HeavyDluxe

This thread is funny.

IMO, bridge has the following problems that prevent a resurgence to popularity... I will use the surge in popularity of poker as a comparison (though, admittedly, not a perfect one). A simplicity problem - Learning to play bridge is relatively hard. The scoring is difficult to understand, the bidding language is a barrier, and the nuances of cardplay take time to appreciate. By contrast, hold'em can be taught in 1 minute, what hand beats another can fit on the back of a playing card, and the strategy/scoring are seemingly obvious. A publicity problem - Most people are fundamentally unaware that bridge exists as a 'serious game'. Poker is all over our TV sports networks. An image problem - Where bridge is known, it is thought of as a stodgy game for the old and elite. "My grandma plays bridge at the senior center every week." And while it is cool that Gates and Buffet play, in some sense they perpetuate the image of the game as 'elite' and 'nerdy'. Poker, on the other hand, has re-invigorated the 'gambler' image and is viewed as thriving/youthful. The solutions, I think, are obvious, though hardly easy to execute: 1) Figure out appropriate 'gateway' games that build into playing bridge (like Mini-bridge) and find a way to get people playing it. I think a return to 'natural' bidding would help here too - even better if a couple select, highly visible events would get some pros to test skills that way. 2) Bridge needs exposure in the media. Whatever can be done to get some tournaments on TV should be done (again, especially if the bidding complexities can be explained or ignored in the telecast). 3) When bridge is exposed, a broader swath of players needs to be seen. The game needs to work to market the diversity of age and 'lifestyles' of it's players - with particular focus on people the younger generation of players. Their image will go a long way into breathing life into things. Show the old elite, too, but show them at the table with the talented junior in his jeans and wrinkled t-shirt.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sa94hkqjt5daq73c2]133|100|Scoring: IMP P - 1♥ 1♠ - 2♦ 2♥ - ??[/hv] Are you gamblin', tryin', or passin'?

I don't think there is a way to see the vugraph announcements on the web client... Am I right about that? On the windows client, there would be a 'shout' whenever the broadcasts were about to start back up. IIRC, they even came through when you had lobby chat silenced. If something analogous is hard to implement, might there be some other workaround? Perhaps the 'BBO Now' could glow when vugraph is open? Given the last couple posts, I'd like to emphasize how much I appreciate the web client and all the work that's gone into it. I definitely prefer it to the old program now. (Oh, one other ultra-minor pet peeve... I love the new card color schemes and graphics. But what's up with the ♣Q and ♦J? Those 'two tones' just seem out of place. Yes. I'm OC.)

Hmmmm... Does "Bridge For Dummies" use four or five-card majors? I seem to remember the edition I have using four. Not a huge deal, but most ppl on BBO in the US will assume you're playing five. FWIW, I really like Bill Root's books as well. And I think "ABCs of Bridge" is a great alternative/compliment to Kantar's book. Warren's (vuroth) comments are dead on. Take your time, think, and start learning to count. Above all, enjoy it. Both the highs and inevitable lows. :)

While I sympathize with David re: the fact this is a laws forum... THIS. A thousand times this. If you're playing a tournament or team match on BBO, I think it's reasonable to expect something closer to the Laws to be in effect. However, these are mostly pickup games that count for nothing ("Hey, guess what?? I got a top board on BBO last night!" :) ) or practice for serious partnerships that will compete elsewhere. Just get rolling and play.

AWESOME. Thank you.

May solve some problems and create others... The other night, I was playing some hands in the relaxed room with a decent pard. We agreed to play 2/1 with a list of bolt-on gadgets. Opponents (both of whom were 'basic bridge, no transfer' profiles) LOLed and asked what they heck all that stuff was about... Being polite (or, at least, trying to be), I alerted conventional bids in plain English. After two boards, I began receiving irate private chats from LHO stating that I was 'cheating', deliberately insulting her intelligence, and trying to distract her by posting all that stuff. Sadly, in the OP's situation, I think 2♠ risks garnering a pass from partner. If I trusted partner, 2♠ (forcing) is absolutely the right call. No need to rush. *Note that I'm not trying to be 'down' on partners who are like this. I've enjoyed some fun, 'social' hands with many of them.

Non-expert, former BILie here. I play quite a few hands opposite random, pick-up BBOers. When I see 'no transfers, no gerber, etc', I tend to politely find another table. It's been my experience that it's very hard to infer much of anything 'systematically' from one of their bids, and there's never anything coming by way of intelligible leads/signals on defense. That said, I would read 2♣-2♥ from one of these kinds of pard to show a hand with some values and ♥s. Therefore, I'd probably do something like you did - blast to some sort of slam (likely in ♠/NT) and wing it. As Marlowe said, assuming anything more elegant will be understood is a big assumption. It seems most better B/I players on BBO today play 2♣-2♥ as a bust hand for responder. Maybe that's what most of the BIL Mentors like? I personally prefer a cheapest rebid=second negative approach.

There's a green card? :) re: the OP - I rate a takeout dbl here as bad, too.

I was actually watching this on BBO. N/S were a very strong pair (but I assume playing 'pickup') and I was just a little surprised at the result. The person holding the ♠2 ♥3 ♦AKQ43 ♣AKQJ74 elected to just bid 4♠. I'm guessing that there was no agreement re: what 4♣ or 4NT would be. Here's the full deal:[hv=d=s&v=n&n=s2h3dakq43cakqj74&w=sak8hqj975d98762c&e=sqj7hkt864djtc653&s=st96543ha2d5ct982]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] I just thought it'd be interested to see what folks on here would agree re: the meanings of various bids over 2♠ and what your plan would be.

[hv=d=n&s=s2h3dakq43cakqj74]133|100|Scoring: IMP 3♠ - (p) - ??[/hv] What would you bid? What would you do different (if anything) based on vulnerability?

Is there a web page or feed where we can thumb through old items from the 'BBO Today' list? I only just discovered the little ACBL Club Bulletins that are posted there. I've seen them before, but figured they were just results and news re: the tourneys on BBO. I happened to click on the one currently posted and really liked it. I'd be interested in thumbing through the back issues, so to speak. As an aside, thanks for that kind of content. Very helpful! I've also msg'd my thanks to Dan for putting them together.

FWIW, if you had held off 24hrs, I would've totally forgotten. ;-)

I was *just* reading this... Ahhh, the in-grown nature of BBOF. :)

Yep... I followed that. My point was just that ducking your first ♠ off dummy when E plays low doesn't help. Neat little hand, eh? Thanks, Roland. My work day has been far more enjoyable and far less productive than usual. :)

I think I see it now... but I remain amazed that people can see stuff like this ATB. I think --> FWIW, without pouring over this for the last hour I'd be down at the table.

Cyberyeti said: (hidden--->) But I ask: Aren't you still down though? (hidden-->)

I'd lead a small ♥, too... Though I lack creativity and foresight.

I guess my point was that the speculation and subterfuge is likely more problematic than the truth. As far as the Hog's comments go... I am not familiar with the 'forum' in which Wolff's ethics re: rulings on appeal has been called into question. Assuming that it's a reputable source, then I would expect him to deny the allegation publicly and fight it. If, however, it's an allegation by some no-name hack like me on a 'forum' here on the internet, I would expect him to shrug it off.

I've watched this thread with great interest... When I started to get 'into' bridge, the first book I read (aside from teaching books) was _Bridge with the Blue Team_. I can still remember the way the cover looked as I stared at it on the interlibrary loan shelf. The next book I read was Hamman's _At the Table_ which, as you all know, contains an extended recounting of his experience with the "Italian Foot Soldiers". I was kinda fascinated by the scandal and proceeded to read as many books as I could on the whole thing, including trickling into books on the R/S scandal. It strikes me that most Americans are inclined to believe the testimony of Hamman, Wolff, Swanson, and many others that certain pairs on the Blue Team cheated. People outside the US are inclined to call it sour grapes. Since the thread has gone this way, I think the objective evidence against Reese/Schapiro is startling and denying that there was something improper going on there is naive (at best). We all bring presuppositions and loyalties to this discussion that makes the 'plain truth' a lot more cloudy that it probably need be. So, it's likely that the truth will never be known re: the Blue Team unless Benito makes some deathbed confession. I certainly don't think the true greats of the team (Garozzo, Belladonna, Forquet) needed to cheat to be successful, but I am less confident that a blind eye wasn't turned to the conduct of other pairs... Regardless, I agree with previous posters that the absence of a roaring, vehement denial is absolutely puzzling to me. Whether or not it is true, it's a shame that the rumors casts such a pall over a reign in international bridge that was truly mammoth.

I get that, too. My thinking was along the lines of cyberyeti's, I suppose. Pard's made a slam try opposite a possible dead-minimum. I wanted to tell partner than his splinter made that 'possibility' a reality and then I'd cooperate with any move he wanted to make past 4♠. However, I'm not too proud to admit that I was wrong... and, seeing Jlall and Jdonn's posts convinces me that I am (again). I have two huge cards and should probably bid 5♠... That's why I come here... So, someday, I'll have minimally diminished my level of suck. :) In my defense, my p's never table a dummy like the ones the 5♠ bidders constructed!

THIS.

I watched the vid of the developer conference the day after Wave was 'announced'. One word: WANT. One of our developers was at the conference and got a highly-prized sandbox account. According to him, it lives up to the billing.

I don't open this hand. Flat shape, and what power I have is in short minors. However, having opened, I bid 2♠. Other, more authoritative voices have said it.