johnbla

For what it may be worth to anyone else, I have finally managed to print a semi-acceptable card from BBO Use PDFlite to 'print' the card to a PDF Use Acrobat Reader DC to add any non-standard text (optional) Use Imageprinter Pro to convert the PDF into a TIF Use Notepad to create convcard.html with the following super-complicated contents "<img src="convcard.tif" height="825" width="750">" Open the html file in Microsoft Edge and print it with narrow margins and 100% size. Unfortunately, the free version of Imageprinter overprints "Not Registered Version" down the middle of the back page of the card. If anyone knows of free software without this "feature", I would be grateful for the info.

I tried using BBO with edge. Every now and then for no apparent reason edge decides to change the screen magnification. (I am careful never to allow more than one finger near any active surface.) Whenever edge decides to shrink the screen, BBO seizes the opportunity to use the newly available screen space. If I restore the previous magnification, BBO does not go back to the original configuration, but assumes I can scroll around to find the place I need to be. When the screen is to small to read, I have three choices: I can annoy the other players who have to wait while I struggle to read the screen and often mismouse, or I can annoy the other players while I scroll around the screen (this also triggers much more frequent resizings) or I can annoy the other players by unilaterally logging off. In the longer run, OKbridge is a fourth alternative.

I would like to play online with some of the partners I also play with in person. To do this, it would be convenient to build our convention card in BBO and print it out for use offline. Right now we keep an online and an offline version, but we recently had an embarrassing misunderstanding when the two didn't match. I can print the BBO convention card, but it has an aspect ratio of 4:3, unlike the 1:1 of the standard ACBL convention card and available holders. I have not found any software that enables me to change the aspect ratio of the PDF before printing. Could BBO provide or suggest a solution? (If Bill Gates happens to read this, it would be a great addition to the Microsoft .XPS editor!)

We were trying to force to 2NT with 10+, while being able to stop in either minor with 12-16 opposite 6-9 - not very accurately, but obviously you can't ever stop in 2♣ after 1♥-1NT-2♦.

Long ago, a partner insisted we play 1♥-1NT-2♣=12-16;not6hts;not3spds and 1♥-1NT-2♦=17+;not6hts;not3spds. After 1♥-1NT-2♣ you might be in deep do-do, but at least you know it. It worked better than I expected.

I don't like his system either, but he insisted... If my partner wants to play his system, I would like him to use it to get good results. There is actually a partial systemic solution to Helene's point: have club rebids show the major suit or notrump in which partner responded, and have the 'raise' show clubs. This works well on information-theoretic grounds (the club bid is more frequent and cheaper than the raise) and the deal we are discussing is a good example of the benefits of the saved space - the bidding would go 2♣-2♠-3♣(showing spades)-3♠(natural support)-4♣(help-suit slam try - Qbidding is somewhat redundant after the step response)-4♦-4♠(really need ♣K)-5♠(two heart losers)-6♠-pass. Information theory would also suggest the benefits of exchanging 3♦ and 3♥ in this case, but this runs into the practical problem that it may well wrong-side the contract. Only swap the suits where the bidding has already determined who will play the deal.

If 4♣ promises spades, how do I suggest clubs as trumps? We had not played together enough to develop the kind of detailed understanding you imply. I put this up as an example of maximizing the expected IMPS in a new partnership between experienced players. My partner should not be afraid of playing in clubs (at IMPS) if I support immediately, and if I don't he has a chance to bid spades naturally, and keep insisting on the higher-ranking suit. To my mind, the danger of bidding 3♠ is greater than the danger of bidding 3♣.

OK, please email me at john-Blackwell@caseint.com and we'll see if we have similar ideas.

Since partner has passed, I would open 1♣ and pass a 1♥ response, or rebid 1NT over 1♠. As dealer, I would open 1♦ and rebid 2♣. It is important to get your 5suit bid. If partner passes, this should be a reasonable contract, and if he goes back to 2♦ you can correct to 2♥ if his first response was 1♥. With my minors reversed, I would open 1♦ and rebid 2♥ or 1NT. With my favorite partners, I play that 1♦-?-2♣ is limited to 12-16pts, but shows roughly equal lengths: With the same distributional limits and 17+ we bid 1♣-?-2♦ (forcing). This has several advantages: 1♦-?-3♣ is available as a splinter. 1♣(1♠)X-2♦ shows 17+ allowing responder to rebid 3♣ with a weak hand. Especially at matchpoints, which minor is longer by one card is quite unlikely to affect the final contract - it might, but the odds are against it.

I hope to find a partner to play online about twice a week, and to develop a close understanding. I am not wedded to any particular methods of bidding or defense, but I am committed to the concept that actions should be purposive. A recent contrary experience with a very successful partner illustrates what I mean. In an IMP game, he opened 2♣ on ♠AKQxxx-♥x-♦x-♣AQxxx and the bidding with opponents silent was 2♣-2♠-3♠-4♠-P. He correctly alerted my 2♠ as showing an ace and a king, but saying nothing about spades, but we had no understanding beyond that. I contend that after my step response, my partner’s main purpose should have been to convey the idea that we could make a slam if my king was in clubs, and that a 3♣ rebid was the best way to do so. I held ♠Jxxx-♥xxx-♦AQxx-♣Kx. I’m pretty confident that had we held each other’s cards, the bidding would have gone 2♣-2♠-3♣-3♦-3♠-5♠-6♠-P. After the 3♣ bid, responder must surely reason that opener was claiming he could take ten tricks (one less than needed to make game in clubs) and responder could surely take two, so he must not make a non-forcing bid until he has made a slam try. After his 3♠ choice, I knew he was within a trick of 4♠, and I had that trick….. He knew the odds were that my king was red, in which case we might lose a red ace and two clubs………….. The only reason I can see that such a good player made such a purposeless bid was that he doesn’t naturally think in terms of purpose. While at University College London I came close to being an English life master. Then I moved to the US and again got about 2/3 of the way before I started my own mainframe software company which turned out to be totally incompatible with serious bridge. Mainframes went out of fashion, I found myself retired, and I rejoined the ACBL in 2014. I made the national mini-McKenny in 2014. john-Blackwell@caseint.com

If you trust partner to be trying to tell you he thinks 3NT may well not be the best contract, then bidding 3NT seems obviously wrong. At the same time, getting beyond 3NT is a little scary on such a weak hand. This seems to me an example of the general theoretical problem that one of the most common statements you want to make is that you have support for partner's suit, but that this is the most expensive (in bidding space) statement that you can make as a natural bid. It seems to me that a reasonable general solution to this problem is to exchange the meanings of the cheapest unbid suit and the raise in game-forcing situations like this. Having 1♠-1NT-3♦-3♥ show support for diamonds, 1♠-1NT-3♦-3♠ show tolerance for spades, and 1♠-1NT-3♦-3NT deny either would seem to cover the most likely situations. Note that the only time the 'raise' goes beyond 3NT is when you are raising a major - and then you don't mind! This works even better if you use PRO responses instead of 2/1 (i.e. reversing the meanings of 1♠-1NT-2♦-2♥ and 1♠-2♥ - similar to negative free bids). This way, 1♠-1NT-3♦-4♣ and 1♠-1NT-3♦-4♦ show 12+pts and a long unbid suit opposite 18+, so bypassing 3NT is not an issue.