paulhar

Sorry about that! I guess using the term "your approach" implies that what you suggest is "strange" while what I suggest is "normal" even though that was not my intention. In fact, I have to allow for the possibility that I'm the "odd man out". It would never occur to me to do anything but bid 4H with the hand I gave, but I havent played much bridge in the last ten years and it's quite possbile that my approach is old-fashioned. I'll rephrase what I said to: I'm pretty sure my regular partner would expect a 4H bid with that hand.

I would overcall 1S not playing Equal Level Conversion. Of course, my partner, a devout Law follower, will bury me. :P As for playing ELC, the people that play it get what they deserve when responder bids 3H and advancer bids 4C. I don't play it and will offer no opinion on that part of the question since I would be speaking from ignorance.

No. A 4♦ cue bid shows two places to play. That might be both majors, or a 4-card major and a 4+ card minor. With a normal takeout double, the doubler would bid his lowest four-card suit. So, when doubler has [hv=s=skqj4hkj5d54caqj7]133|100|[/hv] do you want to play in 4S or 5C? Your approach might pay off if doubler is 4-3-1-5; say [hv=s=skqj4hkj5d54caqj7]133|100|[/hv] but at matchpoints, there's not much to choose between playing in 4H and 5C since when 4H makes, it scores an extra 20 points. Now if your partners double 3D with a doubleton heart, there's a lot to be said for cuebidding rather than jumping to 4H. When MY partners double 3D with a doubleton heart, I find a new partner.

The auction has gone 2C P 2D P 2S P 3S. Assuming you don't want to bid slam or 4S now, would you always cuebid here or would you sometimes just bid 4S holding an ace?

Even though this topic appears from time to time, the comments were interesting. Right now, it seems that the way it works is that everybody knows that the ratings are absolutely meaningless (I played at a table with two experts and a 'beginner' once and the beginner was the best player at the table.) Players who frequent BBO have their list of favorite partners and look for one of them to pop on. When I played, I had about 30 people that I thought were comparable in system and skill and it wouldn't take long for one of them to show up if I didn't mind waiting a few mintues. If everybody did this, it would take a long time for a new player to BBO to break in. Nobody knows him and nobody trusts his rating. How sad. Kind of like the new guy to town wanting to play at the local duplicate. Might be an awesome player but if he isn't known, he will play with the dregs for many weeks, getting the types of results that aren't usually associated with awesome players, and remaining unnoticed. While any kind of rating system (I kind of like the "other players can submit changes to the ratings" approach, which in my opinion would take two votes from the same table to have an effect - and this would have to happen several times before the rating changes) might solve this problem, the negative effects of any rating system would outweigh the positives. Negatives include (but are not limited to:) failure to want to play when you might not be on your best game; failure to want to play with a foreigner because you're afraid some of your bidding might be misunderstood (and therefore be thought to be "awful"), not getting partnered because you are known to have cast a vote against someone else, or not playing with (or against!) someone because he was known to cast a vote against someone else. A Lehman rating system has other drawbacks; people will be less willing to play with an unfamiliar partner for fear that a misunderstanding will cost them Lehman points. So I think we're stuck with what we have, learn to love it. :P

A deathwish at IMP; winning bridge at MP. How comfortable do you think the auction is going to be for responder after an "undefined" 1D followed by a 2C overcall? So the 2C overcaller goes for a number once in a while. This is more than made up for by the awkward auction that the opening side is going to conduct on a lot of hands. BTW, sometimes when opener repoens with a double and the responder passes with decent clubs, I'll MAKE 2Cx because the good clubs I'm supposed to have are in partner's hand! :) The more likely way for me to get hammered is after a negative double and the 1D opener has five clubs (not all that uncommon in Precision, especially if the 2C bid is specific about distribtuion) but a successful runout to 2D (!) might save me in that situation.

While 3D shows shortness in "standard" Jacoby, there is some disagreement what 4D shows in standard Jacoby - I have heard both "a void" and "a broken 5-card suit". You might want to know which one your partner plays.

It's probalby my fault... I communicate as well via these posts as I do in the bidding... :P

I'm wondering what South planned to rebid over 4H. By the way, isn't it kind of routine for the advancer to bid 4H on a hand something like [hv=s=s65haq43d763ckt54]133|100|[/hv] since a cuebid would risk hearing partner bid 4S? So I would "stay fixed" and bid 3NT with South. I'd like to think that 4D by North would mean "pick a major" but I'd be afraid to bid it undiscussed as some people might think it was some kind of goofy transfer. Incidentally, it appears that a practical South paired with a "fearful of a misunderstainding" North play in 3NT for a bushel of matchpoints assuming the 3D bidder lacks the ♥A.

Sorry, I'm looking for more information. Do you think any of these say anything about controls? Points? P.S. I have got to do something about that awful picture :P P.P.S: this was posted after I saw the first reply; the second reply is plenty of information

Please answer this only if you routinely play a strong, forcing, artificial 2C opening bid, 2D "waiting", and 3C (or cheaper minor) as second negative. Here are four auctions. How do you play them? (1) 2C P 2D P 2S P 3S (2) 2C P 2D P 2S P 4S (3) 2C P 2D P 2S P 3C (second negative) P 3D P 4S (4) 2C P 2D P 2S P 3C (second negative) P 3D P 3S I think I have listed them from strongest to weakest, please let me know if you disagree. By the way, I do have an opinion on these - I just want to know if the world agrees.

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sj72hq4d8765c7543]133|100|--- 1H P P 1S 2C 2S ??[/hv] Partner opens 1H, passed around to LHO who balances with 1S. Partner bids 2C and RHO raises to 2S. Your call? Both are vul.

Really? The game has changed that much? Well, I have played maybe a local tournament a year and maybe 200-500 hands on BBO since that time so if the game is that much different, I have to relearn it and might as well give up the game since time contraints exist. And I thought the reason to give up the game was those rediculous alert/UI discussions I've seen! (i.e. you aren't allowed to know what the opponents are playing because you give unauthorized information if you ask)

Hi - Almost all "experts" think that their answers are "the only way to play" here but they also don't agree with each other. My wife has researched four conventions teaching texts and no two agree with each other. So, some simple questions: A few questions on how you think 2/1 Game Forcing should be played: (a) 1H - 2D - 3NT: range? (:P 1H - 2D - 2NT: (b1) how many (and which) black suits could be unstopped? (b2) and what are the ranges possible? © Does 1H - 2D - 2S show extras? (d) Does 1H - 2D - 3C show extras? (e) 1H - 2D - 3H shows what? Thanks!

CLEARLY there is no standard. The Bridge World took a poll in 2001. This is from www.bridgeworld.com. The first number is a percentage of experts that chose this choice, the second is the percentage of Bridge World readers (I'm probably an average bridge world reader - with about 2500 masterpoints) Bridge World Standard Poll Results for BWS 2001 These poll questions were used to determine adjustments from previous verisons of Bridge World Standard (BWS) to the 2001 version of the system. The votes are given in parentheses; the first number is the percentage of votes for the item from the expert panel. the second from readers. The Bridge World Standard Defense (BWSD) poll (in the final section), the filtrate of a preliminary poll on all aspects of defensive card play agreements—anything not shown here was accepted from the earlier version of BWSD, the expert vote on each item is given. (a lot of stuff deleted) After a Simple Overcall In BWS-2001, after a simple overcall, unpassed advancer’s new-suit bids should be treated as . . . 1226a. natural and forcing. (24,27) 1226b. natural and nonforcing. (37,34) 1226c. natural and forcing at the same level as the overcall, nonforcing at a higher level. (2,3) 1226d. natural and forcing only following a two-level overcall. (23,16) 1226e. natural and forcing following a two-level overcall or as a one-level advance of a one-level overcall. (0,3) 1226f. part of a system of transfer advances. (13,17) 1226g. something not listed here. (1,0) Oddly enough, I don't see a difference between a 4-card suit and a 5-card suit. I thought it was CLEARLY a 5-card suit but also clearly I am in the minority.

Hi - I had always played 1H-1NT-2NT as similar strength to 1H-1S-2NT whether 1NT is forcing or not (18-19 if I am playing 15-17 1NT openers) but I have recently seen two books written by different authors which suggest a lower range. For the poll, I am assuming that 1NT is forcing; however if a nonforcing 1NT response would make your answer different, please explain.

Thank you Echo, Mike & Ben, your answers were helpful.

It's somewhat helpful, but brings a couple more questions. 1. I tried your #3 by going to a room and rightclicking a friend; the options were 'send private chat', 'mark as neutral', 'mark as enemy'. So I can't really summon them, I can only chat to them and if they are totally clueless about following directions, there is really no way to get them to my room. Am I missing something? 2. Leaving a teaching table closing the room is bad on two levels - a momentary server glitch (we get those all the time here) will kill your table, and there is no way to teach more than one table. If there is someone out there who teaches more than one table, can you tell me how you get around these problems? I tried to go to a normal 'non-teaching' room and open a bridge movie, but open isn't an option. Would it be if I had four players? (My hopes were that I could open a deal in several rooms and then have the students come to them.)

Hi! My wife and I are trying to introduce several F2F students to BBO tonight. However, the last time we did this, we had several problems because we're pretty ignorant on the operation of BBO. Has there been a thread that has helped people trying to do this? Specific questions we had last time are: (1) A student comes onto BBO and doesn't know how to get to us. Can we 'summon' him/her to our room? (2) 4 students are playing, but when we were kibitzing we couldn't say anything to them. Is there a way we can talk to the players without sending private messaged to each one? (I know a teaching table will do it but that won't allow IMPs or matchpoints to my knowledge.) (3) Pat set up a teaching table so we could talk to the students. She had 4 students playing but she left to go fetch a wayward student. The table disappeared and all 4 students got thrown into the lobby mid-hand. Is there a way to avoid this? (In theory, I would think a teacher would be able to go from room to room and teach using the same hand, with the students staying.) I will have plenty more questions but I'm hoping to get these answered before we bring our class online. Thank you very much for any helpful replies!

LHO: 1C. Pard: 1D. RHO: Pass. You: 1S. I have always learned this to show at least five spades and have not seen any books that contradict this. However, some experienced players are stating that in some regions of the United States, this is routinely played as showing 4+ spades, not just by the beginners, but by "everybody", and is the recommended treatment in these regions. I don't get to many tournaments outside my hometown, so I can't refute this statement. All comments and replies would be appreciated.

You might be reading too much into this. Partner may have left because he had a power failure or his computer otherwise crashed, because a family emergency called him away, because his boss came in the room and he had to get off Bridge Base, or becuase he (selfishly) didn't want to wait a hand as dummy and decided to join a table where he would be active. There are quite possibly many other reasons partner might have left. Since you gave no surrounding information, we can't tell. I did have a partner who once said 'I presume your lead of the six was a misclick' (apparently this player always led the highest of partner's suit!) When I replied "No', the player left. I was relieved. :P

How perceptive of you! I have been looking at these clues for over a year to gather ideas for lesson material and have never had a quibble with anything signed by Mike Lawrence (as about half of the answers on the site are.) Actually, I suspect Im wrong. I have always assumed it was a site by Lawrence. One minute ago I looked at Lawrence own site, and clearly see The clues ARENT his own site but Anne Lunds and Leonard Lidstrom, but probably with cooperation of Lawrence. My fault! Even more perceptive - I've just went on the site myself and could find no reference to Leonard Lidstrom. Where did you find a reference to him? The Level 1 play and Level 2 bidding both are signed by Mike Lawrence so I can only assume that either it's his material or chopped out of material he previously wrote. The Level 2 play has an access error. Only the Level 1 Bidding is signed by Anne Lund. On a typical day, she signs two and Mike Lawrence signs two. Occasionally those signed by Lund also say 'edited by Ron Fischer'. The quality of those signed by Lawrence is quite high. I have frequently found what I consider to be flaws in the others, even those with Fischer's name attached. I've given people plenty of time to respond, so now I'll put in my two cents. 1. I can't believe anybody in their right mind plays 2H-double-redouble as SOS. 2. Perhaps if it's ALERTED as SOS, South's pass could be penalty, but in pracitce, anybody that thinks this is SOS probably also thinks it's standard, so South, who will be in the dark, will revert to the standand meaning of pass, which is 'partner, i have no preference, you choose the suit.' Playing this pass as penalty is an OK treatment but hardly standard. 3. The futility of playing this redouble as SOS is shown by this hand. First, if West was 2-6-3-2, they would escape from their 6-1 fit at the 2 level to their 3-3 fit at the 3 level. As it is, West can hardly fail to take six tricks in 2H doubled by scrambling. If he's lucky, he can take the same 6 tricks in 3D doubled on a trump lead. I see 3 trump tricks and the AQ of hearts, but where is the sixth trick coming from? Even if East is 5-0-4-4, it's silly to make an SOS redouble. East has no idea that the opponents are going to leave him in 2H doubled, and making an SOS redouble only alerts the opponents to the fact E-W are in trouble. 4. The text has North doubling 3D. North nade a minimum takeout double and doesn't have much in the say of surprising cards in defense versus 3D. If I were North, I would not be at all surprised to see the opponents make 3D doubled if my partner has a diamond void, since my KQ are likely to be onside, and partner's heart honors are likely to be worthless. On the other hand, if North has a real takeout double, South is the one who knows their oppoennts don't have a real fit and that they have no source of tricks. South should be the one to double 3D. Yes, North does have some nice defense against diamonds. But if East and South are playing the standard meanings of their bids, and West has just done something silly, then E-W could have all the strength here, with East waiting to pounce on anything. West has just taken N-S off the hook and now North doubles with his 13HCP opposite possibly nothing! Or perhaps West has an Al Roth type weak 2 with 6-5 or 6-6 and 3D might be making on shape alone (especially if South has a penalty pass of hearts, making heart ruffs in dummy safe.) Or East has made his 'SOS' redouble on a strongish hand trying to trap the opponents into doubling them. In any event, North hasn't got more than he has shown (except possibly decent diamonds), and if South doesn't think that 3D can be beat, perhaps it shouldn't be doubled. Let me give an example where E-W have decided to play this redouble as SOS and East picks up a hand that almost justifies (if anything can) this decision. [hv=n=sa962h9dkq92ca952&w=sj7hak7654d10754cq&e=skq104hdaj86cj10876&s=s853hqj10832d3ck43]399|300|[/hv] Now South wants to defend 2H doubled (South really doesn't want to bid anything) but South doesn't think 3D doubled can be beaten (and I don't think it can.)

How perceptive of you! I have been looking at these clues for over a year to gather ideas for lesson material and have never had a quibble with anything signed by Mike Lawrence (as about half of the answers on the site are.)

What's wrong with, 'none', 'N/S', 'E/W', 'both'?

1NT-3NT. Does partner have any reason to lead a short suit? My 5-point hand tells me that partner is likely to be leading his own suit rather trying to hit my suit. Partner should be strong enough to realize that trying to hit my suit is unlikely to work since I'm unlikely to have entries to enjoy it (else you're so far outgunned that 3NT just can't be beat if partner has only 3 hearts.) This inference is so strong IMO that I would need a very solid agreement to override my bridge judgment here. All the above applies because you said it was IMPs. In matchpoints, you have a real problem.