david_c

Agree with Ben, though it might make some sense to pull the host if they were a TD.

I'm afraid I would find it quite annoying if, when I wanted to change the number of columns, a change that I made when I happened to be in one place was not carried across when I moved elsewhere. Particularly the first time using the new version, when you might want to change the default. I think it would be quite confusing if you could change the number of columns in one place and then find that it appeared to change back again when you moved somewhere else. How about making the main menu distinct from the lobby? So that the main menu would look like it does now, with a small number of columns of players, but if you wanted to search through the list of online players you could go to the lobby where they would be displayed across the whole screen like in previous versions. [i guess you wouldn't call it the "lobby" any more in that case, but you get the idea.]

This doesn't seem to agree with what the ACBL alert chart says: No alert: A 1NT or 2NT rebid that implies a balanced hand (may contain one or two four-card majors)

Have you tried setting it to use small font? [i think it would probably be best if that was made the default.] Or did you mean something else?

Hey that's really pretty. Thanks for posting it ;)

The 5NT bid looks very weird to me - what's wrong with 6♦? Anyway, why did partner bid 5♠ over the double and not bid 6♥ directly? If his only problem was finding which suit to play in then surely he would have bid a minor over 5NT. So as I see it he must be inviting a grand slam. We might wonder why he passed over 4♠ in that case (too many spades, presumably), but I can't see it makes any difference. In the context of partner inviting a grand we have a beautiful hand, with all prime cards and a long suit as a source of tricks. I can't imagine not accepting the invite.

The world contains plenty of people who say silly things. It doesn't matter which side of the debate they are on, they're still loonies. More fool you if you take them seriously.

That is definitely playable. If you make the 2M rebid non-forcing then that gives you some problems on particular types of hands: mainly minimum hands with support, and balanced hands which are good enough to force to game but unsuitable for a 1NT opening. As you can see from Mike's post, when we played 2M as non-forcing we played a lot of unusual system to try to get around this. That might not be to your taste. Playing 2M as forcing also has the advantage that opener does not need to commit himself to a GF immediately with a borderline-GF hand. On the other hand, playing 2M as non-forcing leads to a lot of very nice 2M contracts when the field is getting too high. And it makes life easy for responder when holding a hand of about 10 HCP with a doubleton in opener's major: these hands are really tough in other systems.

Sounds interesting, can you define it more precisly, i mean after 1S-2C and i have a 6 cards spade suit, when will my bid be 2NT when 2S and when 3S ? The difference between 2♠ and 2NT would be mainly a matter of strength. If you have enough to force to game opposite a 2-level response then rebid 2NT; if not, then rebid 2♠. A borderline hand would normally bid 2♠: you can always bid game later, and you want to keep 2NT up to strength to help with your slam bidding. Basically this 2NT convention is a replacement for the 3♠ rebid in SAYC. However 2NT does not promise a good suit: any six-carder will do. Of course the advantage compared to rebidding 3♠ is that you have so much more space. For example, after 1♠:2♦,3♠ is a 4♣ bid now natural, or is it a cue for spades? After 1♠:2♦,2NT it's so much easier: if you want to set spades as trumps and start cue-bidding you would bid 3♠ now, so 3♣ is natural and 4♣ would probably be a splinter. 1M : 2x , 3M would be defined as something more specific: for example you could play this as showing a solid suit.

1M : 2x , 2NT = single-suited hand (6+ M), better than minimum (forcing to game) This is probably the best convention that nobody plays :( It fits very neatly into a SAYC-like system (though you can also play it in 2/1), giving you a way to show a type of hand which is very difficult to describe otherwise. Continuations are completely natural; this is one of the easiest conventions to add to your system, requiring very little further discussion after the basic definition. If your style is to open 1NT with a 5-card major frequently, I couldn't recommend this convention more highly.

Well, OK, I suppose ♠KJTxx ♥Kxx ♦xx ♣QJx is good enough, so I should ask for the ♠Q before bidding a grand slam if the methods are available to do that. That's about the worst hand partner can have though: there aren't very many points missing in the majors and partner is promising most of them. It would be very pessimistic to settle for 6♥/6♠. You've got to at least invite a grand, and on the actual hand responder will surely accept with such good trumps.

I assume that 4♥ over 3♦ would show a desire to let opener declare 4♥ if she has roughly 19-21 with 5 hearts and 4 diamonds. But how would I know? I am not eligible to play in the Lady Milne :D I don't believe in "fast arrival". With a minimum hand that wanted to play in hearts I would wait with 3♥ and then correct partner's next bid to 4♥. For me a jump to game tends to show extras. Terribly old-fashioned perhaps, but I don't find it very easy to show these extras in any other way. (The natural jump to game denies the ability to make a cue-bid.) Two copies of me would bid this hand 1♥[1] - 1NT[2] - 3♦[3] - 4♥[4] - 7♠[5] [1]5+ hearts [2]5+ spades [3]This feels a bit uncomfortable at this point, but I don't have system to show 3-card support and a void. [4]Picture bid: non-minimum (so must be a hand too good to respond 2♥) with values concentrated in the majors, no club control, shouldn't have an honour in diamonds. [5]Partner must have at least ♠KQxxx ♥Kxx for his bidding. I don't have the methods to ask for the ♠J (or a sixth spade), but even without it the grand slam is decent (needs trumps to split and hearts not 4-0). I haven't made this up, honestly! The first four bids are automatic and I can't see any way to stop below 7♠ after that start.

It seems very important to know what 1♥ - 1♠ - 3♦ - 4♥ means. I feel this ought to be a picture jump, and in this sequence the implication is that responder holds a hand too strong to raise directly to 2♥ on the first round. IIRC the actual hand held by responder is absolutely perfect for this bid.

The player said he was intending to show spades. Fine, we can believe that. But why do you think that means it can't be a psyche? Can it not still be a "deliberate and gross misstatement"? It was certainly a misstatement. It was certainly deliberate. And whether it was gross or not - well, that seems to be purely a matter of degree. There seems to be some idea that for a bid to be a psyche there must have been some intention to deceive the opponents. I don't believe that is a necessary part of the definition.

I would call this 1♠ bid a psyche. Most psyches are made with the hope of deceiving or confusing the opponents. However, that is not part of the definition. A psyche is a "deliberate and gross misstatement"; it does not matter why the player has chosen to make this misstatement. If you choose to misdescribe your hand for some other reason, then you can call it a "tactical bid" if that makes you happy, but it's still a psyche. Here I think we are all agreed that the 1♠ bid was deliberate, and that it did not conform to the partnership agreements. (If you have agreed to play 1♠ as 3+ then you certainly must alert the opponents to this fact.) The only question is whether it is a gross misstatement. That's a matter of judgement, and I can live with the suggestion that it is not a gross misstatement (in which case it would be a deviation). But in my opinion bidding 1♠ on ♠KQ9 would be a deviation, whereas on the actual hand it is a psyche. To put it another way, if you're playing in a "no psyches" tourney I would expect an adjustment. While I do not approve of the idea of a "no psyches" tourney, I think the whole idea would fall apart if the TD did not treat this sort of bid as a psyche. Misguided as it is, the TD has decided that in his tourneys the opponents should always have a correct explanation of the hand. If there is no alert the opponents will be expecting four spades.

Yep. Obviously the odds are slightly less favourable in SAYC than if 1♦ promised four cards, but the existence of this one particular hand type is not enough to make me want to change my bid.

I can live with 1♠, but I much prefer to show support immediately with a weak hand. This hand is an automatic 3♦ bid for me.

(1C) P (P) D (1H) 2C ? This is a cue. When partner makes a double which is for take-out of a particular suit (clubs here), a bid in that suit is always a cue. Bids in other suits are natural even if the opponents have bid them at some point, so a 2H bid here would be natural for example. (1C) P (1H) D (P) 2C ? Although this double emphasises spades and diamonds, for the purposes of deciding which bids are cues I think you should think of it as being take-out of the last suit bid (hearts here). So 2C here is natural and 2H would be a cue. (1C) P (P) 1H (P) 2C ? Since the opponents have only bid one suit I would probably interpret this as a cue. However the natural meaning is also useful. If you're playing in a really serious partnership I would recommend using 2D as the cue here and 2C as natural. [More generally: when RHO opens 1 of a minor, you pass and partner overcalls in a major, use a bid of the other minor as a cue. This is particularly useful when playing against a short 1C or Precision 1D. If you had a hand worth a natural bid in the other minor then you would normally have overcalled on the first round.] (1C) P (1D) 1H (P) 2C ? This is definitely natural; 2D would be a cue.

Well of course there will always be a hand where 6m is good. That doesn't mean it's right to go looking for it. Your only way to invite slam is to bid 4NT.(*) If you bid 4NT looking for the "perfect" hands, you'll get to an awful lot of bad slams. It helps a bit that partner will consider how well his hand fits when responding to 4NT, but you'll still be getting to slam whenever partner has a maximum whether it fits or not. If your hand is dead minimum for 6NT opposite 18-19 then this is not what you want at all. Erm, isn't he going to be dummy if he bids 3NT? Anyway, despite everything I've just been saying, 3NT surely is an underbid on that hand. (*)[Well, holding the actual hand you obviously do have other options. I was imagining something more like a 3334.]

I don't see the logic in Frances's and Mike's hidden replies:

RHO deals and opens 2♥, LHO bids 2♠ (natural, constructive), RHO raises to 3♠ and LHO bids 4♥. Partner now doubles this. - What should this double mean? RHO passes, and you look at your hand: ♠x ♥xxx ♦AJxxx ♣Txxx - What do you think is going on? - What do you do now? (IMPs, nil vul against good opposition.)

LHO opens 1♠, and partner overcalls 3♠ asking you to bid 3NT if you have a spade stop (presumably he has a long running minor). However RHO sticks in a raise to 4♠. Now what should a 4NT bid mean? Sorry partner, it seemed like a good idea at the time ...

I'd bid 6♠.

OK, so we're love all at MP and partner has vountarily bid 2♠ without knowing of any support. I can't imagine not competing to 3♠ here. Are you worried about pushing opps into a making 4♥ or something? Of course, I agree with everyone else that the previous pass is thoroughly weird.

Absolutely - that's why it's helpful to be able to take a poll. On the basis of this poll we'd decide that pass was a LA. But a BBO director might not have time to take a poll, and might see the hand differently and decide that pass was not a LA. I don't think that would be an unreasonable decision. It just seems close enough that it might go either way.