paulhar

I like that. I wanted to suggest that myself but I didn't want to put any more burden on the overworked BBO staff. Unfortunately, just as people keep coming up with new viruses that McAfee & Symantec have to deal with, people will keep coming up with new conventions faster than BBO can put up defenses to them. Also, unfortunately, there will be volumes necessary to discuss all the 'standard' defenses to something like Moscito. I could see it now, a Moscito players have the auction 1D (Dbl) 1H P 1S and the next player says, 'Give me five minutes while I try to look up the standard defense on this auction.' This after the couple of minutes that each of the opponents used to look up what double should mean after the Moscito diamond. I use Moscito as an example because it's commonly talked about on the BBO forum, the same would be true for any system that I'm not allowed to play here in an ACBL pair game and thus wouldn't have a defense for. Perhaps the overworked BBO staff should develop and post the defenses instead? If Pclayton's suggestion is to be taken seriously, somebody has to supply the defense. Why shouldn't it be the perpetrators of the new system? Heck, they're still getting an advantage until somebody comes along with an optimal defense to replace the one provided by the system creators. (BTW, if such a defense was clickable on BBO, who would decide when it should be replaced by a better defense?) Another suggestion (requiring no new software) is to make popular another public room besides the Main Bridge Club that would be more for pickup partnerships, where unusual methods just weren't allowed. This won't work unless enough people play in that room so it would have to be well advertised.

I can tell you in advance that this is going to be a pretty unpopular opinion, but here it is: In the main bridge club or teaching rooms, I would allow just chat about anything basic that lets the two opponents from getting confused - i.e. what kind of BW they're playing if somebody bids BW, whether a 2S response to 1NT is transfer, MSS, or natural, etc. If they started chatting about relays, I might squawk under the provision that if they don't know the answer they shouldn't be playing them. I think most people feel the same way because I've played with hundreds of pickup partners and none of them have complained when the opponents have asked each other about transfers or Blackwood responses. In the Main Bridge Club, if someone throws an unusual system bid or convention at you, you should be able to discuss defenses on the fly. The people who use these conventions should want to win because the conventions themselves are superior, not because you get confused over them. In an individual, everybody is going to be confused and I think that you have to just guess. Letting the opps discuss during the middle of an auction is going to put you at a huge diadvantage to the field where the winners will probably be the players whose opponents get the most fouled up. An exception: You have to give the opps time to say SOMETHING. If you open 1NT before the opps have time to say a word and one of their profiles has CAPP and the other has DONT, I think one of them should be allowed to say 'Your profile, partner." Here's the contraversial part: In a pairs tournament, I think that the pairs entering should have had a chance to discuss most NORMAL things that they would encounter, so if they haven't discussed their NT responses, too bad. However, if the opponents do something they shouldn't be expected to cover, I think they should have a chance to say something about it. Ideally it would be the person not about to act that says something. For example, on the second board, East opens 2H showing 4H, 4S, and a weak hand. Nobody should have to be expected to have a defense for this garbage that they won't see again for another year. At this point, it's South's turn to call. IMO, North should be able to chat, "Double is minors (4+), 2NT is natural, 2S is minors (5+ each)." or something like that. Unfortunately, even this scheme gives an edge to the Jeff Rubens's of the world who can come up with decent defenses instead of the abomination I just came up with.

Quite true! Isn't that interesting that if someone plays against a strong 2/1 pair plays, they know how to defend against their system and conventions optimally, and if someone plays that system named after an annoying bug, they AT BEST play sub-optimally and otherwise in a morass of confusion! Looks like the road to winning is obvious - develop a well-tuned system with components that nobody has heard of and keep changing it often. At best people will be able to play a suboptimal defense against your system. CRASH 2-bids, anyone? The poor pair that really thinks that 2/1 is the system for them (and it may be because of their country's tournament constraints) suffers a distinct disadvantage in tournmanets that have NOTHING to do with the value of the system, but only to do with the effectiveness of the defenses played against them, and the relative lack of confusion suffered by their opponents.

I think y'all are missing the point here. Of course the original poster, if so inclined, could post on the forum later and find out a defense that he could have been playing at the time but it's too late. The next time he logs on, another unfamiliar convention or system. If the player is into learning new defenses to conventions he'll face once every year or so, more power to him. He might lose a few IMPs along the way due to lack of familiarity, but so what? The player who logs on and picks up a partner is supposed to lose, right? Maybe the table creator could help out by putting in 'unusual methods' in the description of the table :D so the casual player could stay away Eric - great idea, except that most of your random partners aren't going to be well read. A lot of random adv/exp partners appear not to have ever read a bridge book no less a book on defenses to obscure conventions and systems. Perhaps the people that want to play this system or convention would be happy to proivde you with a reasonable defense at the time? If they get tired of doing that, they'll try to seek out other opponents that already know their conventions.

Both sides have their points. While it's great to allow innovation in creating a bidding system, the playing of that bidding system will win IMPs and matchpoints simply by the confusion of their opponents. Heck, you don't have to play against rabbits to win extra IMPs, you can play against ACBL members with thousands of masterpoints who just haven't been exposed to your methods and haven't had time to discuss a defense and still win points. (And one of these rabbit-killers just stated, "I prefer to win because we played better than the field!" in a thread concerning cheating.) I'm sure he/she doesn't realize how many IMPs fall into his/her lap because the opponents don't understand their sequences well enough to (1) defend properly, (2) take advantage of opportunities when our heroes are in trouble, (3) compete effectively, etc. But hey, I guess that taking the time to learn a system unfamiliar to some is part of 'playing better.' Someday, both sides can have it all. Anything can be allowed, as long as a reasonable defense is suggested. In an ideal world, maybe 30 years down the line, an ACBL pair unfamiliar with everything that is outlawed here playing against a MOSCITO pair will be able to click a buttton and get a document on his screen (with easy to find sections) discussing an excellent defense to most MOSCITO openings and responses in terms easy enough for the rabbits to understand. I have a very ethical friend who went one step further. He wanted to play a forcing pass system. He offered to let the opponents come up with the defense on the fly, after seeing their cards! Even then, there were opponents who grumbled (he said that most grumbled in the U.S. time zones.)

In the four card end position described in this thread, Come to Papa wanted to impress the kibitzers so much! He spoke of the impending one-suit squeeze and confidently led the last trump. Why, that ornery Hog had foolishly discarded his club, and some people even thought he was the best player at the bridge club! When that silly wabbit discarded the Jack of Spades, the Horrible Hog let out a snort and started "Destiny had dealt the Wabbit the ace of spades and 4H was unbeatable. How could I beat an unbeatable 4H? Simply by dicarding my club, a play I would never make with the ace of spades, and letting Come to Papa see a chance to be clever!" The Wacky Walrus asked Come to Papa if he had not yet learned to save a trump when you had to give up the lead with a finesse. Any similarity between these characters and others you might have heard of is purely coincidental.

While I agree with your result, I disagree with how you got there. By your argument, the Indians and Chinese would be invincible in world competitions. Besides, if the USA fielded their best six players instead of some clients, the results might surprise you.

Darn - I was so close to breaking my old record - 17 hours without ticking anybody off :lol: I sure would like to hear from the three voters that think it's OK to insult people. BTW, if somebody called me an unknown expert, I would consider it a compliment.

Indeed, it's likely that most of the criticisms of the ACBL come from within America!

Is it acceptable for ANYONE to insult people? You might be able to guess my answer simply because I asked the question. On the other hand, maybe he was referring to the fact that unsolicited advice shouldn't be offered in BBO and that he thought you were insulting him. As a bridge teacher, I know I frequently have to bite my tongue (or my keyboard fingers) for on more boards than not, I want to offer advice. But in most cases I can resist the urge. When the urge gets too strong, I look to partner a particular intermediate player who has requested that I point out his/her mistakes. The only time I just can't resist the urge is when a player is berating his partner (usually for doing something reasonable) when the player himself committed an atrocity. Yes, I know it's wrong - but he deserves it, and how else can I tell the poor partner that he didn't do anything wrong? (Private messages just aren't as much fun B) )

I would like to present this thread as evidence that the beginners need their own forum.

From a teacher's standpoint, I would think it would be more useful to preload a set of hands into several teaching rooms at once, and to be able to chat to all the rooms at once without annoying the lobby. It would be nice if the teacher could turn on/off the students' chat between the rooms (off when they're playing, on when the teacher is discussing so all students can hear each other's questions), and (maybe this already can be done) have the teacher simultaneously let the next board start at all tables. It probably won't matter for me but the more popular teachers might have many students kibitzing while only four play the hand. Wouldn't it be nice if they could all play the hand being discussed? A better learning experience IMO.

About the 2H overcall, I think that double is much safer with 3-5-4-1 with weak hearts than 2H. Especially if it turns out to be a partscore hand where West can go down 100 per trick if pard shows up with something like Qx of hearts (or worse!) opposite his 5 small. Assuming you get no information with your questions about carding, and totally have to guess what their carding is: you're playing the opps for: Hand 1: W: Kxx xxxxx AKJx x E: Axx xxx xxxx Qxx or Hand 2: W: Kxx xxxx AKJx Qx E: Axx xxxx xxxx xx While West might double on either one, East might bid 2H sometimes with the second hand. Also, the first one is a safer double; West might well pass with the second hand vulnerable. However, there's also the possibility of: Habd 3: W: Kxx xxxxx AKJ Qx E: Axx xxx xxxxx xx which votes in favor of the drop. Also, your wildman West might compete to 3D with the first hand, not being intimidated by the redouble. After all this, I still think it's about a 50-50 guess unless you can determine something from their carding. But wait! There's the defense! Why did West try to give East a spade ruff? Perhaps West can rule out the spade lead costing a trick, which it would if declarer had Ax and East had four spades. If West doesn't think East can have four spades, then East probably doesn't have four hearts either. So, now we're down to Hand 1 or Hand 3. Since Hand 1 is more likely to be dealt, I finesse.

You are on lead with: S-842 H-KJ82 D-972 C-983 RHO bids 1NT (15-17). LHO bids 3NT. (1) your lead at matchpoints? (2) your lead at IMPs?

What are their signals, and if the second card is remaing count, how low is low? (Also, two D9's in hand - might matter for signals)

Back to single dummy, LHO would switch to a spade when in with DK (or would have led one) in all cases where RHO has SA except specifically AJ. Playing the trump first wins when RHO has 104 or 102, more often than AJ. I must admit I would never find this play at the table :)

I find that happens even more often in newsgroups and bulletin boards than it does at the online bridge table. Of course, I am sometimes guilty of such behavior. IMO most of the rudeness that happens in the forum happens because someone misunderstands somebody else's post - which is usually rectified quickly in F2F dealings or at a bridge table where misunderstandings are quickly cleared up. But cast my vote for less than 1%. Obviously it exists but I have seen very little evidence of it. The mere fact that my occasional 68-70% games come in 1st or 2nd is evidence that there weren't many (if any) cheaters entered in these tournaments. Heck, you let me (and nobody else) look at all the cards and I'd be hard pressed to score less than 75%, especially in an individual when I was privy to the information that partner wasn't bidding correctly. I would also think that with communicating with partner only, at least 70% should almost always be had - since you'll always defend perfectly, play double dummy when partner can see all the cards, and can successfully pick off the opponent's best suit in any auction where they have the high cards with a psyche, and bid suits you don't have to get the best lead for your side. So, IMO, the amount of cheating can be determined by comparing the percentage of big games to the expected percentage of big games using the same number of boards.

What am I missing? If East has S-K8xx, isn't your only hope to not win this spade, but the next one, and then hope the hand that gets in doesn't have the fourth spade? Of course, a good West would lead the 3 and not the 9 for the second spade, because he needs to retain the 9 so his partner can lead a spade from 8x without giving up a trick. Winning the third spade also gives you a shot when the DA plus whatever (heart or club, maybe the play will help you guess) card you decide to set up isn't with the fourth spade. If you can convince the opponents to win the DA early, it also rectifies the count in case the fourth spade is in the hand with the DA.

I tried this line but rejected it. I was afraid that RHO would discard clubs on both of my diamond leads, and then when LHO won the club Ace he would be able to give his partner a club ruff with the small trump.

If you want to pass, which could be right but not likely if partner is maximum. I would bid 2NT and then 3NT over a max, and pass 3H if partner shows a min. You clearly don't want to not be in a game the field will be in when (1) it has good play, and (2) your side plays a trick better than the field :)

I have an answer which I have no clue whether it's right or not, but I don't want to deny anyone from the chance to work this one out. If the solution is what I think it is, it's a really cool problem. A hint: You know what Ben wants you to do, now you have to figure out why you should do it. I've Emailed my solution so I expect to hear shortly that I was wrong ;)

Rather than seeing if declarer made or went down in his contract and having all these different IF branches, why not simply have the unplayed boards finished by a computer program? You could have a program that plays at a couple of different levels. The 'good' program would finish your play, unless you took much more time than the opponents in the last round which might imply that you wanted the result not to count, in which you get a program that plays about as well as Microsoft Zone's bots. In most cases where the number of tricks would be quite clear from an adjustment point of view, the computer program would come up with the correct adjustment. Only occasionally, when the player stops early in the hand, might the program fail. The worst travesties would happen when a top player is about to make a contract on a strip squeeze which the program couldn't handle. Maybe in such a case (the players see their adjustment), the player should have the option of playing against a program that can see all 52 cards as well as play well. (This could be done after the tournament is done; the results would be posted 'pending adjustment.') Players who had stuck partners could sub for them. If they decided not to do that within (say) 2 minutes, the bot would play that hand until the next round when someone off the sub list would automaatically come in.

I would compete to 2S over 2D or 2H with partner passing. My usual shape for this is 4-6 so I'm not too far off. If the opponents stop in 2D or 2H, the implication is that partner has some stuff and isn't bidding because he has no good bid. If it gets to the three level, I think I have to let it go - partner couldn't support clubs and the opponents are getting bad breaks, just hope it's trouble for anyone who declares. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of doubled contracts on this board. If partner corrects 2S to 2NT you have to bid 3C.

And, of course, the tournaments could be named by sponsors too. Everybody would want to sponsor Mirjam's tourneys, every glamoured member would receive message - Congratulations - uday and Inquiry won the Doritos Glamoured! ;) The ace of spades could have a sponsor too. You could even go one step further and randomly assign sponsors to each table in the Main Bridge Club, instead of naming it after the table opener. "Please - need 2 nice opponents at table Oscar Mayer!" You guys have programmed an awesome site and deserve to make at least as much as your average programmer!

You would have a problem making your contract on the lead of the King of Beers? :)