Echognome

This is the one argument I hate. ATx xxxx xxx KQJ is also a 9 loser hand and is nowhere close in evaluation to the given hand. I think relying on the loser count here ... is a losing proposition. What about our in-and-out evaluation? On the other hand, I find your other argument that this is MP's to be a completely valid consideration.

Seems a fun and easy pass. Partner is a passed hand and it's likely that you have a joker on your right who is going to go down 4 or 5 against your partscore. Let's chalk up another couple of imps.

I vote natural as well. It's just too difficult a game if you have to take some other action with a strong balanced hand.

The second part of the question is easier. In the direct seat after a 1NT opener on your right, you make your bid that shows both majors. Here it's tough. After a stayman call I think I pass. I hate it, but it's so easy to see how 2♥ or 2♠ (to get the lead in) could go horribly wrong.

I guess I'll have to reread my hand evaluation books, but we have all our values in partner's suits. We have sterile shape (a definite minus), but everything else is a plus.

That's fair enough. I guess I got off on a tangent. Oops. Yeah, I can imagine it might rub some people the wrong way. However, I wasn't meaning whether it was legal, I was interpreting it as whether it was ethical (which I obviously believe it is). I see, however, that wasn't the question being asked, so mea culpa.

I feel I'm closer to bidding game than passing. I would invite though. If you put my QJx in a black suit instead, it would be a lot closer.

Wow I hope not! Wow. That's really telling only half a story! The bold emphasis is my own. I'm not defending Microsoft, but your quotes are definitely only part of the story!

The swingy action is to pass throughout and not let them identify that there is this glaring problem in spades...

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. I think Josh's concerns are mainly unfounded. If you specifically sought to pick off a particular teacher's or teachers' students, then that would be one thing. Otheriwse, I'm sorry, but it's tough luck. It's like when Microsoft starting offering Internet Explorer for free (if you used their operating system), which basically ruined Netscape. Tough luck for the teachers if they are charging for a service in which someone else provides for free. That's assuming it's the same service. It's up to the teachers to differentiate their service and make sure that they are offering more than what is being offered for free. What about a bridge-related analogy? How about OKBridge versus BBO? One charges and the other is free. How should OKBridge feel about it's rival that offers a similar (most think better) service and it doesn't charge? Shouldn't OKBridge be outraged?

I think it's at least ironic that this topic is in the advanced and expert-class bridge section.

A lot of interesting ideas afloat. I have a couple of disparate points to make on the ideas above. 1. In general, I agree with Frances' view on accreditation. If you think about how the education system works in the U.S., you need a teaching certification if you teach in a public school at the mandatory-schooling age level. If you teach in a private school or at a university (public or private), then you do not need any such certification. Mind you that the institution will have its own criteria and there is a general accreditation for the university, but not for any particular job. In particular, if you have a Ph.D. then you do not need, nor are you expected to get, a teaching credential. In the UK, university professors are required to either earn a teaching credential or get an exemption. Anyway, my point is, once we are talking about adult education, there is no such standard about what is the exact qualification for teaching. You can teach at community colleges with Master's degrees or even with Bachelor's. You can teach non-degree courses with no qualification at all. And really, this is what bridge is. 2. As per ACBL, EBU, whatever accreditation, it is basically a means of differentiating your product. It is only a signal, but not a guarantee. I don't think it's highly controversial to state that there are some accredited bridge teachers that are horrible and some non-credentialed bridge teachers that are great. As an example, when I was still in academia, I taught bridge lessons to our university bridge club. I have no bridge credential. However, I was also teaching university level classes without a teaching credential. (I do, however, have a Ph.D.) So I had a lot of experience teaching people in this age range. I also had superb facilities to use for my teaching. I prepared powerpoint slides with discussion points and deals. I had a classroom in which to teach and a whiteboard in which to draw up hands or suit combinations or whatever I fancied. I also have no way of knowing whether being credentialed would have made me an even better teacher. I suspect that I would learn something from the process, but I also suspect that I would reject some of the ideas as well and feel in a position to make such a judgment. So all that being said, I cannot understand why BBO would want to get into the business of making such a determination. (Note: I have never taught a paid bridge lesson.) 3. I think it would be a great idea if BBO supported and facilitated teaching on its site. I think it currently offers a few great tools pro bono. Ideally, I think it would be good if BBO still allowed pro bono teaching facilities, however this opens up a lot of issues in itself. For example, one way for BBO to enforce a fee for teaching, would be restrict the use of teaching tables to paying teachers. However, if BBO also believed in allowing pro bono teaching, then how does BBO identify a teacher using a pro bono table, but then secretly charging students? I don't have a good answer to this, so can understand if BBO decides not to allow use for pro bono work. 4. BBO does have a great service it can offer to both teachers and students. BBO can facilitate payment and provide support. As such a fee for such a service is completely understandable and would hopefully provide a welcome income stream for BBO, well at the same time it would help bridge teachers secure payments. 5. As an alternative to accreditation, why not just create and store feedback? Just like ebay a user can decide whether to use a teacher based on a short description provided by the teacher, hours of availability posted by the teacher, and reviews from past students. Maybe BBO can even the search process for students? I am envisioning something like a "Looking for a teacher?" page. There students can look through the descriptions, read reviews of the teachers, maybe there is a short description of curricula, and the students can pay for their lesson. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to charge a finder's fee for each student that enrolls this way (maybe 1/2 of the first lesson?). Lots of possibilities here. 6. As per the supporting the teachers themselves, I think this will be an area that can grow over time. Having sets of deals and tools built-in to the teaching environment could be very useful for the online teacher. For example, why not cross over the bidding practice area with the teaching area, so that teachers could quickly arrange parameters around hands? So if I wanted to have a lesson about 1NT openings and Stayman responses, I could set up the deals without a lot of advanced preparation. I basically think this whole area of development would be a way to distinguish BBO from any rivals. BBO has already better teaching tools than other sites, but why not make it the best place for teaching? That helps not only teachers, but students. It also helps the bottom line for the teachers, since they won't have to spend as much time prepping and can spend more time teaching.

I would pass. I can understand, I guess, 5♠, but one call I can't understand at all is double. What do we have in our hand that makes double the right call? Why do we want to want to discourage partner from bidding on if partner thinks it's appropriate? Are we playing double here as "I don't think we can make a 5-level contract opposite what I know thus far?" It's definitely a call I don't understand (so will be eager to understand better Mike's reasoning). As for our defensive prospects, I don't think we have anything that partner cannot expect. Yes we have an Ace which is good both on offense and defense. However, we also have the ♠Q which will likely be a waste of values on defense. Upon reflection before posting, perhaps Mike views double as "primarily takeout". I would expect double here to be "primarily penalties," not based on a trump stack, but based on more defensive values. So I'll be curious what way people view the double to be.

I have sympathy for his call. Ugly problem from his side.

Perhaps... 1♥ - 1♠; 2♠ - 2NT(1); 3♦(2) - 3♥(3); 3♠(4) - etc... (1) Asking about support, min/max, etc (2) Max with shortage (3NT being max without shortage) (3) Asking (4) Short clubs I'm only responding to a possible way to get there. I also think that it's just unlucky that the fit is so good. I don't think North is worth a max with shortage call either. But there you go.

I also think 3♦ is ok if you have a nonstandard agreement by which it shows this exact hand! Touche. Fair point.

I think 3♦ is ok, ONLY IF you are playing Bad/Good 2NT (i.e. inverted G/;). Regardless, I like 4♠ now. I agree with Mike. I agree with Harald. I agree with Josh. I agree with...

Hence why I said "playing the 2nd type of system." ;)

I personally play 2 where a 1NT rebid shows 17-19. I agree with Josh that sometimes it feels wasteful to use such a low level bid for a fairly infrequent hand type. However, I can't really think of a way to increase the number of hand types, and, at the same time, keep 1NT non-forcing. I also want to mention that play the 2nd type of system, you will occasionally run into difficult hands that don't really fit the system. For example, suppose you hold: ♠Qxx ♥A ♦KQxx ♣Qxxxx If you open 1♣ and partner bids 1♦, you just don't have a good rebid. We choose to bid 1♥ and note that completing the transfer show 2-3 hearts, but also 1 heart is possible on some infrequent hands. The alternative is that you can play that you have to open these hands with 1♦, but I don't care much for that solution.

If West thought of the reasoning at the time, I will at least give him credit for thinking along the lines. Of course, as others have mentioned, the reasoning was faulty. However, I think it's a bit harsh to be too critical. On the other hand, it's quite possible that West reasoning was made after the fact to cover up an error, in which case it's a shame that he felt he needed to come up with a reason. We all make errors.

By the way, my answer to "If you had a special gadget for this hand, would you prefer that if the hand comes up?" is "Yes."

If my 1♦ opening was natural, I would go with 4♣ here, so that partner can evaluate the sacrifice. Given I have only shown 2+♦ I find it a bit tougher. I won't bid 4♣ now as we could easily be 4-5 in the minors. I will bid 4♦ now as the others, but I think it will be tough for either of us to make a decision over 4♥.

Mighty Morphin Power Forums?

Or alternatively, how does North resolve whether south is 4=1=4=4, 4=0=5=4, or 4=1=5=3?

I want to be in 5♦ as well, but I'm sure I would be in 3NT. P - 1♦ 1♥ - 1♠ 2♣* - 2♦ *XYZ 2NT - 3NT