Double !

I hope the following is helpful and supportive. Weak (I prefer the term pre-emptive/ what is weak to one might not be so weak to another person) jump-shifts are not only legal, but they are used by many people. The criteria regarding what kind of hand qualifies for the bid might vary from person to person. One reported range was 0-3. A commonly used range is 2/3 to 6/7 hcp with a six-card suit (like a mini-weak 2 bid). You followed the self-alert procedure appropriately as far as I can tell. It is unfortunate that such an uncomfortable interaction occurred that made you feel the need to submit this post. Hope that you didn't lose any sleep over this. A few suggestions that might be helpful should a similar interaction occur again: If this should happen to me (it once did, big-time: thank you again Jason Chew for your help) and I felt that an opp had said something to me or my partner that was offensive if not accusatory, I would immediately seek a yellow-type person and ask that person to come to the table to observe the procedings and supervise any further proceedings. As a safeguard to cover such situations, I log all chat at the table at all times. This, I hope, permits the yellow-type person (or the TD) to read the procedings or, at least, for me to scroll back and read the dialog back to the yellow. Another suggestion is to never say anything to the accuser once a comment that you feel is accusatory or in some way demeaning and inappropriate has been made by an opp. Let the yellow-type person address the situation. (Oh, the yellows are going to love me for this recommendation.)

I am probably the worst declarer of anyone who posts: totally capable of going down 1 or 2 when everyone else is making overtricks. But, sometimes I can work things out and play a hand well (when awake), sometimes for the wrong reasons. My first reaction to this hand was 2-fold: 4-2 breaks occur more often than 3-3, hence the potential for an overruff in 7D. Secondly, there appear to be at first glance so many things that could go right in NT and as well as potential squeeze positions. There seem to be sufficient entries. and if all else fails, there is still the possibility of a club finesse. 7NT

So do so many other players. some people have "solved" the problem by opening 2D (or 2H) to show 11-15 with 4-5 in majors (Flannery 2D or 2H), but this never seemed to have really caught on big time, and many people felt that the 2D opener could be put to better use. Fluffy's response seems to be commonly used these days.

5C I don't know what the correct bid is. Perhaps 5C would imply good club controls (even if it was interpreted as lead directing) and show a stronger hand with club cards while 4NT would also show unusual distribution but deny the club ace? Who dealt this mess, anyway?

why did the partnership choose not to bid the 6-card suit first, or 2NT for minors? Let the limited unbalanced hand start to describe his opener at the 3-level?

I suggested Pass based on the fact that lho didn't take any action over my Leb bid as well as the fact that I have no assurance than partner doesn't have a number of his/her values in the majors. Anything else seems to be taking a view at this point. Yes, it could be a miracle hand where opener has AQ of clubs and 3+ outside tricks or some super diamond fit. What system are the opps playing? Is it likely that they will face the same situation as you? Is this likely to be a swing hand/ do you wish to make this hand a swing hand?

Here is another of those relatively strong with lots of controls but no clear initial fit responder hands that seem to create such a problem. A lot seems to depend on the issue of how strong a hand East shows by rebidding 3H (extra values past an opening hand, or just stopping hearts for a possible NT contract If opener stops clubs)? I don't know what the expert method is for making this distinction, but it seems to be an important issue to help in the bidding of these "tweener" hands. Also important is the meaning of the 2S rebid (some prefer it as a default, some as showing 6-card suit: I fall within the latter group.) If it shows 6, then a case can be made for east now bidding 4S (but would that show delayed spade support vs. xx, something like a 3451 hand? I don't believe so: a hand with spade support IMO should support spades first and then move forward playing 2/1.)

Questions, questions questions. This is the type of post that I like because of the potential for a number of different expert and "less-than-expert" opinions about how to bid such a hand. I think I understand the reasons for selecting 3 clubs vs. rebidding 3H (forcing), but I want to make sure my interpretations are correct because my initial reaction was to rebid 3H to emphasize the suit and then bid 4C over the anticipated 3NT by opener. Some reference was made to 3C being the "book bid". I'm not sure which book is being referred to as I have seen books that suggest than one rebid a solid 6-bagger, and then show the 4 card suit. After reconsideration, I started to have misgivings about rebidding 3H/2S, especially due to one of the reasons listed below (pessimistic as it might be). So, am I correct in concluding that 1) one reason for selecting 3C is that it provides another potential suit for a slam? 2) that rebidding 3C permits partner to rebid 3NT from the correct side with decent diamonds? (By the way, would 3NT by P show 1 or more diamond stoppers? If 2+ diamond stoppers, what does opener bid with 1 diamond stopper? Would 3D show 1 stopper or none?- a very important partnership agreement issue.) Does the 2S rebid show a minimum as you all play it, or could it be better than minimum? If p rebids 3D, are you jumping to 4H to imply the suit solidity, or rebidding 3H as it is still forcing? And, which of the these two rebid sequences would tend to show the better hand, better than an initial rebid of 4H? and 3) most importantly, rebidding 3C prevents getting to 4H off the ace of clubs and 3 quick diamonds opposite something like AKQxxx, x, Jxx, Qxx? (The potential for getting overboard on a hand such as this seems to me to be the most compelling reason for rebidding 3C.) Or, are there some other reasons that I am missing here (excluding esoteric systems and rebids such as bashing 2 or 3 NT)? Thank you in advance. I really appreciate the feedback re why so many selected 3C, especially if the reasoning differs from what I listed above. DHL

win club, play second high club & pitch diamond from hand, two top diamonds and crossruff?

conventional wisdom says nonforcing. then you can get involved in discussions about what to do after you redoubled to show your 10+hcp (distribution irrelevant) when the bidding comes back to you. there are some of (like me) who tend to ignore the double and keep your system on. to each his/her own.

and if declarer ruffs the second round of diamonds?.................

you spelled it correctly Helge Vinje. The book is sitting around here somewhere in this mess. i don't know the whole carding system, but the part i know involves how you play trumps. lo-hi to show 3 suits with odd number length and 1 of even length, and hi-lo to show one of even length and 3 of odd number length (or is it vice versa). This approach forms the basis for prism signals (unfortunately considered to be encrypted carding according to a couple of directors whom I asked: I had to explain them. They had never heard of them.) The cool part of prism signals is that they also indicate which is your one odd or your one even-length suit. You can get the info at Dan_Neill's site, last time I looked. A lot of mental effort involved.

I'm not sure that I likeP's 2S bid (my understanding of the dbl of 2S is showing a 6-bagger). That spade king is of rather questionable value. What would 2NT mean (yes, I know some play it as 4-card limit + raise)? Would 3 of something by P be a FNJ raise? This hand is so flat with a poorly located spade king that, if 2NT isn't natural, then I'm not so sure that overcaller shouldn't bid 3D instead of 4D. I am curious about people's feelings about that 2S bid.

Double !..........I don't know what P is expecting by his range 4D bid, but I have wasted honors in diamonds (if that's the opps suit) and less offense than initially thought. Since my pass of 4H already showed my range, I would suspect a pass at this point would imply nothing in the suit to tell about, no wasted values. with this as my reasoning, i put a red card onthe table.

This is a marvelous question, at least for me, because I always get my reasoning backwards in such situations. As I see, your play to trick 2 is another potential example of the dog that didn't bark (my favorite bridge theme). You don't know whether partner has 5 or 6 hearts, although partner knows. When P sees his king of diamond hold the trick, he is going to look at whether or not you encouraged or discouraged. Don't just play a high diamond automatically to show the Ace: the play of the cards makes it quite evident that you have the ace. But, if you have a singleton heart, you want P to switch (attitude first), and should, therefore, play whatever type of card you have agreed to play as a discouraging signal. P will ask self why you are discouraging the suit when he knows you have the ace, and will, hopefully deduce that you have a stiff heart and wish a ruff. Encouraging initially in diamonds should show a dbltn heart, so you need to take the diamonds first lest declarer play loser on loser, pitching a diamond on the 3rd round of hearts. Since I know automatically (from repeated experience) that my analysis and reasoning have to be wrong, someone please explain to me where I am going wrong in my thought process.

This thread reminds me of a bridge cartoon that I saw eons ago. There is an interesting theme in it. The cartoon shows two elderly people (women, in this case) sitting at a table. One says to the other, "Now, remember Mabel, 4NT is always Blackwood!") Most players would scorn at such a comment. Obviously, for most partnerships, such a statement isn't true, it's certainly not an advanced or expert method, and I am not at all suggesting such an agreement. But there was some method to their madness, so to speak. Maybe these two fictitious players might need (or have had) another way to ask the NT bidder if min/max, but the two likely never had any further misunderstandings about the meaning of 4NT. Just a little food for thought.

most people I know play the double raise in competition as being pre-emptive (whatever the criteria for that might be: many might make it on more of a "mixed raise") although I know a few people who play it as a limit raise (not an unreasonable agreement when you're competing in a lower ranking suit. (with tongue in cheek) From what I've learned from a few posts in some other threads, the answer might be either 1) "no agreement", or 2) "shows some diamonds and some points". With less experienced players, don't be surprised if the 3-diamond bid shows a somewhat better hand than most would have for a pre-emptive double raise because they might not be as comfortable about using cue bids in competition to show a limit+ raise.

Is there any way to change what system, carding, or conventions the GIB bots play? According to the GIB website, the program can play several systems including 2/1, ACOL, & K-S. However, so far I haven't been able to determine the mechanism (if it exists on BO's version) for making such alterations. It also appears that the GIB is playing SAYC or some version of SAYC. However, so far, I have not been able to locate a default CC for the GIB. Are any of these nice options available for people using the GIB on BBO? Thank you in advance: DHL

Sorry, but this is one of the possible applications that I was referring to when i said that this sequence is a matter of partnership agreement.

2H weak in both majors (pass or correct/ bid your better major), as I understand it, is an extension of transfers in response to 1NT. It's, in itself, 2H (1nt-2C-2D-2H) is an idle bid because P can transfer into hearts and then bid spades to show 4-5 invitational or better. The meaning of 1NT-2C-2D-2S is an issue for discussion as there are several potential uses for the bid.

I would bid 2H. Would I open the hand with a 1-bid? Yes. Therefore, imo, it's good enough for a 2/1. If I bid 1NT, can I ever catch up with this 4 to 5 loser hand? Doubt it.

Regarding the assumption that most people playing on bbo KNOW or assume that bbo basic is the default system. I suspect that many players, at least from the USA, assume that they are playing SAYC in the absence of further discussion. Perhaps it might have been helpful had the TD further informed the person asking about the 2 diamond bid that bbo-basic is the default system in the absence of other agreements. I do not suggest that one feel that they are being asked to divulge their hand, just their agreements including system when asked about a bid. In the "rules of the site" area of bbo, I believe that there is a statement that effectively advises us to remember that people who play on BBO come from all over the world, that one should NOT assume that everyone has the same understanding of what various bids mean, and that what might be standard in some locations might not be standard in other locations. What might be obvious to you might not be to someone else. Do we really want to frustrate if not anger, and possibly intimidate people over issues such as explanations of bids (especially when there isn't a CC on the table next to the person)? LISTEN to the affect of the person who initially posted this thread.

a good, coherent reason to disclose all bids? how about possible damage to those pairs at other tables? there's also the fact that the law in question doesn't speak about "bids" but about "agreements"... so change the above word "bids" to "agreements" and you have a case... anytime an oppontent asks, it's a duty to fully disclose all agreements, even going so far as to identify tendencies (though not necessarily logical inferences)... this thread isn't about your voiced concern, imo... the question is, should an opp who has no agreement with his partner tell the opponent what he intended his bid to mean... i say yes, and i would do so, but i also know that the laws don't demand it... i agree, but we also have to understand that there are more people involved than the 4 at our table... one of the reasons for the law in question is to protect the results of others playing the same board... but only about agreements.. that's where so many keep slipping up, imo... yes, the opps are entitled to ask any questions *about agreements*... self-alerting has made this area more problematic, but i still think it would be very difficult to find someone in the wrong who did nothing contrary to the law Lukewarm: Please reread the question. I asked for one good coherent reason why someone should NOT explain their bids, i.e. asking for any argument against full disclosure. My position is that there are NO good reasons why opps questions about bids or methods should not be answered at any time. We are obligated to exercise full disclosure and active ethics!.

When we play games, we do so based on the rules and regulations. The reason for this is simple: The rules are (ideally) concert and absolute. When we substitute our notions regarding polite/ethical behaviour for the Laws we are forced to rely on personal notions of what is/isn't ethical or moral. Personally, I think that it is a mistake to legislate based on anything as relativistic as "morality". In this case, the Laws of Bridge are very clear. We are obligated to disclosure Partnership Agreement. I'm not going to start ruling against players who are following the law. you are right. the acbl laws mandate full disclosure and clarify when certain bids should be alerted, announced, and delay-alerted. I am fully aware of this. But, unless the rules have changed drastically over time, the opps are entitled to ask any questions they wish whenever it's their turn to bid (except for the purpose of alerting their partner to something), and the rules don't proscribe answering an opponent's question in a less-than-complete manner. Full disclosure and "active ethics", as far as I know, includes answering any and all of the opps questions when asked. [ for example, suppose the bidding goes 1NT-p-2C and opp asks for a meaning. The answer, "Stayman" is insufficient even though the convention is known to most players. But that is not explaining the "meaning" of the bid.] And, this is not an issue of morality: it is an issue of the established rules of the game and for answering questions.

I agree lol Just don't ask if P wants to play "Terrorist Moscito". That could put all sorts of thoughts in people's minds. To seriously answer the question of which system to play, IMO, this is an issue that needs to be a partnership decision. If the question is what systems to learn to play on BBO, i would suggest having a working knowledge of Precision, and read and learn BBO basic and BBO advanced, or sayc and 2/1 and first determine which approaches you are personally most comfortable with. BTW, another issue to consider is where you live, what times you usually play online, and what systems most of the people playing at those times are using. It's not too helpful to be proficient in 2/1 when most are either playing wj, sef, or an italian system. Sort of makes it more difficult to find a potentially compatible partner, don't ya think?