Flame

I loged in 10 minutes ago and see im suspended from playing on BBO main bridge club, the message say i can contract abuse@bridgebase.com for more details. This is very offending for someone like me who really admire BBO and the people beind it, I can unerstand that BBO have to deal with lots of work and maybe the guy i had an argument with today complained about me and they couldnt check it, but i think this isnt the right way, i want to suggest that before someone is suspended an email would be send to him with the suspention details and if possible also that the suspention will get in effect only a day or 2 latter so he has time to check it and avoid this no plesent waiting for responde.

If he doesnt support you dont know if he got 0 or 1 or 2 or 3, is that really better ? I think supporting with 3 will help you on competetive.

1nt as opposite to those other example bids you gave doesnt take you above 2M. I dont know how strong your 1M response are ,traditional precision used 8+ but as far as i know, today not only you can bid with 6+ like 2/1 system, you can also bid with less when the hand belong to your opponents(this kind of psych is very usefull in prec because responder with 0 hcp know opponents has a game). This mean that 3M could be too high even if open is max, 1nt can help here, leaving the 3H and other above 2M for very very shapy hands.

For me this response is accurate and anything beyond it is philosophical. Well matt restrricted choice says that you should multiply stiff T % by 2 because the 9 is equally probable and they are equivalen't, same thign happesn to QT and Q9. am I wrong?. Adn to this point I start to understand what was justin talking about :) No your not wrong, and 26.1*2 is better then 26.1 or 21.7*2.

For me this response is accurate and anything beyond it is philosophical.

GO Jordan GO Hope this is a begning of many good matches.

Im not sure you should choose either way. I believe option a is bad, you dont need a natural 1nt, since you will most of the time get a good result by passing those hands. Yet option 2 has a problem of playing wrong side 1nt when respondr is strong. (when he is weak you will just play a partscore in one of the 3 suits) It could be wise to think of another completely different use to the 1nt, showing a kind of support hand, one example could be a hand between 2H and 3H.

Its depend on the exact situation, but in general i play that a limited partner must cue bid even without extra, while a non limitted partner will show extra by cue bidding, in doubt cue will show some extra.

I think woman partnerships are uniqe in this matter because many times these partnerships arent a natural ones but were built especially for a women event, therefoe has less chance to work for a long time.

Why did Israel withdraw? Just not enough good players to make a serious team. Bad days in the ladies bridge for israel. What about the team they qualified with? First all of they all are still alve. I dont really know the ressons, apart from the general knowlege or feeling that the women bridge here need new blood, it seems like the federation prefer to focus on junious. Beside as far as i know two of the pairs arent playing together anymore. With all the respect i dont think this is a big lost to the competition.

Why did Israel withdraw? Just not enough good players to make a serious team. Bad days in the ladies bridge for israel.

I think kaplan inversion is better then standard 1nt forcing, but i also think 1nt completly forcing is not a good idea. One real problem about this is that you will forget it atleast few times till you get use to it.

First of all its a matter of style, you can agree to bid 4 cards freely, but i assume you want to keep your normal 5 cards overcalls strategy, therefore overcall on 4 cards should be : 1. always on 1 level. 2. have an opening strengh 3. have good suit. 4. have no alternative bid (usually no t.o because you are short in an unbid suit) I would add 5. a hand that will be good to play in 4-3 fit.

I play cue to show support or very strong hand. This isnt cue no matter what the cue duscription is. Either pass or 1nt could show this hand. and to those who fear of 1nt without stop i can tell you that accoring t a test i made once , 1nt in this situation make more times when you dont have a stop then when you have a stop.

I would play diamond to the J at trick 2.

I agree with you on the princple but the problem is problem is you cant explain some of those bids because they are random. Its not allowed to explain a 3rd hand opening 1S as could be anything.

In the book "the art of psychs bids" they say some countries band drury because its a controll psychs convention. I think it is a control psych but i also think control psychs is the best bridge and should be allowed.

tysen2k(i think its him) already come up with similar idea. He is designing a system that pass balance hands up to 15 or 16 hcp. I liked it then and like it now.

As I see it there is no law for online bridge yet, obviously if this was offline game the director would take action, but imo the online claim is a different mechanizm, it design to work automatically, and therefore i dont believe in adjustments in claims situations. The idea of a law is to create fairness and as long as everybody works by the same law we better use law that fit the online play better. This has a side effect, sometimes ppl can claim when they arent sure they can make what they claimed, for this resson, i dont accpet claims unless they are good claims, for example if someone claim and i see he is right but only because trumps are 3-2 i will not accept the claim.

Well actually, I have the impression we open a lot more with 1♣ than with 2♣. So we probably better still consider it as the strong version - that's what the simulations are for, so we know for sure what the frequency's are... I agree with you that the 15+ version comes more often then the 2C, but the only time its really matter is when opponents competete and then they usually have unbalance hands and have hcp, both give more chance that opener has the club version.

I think it can work, just like other polish club like system do, it might even help if opponents interfere less over your 1C, since they can easily have game now. Ofcourse this is a serious change to your 1C and even tho it wont change ur system notes too much, it should switch something in yourminds cause now 1C will be not 15+ many times.

I pass.

i used to play this: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files...inski+notes.pdf Its polish but should work in precision, its a bit complex but effective.

easy, i open the first 2 because they have 12 hcp which is opening, i dont open the last two because they dont have 12 hcp. I open almost all 12 hcp to be with the field, i would consider passing on a strong field or good team match, but not with a and not even with B, both points are on long suit and have ok 10s. yes balance but not close to passing. need real bad to pass 12 hcp. KJ JXXX JXX KQJ this i would pass.

I know its not smart to get exited after reading psychs book, but i decided to make one change in my system, a non vul 3rd hand premptive (including weak 2s) is asking partner to pass. I believe its usually wrong for partner to bid anyway, for example supporting weak v2 to the 3 or 4 level based on the law of total tricks (assuming opener as 6 cards) will help the opponents more then help us since they have game potential and we dont. The big benefit is that opner on 3rd hand non vul is now free to do whatever he like , like bidding weak 2 on 5 cards (or 4 ) bidding it wiht 7/8 cards, or any time of psych he like (i like weak 2h with 6 card spade) Two questions, first how good do you think this is, and second do you think it has law problems ? i mean do you consider this type of controled psych ? (i am going to alert it ofcourse)