GrahamJson

If this was a one off then you could right it off as a psych. However it happens on about 50% of their boards. E.g you hold xxxx xxx X Q10xxx. LHO opens 1D partner overcalls 1H. You raise to 2H. P bids 3C and then RHO bids 3D. So bidding has been; (1D)-1H-(Pass)-2H (Pass)-3C-(3D)- You double. This is passed out and goes for 800, partner holding AQ X Kxxxxx AJxx. Again oppo miss their 54 heart fit. I could go on; 1NT overcall on Axx xxx xxx Kxxx, a take out double of 1D on xxx xxxx Axx Jxx, a 1S opening on void QJxx AKxxx Jxxx, a 1S opening on Axx Kxx Kxx KJxx (in this case your 3C rebid is passed by partner, who holds xxxx void Qxxx Q10xxx). In every case the partner takes action that is only explicable if he can see your hand.

I agree with you, but in this case it could not be clearer. For example opening 1S on a singleton, partner raises on three and you end up in 3NT, making on a non spade lead. Or opening 1S on A Jxxxx Axxxx Jx and rebidding 2C over partner's 1NT response, keeping oppo out of their 4S contract. In fact oppo bid 2NT which goes one off when partner leads a diamond. And these aren't exceptions, almost every board is like this. How about opening 1H on KJxxx X QJx Jxxx and rebidding 2S over partner's 1NT response. This is passed out and makes exactly, partner having Axxx Qxx Kxx xxx. Oppo somehow did not find their heart fit.

"It's usually safe to assume...." Stop there. On BBO it's rarely safe to assume anything.

Doesn't "wastage in both minors" amount to "values in both minors", which is what I hold.

The way such hands are normally handled on BBO is by bidding 4NT and announcing to table "0314". It works every time.

In the past I have received two replies to each report. The first is automated and states that I will receive a report of any action taken. The second response is from an actual person who says the opposite; that got privacy reasons they cannot give me any further information. I've never had any subsequent communications. Given that the case mentioned above is as clear an example of cheating as there could be I do wonder whether any action is ever taken against wrongdoers.

I have noticed two players who only ever play together and who are blatantly cheating. I'm almost certain that they are actually one person playing with two nicknames. Their (or rather, his) bidding is random, with frequent bidding of short suits. I'm not talking about splinters, but openings, responses and overcalls on singletons and voids occurring almost every board. As an example; xx K10xxxx AQxx A overcalls 1S over a 1C opening. Partner responds 2H on 10xxx QJx xxx Qxx and plays there, doubled making +1. As a consequence of this sort of thing they (he) averages around +4.5 imps a board. Over the last two days he has played 91 boards with pluses on 82 and only nine negatives, with a net score of +445 imps. Goodness knows what this person gets out of this activity. It seems to me like buying a book of crosswords and filling them in after looking up all the answers. Anyway, this person continues playing forty or fifty boards a day despite being reported to BBO Abuse many times. Should I care? Should anyone care? Apart from giving their oppo unmerited bad score (although most don't hang around for more than three or four boards) the random scores that they generate affects all others playing those boards. Any thoughts?

Changing the subject slightly, many (maybe most) players open themselves up to being swindled by psyches because they have got carried away with the idea that all low level doubles are for take out. In the example mentioned a double of the 3S bid should be for penalties and would usually expose the psyche. This is because all passes following a 2C opener are forcing, hence all doubles must be for penalties. Another common scenario is when the bidding goes something like (1D) - DBL - (1S) - ? Many play (or assume) that a double in this position is negative, giving the 1S bidder a free hand to play around and keep oppo out of a spade fit. Of course a double should show a four card suit in this position, often exposing a psyche, but how often do you see it used this way? The doubler can of course go on to bid spades, showing a five carder. (Some experts play that an immediate 2S bid over 1S shows five with a double showing precisely four. This is certainly a playable method although I'm not sure it has much advantage.).

Hmm, not sure about that. I don't think that it is that kappy important to be up with the latest idea. What is important is that you and your partner are singing from the same sheet, in which case taking a standard text, even if twenty or thirty years old, as your basis is as good a start as any. Incidentally, I reckon the best bridge book of all time is Play These Hands With Me, by Terrance Reece (also issued as Practical Bidding and Practical Play - which includes an additional section on bidding). You won't find anything in it about bidding theory, and the system used is old and basic. However it explains how you should be thinking when playing; picking up inferences etc. As such it will never be out of date. And of course Reece is the best ever righter on the game; clear and witty.

There's the Sally Horton book, also The Complete Book on Take Out Doibles, by Mike Lawrence. Then there is Bridge Lesdons: Double by Andrew Robson, Negative Doubles by Bergen, Double! New Meanings for an Old Bid, by Lawrence. I have only read the Sally Horton book, which is still pretty good, so can't comment on the others. There are of course several books on competitive bidding, which include advice on doubles. Probably the most recent of these is Competitive Bidding in the 21st Century by Marshall Miles. I must read my copy sometime.

It seems like a crazy system to me. How can you have a forcing pass without the option for responder of doubling for penalties? As it is I would be tempted to pass.

It's impossible to answer these questions without knowing more about the players. The redouble should show 9 or 10 plus, balanced, but I have seen many players on BBO redouble just to show that they hold a few hearts. The 1S rebid should show a distributional hand, but could be someone having a bit of a joke. The second double and the 3S bid must both show spades, but some players are obsessed with negative doubles and fancy cue bids, usually looking for 3NT. The 3C bid should show values, as with clubs and a poor hand you would bid 2C earlier. Anyway, if you are west you should trust partber's bidding, not oppo's. Partner must be showing a great suit, but maybe not a long one. Perhaps AKJ10x x AKx QJx.

In the U.K. Acol 12-14 is pretty much standard amongst club players I believe. Although what constitutes Acol these days is debatable as most players include all sorts of variations. Amongst top players 2/1 appears to dominate. I note that the Bridge Magazine standard system, used in its monthly bidding quiz, used to be Acol based but switched this year to 2/1. I used to live in the Middle East, amongst other places, and played in clubs where players came from all over. They all played simple systems based on 15-17 and 5card majors. My partner and I played very simple Acol (apart from multi), not even using negative doubles. I had to regularly explain that although we played four card majors if we opened 1S or 1H it could sometimes actually be more than four. The club where I played in Kuwait is probably unique in being the nay bridge club in the world with a prayer room. I was tempted to use it on one or two occasions when dummy went down.

A and Q of spades looks like the expert play. Knowing my luck north would win and give S a club ruff.

As so often when people ask questions about bidding on these forums there are two answers; what is the best bid with an unfamiliar partner and what is the best theoretical sequence. Any bid that players debate the meaning of is not a good one to use with a strange partner. In this case the 3H bid looks suicidal. Whilst I would not expect it to be passed it is only goiing to lead trumps confusion. I therefore suggest the following practical sequence; 1C-1S-2C-2D-2H-3D-3NT. As for the best theoretical sequence, this would probably involve a game forcing 2D, the Bourke Relay. The rest of the auction would then proceed according to your agreed methods.

I don't like negative doubles on very distributional hands. The last thing you want here is for partner to pass for penalties. I prefer either 1S or 2S, whichever you play as forcing. You can then follow up with 4S, which should show a better hand than a direct 4S. As the bidding went I would bid 4S. Yes, you could be missing six, but you don't want to be one off in five. Again, partner should realise that you are strong as you did not bid 4S on the first round.

I should add one caveat to my previous comments. If you are playing Bergan, and have an agreement that a raise does not show values, then I guess raising is ok.

Yes, bidding could be the winning option, but there is a good reason why all systems and textbooks say you need at least a five count to respond (unless you have a very unbalanced hand). This is because your partner needs to have some confidence that you have at least some values in order to judge how to proceed; how high to compete, when to double, etc. If you respond on this sort of hand you will lose his trust and perhaps lose points on other hands. Another factor is that passing will escape team mates' criticism, whereas if you lose 1100 by responding, and this could certainly happen, will not endear you to them. Team matches are won by solid play, not flights of fancy. Maybe NV vrs V, and needing to pick up points, a response might be a reasonable gamble. But vulnerable, never.

This looks like a textbook delayed game raise to me. I would bid 2C even if other gadgets were available as 2C followed by 4S seems to describe the hand perfectly; game values with good clubs and four card spade support.

3H looks obvious. 4H is fine if you have an agreement that it shows this sort of hand. If not partner may think you are showing something like AKJxx AKxx xx xx, I.e. Slam try with first round Heart control and no minor shortage. Maybe he shouldn't think that, because with such a hand perhaps you would bid 3S, but why put him to the test.

Looking at the hands again I think there should be a couple of cue bids (4D - 4H) before opener launches into RKKB.

How about: 2C - 2D 2S - 4C 4NT - 5D 5NT - 7S Once opener confirms that all the principal key cards are present, by bidding 5NT, responder can see that he has all that opener could want. After all, opener's hand is just about the minimum that he could have, some would say sub-minimum for the 2S rebid.

1H is definitely the correct bid on the hand shown, and previous comments are generally correct. A couple of other observations: A one level overcall can be a four card suit in some circumstances. The suit would need to be good. An example might be AKJ10 xx KQJx xxx. This would be a reasonable 1S overcall of 1C but a double of 1H. My second observation is that the upper limit for overcalls seems to have increased quite a bit in recent years, particularly amongst some US experts.

Unless I've missed something this isn't quite correct. You lead the last spade, discarding the hear (assuming west holds on to the ace). However you still don't know who holds the diamond guard. If east then you play clubs from the top and the last is good. If west, you finesse the jack. But it is still a guess.

My mistake. It should have been "East has already supported diamonds and west has made a free bid in the suit." We shall have to agree to disagree regarding whether east should go on over 4D. It's close but surely west must have something to bid 4D. His actual holding is just about what you might expect. I would certainly expect more than a couple of jacks.