RD350LC

One thing I have been doing is putting in the explaination BEFORE making the bid. That way, you don't have to worry about the opps making bids before you alert them.

With this, I completely agree. There are many times that I would want to look at a profile, and as host, I have to watch myself so that I don't accidently remove a player. Putting the profile at the top of the selection would be good.

This would only apply during a tournament. I would expect that you and your partner would have a convention card. If not-then why not? Now, if the opponents do not have a convention card, I am quick to call the director about this. This gives me protection just in case I am damaged about the bidding.

The last item mentioned is a very good idea. I tend to look more closely at the boards where we did poorly.

When I see a partner make such a bone-headed play like that, I say "Nice compression play" Afterwards, when they say Thank You, I follow up by saying-nice compression play, you compressed 10 tricks into 8 (as the case may be).

With this statement, I agree. If you play in any tournaments, the UNDO is disabled. So, think about what you are going to bid or play before making the bid or play. I have seen it happen that players make a 2 club opening bid-and wind up playing it there. So in most cases, I see little reason to allow an undo. I have made bidding and play misclicks-and do not ask for undos.

The host may get better cards. I do not believe this to be the case, however. BUT, since the true score is compared to other players who get the SAME cards, in my opinion, it does not matter for the most part. It is what you DO with them is what counts.

The idea that I have about zero tolerance is abusive language-by anybody. I give a "zero tolerance warning" (one warning), and then (usually) I have to go with "zero tolerance action", when I remove the player. Generally, I do not like removing players. For excessively slow players, I give a warning-"Faster please", and do a count down from 5. Sometimes, I have to remove them. Also, for bad play, I usually give 3 warnings-3 strikes and you are OUT.

Here, I am talking about passing a 2Club opener (unless you are playing Precision), or passing simple response by an unpassed hand.

There have been many times that I, as declairer, taken a singleton king when an ace is underled as opening lead. So, yes, underleading an ace in a suit contract, is a bad play. It IS ok at NT.

As I put it, I am usually the host. I try NOT to remove players, and generally give warnings. Here are my thoughts. 1. I will give three warnings normally. Upon the third warning, I state "Three strikes and you are OUT!" 2. Passing a forcing bid, repeating a pre-empt, or underleading an ace in a suit contract-no warnings. 3. Zero Tolerance. One warning, and you are out.

With this I agree completely. I have heard that the skill of a bridge player is inversely proportional to the times they use Blackwood, and Gerber is the same. In reading a series for beginner players by Larry Cohen, he does mention Gerber, but that is all.

Yes, bbo does have a policy requiring people here to be polite. I am sure that the person who started bbo, Fred Gitelman, would have had something to do with this. Where Fred had started playing was in southern Ontario, and that is where the ACBL policy of zero tolerance originated. With this policy, I agree. When partner makes an obviously idiotic bid or play, I come out with some humourous saying. These include 1. Nice compression play (unsaid is that he compressed 10 tricks into 8, for example). 2. When did you learn to play? I know it was today, but what time today? Sometimes, I do the silent routine. I then pass whenever it is my turn to bid-regardless of my hand or the auction. I start out by saying that I will not bid again-and then do nothing but pass. Usually, this is enough to get a person to leave.

Yes, deviating from your partnership agreement is permissible. If you make a certain call, saying that it means one thing-and that is your agreement-it is very much permissible, even though the actual hand does not match this. In this case, if the agreement was to have the 3♠ bid indicate a singleton ♠, and the person made that call, it is entirely legal to have any sort of hand. There is a variation of this call to make a psychic cue bid, indicating first round control, when in fact you do not have this. This is entirely legal. As long as your partner thinks that you have first round control, there is no ground for redress.

I agree with what Larry Cohen says. Now, North is a passed hand, so it would not be game forcing. I would play it as 10-12 hcp, balanced.

Regarding #8. I have a regular partner, and we frequently discuss bridge hands. We do make a point NEVER to discuss the hand currently being played. Once the bidding is over, and we are declarer, we can discuss the bidding. Only when the HAND is over will we discuss the full bidding, and the play.

I have learned years ago that it is a rare hand that would merit going 4NT, especially after a minor suit opening bid. As a minimum, you do need 20+ hcp to consider this, and no worthless doubletons. Generally, it is better to look for a fit in a major suit before making the key card inquiry. Remember, the main purpose of Blackwood is to keep you out of bad slams, not to get you to one.

This is very similar to the Duke of Cumberland hand, where a pair makes 7 clubs with 6 hcp between the two hands.

With that, I agree. Opener has only 11 hcp, a void that may or may not be useful, and a partner who could not respond or make a negative double. There is no question, I would let N/S play it in 2 clubs.

I have been noticing that the number of users has greatly increased. Well done in keeping up.

Here are my comments. Leading away from an ace in a suit contract is a very bad idea. Good chance of losing the ace entirely. Leading an ace is not much better. You would capture small cards, and that is not what an ace is for. So that rules out diamonds and clubs. Leading a singleton trump is not much better. Good chance of trapping partner's Qxx in trumps. So that is ruled out. Now people say leading away from a King is not a good idea. I don't mind leading away from a King. So my choice is a small heart.

There is an excellent book for beginners (and up) by Louis Watson titled "Watson's Play of the Hand at Bridge". This book is vintage (50 years old), but the material is mostly still relevant. It starts at the very basic concepts of card play, and continues up from there.

The one most important item to learn is to COUNT. If you were to ask 100 experts what the most important thing to learn how to do, 100 of them would say learn to count. The first chapter of Hugh Kelsey (I may have the name wrong) book Killing Defence is entitled Counting.

I have seen worse-the robots on the former MSZone were completely hopeless. They do have their bids-but no imagination. The play is hopeless, though. Unfortunately, I have seen players who were worse. When I say that a robot plays better, that is a definite statement that their play (to put it politely) needs work.

With this I agree. I have an older copy of the laws, and what Mike is saying is in accordance with these laws. To put it simply, East first has the option of accepting the insufficient bid. If so, then play continues. If not, then North can make the bid sufficient (generally without penalty). If North attempts to replace the bid with a double (or redouble), that bid is cancelled, and South is subsequently barred from the auction. Now, if the director made an incorrect ruling, law 82C would then apply-both sides given an adjusted score, with both sides considered non-offenders. I would expect this to be 50%/50%, though other scores could be given. Just my 2 cents worth.