Brandal

For once, Roland and I are on the same page (and quite a different one from nearly everyone else). Like Roland, I think IF I bid here, I will double... but at imps, like Roland, I think 2♠ shows better spades... in fact, in my reply, I said... Justin (another gold star beside Roland replying here) suggest that passing gives away 6 imps. I assume his assumption here is you make 2♠ (+110) and they make 2♥ (-110), for a net swing of six imps (six imps is 220 to 260). But there are many other options. For one thing, both 2♥ and 2♠ are down one, so you throw away five imps (-100 instead of +100), or one makes and the other is down, so as long as their is no double, it is a wash (-100 versus -110, or +100 versus +110). But there are other options, as well. These others ones obviously weigh heavily on Roland's mind when he said the "(his) personal view is that it's dangerous to come in with a 5332 shape vulnerable unless your 5-card suit is very good." This worries me too. It is so much easier for the opponents to double you when they have two or three trump tricks and their partner has limited their hand. Thus bidding here runs two significant risk. The first is West is on big hand and finds a penalty double when they can't make much more than +140. Now -500 or -800 is possible, and minus more occassionally. Second, if you get away with the 2♠, your partner might easily raise you expecting more DESPITE OBAR rules, given the type of game (imps) and the vulnerabilty. It would be a darn shame to bid 2♠, have West pass and have partner raise to 3♠ on some unattractive hand like Jxxx xx KTx QTxx (everything appears to be working) only to find we lose 2♠, 2♥, 2♣, and 1♦ doubled (when we misguess ♦Q and WEST has AQ of spades) when we can win 3D and one club against what ever they bid (no diamond guess when you see dummy). Or give partner the spade QJ, and we still lose 2C, 2H, and 1S doubled and have to find diamond Queen to avoid down two. Bid if you have too... but at some point, you need to start considering risk versus reward.... that is take a look at the vulnerabilty and the type game. At MP, you should bid everytime, because based upon frequency, 2♠ will be the winner in the long run (more good results after bidding 2♠ than after passing). But based upon anticipated results, bidding here at imps, will lead to enough larger negative swings to make it unwise in my opinion (this hand is not worth the 14 hcp it seems to have 5-2-3-3 is not great distribution, 2 hearts is not a great holding, the king of hearts should be discounted). There is a third consideration here. Your opponents are vulnerable. IF WEST has any extra, he will make a game try. If he passes, your partner will know you ahve a nice hand. Under these conditions, your partner will strain to reopen despite your pass if it goes 2H-P-P-P.... Ben You really have all these thoughts and worries before bidding? :unsure:

I agree completely :unsure:

In my opinion,North should

2S

I'm not disagreeing with you or saying bridge should be "linear" or different from what we see today. BUT......there is also a "fine line" where some people make the game of bridge less attractive to others by excercising their rights without consideration,especially at club level. Say 5% play some competitive bridge at some level outside the club evenings,that means 95% have a social approach first,making a decent score or not being second. Maybe I'm way off here,but I think the 5% should consider their "effect" on how enjoyable they make an average club event for the rest of the field. :)

When I wrote _regular partners explain 2C opening with "precision" or "WJ"_ I meant they explained when asked,and that isn't good enough I think. B)

I don't play indy myself,and I never play tourneys with pickup partners without panning out most used conventions and bids :rolleyes: I'm satisfied now,it was more a principle question for me,I could just as easily asked why do people who are regular partners explain 2C opening with "precision" or "WJ" or "WYSIWYG" lol

Indeed I see the point luke,it's not really about not understanding the point anymore :rolleyes: If me and a pickup pd or in an indy have agreed weak 2,is it allowed to write "weak 2"? We didn't have time to specify strength,style is "weak 2" unethical in that scenario,not going deeper into it than that? Or is that also unethical because we haven't agreed strength,length,style,responses and so on? :) Frode

I don't know if it "hurts",I just don't like it :rolleyes: Having segregated tourneys,clubs,tables within one BBO doesn't say dividing BBO that way is a good thing. Segregation is a bad thing when you don't have a say in the matter,isn't it? If this has to happen,why not: BBO Main Bridge Club BBO Vugraph BBO Tournaments-Team Games-Private Clubs etc. with some links and overlaps like broadcasts and tournament schedules available to all......... :)

In my (humble or not) opinion F2F and online where we self alert just isn't "the same thing". :) When someone else(my pd) has to explain my bid obviously he has to refer to agreement nad be careful saying much more. What I react the most on,is luis saying it's unlawful and that I am unethical to just about everyone on BBO. He may be correct,but I find it alot more unethical not to inform opps about my bid/style,I'm not the only one at the table and bridge is a social event. :rolleyes: Yesterday in a tourney I opened 1C and when asked to explain I wrote "4+ cl 12-19" (we open 4 card) Opps were in 1nt and went down 1 since declarer didn't know how to count clubs,my pd had 1 and dummy 2 and me and declarer had 5,he then proceeded to inform me 1c should be alerted (apparently since I had 5 clubs) Even that made me feel bad,imagine how I will feel at the table saying "no agreement" :)

I agree with everyone who think splitting is a bad idea. BUT.....I understood Uday as something's gotta give, and my first thought was move one or two "parts" of BBO to a second play-area. I would assume since vugraph doesn't happen all day every day,that wouldn't be enough? Or maybe it's when vugraph takes place the masses cause problems,I don't know. I do not like the regional division. :)

So even if we HAVE agreed weak 2 we can't explain what they're supposed to be,because we don't know the style? Man,this just doesn't sound right :D

Ofcourse they are,what was I thinking If I ever play tournament on BBO again I will try to get with the program and not disclose anything without having an agreement I will be very uncomfortable not knowing what my bid means,I can tell you that.... Time for me to stop here,thx all for your patience

But this was a partners explanation,not selfalert? No difference,you mean? And isn't the hand not being as pd describes,something else alltogether? :D

Why does what my partner might or might not do based on my bid have to do with me selfalerting/explaining to opps what my bid is? My pd doesn't know what I alerted with,or if I alerted? So yes,I understand what you're saying,but I strongly disagree with you :D

"no agreement" "no idea" "ooooops" "why shld I tell you??" "no comment" "in your dreams" are all better than "weak 6 card" :D unless you wanna look at 3 to 5 in BBO Jail :D (For the record,this was mostly a joke) :)

I would contend that the basis for your "guess" is at least in part based upon your agreement to play lebehsohl rather than on any general bridge knowledge. But, There is a big difference between being asked to explain your partner's call (as is usually the case in FTF bridge) and being asked to explain your own call (which is the norm in online bridge). "We have no agreement" is often appropriate in FTF bridge where you are left to figure out what your partner intends. But, when explaining your own bids, there's never any guess about what you intend. (Well, if the "what do you bid" threads on this forum are any indication, some people actually don't know what they intend! :D ) Part of the trouble, I believe, is in trying to duplicate the ftf environment where partner answers the questions regarding my calls. I think partner explaining the calls is actually a compromise put in place for FTF play in order to reduce the amount of unauthorized information. In a perfect world, the person who makes the call would also do the explaining since he knows exactly what the intent (presumed agreement) is, but his partner would not hear the explanation in order to avoid the possibility of UI. Online is that perfect world. Gee, the WBF should publish some kind of booklet about alerting with screens and that is the rule that we have to use when self-alerting online. I'm too tired to explain that it's unlawful to say what you have. In fact when a bid is not alerted then there's nothing to ask about since all the bids that carry some meaning either by explicit or implicit agreement must be alerted. That's why I think that 99.99% of the non-alerted bids when asked should answer "no agreement" or "natural" because there's no conventional meaning. Somehow some players requiere others to explain what they have and somehow some players think they are ethical by telling their opponents what they have I think those players should be punished with procedural penalties as if they were helping or showing their cards inentionally to their opponents. You scare me Is it unlawful to selfalert "6card 6-11hcp" if I open 2H with someone I never met before?

Separating MBC from the rest would probably be most effective,if you had "everything" on each mini-BBO it would be likely to have lots of people in one mini-BBO and alot less in the other(s)? :)

Vugraph rocks! :) I've never been bothered with the broadcast to lobby,you Roland and everyone else involved are doing a magnificent job. It is virtually impossible to please everyone,some will always complain,and if you change ONE thing, you will please some,and others who were happy before will maybe complain about the change :) Keep up the good work friends Frode

Not sure who you responded to,but I like 5-2 fit alot better than 4-3 on most occasions. And what is this "easy 1NT,what's the problem" attitude? :) Isn't one of the beauties of bridge that 4 people might have 4 different "easy bid,what's the problem" opinions? :) Frode

Well I for one would be very surprised if he said no agreement,anything but that :) he would try his best to tell opps what I am supposed to have,as I do self alerting online

I'm sorry for that

This is so wrong, so wrong, and there're so many players doing this... Your opponents have no right at all to know what you have for any particular bid or what you intend any particular bid to be. You must only tell them what agreements you have with your pd. If your pd can figure out the meaning of non-arranged bids better than your opponents then you will win and that's just because you are a better partnership or because your pd is a better player. Why, oh why, would you want your opponents to have a better understanding of your hand than your pd? Does this make any sense to you? Your pd will have to guess or figure out what you have while your opponents will know exactly, a complete nonsense. maybe it's wrong wrong wrong wrong BUT I just don't hide behind "no agreement". When I make a bid,I stand for it,and if it's pre-emptive I tell opps it's pre-emptive because I selfalert and I KNOW what the bid is,and am I not obligated to tell opps? Why is everyone so "oh i'm protected by the law,I can just say no agreement". If that makes me nice,gullible,naive or a pushover then so be it,it's not so bad :) Why am I "the guy" who is doing wrong to the entire field because everyone else is comfortable saying "no agreement,sorry"?

Since we self-alert on BBO,if I make a pre-emptive bid that is what I disclose to opps,not if we have or have not an agreement. I simply tell them what my bid is,not how anyone will interpret it. :lol:

That's cheating in my book,with the word "often" in there and no alert Amusing use of the word "Cheating". Earlier in this thread I made reference to "classic" psyches. A 1♠ advance of a 1♥ opening easily falls within this category and clearly falls within the realm of general bridge knowledge. The fact that many players wish to remain willfully ignorant of certain aspects of the game should not accord them protection under the law. Nor, should it allow them to accuse others of cheating. Amusing use or not,this seemed to be a regular partnership who bid 1s over 1h almost every time without notifying opps 1s can be anything from single to whatever. I doubt they play many boards on 4-1 fit in spades so......?