Gilithin

As a general rule, 2/1 trades significantly more accurate game and slam bidding when Responder has strength against a not-insignificant disadvantage when Responder has an invitational hand. There are certain hands where playing it more or less predetermines a poor result. You make up for that on close 3NT versus 4M/5m decisions and on slam hands. Experience suggests that at IMPs the upside is more important than the downside, which explains why the majority of natural bidders have moved over to some sort of 2/1 structure. At MPs I think the case is still open. It is also worth pointing out that there are various levels of 2/1 not being game-forcing, such as "GF unless 2NT/ 3♣", "forcing to 2NT" and the like and each of these have slightly different pros and cons. Similarly, 2/1 GF might include a forcing 1NT response or it might use a 14-16 1NT and a semi-forcing 1NT. For the most part, 2/1 is relatively easy to play with a pick-up partner because it is rarer to have a mix-up on whether a particular call is forcing or not. I also tend to agree with Adam about the light opening bids. If a pair wants to put some effort into this style, they are far better off moving over to a Strong or Mixed 1m system than trying to tack it onto a standard 2/1 GF method. And if you do not want to put some effort into your system, 2/1 GF is almost certainly not optimal. You almost require certain conventions for it to be effective. With the same level of effort you can make a non-GF 2/1 system that is also very good. But it is harder to detail to a random partner agreements about which calls are forcing than about the conventions and gadgets. So which is best? That depends entirely on the type of partnership, the level of detail you want, the style of play you prefer and the areas that you like to concentrate your efforts in. Playing both in different partnerships is a decent way of learning more about the logic of bidding system design and where the system holes are. Generally, good bidders remain so regardless of the underlying system. Learning good judgement is more important than putting yourself in a particular system tribe.

Your 1NT structure should have a way of showing a GF hand with 5♥ and 4♠. At various times I have played this to be:- 1. 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♦ - 3♦ 2. 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♦ - 3♥ 3. 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♦ - 3♠ 4. 1NT - 2♣ -- 2♦ - 3♣ -- 3♦ - 3♠ 5. 1NT - 2♦ -- 2♥ - 2♠ 6. 1NT - 2♦ -- 2NT - 3♥ In my youth, the popular local (Weak NT) method was line 1 but it has fallen out of favour and #2 and #5 are much more common - my current partner uses #2. In North America, most of the better players seem to prefer the third sequence.

Are you really happy playing 5♥X on this 3334 hand when Opener turns out to have a maximum Weak 2 with ♠Hxx? One of the reasons why it is normal to have long hearts for this popular psyche is because you are willing to sacrifice in 5♥ if necessary.

Think of online bridge more like playing behind screens than your typical face to face bridge table. In this case though, rather than having a strict N+E/S+W screen, we have a rotating screen where the person making the call is on the same side of the screen as both opponents. When you think in these terms, it is obvious for the player making the call also to provide the alert.

I imagine a lot of Weak NT players would open the original pair of hands 1♥, with Swiss Acol and 5cM WNTers going for 1♣. Whether to downgrade your proposed hand to 1NT might depend in part on the choice of response structure.

Let me see if I can help you: Q1: Have you played bridge for less than 6 months? Y->Novice; N->Q2 Q2: Have you played bridge for less than 12 months? Y->Beginner; N->Q3 Q3: Have you played in international competitions? Y-> World Class; N-> Q4 Q4: Have you been successful in national-level competitions? Y->Expert; N-> Q5 Q5: Are you regularly successful in bridge tournaments? Y->Advanced; N->Intermediate I would hazard a pretty strong guess that you are Intermediate but how you choose to self-evaluate is a personal matter between you, your conscience and your ego.

About 3cm per year. Whether that is "fast" probably depends on where you live - historically "fast" would be a good description. The "something" is a combination of ice melt and thermal expansion.

It is a very easy pass. You are 4333 with no high ♦ honour, your partner passed originally eliminating most of the hands where a raise would be right and (assuming UK rather than Dutch Acol) the opps could easily be in a 7 card fit. Is there actually any feature of the hand or auction that makes you think bidding is going to be a good decision?

If the issue is micro-targeting, the solution seems blindingly obvious - forbid companies from using personal data unless users explicitly opt in. Presumably that would be something like a beefed-up American version of the GDPR but written in a way that doesn't allow the tech companies to bypass it quite so easily. Giving users better control of how and when their personal data gets used is surely a far better solution than pure taxation.

Could I make the very strong suggestion that you read "Partnership Bidding at Bridge" by Andrew Robson and Oliver Segal. This will answer not only these questions but also many more.

What's wrong with a heart to the queen at trick 2? It seems to be illustrating the well-known maxim of losing the tricks you know you have to lose early and saving guesses until later on.

[removed hand and comments about the game] To the OP, pretty much every bridge player that plays outside of their clique has encountered a members ruling at some point. Mark this one down to that. It is unlikely to be the last such example you see.

If you have QJT9xxxx in a suit, is it really bad news to find out that partner's doubleton is AK for slam purposes? Under what circumstances do you think this is going to be an advantage? Compare this with the question of whether partner's singleton suit has 0 or 1 loser when they have a singleton ace as opposed to a singleton king. Think about pros vs cons and you will surely come to the conclusion that downgrading doubleton honours makes little sense when it comes to slam scanning.

If I did I would ask him to start posting again. These forums have lost way too many good contributors. If you know any of them personally, perhaps you might ask them to return.

Well he posted it on these forums often enough. I'm fairly sure that if Helene has any interest in the system, she'll already know where to look to get the details.

Zelandahk's system is basically just Polish Club with a weak NT and relay continuations for the 18+ hand. That seems like the easiest way of doing it.

Quite surprised to see this discussion go on this long with no mention of Double followed by 3♥. Surely the 2 of these work together so to assign an optimal meaning to 3♦, you first have to have some idea as to what going through a double shows.

In that weak field, 4♠ is quite likely to be 2 aces rather than an offer to play there. 5♠ over 5♣ should presumably show the strong one-suited hand that faked a club suit to establish a game force; it helps to avoid that issue if you do not allow Responder to bid a direct 5♣ with only 4 card support.

The traditional meaning for a jump shift from a passed hand is a fit jump, that is a hand that has improved by having a fit for Opener's suit and also has a decent side suit. It is typically the only way of a passed hand making a forcing call. That said, this is not explicitly defined in SAYC so it is best not to make such a call. If your partner does though, this would be the best suggestion for what it would mean.

Wow, you must be on very friendly terms with the TD. First of all, is there really a RA that bans a 2NT response on anything but "strong" hands? If there is, how do they define "strong"? Take ♠Ax ♥Axx ♦AKxx ♣AKxx in response to 2♠ for example. Is that "strong"? Because if so, to LTC fans it has the same 6 losers as ♠Qxxxx ♥- ♦Qxxx ♣Qxxx. So you have to accept that the latter hand is also "strong", since pairs are allowed to use this own choice of evaluation method. Take away the 3 kings - ♠Ax ♥Axx ♦Axxx ♣Axxx - can a player respond 2NT now? 8 losers gives us ♠xxxxx ♥- ♦xxxx ♣Qxxx. So now we would have that a void and any stray queen is "strong". As long as a pair do not say that the 2NT hand is "always strong" and have never has a hand come up where the bid was made without a strong hand (whatever that might mean), I do not see what MI has been provided. Absent a fully illegal agreement, the TD should only rule against the pair if there is both MI and damage resulting from that MI. If the TD is adjusting "most of the time", I strongly suspect that they are completely clueless as to the rules of the game and are simply anti-psyche, a position that is not only wrong but dangerous when combined with a mindset that the only valid agreement is the one that they think should be played.

You might think so and this is how it works in most of the world. In an increasing number of US states though it is not. You no longer have to look to avoid a confrontation in order to be able to use lethal force. In many states, as long as you are not committing a felony in provoking a confrontation, you only have to feel personally threatened by the response for lethal force to be justified. If you are waving a gun around, it's rather easy to reach that bar. So my suggestion to American women who are considering a divorce. Don't see a family lawyer, instead get an open carry permit. Then have an argument with your husband and when he moves towards you (possibly for a hug to calm things down but who cares?) feel threatened about his ability to overpower you and take the gun. Shoot. Instant divorce. Easier and cheaper than going the more traditional route. PS: someone please forward this message to Melania.

Officially, a novice is someone that has played for <6 months and a beginner is someone that has played for <12 months. After a year you are automatically an intermediate and stay there until you are regularly being successful in tournaments. That means that almost everyone that plays on BBO is an intermediate, including those that self-rate as Beginner, Advanced and Expert. Basically just ignore all self-ratings and instead look at their last month of results. It is a far better indicator of level.

Why? One of the key differences is self-alerting. This has similarities to playing behind screens but very few of the BBO player base have much experience of that so it is often the part of the interface that takes the longest for new BBO users to get used to. At a club table, you can leave or, if the host, boot the offending player. In a tournament you can, as has already been pointed out by various posters, call the TD. All of the Indians I have personally known have spoken English well and English may or may not have been the mother tongue of the opponents on this hand. Your choice of language for alerting would however be unsuitable even if you were playing in your native country. At an international table, it is completely inappropriate. Are your attempts at stalking of any relevance to the hand we are discussing? Is this really your best response to being asked for the true story of the hand?

If opponents provide only a convention name and refuse to provide a real explanation, you are under no obligation to continue bidding. The TD should insist on full disclosure being provided. I agree with your analysis here. Double should surely be showing hearts here but East's actions suggest otherwise. Once again here we have a lack of disclosure here - regardless of whether it promises hearts or is penalty, it should get an alert playing online. Competitive (weak) with 3-4 spades. What else? I might have left things here but I took a moment to look up the board on BBO. Some things the OP failed to mention:- - South alerted their 2♠ as "Exculpatory". - East, an Indian player, used the alert of their Pass to ask what Exculpatory means. - South alerted their 3♦ bid with "same as precision". - South then alerted their final Pass with "aposiopesical". So while the initial presentation tends to suggest that E-W were the pair mostly at fault for misinformation, it turns out that there is a good case that it was actually East's actions that caused the confusion. It is possible that that confusion continued into the play - West can make 11 tricks in hearts DD but misplayed it, perhaps due to the deliberately misleading alerts, to take just 9. Of the other declarers in 4 or 5♥, 17 of 21 made 10 or 11 tricks. So let's put aside the BS and get down to what really happened during this hand.

When contributors post that the hand is too strong for a 2♦ opening, what I think they mean is that it is too strong for this shape. Switch the black suits and I imagine bidding would be far more popular. It is not so much that there is a strength gap between a 1♦ and a 2♦ opening so much as there being hands that are not suitable for either call. This is one such hand. In terms of the deal as a whole, depending on the system being used I can imagine all of 2♥, 2♠, 2NT and 3♦ being "normal" part-score contracts. I would also expect to see some optimists in game given a large enough field and some N-S pairs in 3/4♣. To me, one of the more interesting questions to ask is how the auction continues after P - P - 3♣. Presumably 3♥ from West? Then Pass or 4♣ from North? This auction feels "messy" somehow from an EW perspective. If West doubles instead of overcalling 3♥, it is easier to find ♠/♦ but surely now East will drive to game. How would you handle it with your regular partner?