Liversidge

While playing yesterday we played a hand that had not been played at another table so we got a 0-0 score in history. I thought we bid and played it very well and would eventually get a big positive IMPs. Sure enough, 20 minutes later there was sudden jump in our score in the score box - I checked history and it still showed that no one else had played the board. But 15 minutes later I checked history again and around 8 other pairs had played it and not done so well. Our history IMPs had jumped but the IMPs in our score box didn't move. I assumed that there was some sort of delay between the two IMPs indicators. My question is, at the end of a match, which score gives a more accurate measure of our performance, the score in the 'box' or the one in history.

the last two times I set up a table for my regular foursome, we had the weird situation where two members were invited to my table and the fourth member was invited to a table where he could see that the rest of us had not yet taken our places. He could not see us all logged in on his 'people' tab either. We all tried logging off and back on again, and resetting the table, sometimes two of us would be at the table I set up, and the other two players could see one another at the table but not us. We eventually all got onto one table by clicking on the 'people' tab and finding one another that way. Any idea what has been going on. is it a system glitch or have we done something we should not have done?

Good point. Leaves room for cue bidding. Can you suggest anything for 1♦3♥/4♥? I can't think of a non-conventional use for them. t

Your answers helped construct a mental framework for me. I hope it holds up. 1D-1H-2C-2H shows a weak hand, no fit with partner, no realistic NT potential - 6 cards and one or two honours (suit quality 8) 1D-1H-2C-3H shows a point or two more and 7 card suit(suit quality 9) 1D-1H-2C-4H a tad stronger, Suit quality 10, self sufficient. 1D-2H-3C-4H (jump shift) probably at least 14 HCP, showing a self sufficient suit and a hand that might offer slam possibilities if opener has extras.

Many thanks.

With standard bidding, what is responder showing here?: 1♦-1♥-2♣-4♥ And here? 1♦-2♥-3♣-4♥

I have sent screenshots to you

Partner opens 2NT (20-22) and I have five hearts and 11 HCP. If I bid 2♦ and partner responds 2H, my 4NT is a quantitative slam try,so how do I cater for the possibility that partner might be minimum, so 6NT is not on, but if partner has four hearts a 6H slam might well be on. If I bid 3H or 4H partner might pass. with 6 hearts I could bid 5C (super Gerber) to ask for aces, but is there any reasonably straightforward way of finding out if an 8 card heart fit exists AND then, depending on the answer, explore either the NO Trump or heart slam.

When I do as you suggest, the side windows (message window, chat window) zoom in and out but the visuals in the middle window (the table) have got a lot bigger but the table is the same size so the layout is cramped. the 'bidding box' and the picture cards are twice the size they used to be. I have tried rebooting but that doesn't work

No. Still have the same problem. Tried Control then +,-,0. None worked

Mid-game my centre screen table area images (hand, cards, bidding box area) all suddenly got very large and cramped, so cards being played appear in odd places and it appears they have been played by West instead of North, for example. I have to watch which player's user name is in yellow to know who is to bid / play. Almost unplayable for me. When I few games being played by others their displays looked normal. I rebooted and it is just the same when I start a game. It's as if I am zooming in on the table. I have tried clicking everywhere and checking my settings but can't see anything to change. I must have done something but have no idea what.

We were expecting that pairs would swop half way through, as is the case with usual teams matches that we play at our homes. Does it matter that there was no swopping, in terms of the eventual results? Do things even out in terms of weaker and stronger pairs?

I have discovered how to register for an existing tournament, but can I create a private tournament for my group? Thanks

As I thought, I was being dumb. I was expecting to see my new file appearing immediately in the window I was working on. I have just discovered 'deal archive' in my account area, and there are my various attempts all saved.

Thanks, but still not appearing when I log out and log back in again. In the window headed Select Folder I click on 'My favourite hands' expecting to be invited to save the hand I have named but I am immediately taken to the BBO home page. I have tried it over twenty times thinking I must be missing something simple but I just can't see what. It's driving me nuts. Please put me out of my misery.

I am relatively new to BBO online play. There are areas I want to explore but am struggling a bit because images I see on the BBO help guide / index interfaces (https://www.bridgebase.com/help/v2help/) don't match what I see on my PC. Some of the comments suggest that the guide I am looking at refers to a BBO app. I Am I looking in the wrong place or at out of date link. My current problem is that when I want to export a hand from History and choose the 'save deal as' option a window opens and I enter a file name and choose the 'my favourite hands' folder, nothing happens. I am obviously doing something wrong. Is there an up to date BBOhelp guide somewhere that explains how do do it properly. Thanks

My user name on BBO play on line is Wainfleet, and I have logged in 100 times, all in the last few weeks.

I have recently taken my large class group onto BBO on line. They love it and want me to set up a Teams match but when I try to do so I get a message saying I am a 'brand new user'. I have logged on to BBO on line over 100 times so can anyone advise when / how I graduate to being able to create a team match. Thanks

My local group play the Weak No Trump and use the 2S response as a weak takeout - opener bids 3C and responder passes or converts. Andrew Robson recommends that method to his students on the grounds of simplicity, and qualifies it by saying it should be used with weak hands only, and that it should be at least a 6 card suit with a good honour. His example hands have no more than 6 honour points. On a number of occasions my 1NT has been taken out with 9-10 points when it would have been better to just pass and play in 1NT. I think the sight of a goodish suit - AJ9863 makes some players to want to show the suit. I am often asked what 'weak' means in this context. My personal guideline is no more than 6-7 HCP, i.e. where we are likely to have less than half the points - if we pass with around 21 HCP then for our opponents to get us down they need to make 7 tricks in no trumps with just 19 points. Can you give me some steer on this. (I appreciate that there is more to it than point count).

Neil Rosen was written about this in the EBU's bridge magazine. He advocates the 100% GF version but acknowledges the drawback you mention - he says "As a result we often have quite a tough choice as to what to bid with various invitational hands, sometimes having to guess to bid no trumps without a full stopper".

My partner has asked me why I am suggesting using Robson's recommendation to play 4SF as 100% game forcing. Outside of the UK experts are pretty much in agreement that 4SF is 100% game forcing, but in the UK it seems that many good players,even at tournament level,still play that it is forcing only for one round unless bid at the 3 level, but any rebid by opener at the 3 level is game forcing. There must be pros and cons, otherwise everyone would have switched. I can't find anything that spells out the advantages and disadvantages in simple language, but it seems to me to be to do with the use of jump rebids by responder after opener replies to 4SF. Just checking if I have got it right or if there is more to it. If you play the original version, responder's non-jump rebid after 4SF is invitational, not game forcing, and with 13+ HCP you have to jump to force to game, unless a non-jump rebid is in itself a game bid, typically 3NT. So responder differentiates between an invitational hand (11-12) and a game going hand (13+) by jumping if necessary, eg. jumping to 3♠ with a game going hand rather than rebidding 2♠. But if 4SF is 100% game forcing, then responder does not need to jump. All bids are natural descriptive bids, so responder can use all the available bidding space below game to describe his hand and find out more about partner's hand (instead, for example, of having to jump to 3NT rather than bid a suit along the way that partner might pass, when 3NT might not be the best contract). That means that the jump bid can be used to describe stronger responder hands (16+), something not possible with the traditional 4SF. This can be very helpful in identifying a possible slam. The downside is that responder can't use 4SF with an invitational strength (11-poor12) hand. Responder can be stuck for a bid with 11 points, no fit for partner and no stop in the 4th suit. A 2- level preference bid with a doubleton in partner's 1st suit may well be passed, showing 6-9 points, and a rebid of 2NT without a stop could be disastrous - the opponents are very likely to lead the unbid suit. Is that a fair summary, or is there more to it? Thanks in anticipation.

Help please! from what I can piece together from different sources, it seems to me that in the UK we are in the middle of a transition when it comes to competitive bidding. In 2017 the EBU's teaching wing, EBED made a policy decision to switch from Strong 2's to weak 2's for beginner classes. Andrew Robson gave up teaching Strong 2's years ago and also teaches 'bidding to the level of the fit' when responding to partner's overcall, so, making a jump raise with 4 card support, a double jump with 5 card support, even if very weak. The UCB shows a good raise or better with 3+ card support. My Klinger/Kambites book - Understanding the Contested Auction, adopts the same approach. But the latest EBED Acol system file that I can find (2017) states that when responding to partner's overcall you should "Raise the overcall on the same values as you would raise an opening bid".with no mention of bidding to the level of the fit. Thinking this might be a 'UK transitional thing' that was still working it's way through, I checked the ACBL teaching manual - Bidding in the 21st Century', and it says much the same as EBED: “So, with a minimum hand, 8 or 9 total points, you will raise overcaller’s suit with support or bid a new suit at the one-level with no support and a good five-card suit of your own.". To get another take on it I constructed some hands to test on the Jack computer software. I set my convention card to "aggressive support bids, and the UCB" when responding to partner's overcall, and Jack raised a 1♥ overcall to just 2♥ with 5 hearts and a singleton in the opening suit, and 4 HCP. When I reduced the HCP to 3 HCP Jack passed (still with 5 hearts). So Jack does not appear to be following the 'bidding to the level of the fit' principle either when responding to partner's overcall. When it comes to jump overcalls, the UK has been gradually shifting from strong to intermediate to weak. Strong is still played in some clubs, intermediate is the EBED standard for beginners, but weak is coming up fast, as more and more players switch to Weak 2s. Most handouts on making jump overcalls explain the differences between the three styles, and how you cover the full range from 7 HCP up to 20+ with each of them, with pros and cons, so you can take your choice, but when it comes to responding to an overcall, I can't find anything similar. I am genuinely confused, and am wondering if maybe there are two competing styles in popular use when it comes to responding to overcalls. In one style ('bidding to the level of the fit') maybe the partnership is adopting a 100% spoiling approach with direct raises, with the UCB being the only way to make a constructive bid, and maybe the other style is semi-constructive, trying to ride two horses, though I am not sure how that helps overcaller. As I understand it, the former stems from the Law of Total Tricks, and if it's right for responding to weak 2s, why is it not also right for responding to partners overcall?

Is the format (duplicate pairs vs teams) a determining factor the 9-14 HCP zone when vulnerable?

Partner opens 2♦ and I have 5 diamonds and (say) 5 HCP. I can see the sense of bidding 5♦ as our opponents have game points and possibly slam, or... Partner opens 2♥ and I have 4 hearts and 5 points, and for the same reasons I will bid 4♥, or..... with 14+ HCP and 4 hearts I will bid 4♥ or 2NT (enquiry), expecting to make. What troubles me is bidding to the level of the fit in the 9-13 HCP zone, where it's unlikely that either side has enough for game, and by bidding to the level of the fit I will be making what I think is called a phantom sacrifice. I have read a lot of expert 'stuff' on weak 2 and weak 3 preempts but can't find anything that cautions about this. Maybe I am worrying unnecessarily and should still 'bid to the level of the fit' for good reasons that I just haven't twigged yet. Help much appreciated.

We have started playing cue bid raises in the majors after opps overcall. All examples I have come across are just for majors. Partner has asked if it is applicable to minors as well? Say after 1♦-(1♥)-2♥ showing limit raise and a heart stop. Subsequent new suit bids show stops for 3NT.