GrahamJson

Thank goodness at least Rainer understands me. East has already shown diamond support by bidding 3D and west has shown meagre values by bidding 4D when he could have passed. Hence it is better, if bidding on, to bid 4H, giving the choice between 4H and 5D.

Hmm. East has already supported diamonds after west has made a free bid in the suit. So if he deems it worth going on it seems reasonable to bid 4H rather than 5D, giving his partner the choice to pass, with the hand he had, or bid 5D with short hearts and longer diamonds. Putting it another way; why bid 5D cutting out the option of playing in 4H when you can bid 4H, keeping both options open. Whether east should go on, rather than pass, is another question. I think he should, as west must have some values, albeit small ones, to justify his free bid. In fact his actual hand looks exactly like what might be expected.

It seems to me that east is more to blame here. I would have bid 2H rather than 1H initially. However if the auction went as it did east should certainty bid 4H rather than 5D. I'm not convinced that west should have bid 4H rather than 4D. At that point he is looking to win the part score so 4D looks safer.

Sorry to spoil your 100% vote but I don't see this as close. You have to to an extreme optimist to hope that 5H is making. Therefore bidding 5H really only gains when oppo can make precisely 5D, not 4, not 6. Having five trumps is only helpful if you can ruff and on the bidding it is unlikely that there is more than one diamond ruff to be had as it sounds like oppo have at least a ten card fit. As it happens this is not the case, but only because non of the other players have their bid; S has a clear 1C bid, W has a dubious overcall and the 5D bid is just plain weird.

As far as the self assessed skill level is concerned, it is pretty useless. I don't think that I have seen a single "expert" who is even close to being that. Most would struggle to get 50% in any decent club. I previously a few suggestions for statistics that might be useful. None are an indication of expertise, however they might indicate how enjoyable a player might be as a partner or opponent.

I'm not convinced that claiming saves much time, unless there are several tricks remaining and the claim is very obvious. Often it is quicker to play out the remaining two or three tricks quickly rather than do through the motions of claiming (at least it can be if using an iPad). Claiming on BBO is not like in real life bridge, when you can explain your line of play; "draw trumps and dummy's clubs are good". I've seen claims when I am not at all sure that declarer knows what's going on, and it's only when the claim is rejected that he realises that there is a trump out, for example. I've also seen a defender concede the remaining tricks, quickly accepted by declarer, when in fact he would have taken none of them. (In one case I was the defender's partner, holding the remaining trump, and the concession was accepted before I could reject it.) I think that, unless they have changed, the rules state that if you don't make your line of play clear you cannot draw trumps to take a finesse after a claim. If you have to type in an explanation to cover this when making a claim it would slow things down, not speed up. If you want a player's statistics shown on his profile how about; % of hands left before play complete; average number of boards played at a table before leaving; average imps per board; average number of boards played by their partners before leaving; average number of boards that their oppo stay before leaving. I believe that the better players (at least better behaved, if not the best technically) will tend to stay around longer with partners and oppo who are happy to play with them. One last thing. If a player leaves mid board and the deal is subsequently redealt I suggest it should be completed by GIB in the background and any negative score allocated to the leaving player. I have seen too often players make bad bids or plays and then immediately leave when it is clear that they are heading for a bad score.

I go along with this. I think it was Terrence Reece who said that it is usually worth going one level higher in order to ensure you are in the right strain. Having said that, I wouldn't criticise anyone who chose to pass. It could easily be the winning option. However as someone else said, we would probably all do better if we took out partner's take out doubles and left in his penalty doubles.

This is very tricky. Change west's small club to a small heart and 3NT is where you want to be. One way around this, which I have played in the past and which worked well, is to play a jump rebid of three of a minor as forcing. You then use an opening of 3C and 3D to show hands where you would have bid a non forcing jump rebid (similar to the opening 3C bid in Precision or Blue Club). Opening 2NT shows a minor suit pre-empt and a balanced 20-22 by a multi. Using this structure west rebids 3D, east bids 4D then it should be easy to bid six via a couple of cue bids. If west did have two small hearts the lack of control in the suit should come to light and you will stop in 5D. Ok, playing MPs you would prefer to have stopped in 3NT but 5D should not be a disaster if others are going off in six. Another option is to use the multi and include an Acol two minor suit hand as one of the strong options.

I agree with others that this should be reported to BBO Abuse. I have reported several players in the past for abuse and I know that at least one has been banned; at least I assume so as I have not seen them play since. In most cases I was kibbing and saw that clearly the cheat was playing and kibbing at the same time although in one or two I reported the player for abusive language. However some do continue to cheat and get away with it. There is one pair in particular at the moment who are the most blatant cheaters imaginable. There oppo I think usually quickly realise this and leave the table, but presumably don't bother to report them, so they continue to get away with it. So, again, please report cheaters. Some times I think that I am the only one who can be bothered.

Passing obviously works best but I'd probably bid 3D. Partner won't always have such great defence. Sitting under the bidder his double is more cooperative than 100% penalty. Whilst he would be happy for you to pass he should be prepared for you to take out if lacking defence. I think that he might have bid the same with the major suits reversed or with a slightly weaker hand.

It seems to me that if you're fishing for 3NT on this hand you may as well bid it yourself. Asking for a half stop will only right side the contract if partner has Qxx. With some other holdings it is better for the lead to come up to the Ax, e.g if partner has QJ or J10x.

Regrettably there are some players who you only need to watch for three or four boards to realise that they are cheating. I have seen one pair in particular, actually I think they are both the same player, who clearly can see all four hands. They almost never get a bad board. I have seen them make a three level overcall on Jxx, only for partner to turn up with KQxxx. If they see that oppo can make 4S they will either open 1S or, if oppo get in first, make low level penalty doubles, which partner takes out, to convince oppo that cards lay badly for them. Of course this pair are an extreme example, but I have seen others who are clearly playing double dummy. For example, jumping to seven with a trump suit of AKJxxx opposite xx only to drop the doubleton queen offside. Or bidding RKKB, find an ace missing but still bidding seven. Partner then turns up with an undisclosed void. I have reported at least three players to BBO Abuse. One seems to have been banned, another (the "pair" mentioned above) seem to have had some action taken against them, although they still play occasionally, and one continues to play. My advice is to report all suspicions to Abuse. We need to rid BBO of these people. Goodness knows what they get out of it.

Whenever I have played inverted minors it has not denied a four card major. If it did it makes it more difficult, not easier, to fing major suit fits. This is because if you respond in a major and then support the minor, other than simple preference, opener knows that the major must be at least five cards so can support with three, or even two. I've never been keen on the idea of bidding a four card major before a longer minor, except when forced because of insufficient values to respond at the two level. This style may work in expert hands, when there are detailed arrangements for showing relative suit lengths (e.g. 2NT relays) but lacking such arrangements it just makes it more difficult to bid simple hands accurately. As an aside, I have the same view regarding weak jump responses (e.g 1D-2S). Again, unless you have detailed methods for showing strong hands I think it much more sensible to play jump responses as traditional game forces.

As others have suggested, there probably isn't anything sinister in your predicament, there just happens to be several reasons why a table request might be denied. From personal experience, which is fairly limited, I can only recall having a request accepted on one occasion. Every other time that I have played it has been because I have a prearranged partner keeping a seat for me or because I have gone to the first available seat. For what it is worth, my observation is that the more conventions someone lists on their profile the weaker player they are. As for self rating as an "expert", I think I have yet to come across a real expert on BBO except of course on view graph. I rather suspect that true experts and WC players have better things to do than slum it on BBO.

Oops, it must be too early in the morning here. I need to wake up.

I'm not sure that restricted choice applies here. It is only valid when an opponent has a choice of two cards to play. In this example LHO could have dropped the 10 from a holding of 109x, if he were good enough (so probably not applicable on BBO, especially if LHO claims to be an expert). So overall a close call. I would probably run the 8 plying against most oppo but repeat the finesse against genuine strong players.

Some good comments here. I think a key point is that you can never make rules such as "always lead this" or "never lead that". It depends on your hand and the bidding, plus often a big slice of luck. However one key factor to consider is; what is your aim? For example, when leading against a 4S contract is your aim to make four tricks or is it to prevent oppo making ten. If oppo have bid aggressively, and are likely to have a ready source of tricks, then your aim is to take four tricks before oppo can cash their ten. This means you can take risks such leading from unsupported honours. If however the bidding has been something like 1NT-2C-2S-3S-4S then oppo have not got anything in hand, so you should be cautious and avoid making a lead that could give away a trick. Having said all that a doubleton falls somewhere in between, having an element of aggression but not likely to give away a trick. As such I guess it is a good general lead, particularly if nothing else appeals.

Two of the most interesting bridge books in recent years were by David Bird and another (sorry, can't recall his name at the moment), one on trump contract leads and another on notrump leads. In both cases they took a bidding sequence and a leaders hand. They then used a computer program to simulate thousands of layouts consistent with the hand and the bidding. For each case each possible opening lead was taken in turn and the hand was played out using something like GIB. This enabled the average number and maximum number of tricks to be computed for each lead. One of their main conclusions, which surprised them, was that leading from a doubleton was greatly underrated. In many cases it turned out to be the best lead. So it seems that your "expert" friend is behind the times, not that a doubleton lead has ever been considered bad. One word of caution. The evaluation method used was not perfect, as the authors admitted. The program used to evaluate the play assumed double dummy play. So, for example, it would always make the right "guesses" when it came to finesses, play for drop, etc. This means that it probably under rated "safe" leads and overrated attacking leads. Hence a doubleton may not be quite as good as their method suggested. Never the less, it was clear that a doubleton lead should be considered and may often be the best. Other conclusions they came to is that an ace lead is usually the worst at imps, at is the one least likely to defeat the contract, but can be the best at MPs as it is most likely to prevent an overtrick. Also, at NT a major suit lead is usually better than a minor suit lead when leading "blind" (I.e. 1NT-3NT).

I think using 2D as a waiting bid can be overdone. Here you have a perfectly good 2S response. Even more so holding xxx in hearts as you can raise a 3H rebid to four. With a singleton heart bidding 2D makes more sense as yo can rebid 2S over the likely 2H rebid by opener. The point is whether to make a waiting bid of 2D when you hold values depends a lot on your distribution. Holding five hearts you can make a positive response quite freely, whereas holding diamonds you are much more likely to bid 2D as a 3D response can cramp the bidding too much.

Outside of BBO I usually play Acol, 12-14. But I know that world wide most play 15-17 with 5 card majors, and that is what I assume any random partner on BBO will play. I therefor suggest the standard system would be based on this. I believe that there is an Acol room for those that prefer that system. Perhaps there could also be a precision room (maybe there is already). Perhaps you won't please all of the players all of the time, but some simple standardisation must be better than having lengthy discussions before or during the auction. It's probably asking too much, but perhaps having a simple standard system would help less experienced players to concentrate on basic skills rather than seeing how many conventions they can list on their card.

Here's an idea; why not have a simple BBO standard system, with a few basic conventions. When playing with a random partner you automatically use that system. This could speed the game up and avoid a lot of confusion.

What annoys me are players who use every convention under the sun, get into a mess, and then ask for a redeal or, worse, just leave the table. I think playing with random partners everyone should try to keep things simple, thus avoiding having to ask many questions during the auction. Even asking "03 or 14" gives away information, i.e. That the questioner is treating 4NT as RKKB, when perhaps this isn't obvious. And I also have seen players appearing to use defensive methods that happen to fit the hand, in particular 2C announced as "natural" when I suspect on other occasions it will be Landy or something else. One player I have noticed is fond of announcing his 1NT response to 1H/S as " forcing", but only when he has a hand that is not the usual 5-10 balanced type.

The only option here is 2H, and hope that oppo come to your rescue. If you were stronger you could consider 3S, which I believe should show a hand like this; good spades, heart shortage and invitational (you bid 2NT first with a stronger hand). I think this is a butter usage for the bid than pass or correct.

It means "you make the final mistake partner". Making bids such as this with a partner with whom you have no clear agreements is asking for trouble. As others have said, it should probably be a maximum with 44 in the majors. However after you've bid 4H I can envisage dummy going down with something like 3325 and no diamond stop ("I would have bid 2H if I had the majors, I was asking for a diamond stop"). One thing is for sure, it means whatever partner intended it to mean, whether it makes sense or not. I've seen many times players on BBO making "clever" bids and then blaming partners when it all goes horribly wrong. Even worse, they frequently then ask for a redeal, having landed in a 42 fit or some similar disaster.

Rebidding 2S only works best if responder has 13 in the majors and decides to pass a 2H rebid. So it is 2H for me, which describes four cards in my hand in addition to the five spades that I have already shown whereas a 2S rebid only shows one extra card. Of course if you bid 2H on hands like this partner should be prepared to give false preference to 2S if he holds 23 in the majors. A 2S bid by him does not show that he prefers spades to hearts but rather he prefers a 2S contract on a 52 fit to a 2H contract on a 43 fit. The same applies in other sequences when opener rebids his second suit. Note that nowadays many play some sort of convention after a 1S-1NT sequence. For example 2D can be a transfer to hearts. This would be ideal in this case as you could transfer and then bid 2S showing your 64 shape.