coyot

I'm sorry too, because alerting is a requirement of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, and crucial to a fair competitive environment. Your attitude also encourages the worst possible outcome, namely that others will start saying "if they don't have to alert, then why should I?" No, it is not MY responsibility to ask the meaning of every single bid that is made by every opponent, not to mention how it would slow the game to an impossible crawl. If they are not willing/able to alert their bids in accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and the posted BBO systems, then let THEM play somewhere else. Then let's FIND a way to spank them. Let the TDs have the ability to give procedural penalties for repeated failures to alert. Personally, I bounce anyone who fails to alert a second time after I have warned them once. Any type of spanking will work, if the TDs will just step up to the problem, instead of permitting them to unfairly win boards by ignoring the problem. Well said, candybar. Scoob, your attitude is exactly opposite to the official bridge world! This being international site instead of a local club changes absolutely nothing! In my local club, people play Acol, Standard, Precision and WJ with roughly the same frequency. There is no "major" system here, as there is no "major" system on BBO (although SAYC could try to claim this title). It is ALWAYS the responsibility of the bidder to make sure that opponents are alerted to the fact that the bid is ARTIFICAL or carries a special agreement. The passing hands do NOT have to investigate what system their opps play. The bridge rules give them the assumption that the system is natural period. True, it is a sane thing to ask opps what system do they play, IF it helps me in any way. (And yes, it helps me when they play SA, so that I don't have to investigate what an alerted 1♣ opener is.) But I certainly don't HAVE to tell my opponents: "Sorry, I don't know your system, would you be that kind and alert all conventional bids for me?" And there is a governing body: enemylist in MBC and TDs in tourneys :). What we need is to make sure that TDs will enforce the rules.

Nice ideas! I would try to elaborate a little on TD calls. Any "call TD" request from players should move into a queue. Ideally, the item in the queue would cointain player name, board number and reason for the call. This could mean that any adjust calls could be removed from the queue automatically once the TD makes the adjusts. This queue could "block" the results from being computed - i.e. until the TD deals with all adjusts (either adjusting the score for the player+board or by deleting the entry manually), the results are not computed. Also, as I have suggested somewhere else, do NOT allow the TD call to be sent without giving a reason. What I would really want - automatically log all message chat of TD, preferrably with timestamps AND if possible, also log important events (i.e. tourney started, time added, TD call request)... Do the logging server-side so it can't be faked.

I thought for a long time that my system denied 5M if the opener starts with 1m. But I realized that you can easily fit this hand into (almost) any system! If you simply rebid spades twice (basically no matter what your partner responds), you've shown 5-6-x-x AND a good hand. It works well even without jumping (if you play 1♦1-♥-1♠ as one round force - after that, 2♠ rebid is almost GF.

I think that you should alert bids that are conveying special agreements. I don't think you should alert acol 2NT responses to 1 in suit, if they show something like 10-12 balanced. You should alert 3+club no matter against whom you play, unless you're playing under a jurisdiction that explicitly says this is not to be alerted (ACBL). (But remember that playing on BBO does not mean playing under ACBL. If there is any jurisdiction, it is WBF). You should alert Stayman under the condition that the jurisdiction does not state otherwise. (Ours does - this is the ONLY convention that is not alerted and therefore 2♣ natural has to be alerted here, not that I've ever seen it :)) When alerting your bids, you should NOT worry about "what exactly the local customs are". You should worry about what system you play, what are it's basic rules. Basic rules of SA based systems are Majors first, NT then, minors last. Therefore the 1NT rebid with possible 4spade holding must be alerted, because it is unexpected. I would alert 1NT in both cases anyway, just to tell opponents that we have a clear agreement, but strictly speaking, 1NT which denies spades is the "natural" bid in American Standard and therefore does not need to be alerted.

I think that you weren't as much fixed by your methods as you were fixed by opponent's methods. I mean, with the 6-5 sixcount against strong NT, I would be certainly TRYING to find a game contract. Anyway, what do you need to make 4SP? Any good 13 HCP :). I play good old DONT against strong notrump, but I would not condemn any other method. Even with Capelletti, it should be possible to reach 4♥ here - start with doubl e to show some sixcard - and if LHO bids 2♠, your partner with singleton spade can venture takeout double if he dares. Of course, on this particular deal, a simple natural overcall does the job - but this is one of the rare cases where opps open 1NT 15-17 and you still have game. You will much more often just want to screw their bidding - and that's where the various two-suited conventions kick in and natural methods lose.

Oh yes it is. It conveys a special agreement in this case (as 1♠ would be the "natural" bid in most systems and quite likely in the system used in this case.) First, his questioning of your other bid is reasonable given your p did not alert something else. Second, the bridge rules explicitly state that you are allowed to ask opponents AFTER the auction - and you can have the auction explained to you. As far as I know, the rules strictly prohibit asking about a specific bid in a way that could give your partner UI. (This is especially true when the one asking is NOT the one making opening lead. I think the rules require that the leader puts his lead face down on the table and only then can his partner have questions that he himself didn't have.) There is, of course, a thin line between getting full disclosure and passing UI to partner. In the case above, if the LHO simply asked what minimum length does the opening bid promise, I would not object, if he was to make opening lead. If his questioning about the opening lead becomes unusually in-depth, you may call the director and let him decide whether the behaviour was indeed passing UI to partner or just getting full disclosure.

Yep, I think that unless he has a good excuse, he should lose his TD status. A good excuse would be a computer burnout (happened to me, but fortunately I had my notebook at home and was able to re-log so quickly that the players barely noticed my absence :)...

Well, I wonder, did you read the Title to this thread? Oh, I stand corrected, you're right, that was a nasty generalization.

Let's see. 3IMP per board is, IIRC, the standard contumation rate or standard penalization for missed boards etc. In the long run, it would mean an overtrick on every other board (pretty good). If you look at Butler charts for major events, you'll find that the top pairs usually score between +1 and +2 IMPs per board - and scoring 1/2IMP per board would place you roughly somewhere between a third and a fourth of the starting field (as Ben said, that's pretty good). Of course, these numbers are for a playing field of regular partners. If you're playing in MBC with a pickup, chances are that a lot of the pairs you compare against are pickups, too, so the numbers should remain similar. If you're playing with a stable partner against a MBC field, your results could/should be slightly downgraded - the biggest effect, of course, being whether your opponents were a stable pair or not, but even the rest of playing field matters. (In other words, if I happen to score over 0.5 per board in MBC, that's nothing to be really proud of, but if that becomes my average in (preferrably paid or established) tournaments, now that shows something.)

Good to hear that from someone else as well. In fact, it is an alertable bid by all means, because the bid conveys additional information to partner, apart from the "natural" meaning of 4 spades. Thinking about it closely, if it does not promise unbalanced hand, it can be left without alert, because if the opening of one club is alerted as better minor, a spade rebid on 4card with no additional information should be understood as natural. (As far as I know, looking for a major fit first and exploring NT later is considered natural in every system.) But it takes a large hammer and a lot of patience to educate people about simple things. The only reasonable solution would be to teach peoople LOUDLY what is considered standard and natural (so that they would find how many bids are in fact passing additional information.). The biggest source of the problem is that quite a lot of people have never played a really natural system, most of them started with at least some gadgets or deviations that, for them, are natural. And, Ben, tone down please... mike said that he "gets the impression that expert players from Poland...". This is far from as bad as your first sentence suggests (second half of the sentence being completely off-topic). Plus, when it comes to that, my guess would be that unalerted polish club 1♣ opener would reach quite similar percentages to unalerted 1m openers for SAYC players. Do you have the means to find out? :P) I would gladly sign mike's statement - I get the same impression! All the Polish players who rigorously alert their bids, feel free to pounce upon me, but I think that a large majority of your countrymates don't alert!. I would not paint them all as rude, of course - but they should certainly play with the knowledge that WJ is NOT the BIG THING outside Poland - and people really don't expect 2♣, 2♦ and 1♣ openers to be so strangely different from natural meanings just because a Polish player made them.

I am not exactly sure how this works, but, would that mean that in f2f bridge, once the play starts, I cannot ask the opponents wheter a particular bid denies or allows for a particular hand layout? And, if I cannot ask as the defender, is it only because I might convey UI to partner? I.e. as a declarer, would I be allowed to ask? Because I do that quite often, asking opps whether they play 55 artificial overcalls or not being a typical example.

I think that's what convention cards are for. Playing with opposition without convention card you will be right quering ALL of their bids. A good way for disciplining them. I don't care whether I would be right to question all their bids or not. You're completely missing the point! If I play against opps with no CC posted, I will not question every bid just to discipline them. Even if I play against somebody with CC posted, there might be questions clarifying the meaning of certain bids. These questions might arise when I see the dummy - and I want to have the option to ASK opponent in a way that his answer will be visible for my partner and for the TD (in case I need him). It is possible (and used frequently) in f2f bridge - and I don't see any good reason why should we be deprived of this possibility in online games. (Typical case - opponent makes a bid I think I understand. Then I make opening lead and see that I misunderstood the bid. So I want to ask what it meant. (i.e. when a declarer-promised control appears on the table :)). As jack said, I want the option to officially ask after the bidding - without having to ask for every bid I don't care about during the bidding, just because I might need to know later.

I would suggest taking a screenshot of the rude comments and sending it to abuse@ - and requesting a tough action. (When it comes to that, it would be interesting to have temporary and permanent bans implemented into the system :-)) along with the user-creation dialog requesting an e-mail address - and not allowing multiple accounts per e-mail. This would possibly eliminate majority of the morons that would solve the ban by creating a new account - at least since they would have to create a new freemail account as well :))

7NTxx-13 is obvious abuse. But, how would you treat things like: 1♥-p-1NT-p-4♥-p-p-x-xx-p-p-p? I.e partner bids 4♥xx all of his own with a minimum hand with six trumps against a natural 1NT? It was an indy, I just labeled the person moron and added him to my enemylist, but his behaviour was on the edge of abuse :)

I don't know what Transfer Lebensohl is, so I presume I am using the classic version - i.e. 2NT relay to 3♣ (which I plan to pass or bid my invit/NF), with any 3rd level bid being GF.

Well, it happens to me a LOT in club games. Imagine that you have a hand with which you don't need to know much about the bidding. You even have more or less obvious opening lead. You make the opening lead and up comes the dummy. Now you have to plan your defense and now you recognize that you would really want to have something clarified. I'm often asking opponents what would some other bid mean in this particular situation, or whether they can or cannot have this or that in the hand. It I had to ask during bidding, it would mean that I would waste opps time on 9 boards to get the information I need on the 10th board. Simpy put, f2f bridge allows you to ask about the bidding during play (as long as you keep it ethical, not lead-requesting on partner :)) and there is no reason why you should not to it in online bridge. I know these cases could be solved by simple chatting, but the bid explanation has a few advantages. (Partner sees it, TD sees it etc.) Other typical situations might be when you THOUGHT that you understood opps bidding and after you see dummy, you find out that things are different. I.e. you expect 4NT quantitative and it turns out that it was BW.

Clear-cut pass, no matter what the vulnerability is. If you hold garbage against 2NT, your side is already too high :). If opponents gave you the chance to get a plus score, let them play their 3♠. Unless partner has a really good hand, 2NT goes down one or even two, so if opps make 3♠, no big deal. Plus, there is the chance that p makes 5-6 tricks and you'll get a plus. My agreement would be that double is card-showing with no good suit (and partner decides between pass and 3NT, with the occasional disaster od 3♠ making, but much more often going down or us making 3NT), pass is natural and a new bid is card-showing and suit-showing.

I would not agree with that. Do not enforce information on those who do not seek it. If my profile says sa2/1 and partner's profile says sa2/1, I alert 1♣ or transfers just for the good manners. Of course, I could agree with partner to play some strange system and then "lure" opponents into thinking that we play better minor and sayc - but this could happen in a f2f game as well :). I think the solution should lie in enforcing players to "agree" on a system when sitting at the table. I'm not sure how this should be implemented exactly. Suppose something like: In your profile, you would have an extra page with checkboxes, describing major bidding systems (SAYC, SA2/1, ACOL, Precision, WJ, MOSCITO, VIKING, you name it), possibly ordered by preference. When you sit at a table, the system looks for matches and makes a choice, either the first match or the match with the total highest preference (for both partners summed). Both partners are notified about that and may manually change the preferred system or specify "other". This will allow the opponents to "know" the system of this partnership - and it will also enforce some grounds for TD rulings. If you didn't want to play SAYC, you should have chosen "other" and informed your opponents about it.

I know there are many strong players here and there are lots of hidden dragon and crouching tiger around this forum. But this is about logic, not about fame, right? I do care ppl's opinion and I believe I am quite open minded. However, simily claiming 2D is a poor bid wonot convince me. I donot know any strong players personnally, but I would expect few real strong players will say 2D is a poor bid. Well, I did not "simply say" it's a poor bid. Actually, if you look a few pages ahead, you will find my exact analysis of "how many tricks would I need from partner to make the contract I promise by the overcall". I can do the math again - I have 3 sure heart winners and 2-3 diamond tricks, nothing more. (3 if partner happens to have 10 of diamonds). So the contract is at least down two at the moment I chose to overcall. Partner's values in clubs will more likely than not be under menace - so the 2♦ makes only on a few really nice assupmtions (like partner having a diamond honor AND (a spade honor OR working club honor.) - but, it is quite possible that with such a good hand, he would raise to 3♦ (and then go down 1 doubled :-)). [3DI] from partner was not a good bid as well - but only for the reason that his ace is the spade singleton. This strongly limits the ruffing power of the hand, because even after the spade lead, this will require partner to have entries - and, given the junk overcall, good opps will lead a trump or three :) and this hand becomes worthless. With a small spade and Ace of clubs the hand is a little better, but still not good enough to warrant 3♦ unless the overcall promises 6-card (which is not likely these days)

Getting the odds count here is easy even for me - I think I could figure that in a few minutes at the table :)... The modification againt 59% would, however, be more likely negative. If hearts split 5-2, the odds are bigger for the 2-heart hand to hold the 4 trumps. But still, bid the slam. As somebody said, why play such a complicated system to end up in a contract any bean-counter will bid? (Reminds me of the VuGraph match a year or so back, I think Poland vs England. The Poles bid 6♥ in a very sophisticated auction - one of the commentators said that English with their methods will never get there - and the English pair bid 1♥-3♥-6♥ :-))

Czech Republic: Mix of both. All "artifical" calls are alerted, the only exception being normal (4M promising) Stayman. Also, unexpected bids alerted. In fact, I don't know how strict are the rules here, but I presume that you alert all bids that carry extra partnership agreement or experience (unless they are natural in principle and the extra agreements are described on your CC.) SO, for example, 1♣-1♥-1♠ will be alerted by responder if denying 12-14 balanced, unless the convention card says so. So will 1♣-1♦ be alerted as "denies 4M unless has 5♦ and GF strength". Andm 1♣-1♠ will be alerted as "may have longer diamonds if not GF strength". Those alerts may seem ridiculous to somebody but I think that they are the result of "full disclosure" rule. For example, the first case, of 1♠ rebid, usually describes 9 cards in opener's hand - and if I do not alert the bid, opponents may assume that partner could still have 4-3-3-3 shape. I know he does NOT - and I think that under present rules, I should alert opponents to this fact. IMHO, any bridge federation that does not require similar rules is swimming upstream. Quote from WBF (and is there any higher authority?): 1. Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not. 2. Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. (A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization). See Law 40(:). 3. Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or overcalls, and nonforcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to opening bids of one of a suit. Rule 2 explicitly says to alert bids that have special meanings or lead to special understandings. Those strict alerting rules both educate players for full disclosure and protect you in case of any dispute.

Keep 1x-1y-3NT (even over interference) as a sort of gambling - solid opening 6+suit, stopper in overcall if any, slight reserve). Stick to system point-range rebid (2NT with 18-19 or as you play it).

A club rebid, no problem. Of course sometimes it may cause you to end in a bad contract, but lying NT is a big sin. (Partner has to expect that 1♣-1M-2♣ promises either 6card or 5card with non-reverse strength and bad shape. The only case where you open 1♦ is when you have 1-4-4-4 shape, because rebidding a 4card twice is a real no-no. As to weak vs. strong NT: Weak NT means you don't have to play transfers, which frees up one more bid - some pairs use two staymans... Weak NT means that you will block opps VERY often Weak NT means that you occupy the tactical spot Weak NT means that opps don't get the information about you and partner that the rest of field does, when they open a minor and end up in 1NT. Weak NT means that you have to employ a GOOD escape system :). Despite all the above I still plan strong NT and don't plan switching :).

Agree. I've been convinced by the vast majority here that this was the wrong way - 3♠ would be most likely fit-showing strong hand with 4♣ then promising a cue-bid, whereas direct 4♣ is undoubtedly a forcing bid.

I voted for 1♦ as two spade rebids will describe the hand exactly. The only trouble of this hand is finding partner with the spade honors, which will be a little harder if he happens to support diamonds and not spades. 1♦-1♥ 1♠-1NT 2♠*-4♠ 2♠ now shows 5♠ and 6♦ (or 6+7) and a strong hand. Partner's ugly values make him sign off, after which I can RKCB and park in 6♠, making if spades are 3-2 and diamonds no worse than 4-2. But give partner 1 more diamond and 1 less spade and I might end up in a very bad slam.