oryctolagi

.

As an Acol player, what do I do? Certainly not open 1♥. You can't 'change your mind' and show a reverse based on partner's response. If partner hears your 2♠ after 1♥, they will assume you had a strong opener even before they said anything. Open 1 ♠ and follow with 2 ♥ perhaps? I think I'd open 1♣. If partner shows ♦ you can show your ♥. You can support whichever major partner bids, of course. If they respond 1NT better leave it there, despite the void. But in this instance partner would presumably raise your ♣. Then it's up to you.

Thanks for the replies. Yes. This is the closest to my line of play. My mistake was, of course, to draw a round of trumps before cashing K♠. That leaves me one entry short. Easy to see with hindsight (and having it explained to me), but with ten trumps headed by AKQ, who wouldn't be tempted?

Oh the pleasures of (very) informal rubber bridge! This would have been nearly 50 years ago. I was dealer and my partner was uttering all sorts of agitated "ooo-err"s as he sorted his hand. At length both our opponents pocketed their hands and clustered round my partner to see what he was on about. I - not yet having bid - sat stony-faced and tried to ignore all the kerfuffle. I had a minimum opening so I went 1♣. Partner looked dubious, he thought I was fooling about - but he just went 4NT - [i showed my ace] - 7NT. Both opponents had zero-pointers and we didn't bother to play out the deal.... I would not recommend this sort of activity at any organised bridge! Probably alcohol played a part in the evening. :unsure:

I assume the hand illustrated is the South hand, not the East hand. I might pass, and hope that the opponents (a) don't find a heart fit, and (b) get into a mess! This looks like a hand for defence.

We were the only table to bid the slam - and I went down on the lead of a low ♥: [hv=pc=n&s=skhq9dt96432cat94&w=s3hjt76532dj85c75&n=saj9854ha4dakq7c2&e=sqt762hk8dckqj863]399|300[/hv] Horrible distribution! On any other lead, six ♦ are cold, but I couldn't see a way through to 12 tricks on a heart lead. Perhaps someone can show me?!

I think I once had a 27 or 28-pointer on BBO, and to be honest I don't really like having these giant hands. It's difficult extracting anything useful from partner, so you have to do all the bidding and guessing yourself. 23 to 24 points, the minimum for a 2♣ (or 2♦ if playing benji) is the ideal forcing hand. Though you may still fall short in 3NT if partner has a yarborough...

Playing Acol/Benji, it's one short for a 2NT opening - but if I (not being an expert) had a couple of 10's as well as 19 points, I'd open 2NT, counting each ten as ½ point. Logical? I wouldn't open benji 2♣ with a flat hand and no aces. Failing those, open 1S (I'd not go 1H ... 1S because for a reverse I think you need two better suits). Then follow with 2NT and see what comes of it...

Thanks for the replies so far - most interesting. It goes to show, I've got a lot to learn about accurate bidding! :unsure: This hand cropped up on BBO, dupl IMPs. At our table I opened 2♣ and partner responded 2NT which I took to mean game try (is 3♣ better?) - anyway we ended in 6♠ :( . But out of the sixteen tables played, only one bid the Grand - in spades - and somehow contrived to go down, I'm perplexed as to how: since there were no first-round ruffs for defence, the Grand was a laydown. We were one of only two tables to reach six. I don't regard my bidding as my strong side, so I was fairly chuffed with that. :)

Dealer West, E-W vulnerable. [hv=pc=n&s=sakqj75hdk98ckq96&n=st32ht74da3cat853]133|200[/hv] Assume Benji. Well, assume any system you like, but we were playing Benji. No bids from opponents.

You may have a point there. OK, yes, you do have a point. But perhaps it's better to vent one's spleen here on the forum, rather than at the table? I believe I have reasonable self-control at the table. At any rate, I haven't sunk to the level of name-calling that, regrettably, I've witnessed from others. I did leave the table in question without saying the usual 'goodbye's and 'thank you's. That in itself probably conveyed something of my thoughts. Anyway, thanks for all the tips about how to play the hand, but I don't really need that. I know now that if 1NTx had been passed out, I'd probably have made, or at worst 1 down, and avoided a lot of trouble. My post was really about attitudes rather than about bridge.

Thank you. A positive reply at last! I shall let the matter rest, but maybe keep an eye on the person concerned. I am quite happy with being corrected about my errors, but not in this way!

Let's get this straight. I fully accept that 2♦ was wrong - why do you have to rub it in? (remarks like "I'd leave the table" ... "insane" etc. etc. are hardly likely to encourage me to stick with BBO. Do people really want me out of here on the strength of one or two bad bids? :angry: ) I had indeed - in a 'senior' moment - forgotten the mantra "do not bid again after 1NT without hearing from partner". Perhaps my bigger mistake was to make this public. One learns.... My partner's 6♦ was a 'punishment' bid. No other way to describe it. Clearly pre-meditated and designed to discompose, more, to humiliate me (since I would be the one playing it out, and it gave me no opportunity to retreat to clubs - I presume that if I'd gone 7♣ he'd have gone 7♦). I suppose the intention was to force me off the table - at which he succeeded - after I'd played out this ridiculous contract. So does BBO have a policy on 'punishment' bids? As I understand it, people who jump to, say, 7NT merely to disrupt the play, are come down upon heavily.

So I made a poor bid. Am I the only one? What the ***** was I supposed to do next? The partner in question has his/her profile marked 'expert'. Mine isn't.

OK I might be effectively blacklisted out of BBO after this. Maybe I should just give up. I was south. [hv=pc=n&s=st76ha3daq87ca543&n=skq54hkt8d93cjt86&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1nppd2dp2hp3cp3sp3np6ddppp]266|200[/hv] My bidding was rather poor, I admit, but I tried for the best. I supposed I was being punished in some way? With -15 IMPs, the only effect is yet another blacklisted partner. :(

Granted. But I make a point of not leaving the table in the middle of a hand if I can help it - neither during bidding nor during play. Not even if I've made a total ****-up of the bidding or play. Common courtesy, as I see it. The only time I've done that was when other players were being obstreperous or insulting. That's only happened once or twice, in the time I've been playing on BBO. On this occasion BBO simply locked up on me. Anyway the auction wasn't yet completed when I got locked out: I was dealer and opened a minimum 1♠, it went 1♠(pass)2♦(2♥)all pass. I must have been locked out just after passing opponent's 2♥ but I never saw my partner's pass, so the auction hadn't quite ended. But a perfectly innocent auction - no 'silly' bids... Oh well, if BBO really can't distinguish between when a player gets locked out, and when a player voluntarily leaves a table, I suppose it can't be helped. I've had a suggestion from support@ , to try disabling hardware acceleration in my browser. I'll see if that helps.

Yes - as announced on this forum, I notice a new, completely revamped, home page has come up. Very smooth and sexy :ph34r: . However, I do wish that the development team could instead devote just a little bit of their valuable time, to addressing the suggestions, complaints, and bug reports, put across by users of this forum....

I got another instance today, for which I have passed on the details to support@ , as suggested. I just noticed that, although I only got as far as making a single opening bid on the hand before I got locked-out, the eventual outcome of the deal, after another player took my place, appears on my hand records, along with a score of -4.7 IMPs. OK, I know that many people don't bother to track their IMP averages - but I do: and this one has nearly put me 'in the red'. That's not really fair, is it?

I asked the same question when I first started playing on BBO. Up to then I'd been used to rubber, however I've more or less got accustomed to IMP pairs now. But it's a pity to lose the rubber format altogether. Rubber bridge plays best in a social setting, four friends get together for the evening, no time limit, coffee break between rubbers, no-one expected to leave the table early, cut for partners at the start, etc. etc. Very informal. That's how I used to do it. I don't think it works so well in an online setting, where people are coming and going all the time. Nor does it fit in with tournament play where it's all about skill (although as I've discovered, luck does play a part). I've not yet tried out the Total Points format which BBO does have - and which is more like Rubber I believe. Maybe that's a decent compromise.

My question was in the last line of my post - and yes I think it's been answered thanks. I agree that querying partner's play or bidding is not a very nice thing to do, but honestly I'd never get very far in bridge if I didn't do so occasionally. Sometimes I'm right - sometimes I'm wrong: I accept that. I get queries from partner myself - not very often. Not a problem. But I don't want to be lectured on how to handle partners (all my partners are casual). Incidentally, complete silence from my partner when I know perfectly well I've screwed up, is also off-putting. But I can't help that. As far as I can recall, I said something like "Sorry partner, bidding diamonds three times?" to which the reply was something like "what do you mean by that?" I did not get a chance to elaborate, even if I'd wanted to, because partner left the table.

I'm putting this in the Novice and Beginner section, because this is where I think it belongs. Holding ♦AKJ32, my partner bid ♦ not once, not twice, but three times, with no response from me (I had 4 points and a singleton ♦). Opponents were contesting in ♥. As it happens, we weren't left in 3♦. Then when I queried partner's bids, partner got huffy. Am I missing something :unsure: ?

Well, of course, sitting west, I wouldn't have doubled, neither time, certainly not 7♣. If the opponents go for a non-sacrifice seven and you have an ace, you have to assume there's a void, and the last thing you want to do is to tell declarer he's got a ruffing finesse on... Unless of course I'm playing the Lightner double convention - but in that case what would it tell partner to do?

A very general question, this. Received wisdom tells us, playing any form of duplicate becomes a true test of skill, because the 'luck of the deal' inherent in Rubber and Chicago, is eliminated. I had no experience of duplicate before joining BBO, but over the months I've got used to the system. Mostly playing IMPs pairs, I've come to believe that it's a pretty good way of assessing one's ability. But is this always the case? I'm not complaining about the result I got today, but sympathising with my opponents. My partner and I played a 7NT, laydown, and got nearly +14 IMPs for our pains. This was largely due to the fact that we were one of only two tables out of the 16, to reach a grand, so I suppose we deserve some credit for the bidding. But what about our poor opponents? They landed a -14 score through no fault of theirs, I feel. At no table did NS fail to take 13 tricks (it wasn't a very interesting deal, after all). Also, at no table did EW take part in the bidding - except at one table where a double cropped up at one point. So they had no chance to swing anything in their favour. This is not the first time I've had the feeling that there's still plenty of an element of chance in IMPs pairs. Perhaps in all duplicate systems.

7♣ looks a bit tricky to me, on a club lead.

OK. I appreciate your candour, and that what I am asking may be beyond your power; but really, it is a bit disappointing. I want to make it quite clear that I think BBO is a really excellent site. But it could do more to attract and keep its users. A bit of openness about how the owners and admins of the site, and those charged with its maintenance, respond to feedback, would be really welcome! Please pass this on to the site owners as you see fit. By way of comparison, I draw your attention to a well-known and popular music composition site which I use, called Noteflight. You may already know it, but if you don't, take a look (you may need to register to get well into the site, but it's free). See in particular how the owners acknowledge feedback requests from users, publish decisions on those requests, and prioritise their TO DO list. I'm not asking much!