The_Badger

OMG! (Oh my God!) Just found this thread - currently 23 pages long - post Brexit. Interesting comments from most - I have read many. It's interesting to read what intelligent (bridge-playing) people were saying about the EU referendum as opposed to the dross in the national newspapers. All I do know is that the rollercoaster ride starts here :)

"But don't accuse. You can't tell for sure." says Caitlynne in reply. "It's quite fun looking at these things.....but I can't see the point of the person that's cheating." says cynac as an observation. Well...any half-decent bridge player will know when someone is perennially cheating, because they do the unexpected time and time again. That's why Boye Brogeland and his bridge friends were able to identify the world class players who had resorted to cheating. Obviously, at international level, cheating is accompanied by prestige, money prizes and championships won, so there is a 'point' to it all. On BBO it is usually someone who thinks they are better at the game than they really are - how many players have we all encountered who are deluded enough to call themselves 'Expert' or 'Advanced' but are nothing of the sort - and finally recognise that there's a bit more to this game than meets the eye, so they just resort to cheating as a way of 'justifying' their over-amplified status? And there's the ones who just get a 'weird kick' out of doing this sort of thing, some sort of power trip, a manipulative control of their fellow players, people in general, and they bring their 'psychosis' to BBO. Yes, the ones who cheat, and also the ones who overstate their bridge status by a long margin, are just sad, deluded individuals, who should know better, but bring their immaturity here. Let's leave it at that.

Hi Sasioc Lots of good advice from the commentators, and I speak from experience as I was 14/15 when I learned bridge (many years ago). At the time I was a very good junior chess player, had a mathematical brain, and had a neighbour who was a excellent bridge player (she won a national title) and I was curious about this card game called 'bridge'. I believe the word 'curiosity' is a clue here, because without being 'curious' how to master this complex card game, there is actually no point in playing, except if you want it as a gentle distraction or hobby. Thankfully, teenagers are curious and want to learn, like to be challenged, and still have developing brains and will find it easy to take on new facts. Most bridge books are now graded as 'Advanced', 'Intermediate' or 'Beginner' so recognising when you have mastered one level and need to move to the next is usually automatic. How many bridge books did I have by the time I was 18? Over 50. Yes, you have to read about bridge to learn it, just like any other subject. But you need to play the game as well, as much as you can. Unfortunately, my obsession with bridge led to me failing to get my 'A' level grades for university at the time, so there has to be a happy medium. There's only one way to improve in my opinion, and the same goes for chess, and for that matter most games: Learn from your mistakes. You have to take on constructive criticism, even as a teenager, and realise that without it you will go nowhere. It will make you a better player in the end. The only way to be assessed is to play with better players than yourself. As a teenager I was playing both serious duplicate and rubber bridge with some very good players, including against a world champion (Sandra Landy), and quite a few Life Masters. You learn very quickly in that environment. So playing at a bridge club, even if it finishes at 11pm is essential. And tournaments too. Just playing computer bridge only is probably not an option. It is so much different I personally feel. But it is an easy 'fix' and will improve your game, but is not how tourneys are played in real life. However - just a personal opinion - I feel a good way to learn - that wasn't available to me in the late 1970s - is to play through hands on BBO that famous players on here have played. There's so much knowledge right here on BBO in the 'Hand Records' Just select the hands played by Jec (Jimmy Cayne) or smispi (Dano de Falco) or sillafu (Benito Garozzo) and a host of other brilliant players to get an insight of how this game is played. See what happens card for card, bid for bid. But the most important piece of advice I can give is 'enjoy the game'. Yes, it is nice to win, but it isn't the be all and end all of everything. [by the way, I play here under another name than 'The Badger' for personal reasons]

The easiest way to deal with these idiots, cheats, spoilers, whatever you wish to call them, euclidz (Jack), is to be host at a table and lock kibitzers from the table, or only allow those that you know. Alternatively, if you are not the host at the table, ask the host to do that. (Usually a cheat will also be host so that they control who comes and goes at the table.) If you are host, just click on "table" and you will find the options available to exclude kibbers, or for kibbers to ask permission to join. Also, it is always worth checking regularly throughout a session if anyone is watching your table by clicking on "Who's Online" and "Kibitzers". A 'dodgy kibber' might join a few boards in... I once had some idiot do this to me, and it took a fair few boards to suss out that there was something very untoward going on. Condescending abuse (to his partners - and opponents!) and arrogance, and a controlling streak that allowed him as host to 'boot players' from the table on a whim. But 'The Badger' had the final laugh, staying on BBO for a couple of hours after it happened, and using Google Translate, telling all players that joined his table what he was like and how he was cheating, so they left immediately after joining and no-one would play with him. Then he tried joining a table not as host, with his 'dodgy kibber' watching, and I made sure that the host was informed and he was booted from table after table on numerous occasions. Poetic justice! :) (And I received a fair few 'thank yous' too.) [by the way, my profile is now void and I play under another name, because of some of the idiots on BBO. Thankfully, there are many, many pleasant players on here, and the one or two who have to resort to abuse and/or cheating are in the very small minority}

I tend to agree with wank. I remember many, many years ago playing at Brighton where two Life Masters had completed their convention card with "We play Acol, and a few unusual things that we will alert you to." (LOL!) The problem with bridge these days is its like the EU - too many rules and regulations. Every little nuance in the bidding has to be categorised, clarified and spelled out which, fair enough, at national and international level is probably needed. However, at club level, I feel the enjoyment of the game shouldn't be compromised with petty arguments about the transparency of convention cards. And getting back to Jerry D's question, whether he needs to clarify further what a 2♣ bid means, I would say that all players get what a 2♣ opening bid is, and no further clarification is needed. Only if you are using a different system such as Precision or Fantunes where 2♣ means something completely different should some explanation be given.

I can see Paul Mendelson's point. There is a simple way of evaluation in my view. Don't open 12 or 13 point 4-4-4-1 hands that don't have two and a half quick tricks in them and a few good intermediates too. The hand given is weak structurally and should technically be passed. (Although probably 99.99% of players including myself would open in some way as that's the norm these days.)

I used to get intimidated how quickly some people could analyse both bridge and chess scenarios. Good luck to them for having the grey matter and neuron speed to do this but...I believe the reality usually is that the speedier minds also have the capacity to make more mistakes in the long run. Not all but many. It'll be interesting to see some statistical research analysis proving whether this theory is correct. I play speed chess regularly against the computer at the equivalent of international master level, and lose many games as I am playing too fast, but it has heightened my 'feel' for the game considerably. Maybe if I regularly played 'speed bridge' I would develop the capacity to feel instinctively what the correct line of play is. I have always been an analytical 'plodder' which seems to have got worse with age :( However, I am thankfully reassured that the tortoise won the race against the hare :)

Interesting post Baraka :) 3♦ seems on the face of it forcing, but I'm more in the camp that it is competitive non-forcing. If the auction went 1♣ - 1♥ - Dbl - 2♥ 2♠...that would be competitive non-forcing So I tend to agree with gszes that you need to keep 3♦ as competitive non-forcing too. If the negative double always shows exactly a 4 card ♠ suit, them if the auction goes 1♣ - 1♥ - Dbl - 2♥ Dbl...that responsive double by opener should deny a 4 card ♠ fit (otherwise he could bid them at some level or make a 3♥ cue bid) but promises extra values generally.

Everything about the cheating allegations of various top level players (including the number 1 world pairing) recently has made me re-evaluate my own feelings about bridge. This beautiful card game has been hijacked by various alleged duplicitous individuals who have colluded as pairs to profit from their alleged cheating. And even if the world of bridge is now 'cleaned out', there's a very bitter taste that so many expert pairs have had to resort to these methods. It was bad enough in 1965 in Buenos Aires when my own country was accused of cheating. Sadly, for me, I no longer feel the empathy and passion for the game as I had previously. I do not wish to sound melodramatic but I do wonder if other players feel similarly? And it does make me wonder just how many other bridge partnerships in the world are also using some form of code at the table? What occurred before the World Championships may only be the tip of the iceberg.

Thanks Arend (Cherdano) Have been getting up to speed with this story during the day. OMG! Digital age. Whole website created discussing it at length! {In the 1980s I corresponded with Alan Truscott of the The New York Times about the Buenos Aires cheating allegations in 1965 involving Reese/Flint.} What a sad day for bridge.

At the moment speculation is all that: speculation. Until some hard evidence is presented about the alleged cheating allegations, then should we - any of us - be discussing it by illustrating hands? Cheating in any type of sport always leaves a very bad taste in the mouth. Let's see whether Boye Brogeland is going to pursue it further, having now received a legal letter from the Lotan Fisher/Ron Schwartz legal team.

Hi Wombatica. Let's forget about the 4♦ opening - a bit unconventional to say the least :) 4NT by a non-passed partner over a 'true' suit opening (not a transfer type 4 level opening) should always be some form of Blackwood agreeing ♦s as trump by proxy. (Except if you have an agreement with your partner that it isn't.) The final contract will be always decided by your partner. If after your response he/she bids 7♥ you must leave it.

Anyway...back to the question Ezyang posed...what to bid? Both sides vulnerable, a 3♥first-position opener raised to 4♥, my question would be what sort of hand does the 4♥ bidder have? With a total bust, and a shapely hand and a ♥ fit, wouldn't responder be making life a bit more difficult by bidding 5♥ (we assume that is a pre-emptive raise rather than a slam try) so the 4♥ bid is based on shape, some values and a ♥ fit, which basically leaves your partner with nothing more than a near Yarborough and some shape too. You have a good 5 card ♠ suit, first round control of ♥ (that's important) and a good hand. X throws the ball into partner's court - and more often than not he's going to respond 5♣. Slam may be there but 4♠ just seems the most sensible bid available.

X (for me) always. I'd like an extra ♦ or 2 before bidding 3NT direct (so I can hold up). Transfer a small ♣ to one of your majors so the hand is 4-3-1-5 and X looks the right bid here, and guess what partner invariably responds at the 3 level in your shorter major on this hand too :) But MPs sometimes makes this an illogical game. The wrong bid can work right, and vice versa. If you are looking for a top, 3NT direct could well be the best bid. Not quite sure if X - 3M - and a 3NT rebid shows this sort of hand. Partner needs so little for 4M to make that I would raise to 4M automatically. 3NT just doesn't feel sound, and there's no guaranteeing partner will remove 3NT if he doesn't feel it is right. Take the decision away from him and bid what you feel is the right game. As for slam...partner is a passed hand, a pre-empt has been bid against you, suits are unlikely to split, etc. - be grateful for the game (if it's there!).

Actually Liversidge you have posed an interesting question, a question that does not come up often, that is a X'ed contract passed out at the one level. Is there any escape mechanism? Not that I know of, but hey, why not invent one now. Most of us will know, especially in Britain where we use the weak NT, of the auction: 1NT - X - Pass - Pass - XX where opener redoubles as a way of a) putting stress on the opponents, especially the doubler, and, b) giving partner an opportunity to try to find a fit at the 2 level if he has a really bad hand. Can we actually do a similar thing after 1♥ - X - Pass - Pass - (XX)? redoubling, giving partner the opportunity to escape at the 2 level, or even in 1♠? It seems feasible in theory, but whether it would work in practice remains to be seen. The only problem I see is that the doubler is more informed about his partner's hand as he already knows that he has strength in opener's suit. Food for thought...

I think a few people on here already know my views on Acol, a system that, like Wei Precision, has "evolved" or to put it bluntly "bastardised" into something vaguely resembling the original system. To me, and to many more, 5 card major Acol ISN'T true Acol. Yes, once upon a time, Acol used a strong NT and a prepared ♣ opening, but as time went on the weak NT was adopted. But the abiding principle for 50 odd years was bidding 4 major card suits with idea of finding 4-4 fits instead of 5-3 fits. Not to say 5-3 fits weren't established in later rounds of bidding, but opening 1♥ or 1♠ could be done with a 4 card suit. I know, I know, lots of people play an Acol-type system with 5 card majors these days, but wouldn't it be better to call it a SAYC-like system with a weak NT? I'm sure the likes of Terence Reese and many of the original contributors to the Acol system would be turning in their graves to see what it has become.

As many commentators have said never bid directly a pre-emptive hand over a pre-empt. If the opening bid had been a weak 2♠, or a 3♣ or 3♦ pre-empt, would you bid 3♥? Of course not. Actually on this hand, the multi 2♦ opening helps as West will have to ask East (in most scenarios) to clarify his hand with either 2♥ or 2NT. Partner may step in with his own bid at that point. Bidding 3♥ direct may work well in some cases, but on reflection it provides far too much information to the opponents so should be avoided. And I can hardly see it stopping the opponents reaching a game or slam whatever hand the multi 2♦ opener has.

Playing 2/1 (with whatever vulnerability) I would open 1NT always. Bidding 1NT with a balanced 5M-3-3-2 is not anathema these days and many professional players do so. There are 5 solid reasons why 1NT is best: a) It limits your hand immediately b) It is less likely that the opponents will interfere over it c) It is an awkward(ish) hand to rebid, especially using 2/1, and every opening bid should promise a clarifying rebid on the second round. d) There is a good possibility that you will become declarer and the stronger hand is shielded (especially if partner responds 1NT to a 1M opener) e) The ♠ suit is lacking intermediates (stuffing such as AQ109x) and is hardly worth a rebid. The only downsides are that a hand with controls (aces and kings) is usually best played in a suit contract as opposed to NT, and that you might miss a ♠ fit

I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand, but if Rodwell and Meckstroth, and Mr Ace aren't keen on it then it does sound a bit dubious. It could work well at MPs, but to me it goes against the grain of trying to find a 8 card or better fit. I believe - though it would be nice if someone could clarify this - that the probability of opener only holding a 5 card suit as opposed to a 6 card one is about 3-1. So the odds do not appear to be in your favour. It also is problematic if opener is very strong or semi-strong and wishes to make a slam try or use a trial bid. Therefore if using a 2 card raise in a 1M - 2M auction, a 2NT rebid by opener would probably have to be conventional (in an "Ogust sort of way") asking responder to clarify his hand by way of a 2 card or 3 card raise and the point range he actually has. Also, it depends on the system being used too, SAYC, Acol (5 card M) and Precision being a tad more flexible around the edges than 2/1 that relies heavily on the 1NT response to many 1♥ or 1♠ openings.

Sorry everyone if I have caused offence and opened a can of worms here: I had a bad day at the 'office' yesterday :( What annoyed me about this post was that Liversidge was told "afterwards by one player that he was lucky because he didn't follow best practice..." I do normally read everyone's posts thoroughly before replying, but in this instance speed read them. Thanks Alex (Slothy) for agreeing with me, and for mike777 at least being honest (and making me laugh with 'Houston we may have a problem')and mentioning he doesn't know Acol. And yes, gwnn, I appreciate your input and recognise that many Dutch players play Acol regularly. And, for everyone else's comments, it's a bridge democracy and everyone is entitled to their view :) For those who don't know, Acol is that old-worldly 4-card system that us Brits and many nationalities still play, but it is a tidy little system that has been thoroughly usurped by the reign of 5-card majors - and I fully understand why 5-card majors are deemed so important. However... ...it follows the principles of length before strength, and bidding 4 card suits up the line. It is quite specific how you bid different-shaped hands. And it also allows you to respond at the 2 level in a minor to a major suit 1 level opening with as little as 8 HCPs and a 4 card suit. The bidding is designed to find a fit, whether it be major or minor at the lowest level. By the way - and I will have a little rant about this - players who say they play Acol with 5 card majors AREN'T technically playing Acol. They may be playing a weird hybrid of Standard American and Acol, but it ain't true Acol. But the point of my post is that it may be old-fashioned to open 1♣ with Liversidge's hand, but Jimmy Cayne's team who play 2/1 always seem to do so. And his system has been tweaked and tweaked until it is virtually watertight. And who is on his BBO team: Benito Garozzo, Michael Seamon, Dano di Falco, Thomas Bessis, Cedric Lorenzini and others. So, if they, with their 5 card major opening bids, open 1♣ with Liversidge's illustrated hand, who are we - including me - to argue? And yes, the opponents can make life difficult if you open 1♣ but that's life. The interesting thing about Liversidge's hand is that (as far as I can see) nobody has evaluated it with a Kaplan and Rubens count. To me it looks a bit better than a standard 14 count. So opening 1♠ is borderline, with a possible high reverse of 3♣ on the next round, or a more conservative 2♣ if partner responds 1NT. Another can of worms...maybe I should go fishing :)

Aaaargh! How many players who know absolutely nothing about technical bidding are going to comment that 1♠ is always the correct opening on this hand. IT ISN'T. Especially playing Acol. Ok, with other systems, such as 2/1, opening 1♠ can sometimes be right. Especially if there are opportunities to clarify the hand with checkback, or with a forcing 1NT bid available, etc. But even the great Jimmy Cayne (JEC on BBO) and his team open 1♣ playing 2/1. Opening a 1♣, rebidding 1♠ and then rebidding 2♠. Albert Dormer (up there with Terence Reese as a technical authority on Acol) quotes in The New Complete Book of Bridge that "With two 5 card suits, the higher-ranking is opened unless the suits are clubs and spades. In that case, in theory, to start with 1♣ is cheaper, but in practice it often works out that opener is unable to define his 5-card length in spades - the more important feature. It is often better to open 1♠ unless the club suit is strong and the spades weak." Hmmmm....so Dormer is not too sure himself. Here's a nice 11 HCP, 2.5 quick trick hand that most players will open. ♠AJ632♥9♦85♣AQ1098 With Acol, and for that matter most other systems, you should open promising a suitable rebid. Rebidding that not so weak but semi-anaemic spade suit at the 2 level after opening 1♠ could be disastrous. So opening 1♣ is the correct thing to do. I like the way Cayne and his team bid it, even though technically it could promise a 6-5 hand. Ok, sometimes the opponents will interfere and a spade fit will get lost in the crossfire, but then again if you open 1♠ a possible club fit can get lost too. Personally, I have ALWAYS opened 1♣ with 5-5 in the black suits and 15 or less HCPs.

Having agreed the trump suit as ♥s, as MrAce (and others) have said 4♠s is definitely a cue. It is not a delayed game raise. Now here is where my thinking differs from those advocating bidding 5♣ in response. Responder having bid 4♠ is angling for a slam. Bidding 5 ♣ seems mandatory but you could hold 3 small ♥s for your raise to 4♥. What responder would like to know is that you have AK ♥s and A♣ if he is interested in a grand slam. By bidding 4NT - if using RKCB - you will establish whether partner has ♠A (most likely as he has cue bid) together with the ♦A and ♥Q. If he responds 5 ♠ showing the 2 aces and queen of trumps, you then bid 5NT showing all the controls are covered and the trump suit is sound and he can then choose to bid the grand. If partner responds 5♣, 5♦ or 5♥ to your RKCB response, then you'd just have to trust him and bid 6♥s yourself. If you both have 2 losing diamonds, c'est la vie :) The point I'm making is that maybe partner initiated a series of cues with 4♠ whereas he should be bidding 4NT himself to establish what cards you actually hold. And...how else can you tell partner what great trump support you have for him? Cue bids might get you to the small slam, but will it get you to the grand? With Acol partner will know that when you bid 4 ♥s to his 2♥ response you have at least 15-16 points with three card trump support. If he wanted to stay in game, he could have, so I am of the opinion he has quite a strong hand, suitable for small slam definitely, suitable for a grand slam possibly.

Jinksy. How dare you even suggest an "elite" list of posters to an open forum! This will offend many, including me, and this will be the last post I shall write for BBO. I give my time, effort and bridge knowledge that I have acquired over 30 years for free, and now some selection of the "fittest" is suggested. What makes it even worse is that it has ended up on BBO's main site for discussion - why? I thought eugenics went out of fashion with the Third Reich! No, I haven't been drinking, or had a bad day, it's just that I dislike intolerance intensely. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and we may not agree with them, but that's what democracy is all about. Even on a bridge forum. I recently started writing on this forum as I used to write chess and bridge columns for local newspapers, and even had a few articles published in national ones (The Telegraph, Daily Mail) in years gone by. A lot of my competitive bridge in my teens was against Life Masters and soon-to-be Grandmasters, including a few world championship contenders. I learnt fast! Bridge players are competent enough to sort the wheat from the chaff on forums. They are intelligent as they have endeavoured to learn and play this difficult card game. Let them decide for themselves and make their own judgements on the content of the forums. Period.

hi Michael. When I used to play competitively I used with my regular partner Pin Point Astro against the Weak NT. It was specific and uncomplicated. Basically it is:- 2♣ = ♣ + ♥ 2♦ = ♦ + ♥ 2♥ = ♥ + ♠ 2♠ = ♠ + either ♣ or ♦ Dbl = penalties 16+ at least However, the key to making ANY overcall over any type of opening 1NT hand is the range and the agreed suit quality, and the balancing range too. We agreed that you had to be at least 5-5 with a minimum 11HCP count, or 5-4 and a tad stronger with the 4 card suit having two honours at least. Too many players love their conventions, but do not respect them, commonly overcalling a 1NT opening bid with poor cards. It might sound obvious to say this but an opening 1NT is very specific, even a weak NT, so overcalling whatever your methods has to be disciplined. The partner of an opening 1NT opener is in a prime position to exploit any mishaps or misdemeanours :)

A 2♣opening should be based on a few quick tricks outside an obvious trump suit. This hand is more pre-emptive in nature - one long suit - but really isn't pre-emptive as it is 1) far far too strong 2) one opponent has already passed. The rule of 2 and 3 (used for pre-empts) says that you should have about 8 tricks and little defence to open 5♦. If the suit had been ♦KQJ10xxxxx with nothing outside, 5♦ is a perfect opening bid. This hand has 10 tricks, so to pre-empt looks completely wrong. Therefore open 1♦ and see where it leads. If the ops outbid you so be it. As for rebidding, 5♦ looks favourite, but technically it is a strong hand with solid trumps and not easy to judge. When partner incorrectly opens 2♣ and then jumps in a suit it says the suit is solid, and sets the suit as trumps. So, on the actual auction his 4♦ is technically correct even though his 2♣ opening isn't.