) average opposition. I'm in favour of Bibo-Zahlen rating. But I can't see it taking over from Master Points in the foreseeable future.