JRG

Or you could play "Kaplan Interchange" (sometimes known as "Granville") where 1S response to 1H is treated as the forcing NT (with up to 4 Spades), and 1N response to 1H shows (5+) Spades, also forcing. That takes away the problem hand (4-5-2-2) that gives rise for the need for Flannery in the first place, and frees up the 2D opener for better uses. If you plan to play the same system in a GCC licenced event in ACBLand then you may run into problems with that. Not sure that it is permitted (not my area - I think it was at one point but then they backtracked). Personally, if I am not allowed to use that method I would rather open 1H with 4-5-2-2 and have 1H-1N-2C show 2+ Clubs, rather than use up 2D as Flannery. My partner and I played Kaplan Inversion, but not quite the way you describe it (we stopped for exactly the reason you mentioned - sometimes we could play it, but most of the time not). I've seen pairs playing it the way you describe -- and I think at least one pair in the USA Team Trials (broadcast on BBO) was playing it (and it appeared from the commentators' remarks they were playing it the way you describe). However, I don't understand the advantage of playing it the way you describe it (1♠ showing 4 or less ♠s and 1NT showing 5 or more ♠s). How do you find a 4-4 ♠ fit on a minimum 4-5-x-x? Surely the auction cannot go 1♥ - 1♠ 2♠ ? This would be a reverse. What my partner and I played was almost what you describe, except 1♥ - 1♠ = 1NT Forcing with 3 or less ♠s and 1♥ - 1NT = 4 or more ♠s. So a minimum 4-5-x-x with a 4-card ♠ suit opposite would go: 1♥ - 1NT 2♠ and if partner didn't have 4 or more ♠s, we played that the following was non-forcing (which we thought was one of the big advantages of the Kaplan Inversion): 1♥ - 1♠ 1NT I'd appreciate more information on the Kaplan Inversion (or a URL if you know of one with a complete explanation). Thanks.

OH. Sorry, I clearly misunderstood. If an opponent does not answer a query about the meaning of a call (no matter how obvious anyone thinks it should be), then he is being rude and should be penalized in some manner. I've been in the other situation (and this is what I was discussing), where one partner asks the other (basically), "what does that mean?" (or, after a 4NT bid, "do you play 14-30?"). I think in a friendly game, especially if the pair is a new partnership (or maybe ONLY if they are a new partnership), allowing an answer is perfectly OK.

McBruce, you appear to be an experienced director, so I'd like to ask you to explain the quoted text. It seems whenever I see things like this expressed, I have difficulty understanding (though I can usually work out some reasonable understanding). For context, I've been studying the Laws and some other material with the objective of becoming a certified director. So nobody gets the wrong idea, I'm not being funny. I really do want to know. An example of a similar kind of statement is something along the lines of: If a player is in possession of unauthorized information, he should not (is not allowed to, ...) choose from the logical alternatives one that is suggested by the unauthorized information. This is one that I believe is straightforward and easy to understand. But "the best result possible" versus "the best possible result", eludes me (unfortunately!).

OK. Good point.

Yes to your basic question. The hypothetical case though is a problem. Since you are not supposed to tell your partner what your bids mean, then the "expert" is correct in not answering. However, if the opponents say "Go ahead and answer if you want", then not answering a beginner's question is, in fact, rude as you suggested and should be treated as rude behaviour. Several times playing against opponents who had not played together before, I have said in the chat, "Go ahead and explain".

Whoa!!! Be VERY, VERY careful. You may be perfectly correct -- it may have been nothing but inuendo. HOWEVER, perhaps the "whisperer" was simply trying to avoid biasing the TD's review of the hands. If I were to say to you, "Look at how xx-yy always seem to lead their partner's suit, even when there is no indication in the auction that suit is held", then you are automatically focused on that possible problem. But maybe I'm imagining it and if you look at the hands without my planting a seed in your mind, you will conclude nothing is amiss. On the other hand, perhaps when you look at the deals, some very odd bids or plays will jump out at you, especially when you see they always work -- but on other deals no such odd bids or plays are made.

I corrected this post (I made the mistake of posting and not double-checking the BBO client). Thank you to Rain for pointing this out. The language option is only set automatically the first time you install the BBO client. Since most of us have been using BBO for some time, it will not change from whatever setting (usually the default English) that was set. You can change the setting by going into your Table Settings (click on your cogwheel at the bottom of the screen).

I don't believe this is playing bridge. It might be a socially nice and friendly thing to do, but it is not bridge. An aside: There have been some interesting discussions over the years in The Bridge World about purposefully losing a match when it is to your advantage to do so. The general consensus is that the conditions of contest should be structured in such a way that it can NEVER be to your advantage to throw a match. In fact, even stronger, even if you are guaranteed to win a quarter final (or semi-final), the contest should be structured in such a way that it is still to your advantage to win EVERY match you play.

You did not provide enough information. Presumably the card led was faced (since you refer to it being a major penalty card - an honour). However, you did not indicate whether it was an opening lead out of turn or a subsequent lead out of turn. If it was a subsequent lead, was it declarer or dummy's turn to lead or the other opponent's? The issue may be complicated later in the hand because the card my be an exposed card versus a lead-out-of-turn. I believe what penalties, if any, apply subsequently to the offender or his partner depends on declarer's choice of options (if it was a lead out of turn). Law 56 says: "When declarer requires a defender to retract his faced lead out of turn, the card illegally led becomes a major penalty card, and Law 50D applies." Not that the card is a major penalty card regardless of its rank (honour or otherwise). Law 50D basically says that the offender must play the major penalty card at his first legal opportunity (e.g. following suit, discarding, or leading). If his partner gets the lead before the major penalty card has been played, then he may not lead until declarer has chosen one of his options. If he demands or forbids the lead of the suit of the penalty card, offender picks it up and it is no longer a penalty card (NB. the prohibiition remains in effect until offender's partner has lost the lead -- if you forbid the lead, he cannot lead a winner in another suit and then switch to the suit of the (former) penalty card). If declarer elects not to forbid or demand the lead of the suit of the penalty card, the penalty card remains a penalty card. You can look the Laws up on the Internet.

Karl, you make a very good point. This is the first time I've seen anyone mention Law 8B (though I vaguely remember reading it and thinking about the problem you raised). I still think it would be a good idea to have an article on BBO (in the library with a summary in the Online Help) that states explicitly the changes to the Laws as they are applied on BBO. Claiming, non-disclosure, and unauthorized information seem to be the other big issues. (Oh, I should probably mention before others do, restrictions in tournament events which are contrary to the Laws, such as restrictions against psychic bids.) So, we now have ACBL sanctioned events. Does the ACBL condone changes to the Laws to facilitate online bridge?

This is not, strictly speaking, a 2/1-specific auction. My long-time partner and I have played a form of 2/1 for quite a few years. Our agreement is that we don't try to improve the strain on the sequence: 1♦ - 1♥ 2NT - ? ANY further action, including 3♦ is forcing. On the other hand, I know a lot of players would play 3♦ as a "sorry partner, I'd like to get out.Maybe I would have raised you to 2♦ if I could have, but we play inverted minors".

LOL. Everytime I play a slam like this, I get a ♦ lead. So I win the Ace. I play one round of !Cs (out of habit, because here I need a 2-2 split anyway), and then play a ♥ to the King and back to the Ace. Everyone follows to the first round of ♥s, but when I play the Ace, it gets ruffed! So I go down in 6!C. Oh well, I know I should learn to play better.

I have a couple of WBF certificates. Do those count as "World masterpoints"?

As Gweny said, "strats" stands for "stratified <something or other>". This is a form of event I'm not too keen on, however it works something like this: You can hold tournament events that are restricted based on the participants' masterpoint holdings (supposedly some measure of playing ability - but for the most part nobody really believes that). Suppose you have three events: one for beginners, one for intermediates, and one for experts. Now instead of holding three separate events, you hold one event but the players (or pairs) are classified as beginner, intermediate, or expert. The way a stratified event works is that you can win masterpoints by placing in the tournament event as if higher ranked (i.e. higher strata or "stronger") players (pairs) were not counted. The added twist is that if you place well in a higher strata, you will get the masterpoints for that placing if they are more than what you would have got for your own strata. This sounds complicated, so here is an example: The top strata must place in the section regardless of other players (i.e. they are not protected against "lesser" players). That is, if an intermediate places 3rd in the section, then too bad for the "experts" (no expert comes 3rd in their strata). If that intermediate player was first in his strata (i.e. exclude all the experts), then he gets the higher master point award of first in the intermediate or 3rd in the expert strata.

No, I cannot explain it. It seems wrong to allow teams to compete in a selection process if they have no intention of being the representatives if they win. I think you make a valid point.

Actually I'm a mugwump (someone who sits on a fence with his mug on one side of the fence and his wump on the other). Like Bearmum, I also dislike seeing profiles that offer no useful information. I don't know whether to try partnering or opposing the person. On the other hand, I believe that people do have a right to privacy. But, as Bearmum suggested, it is not particularly difficult to just make up a name people can use for you -- it can even be an androgynous name if gender is an issue. Not indicating what bidding and carding systems one uses seems silly also. So here is an idea: The only reasons I can see for keeping one's profile so empty is that either you only login to BBO to watch other people play (perhaps even only vugraph broadcasts), or you only play with and against people you know. Why not have an indicator for each of these things in the profile and perhaps a more visible indicator on such a person's name (perhaps we could squeeze in one or two more colours)? - One such indicator could be "Spectator only" - The other could be "Only participate with known members"

I did explain this in the Online Help. Switcheroo means that the constraints placed on the North and South hands are to be switched randomly between North and South. For example, if you set the constraints for the North hand to be a 1NT opener and for South to have a random 10 HCP, when you set "Switcheroo", sometimes North will have a 1NT opener and sometimes a random 10 HCP (and South the opposite).

Flame is correct. Essentially he is rejecting improper claims (because declarer is making assumptions about distribution). His idea is an interesting one because he has highlighted something that has bothered me both online and in face-to-face bridge. I really hate it when declarer makes a bad claim, but it happens to work -- especially when declarer doesn't appear to understand when I explain why it is a bad claim. Oh well! Randomly rejecting claims seems to me to be a waste of time. I also think it is wrong. If a good claim is made, it seems unethical to reject it.

This is clear-cut. Mike even quoted the law for you. This is NOT a director choice. We have had similar discussions in the past. I started a thread on the topic of directing (hoping it would be objective and non-defensive) -- it started out as quite a good discussion but seemed to peter out. In general, National Bridge Organizations (NBOs) are given a few choices they can make. However, the things that can be decided by the NBOs is strictly circumscribed. They are NOT allowed to change the Laws, except as explicitly stated in the Laws. Law 70E is NOT one that can be changed. So, we get back to that other thread I mentioned: How do we define "Bridge" on BBO? I stated my bias in that thread (if it is NOT in accordance with the "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" ("The Laws"), then it is NOT bridge). [There are issues with a FEW of the laws for online bridge (for example, the laws state that you are NOT allowed to continue play after a claim) which need to be worked out and the LAW for online bridge stated clearly.] The finesse should NOT have been allowed.

For what it is worth, your hand and question reminded me of a couple of articles I've read (I don't remember if they were in the Bridge World or ACBL Bulletin -- more likely the former as I tend to skim or not read the latter). One article was on HCP. It suggested adding a 1/2 point for each Ace and subtracting a 1/2 point for each queen. So I suppose this uses a 4-1/2, 3, 1-1/2, 1 count (rather than 4-3-2-1) which keeps the 10 points per suit, 40 points in the deck total. That method reduces the value of this hand. The other article was based on experience (with various example hands). I don't remember if the person had done an objective analysis (by using random deals and testing his hypothesis). Anyway, the basis of the article was "try to play in NT if you hold 3 Queens" (or, obviously 4). The premise was that the trick-taking power of Queens was enhanced at NT. My personal evaluation is that I like the values of the hand (J, 10, 9, and three 8s). QJ98 is a nice combination. However, I dislike the 4-3-3-3 shape and quackiness, so I treat this as an "average" (or even "average-minus") 11-count. So, if my range for a bid is 11+ to <something>, I don't make that bid. I don't pretend to be expert. I make very simple "adjustments" (so I can say it is a bad xx count or a good xx count for notrump): - I boost the value if I like my intermediates (10s are a very definite plus; 9s & 8s help give "body") - I lessen the value if the hand is quacky - I lessen the value for 4-3-3-3 and boost it a bit for 5-3-3-2 Your hand comes in for all three adjustments with the net being "bad" rather than "good".

I believe this problem has been reported a number of times. If I remember correctly, Fred implied that the Symbol font is used to display the suit symbols and that the problem occurs if the user does not have the Symbol font installed or it has been corrupted. He suggested reinstalling the Symbol font and seeing if the problem is resolved. I suggest trying this and if it doesn't work, send an e-mail to help@bridgebase.com.

The quotation is a little out of context. The first thing I said was that I would bid 4♠ at my first opportunity, regardless of whether 3♦ was preemptive OR a Limit Raise AND regardless of the vulnerability. The reason I mentioned your second chance to bid 4♠ is that I think by passing you have eroded (NOT given away) your right to protection. From my perspective, the question is who you trust - partner or the opponents. If you are saying you would have bid 4♠ if you had known the 3♦ bid was preemptive, then you are saying you trust the opponents more than you trust partner. In the case of a preemptive 3♦ bid, the points that person might have held can just as easily be held by the opening bidder rather than your partner. So you really have no more protection. It seems you are saying that because the opponent made a Limit Raise, partner may not have full values for his overcall. 1) The opponents have said (by their bidding), that they do not believe they can make game. 2) I think you should evaluate your hand as being awfully close to being able to make 4♠, even if the 3♦ bid showed a Limit Raise. Your partner is, presumably, short in ♦s and you are short in ♣s. Your partner overcalled 1♠ and has a maximum of A-J in that suit. Presumably he has some values in ♥s or ♣s (or both). I didn't mention it in my original post, but vulnerability is important here. My partnerships tend to have pretty close to an opening bid for a vulnerable (non-preemptive) overcall. Now, having said that, I truly believe the same thing you stated, that is, if you are going to make a preemptive bid, make it immediately, don't give the opponents extra time to exchange information. I think this is a basic principle of preemptive bidding. Here, however, looking at the hand you hold, you should be starting to wonder who is making what.

The burden of proof is NOT supposed to be laid on the non-offending side. If you are not sure, you are supposed to rule against the OFFENDING side.

Every game has a set of rules. The rules may be informal or formal. Sample rule: ♠s rank higher than ♥s. Bridge is an intellectual game and it has a set of formal rules that have been agreed to. This allows competition, including world bridge championships. As Richard pointed out, the rules have been published and are available to anyone who wants to see them. In this sense, bridge is no different than chess or backgammon.

Once one realizes that the cards are rearranged when the auction closes (to the "standard" dummy format -- trumps on the left, alternating suit colours), it seems a small adjustment to make to wait one or two seconds before making the opening lead. It's also probably a good habit to think about the lead, after the auction is over and before making it. It's a small thing, but I rather like having the suits in my hand in the same order as in dummy. However, each to their own!