Robertn

I agree with Ben that squeezes are appropriate for intermediates and much appreciate the time he put into preparing his articles. Several of the BIL teachers have given lessons on squeezes and some set homework based on the lessons :unsure: I think there is a difference between learning to recognise the basic positions and being able to execute them reliably in actual play. I've understood the basic mechanics for ages, and usually been able to solve 'make 6NT by a squeeze' type problems, but am only just getting the hang of when to recognise a squeeze as the best option when I'm declarer. If we learn the basics as intermediates, and see the opportunities we've missed when reviewing hands after a session, we'll be all the more deadly once the penny does drop! On the actual hand here, isn't this a simple positional squeeze (as played anyway) rather than an automatic or double squeeze? I'm assuming kgr had K9♥ and J♣ in dummy when he claimed, so the squeeze would have failed if East had Q♣? Robert

Plaur, Some people use the Lebensohl convention when replying to a double of a weak two. Using this, 2♥ would show a weak hand with hearts (to play). If you bid Lebensohl 2NT, partner relays with 3♣, then you bid 3♥ to show an invitational hand with hearts. With the hand you actually had, you can bid 3♥ directly, which is forcing to game and might allow you to make the required cue bids, Robert

I've played various forms of Oliver's system with Oliver himself and with fellow students from his BIL classes. In broad terms, the website describes: - a basic framework system, much like Helene is developing - a few gadgets that Oliver likes using within this system (e.g. Romex trial bids, fit jumps or mini-splinters over 1H/S) - a very detailed system of asking bids, similar to Jannersten and Garozzo but with extra tweaks in the asking sequences, responses, and interference handling - some suggestions on using Lebensohl and transfer Lebensohl in many sequences - the complete Clarke-Hackett system (65 pages), some duplicating the above but completely different sections on e.g. point-showing responses to 1D openings, and multi-style preempts I find the basic system fine for playing with precision learners - most get the basics fairly quickly and any problems come as much from basic bidding judgement as from forgetting the specialised bids. It does get harder playing the asking bid sequences with a partner who isn't familiar with all the details. There are nine different asks (alpha-iota), some of which have variable response tables depending on the situation - and of course a misunderstanding can result in chaos! I've managed these ok when playing with Oliver, but with other partners it may require a friendly enough table that you can have the web-page open and discuss as you go along <_< Classes are on Saturdays in BIL (8pm UK, 3pm Eastern) for anyone interested - Delta/Theta/Iota asks this coming Sat! Robert

I think 2♠ is always a reverse (it forces partner to 3 level to show preference for your first suit) - the question is whether it shows extra strength or not. In SAYC, it does promise promise extras (see SAYC booklet). In 2/1, it looks like most play it as not showing extras after a 2/1 response (see replies above and e.g. Shep's teaching notes.) Robert

Hamman - Soloway are currently at a partnership biding table so you can check out their bidding if not Soloway's dummy play :P

Wayne, I wouldn't consider the N hand strong enough for a reverse so would rebid 2♥ or 2NT (depending on system) rather than 2♠. After the 2!s bid, I'd get quite excited with the S hand and probably try 3♣ (4th suit). 4♦ does seem over-encouraging as you've already stretched with 2♠ and partner's 3♥ could be weak (unless you play that direct 4♥ by S would be weak and 3♥ showed slam interest) If 5♣ showed 3 key cards for hearts (and p didn't think he was asking in diamonds) I don't see the point of S trying again with 5♦ - surely he knows 2 key cards are missing? Robert

Following on from Byroner's articles on overcalls in the BIL Gazette, I'm interested in how people treat the following types of sequence: (1♣) - 1♥ - (p) - 1♠ (1♥) - 1♠ - (p) - 2♣ (1♠) - 2♣ - (p) - 2♦ I often find as overcaller or advancer (overcaller's partner) I'm having to guess what hands the simple change of suit shows, so knowing (i) what to assume in the absence of other information, and (ii) what to try to persuade partners to play, would be useful. Also, what do people think of more complex agreements (note to BILlies - don't try these without discussion!) transfer advances? (1♣) - 1♠ - (p) - 2♦ showing hearts fit-jumps / fit-non-jumps? (1♣) - 1♥ - (p) - 2♠ showing spades and a heart fit 2NT as Lebensohl / Good-bad style? (1♠) - 2♥ - (p) - 2NT forcing 3♣ from overcaller For now, this is all assuming responder (RHO) passes, Robert

Oliver's website at http://pigpen.org.uk/BBO explains the system he teaches in detail. Apart from the asking bid sequences and a couple of optional gadgets, I think the rest is basically classic (CC Wei style) precision. The lessons are at 1500EDT/2000BST/2100CET on Saturdays, Robert

Thx to Fred, Maureen, and all the players/organisers. I thought it was interesting that most of the partnership issues that arose were related to style rather than specific systems and conventions. There were a few hands where it would have helped a lot to know whether partner tended to e.g. open light / compete aggressively / preempt with few hcp etc. I don't think there were any significant conventional misunderstandings (maybe one doubt about checkback which didn't affect the contract). Perhaps we should have standard abbreviations for such matters of style to go with all the conventions on profiles - it's only fair disclosure to both partner and opps :rolleyes: Robert

Here's an intermediate thought process ... Declarer has shown probably about 23+hcp semi-balanced. We know he has 2 clubs, and likely has at least 5 hearts. So shape should be 2-5-4-2 or similar. Partner played 4♥. If this is singleton or from 42 doubleton, declarer has 6 or 5 heart tricks and is home. So we have to hope p has A♥ and has held it up, hoping we could win to lead a diamond. If declarer has AK♠ and thought the contract was in danger from diamonds, he'd probably cash spades first. Also, declarer has made no attempt to set up spades while he has entries to dummy, so either doesn't need spade tricks, or more likely has a holding that guarantees an entry like Axx. Giving partner A♥ and K♠ doesn't leave much room for high diamonds, maybe K or Q but not A, and if declarer is 3-5-3-2 partner will be 1-2-6-4 (note that this can be consistent with lead of ♦6. So we may need to avoid telling declarer that partners spade honour is singleton. Now, what tricks does declarer have? 4 clubs, 2-3 diamonds, at least 2 hearts, several spades - can't see how we're going to beat this ... ok it's MPs, let's try and save overtricks. If assumptions so far are correct (though remember they were based on trying to defeat contract) I need to keep all the hearts so that my ten is a stopper. Similarly if p has a spade honour my ten may be a stopper if I keep all spades. What does p need to know about my hand? Well he knows from counting hcp that I have none, and I can't see how showing length will help him (though it may help declarer). So I'll throw 8♦, wait for declarer to finesse spades into p's singleton K and watch p cash AKxxx♦ to punish declarer for being greedy :angry: Robert

I think there's a distinction with this type of question between (i) what would be good agreements for a beg/int level player with a regular partner; (ii) what would be a good standard treatment to expect with pickup partners in the BIL (e.g. in a BB-basic / SAYC framework); (iii) what pickup partners in the BIL are actually likely to do; (iv) more advanced treatments etc, etc. For the first auction, I'd use splinters where appropriate with a regular partner, but would avoid them with a pickup partner in the BIL unless mentioned on their profile. For the second auction, I'd treat 3♦ as mainly asking for a stop and bid 3nt if appropriate opposite a pickup partner. I'd treat double as primarily penalties, though (depending on spades and vul) would be more likely to bit 3NT than double as opener here. For the third auction, I'd treat 4♦ as showing interest in heart slam with ♦ control (ace or singleton/void). I'd probably use this with an intermediate pickup partner only, or sometimes a beg/nov I knew would understand. In deciding between dbl for penalties or 3nt, I'd try to estimate the scores from each assuming fairly minimum hand from partner. For the fourth auction, one question is how much responder needs to go further given that opener may have stretched to bid 4♥. This is easier to judge with a known partner - a good reason to try and remember which BIL members are aggressive bidders (hi Sceptic!). Robert (intermediate)

13) Other I appreciate having advanced / expert kibitzers at the lessons as long as they're constructively contributing / learning / just watching / helping teacher etc. However, and this has been more noticeable in lessons outside the BIL, there is a tendency for some people to hijack the lesson by constantly disagreeing with the teacher or moving the discussion to areas most of the class won't be interested in. Robert

Thanks Gerardo, that solves the problem B) Robert

If I load one convention card, then switch to another one, I'm finding that parts of the first one get copied to the second. This happens for bids that are defined in the first card but not in the second. As an example, if I load BB-Advanced, then replace it with BB-Basic, a lot of the BB-Advanced bids appear in the BB-Basic card (e.g. 2/1 game forcing bids) Have others seen this as well, and is there a way to avoid it other than defining every bid on each card? It does make editing multiple cards a bit tricky, Robert

Hi Jilly, Things went wrong when you led A♥, which lets them make a trick with Q♥. A club (possibly safest), diamond, low heart, or low spade would have been ok on the actual distribution ;) You can use Deep Finesse to help analyse the play, though remember it's a double dummy solver so won't always suggest the 'correct' play, Robert