GrahamJson

They say that what goes around comes around. From the description above Turbo sounds remarkably like the Culbertson 4NT bid used in the 1930s. Maybe Culbertson Asking Bids (which I have played many, many years ago) will make a comeback soon.

You have my sympathy and support. I have reported cheaters twice before. In both cases several times. They no longer play here so I guess they eventually got banned, although they may well have just changed their ID. One of these cases was similar to yours, with two partners, who only ever played with each other, being almost certainly the same person. In this case it was obvious that they/he were cheating from their bidding and play. They frequently opened or overcalled on shortages, including singletons, thereby preventing oppo finding their fits. Sometimes they would bid all around the houses before eventually magically arriving at the perfect contract. Using these methods they would get a positive imp score on almost every hand. Just about the only time their oppo managed to get a good score was when oppo dealt and opened the bidding and had good enough hands such that the cheater could not come I'm without risking a massive penalty. The other cheater played with random partners but was obviously also kibbing. He never took a losing finesse and frequently took anti percentage lines which just happpened to work. In one case he used Blackwood, found an ace to be missing but still bid seven. Dummy turned up with an undisclosed void. He then played a trump suit of AKJxx opposite xxx by cashing AK and dropping the offside queen. And no, there were no clues from the bidding or play to suggest this line of play. However what was most annoying about this particular cheater was that he would criticise the others at the table and would boast about how good he was. If anyone asked how he came up with his "lucky" lines of play he would tell them that they wouldn't understand as they weren't an expert like he was. If fact it was his awful table manners that made me determined to report him more than his obvious cheating. Why these people do this I have no idea. In the first case above I initially thought it was probably a teenager new to the game having a joke. But he would play dozens of boards a day, far to many for it to be that. In the second case it was clearly to bask in the limelight, as he tended to attract many kibs, most of whom realised what was up and watched merely to see how blatant his cheating would be that day.

There seem to me to be two possibilities after 2NT; 3H-3S-4D-4S-6C Responder's failure to bid 4H highlights the key gap. 4S-5C-5D-5S-6C The 4S bid must show a void. Again, the gap in hearts is apparent. As a side issue, I believe it is now more common to play 3C as the positive bid in club transfer auctions, with 3D as positive after a 2NT response. This has some advantages, the main one being that with weak 55 minor suit hands you can respond 2NT. If partner shows a fit by bidding 3D, you pass. If he denies a fit with 3C you also pass, hoping that if he doesn't have diamonds he should have a fit for clubs.

I prefer to play penalty doubles whenever partner has implied length, or at least some holding, in the suit, for example by bidding NT or making a TO or negative double of another suit. One particular case is an auction that begins something like (1H)-DBL-(1S)-DBL. I have seen many times players operating by bidding 1S on two or three small, thereby talking their oppo out of a game because any double would be negative.

Nobody will agree with this, but I much prefer double to be for penalties after a 1NT opening, not that I would double in this situation, although it could be the winning move. I think there is a good argument to be made for an offbeat 3H bid. Partner should rebid 3NT with a good diamond stop, even with heart support, as he would want to avoid the lead coming through him and the risk of ruffs. Of course he could raise with three card support, but that could well turn out to be a good contract, with diamond ruffs being taken in his hand.

I agree that you shouldn't be opening 2C on wildly distributional hands just because you have lots of playing tricks (something that I have seen happen many times on BBO); responder needs to know that if he has a few values then a slam is likely. However the example hand does not fall into that category and is an easy 2C opener. No matter how good your methods are after a one bid, if you stretch the range too far you are certain to lose accuracy. Personally I still like Acol Twos, albeit played as Tartan Two Bids, largely because they take some of the weight off one bids and 2C openings.

I find it difficult to believe that an expert forum is discussing how may points a hand of AKJ853 7 AKQ10 A6 is worth. Anyone who needs to count points in order to determine whether it is a 2C bid is surely playing the wrong game. My preferred sequence I think someone has already suggested; 2C-2H-2S-3D etc. I don't think that a 2D "waiting" bid is appropriate when holding a good heart suit as a 2H response is descriptive without taking up any bidding space.

Indeed. The point is it is either penalty or take out, the latter being the norm. It cannot be both, depending on what hand you happen to hold at the time. Having said that I have seen many times on BBO players doubling after a long pause when they hold AKJx in trumps but doubling quickly with x and four cards in the unbidden suits.

In the U.K. It is necessary to show a Stop card before any jump bid, requiring a pause of at least ten seconds before next hand calls. And next hand is required to at least pretend to think, although that can perhaps be waived if it is a second round jump in a non competitive auction, e.g. 1S-1NT-3NT.

It seems to me that this is a hand where it is easiest enough to blast into slam but much more difficult to bid it with confidence. In addition, if you were to have an accurate auction it would probably highlight a hear lead, making six a marginal contract. One possible auction, playing Acol but could be ok in other systems, might be 1S-2C-2S-3D-3H-3S-4D-5C-6S, but either could easily sign off in 4S at some stage.

Didn't he close his hand, put them face down in front of him and write 3HX on his score card? That's the usual was of making a penalty double in this position.

They both look like 1S bids to me, although 4S would be ok with the first and 2S followed by 4S with the second (unless you play weak jump shifts, which seems to be the current popular approach). Neither is a 1NT bid, unless you have a specific agreement with partner on this. With some players if you respond 1NT to an opening 1H and then bid 2S it would be taken as a showing both minors, as it couldn't possibly be natural given that you have denied a spade suit with your 1NT response.

My guess is that partner holds something like Axxxxx KQx void Axxx. He can deduce from East's bid that you have at most one spade but can't come me up with a sensible cue bidding sequence for fear it might be misunderstood (e.d a bid of 4C being passed out). Given that I hold all the outstanding key cards it must be worth bidding seven, unless you playing in a field in which a small slam always gets an 80% or over score.

How about; 2C 2D 3D 4D 4H 4S 5C 5H 5S 6C 7D

Looks like my initial choice of 1H wins all the coconuts. The auction continues 5NT - 7H - 7S, exactly as I thought it might.

I've never played with bots so I don't know their foibles. I guess that they take each bid as "text book" which I imagine means that a TOX is definitely out and maybe also 1H. Perhaps Pass becomes the best choice as it reduces the risk of a not partner getting carried away.

This is tricky, but my choice is 1H. It looks like a hand where there is no rush, but the most likely game is 4H. Give RHO a minimum and you still need partner to have almost all of the outstanding cards for game to be on, unless he has a perfect fit (QH, KC plus trump length). And as Bobby Wolff (no relation) said; "Don't play me for perfect cards partner, I never have them."

I think that the reason that no other chose 2NT is because, for most, this shows an offensive hand whereas this one is very defensive. If the auction becomes competitive it is highly likely that partner will do wrong thing, such as making a phantom sacrifice. As for the risk of partner getting carried away in spades, that doesn't seem too likely if you make a simple overcall. You can rebid NT once or twice after which he should realise the situation. Similarly if oppo compete in spades it is likely to be to their disappointment as partner may well hold a trump stack. If put to an expert panel my guess is that they would be split between 1H and double. Experts seem less concerned about doubling on off centre hands if they are strong enough.

I'm not sure a point count range is particularly meaningful in the first two cases. Partner is limited to four of five points at most, so he is never going to raise, although he might take out into a long straggly suit. Therefore a NT rebid just shows a hand where you expect to, or at least have good hopes of, making it. This is likely to depend on suit quality and points location more than total points. So, in case 1 you would prefer to rebid 1NT on KQx KQJ10x Axx Jx rather than Axx KJxxx Axx AQ.

Give north Kx KQ1092 Qx xxxx and you make two spades, a diamond, a spade ruff with the 2 and at least two further trumps, maybe three if you are lucky. Or would you rather be in 2C?

I couldn't agree more. If as south you are going to rescue, and I don't see why you should, you may as well bid 1S as redouble. A redouble is just telling your opponents that you are in a mess and begs for a double. At least a bid of 1S sounds a little more confident. Also, unless I had seen north's overcalls before I wouldn't feel too pessimistic as south. Not everyone who passes a TOX for penalties is loaded with trumps. Sometimes it is done reluctantly for want of a better bid. Holding two trumps, an ace and a king you have as much as partner has the right to expect. OK, you probably aren't expecting 1H to make, but one down seems not that unlikely.

I used to play a variation on Tartan Two Bids. These go:/ 2H/2S= Either 55 with the major and a minor, weak (6-10 say) or an Acol 2 in the major (can be two suited) Responses are:- 2S Natural, invitational 2NT Asking for the minor. If opener rebids a major or jumps to 4m he is showing an Acol 2. 3C invitational hand without major suit support. opener rebids:- - Pass with minimum and clubs - 3D minimum and diamonds - 3H max with clubs - 3S max with diamonds - 3NT Acol 2, single suit - 4 any Acol 2, two suited. 3D Invitational to 4 of major. Opener bids 3 or 4 of his major. Other bids are Acol 2 Raises: to play, not invitational. Opening bids of 2NT can be weak 55 minors or whatever else you prefer.

Hmm. I might have bid 1S immediately, but not if north routinely overcalls on hands like this. As the bidding went bidding 1S makes more sense than a redouble. Do you really want partner to take out into a minor? You will probably still end up in a seven card fit, but one level higher. And what if partner has the same hand but with one less spade and more hearts? He might take it into his head to pass the redouble rather than end up in a 3-3 fit. Sorry, but it is not an overcall in my book. It looks like an example of players thinking that their hand has become stronger because they have already passed. Yes, if partner has a fit you might be able to obstruct the auction, but I think he needs to be able to rely on a few values opposite if he is to compete effectively. If you really have to bid a double makes more sense as it at least gets the spades into the action.

It is? You have two trumps, an ace and a king, what more could partner expect? Change partners black suits around and do you really want to be in 2C? It seems to me to be a perfect example of a pointless (almost literally) overcall, particularly opposite someone who could not even muster a third hand opening.

Agree completely. Luckily for some, poor bidders often cancel each other out, for example when one overbids and the other underbids. This happens particularly after a take out double. My point is that in lots of cases poor bidders can stil get to the right contract if the hands are straightforward. However many struggle to make even the easiest of contracts. But then, perhaps I have been kibbing the wrong "experts".