coyot

I would be more interested in opinions regarding the subtler issues (major preference or notrump preference). Would you assume one variant as standard or simply alert all 1NT rebids (telling opps either "denies spades" or "can have spades")?

The big Q is: Will you be happy to beat 4♠ once? If 3♠ raise is preempt, almost EVERYONE will bid 4♥ - as it makes with as little as K♥ or J♥ and Q♦ - mere 3 points!. And this is the same reason why I would bid 5♦ - the shape is simply too good to defend. You know opps have a good spade fit so you can assume that you have a good fit too - and it might be either ♥ or ♦. Of couse, you might go one down if p has something like KJ10x in spades and club KQ and nothing else, but there are simply too many possibilities with low honors in red suits to make. P might be assuming a long heart suit and fear diamond losers, therefore going for the sure money in doubling...

My defence is unusual vs. unusual, so minor cuebids in this case are forcing with major suits - lower cuebid shows lower (meaning closer) suit (or support). Double is card-showing and denies 3card support or 5card in other major (direct bids of those would be competitive), which leaves me with 7+ cards in their suits, so I presume I can double whichever contract they decide on, unless partner shows more length in his suit. I would use the agreement that double on 2NT promises 10+ If the opener does not rebid hearts, I can assume that we don't have a good fit and double their 3rd level contract based on LOTT. (We might have 4-4 spades with likely bad break, so in the worst case they have 5-3 minor - worth doubling for down one since they're on 3rd level_. double on 3♣/♦ after initial pass would show less than 10 HCP and the same as above (as you would use competitive bids if you had 3♥ or 5♠. 1♥-2NT: 3♥ directly would be approx. 8-11 HCP 3♣ would be 12+ pass and then 3♥ is weaker.

Doesn't this "prove" my point? No, it proves nothing. I only wanted to show that most of the TDs aren't bad by nature, only by lack of knowledge. I believe that it would take you only a few hours to "learn" the things you need to know to be a reasonably good TD when it comes to rulings and adjusts. It would certainly be worth it - and I believe that most of the existing TDs would not abandon their status if this requirement would be added. And, I certainly would not mind if TDs like the one in the example above were kicked out :) (and admitted back only when they prove that they know better)

You're assuming that if we want the TDs to know the rules, there will not be enough TDs? I don't think so. I've had a few conflicts or misunderstandings with TDs before - and in all cases, they were caused by lack of experience or knowledge of the rules on the part of the TD - and in all cases, it ended well, with the TD seeing my point (or looking it up on the ACBL website :)). I suggested it once already and will do it again: Let's have a TD-ability test! Give the TD status only to people that show at least basic knowledge of the rules (covering i.e. the following): 1) wrong claims (and the rule of "any logical play, not necessarily the best play") 2) non-alerted bids (weak 2 on a 5card and 5 HCP is NOT a psyche) 3) full disclosure rule (asking the defendants about explicit and implicit agreements) I mean, we can have a robot for replacing reds with subs, we don't need a person for that! We can have a robot for starting a tourney and telling the players things enclosed in ♥ :). But we NEED people that KNOW the rules and can apply them. And I think there would be enough people able and willing to do the TDs for free even if the standards for TDs were higher. (I mean, most of the hard TD work and complicated rules is basically eliminated in the virtual space - hesitations, gestures, bids and leads out of turn, revokes...)

This is IMHO wrong approach. Anyone who comes from a country with weak NT openers will tell you... I mean, imagine I play weak NT and natural stop-bids. I come to BBO for the first time, play a passed 2♥ and you call a TD for an adjust because I did not alert my natural call? This would earn you the top place on my enemy list :-) Or would you expect BBO newbies to spend a few hours trying to find bidding custom for the "locals"? (Now, I would understand that if BBO happened to be country-specific, but if you look at the country profile, this is a real Babel melting pot). The only way out is to alert artifical bids and not alert natural bids. I will NEVER alert my natural responses to 1NT, EVER! (At least until WBF says that Transfers get the same treatment as Stayman, which is, as far as I know, the only widely accepted non-alerted conventional bid.) The only alternative WOULD be an alert policy (see the poll I started today) - which could possibly explicitly name the calls that are considered non-alertable while not exactly natural. But, then, it would be something that everyone would be told to read before playing on BBO.

I just looked at the ACBL alerting rules in detail: ACBL alerts. Since both WBF and EBL have only quite loose alerting rules on their pages (basically saying alert all artificial and conventional bids and bids that carry explicit or implicit agreement in your partnership), ACBL is the only one that goes deep down. I find them quite good. The interesting bit in there says: The "highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage. Also, minimum lengths for various openers are specified as natural (and that includes minor 3cards, weak 2s on 5card). Why this poll? Well, the main reason for me is to see what people here prefer. I have seen a lot of very bad TD rulings recently on these forums - and some of them caused damage just because the involved parties made "reasonable" assumptions and the TD had a different point of view. I think it would be a very good idea to include "alerting scheme" as a tournament parameter - so that when I enter a tournament, I know what are the expected meanings of bids and I am able to alert all departures from them. I don't want to depend on the TD's point of view in cases when there are reasonable authorities. Having an "assumed" alerting policy for every tournament, we could improve the quality of TDs while not scaring them away. The TDs should KNOW what is the "expected" meaning of any call and so should the players. Rough outline of what should "Tight scheme" include the following (as expected behaviour) - examples only! (just to provide depth): - NT opening range (anything that goes farther than 2 HCP from 16 either side should be alerted) - major suit preference (i.e. 1♣-1♥ may be bid with 6♦ and 4♥ - NT preference (i.e. 1♣-1♥-1NT may be bid with 4♠) - new suit in competitive bidding NF on 2nd level, F on 1st and 3rd level - any jump F I am personally somewhere between ACBL and Tight scheme. When I play in a local club, I rigorously alert almost every bidding sequence we have, because I truly believe in the principle of FULL DISCLOSURE - and if my partner KNOWS that 1♣-1♥-1♠ denies balanced hand, opps should know it too. That is why the tight scheme might be better than ACBL in my point of view - it would allow all players around the table to get the same inferences from absence of alerts. Note that the example with 1♠ versus 1NT rebid is a typical case where you would find advocates for both possibilites - and they would all say "why alert, it's a NATURAL bid".

First hand - double. P is most likely able to determine my spade length (give or take 1 card) so p knows that my dbl is not based on trump stack, but on general strength. If p has super-long diamond hand or no values outside the suit, will run to 4♦. If p has good side values, 3♠ should be nice. 3NT is suicide. It would be asking for working diamonds AND a side ace, while non-working diamonds and a side ace are much more likely to happen and 3♠ should still go down a few. Second hand - 5♦. I don't know how good is my p's spade holding, but my hand is too great. We might even make 6 with average hand (A♣, K♥, Q♦ makes it laydown.) (And, on the other hand, if p has a bad hand with 3 hearts, 4♠ can make...)

2H is not a bad bid if you find a fit. I would not expect it to promise 6-5, but 6-4 for sure. That is, with a doubleton in your both suits, your p should correct to your first suit :) - and you don't want that to happen.

4♠-x is actually easy - just card-showing - whereas 4NT can be used as a general takeout. 4♥-x is worse, because here you need takeout with 4 spades and 4NT would be pick a minor... So if you happen to have a penalty hand (3 bad spades and not enough minors), you either have to pass and hope that p protects you with reopen double, or you clench your teeth and double, hoping for p to not bid 4♠ on Qxxx :)

With neighbourghing suits of us and overcallers there is a simple solution: If there is no room between their bid and our suit on 3rd level, double is a game try (called Maximum Overcall Double I think) and our suit is partscore fight. If both remaining suits are available, double is business, side suits are game try and main suit is partscore fight If only one suit remains, you must make an agreement - and I would opt for the side suit to be a generic game try. The double for business may be necessary to protect you in LOTT cases. (If you're known to be able to double opps for penalties often, they will intervene with your bidding less :))

If the expected "weak 2" is a 6-10 6card AND you have an understanding with your partner that you open weaker and shorter, you should alert. If there is no agreement, you're allowed to bid 2♠ on pretty much what you like - and I would argue loudly with a TD that would blame me for psyching (1 card and 1 pt from normal opener is NOT a psyche). Report the TD to abuse@. If they refuse to do anything about it, confront him in person (i.e. get him to confirm what he did AND then publicly trash him for not knowing the rules of bridge.) I'm a begginner BBO-TD myself - and if I ever happen to make such a bad decision, feel free to nail me to the cross and let me bleed publicly :)

Eh, the chances for any squeeze to work when I am missing QJ in each of the three suits are probably not any great (if even remotely possible :). I've played a grand or two when opps opened - you just need two good voids or singleton aces (and an opener with KQJ in two suits :)). And, considering the garbage hands some players are willing to open these days, I'd be willing to try grands despite opening bids on my side.

I think it was some other thread where I showed that the occurence of a 2NT hand after 1M opening is approx 1% or less. So, I lose on 1% of hands (where I have exactly 11-12 count AND no fit) and I gain on x% of hands (where I have any 12+ hand with support.).

Sorry to inform you, but alerting rules are NOT based on what you personally think, or what majority of users of BBO think, or what some statistics on BBO will prove to be major treatment. I don't know the exact wording of ACBL alerting rules, but I assume that it will quite similar to what is used in other countries: You have to alert bids that are not "natural" in the sense of showing length in the suit bid or interest to play in this suit. You have to alert bids that are not "natural" in the sense of not being the next longest suit. (yes, 1♣-1♥ SHOULD be alerted if you can have longer ♦ than ♥!) (and yes, in most of Europe you HAVE to alert SAYC minor openings.) You have to alert bids that carry additional information, which is not expected in "natural" meaning of the bid. (Same example, also inverted raises etc.) Only after this comes the requirement to alert bids with unusual/unexpected meaning - but this does not mean "I expect everyone to play transfers so I will not alert trasnfers and will alert my natural bids". This means that you have to alert "forcing passes", you have to alert bids that are unexpectedly forcing or nonforcing. I know these rules are not perfect, but they have to be obeyed. We all know that these rules will evolve slowly. Almost everybody uses Stayman and a simple Stayman is one of the few exceptions from alerts. When the NATIONAL authorities feel that transfers became significantly major treatment, they will change the rules (as they have done with better minor openings in the US). But, BBO is international, despite situated in the US, and this means that it's rules should follow WBF rules unless directly specified (ACBL tourneys). Bridge cannot be ruled by local majority customs. This would mean that any Polish player going to BBO would have to study whole lot of (for him artifical) bids that his opponents will not alert. Our goal should be to make the game enjoyable to everyone - and following a GLOBAL set of rules is the easiest way.

Agree with 1NT if opps white and pass if opps red. I know that my p will reopen 1S with 4 diamonds or 5 clubs and 3 diamonds, unless he has a really empty hand. I strongly disagree with expecting partner to bid something with diamond void over my opening - because he knows that 1♦ will be hardly ever passed out. p could in this case have anything up to 5 bad HCP (QQJ etc).

A good point, man. This increases the chance of 7♦ making, because the contract success rate is enhanced by the J10x ♥ (which works for 7NT) and the (albeit small) odds of Qx in clubs on either side. (approx. 2/7 of 30%).

Yep... Imagine any 1x-1y-1NT(2NT) auctions. i.e. when you get a powerhouse with 3-5-3-2 shape and partner opens 1♣, you bid 1♥ and he rebids 1NT. Now you know that you most likely do NOT have a fit, but imagine that you hold something like: Ax-AKQx-KJx-QJ.. You simply can't bid Blackwood/Gerber because there is the (albeit small) possibility that opps have two top clubs <_< - so you need to find out if partner likes his hand or not. You will most likely have gadgets to find out heart support with partner, but if he shows doubleton, 4NT will be quantitative. (1♣-1♥-1NT-2♦GF-2NT-4NT)

6♣. I only need a queen and a good ace or two aces...

I would probably bid 4♣. True that I would normally transfer to clubs and pass, but the bidding has given me some indications - the probability of wastage in majors is lower. I expect partner to raise to 5 with top honors in majors and middle honors in minors and pass if otherwise. Given the IMP vul state, I simply must try.

Oh, I forgot about that... So, it adds (15% for the 5-2 heart break on the right side)*(conditional probability of diamond break not being 4-2 on the same side (trump promotion). I started the calculations wrong way, then. Should be: 1) hearts 4-3 and diamonds no worse than 4-2 (43%) plus 2) hearts 2-5 and diamonds no worse than 4-2 or 3-3 (but not 2-4). (15% * (35%+a somewhat more more than 24%), roughly 10%). Still, the success rate for this slam is significantly worse than 7NT. (Roughly 55% vs.. 70+%)

I assume that quite a lot of people would say this. I mean, English is no problem for me but if there's a Czech team in the VuGraph, it would not hurt to have Czech commentary as well. But I know this ain't practically possible. (There are about 1000 players in CR, about 100-200 of them might have a BBO account - and of these, my guess would be that 90% have a good bridge english, mainly because all the good bridge books we can read here are either English or Polish :) That's why I suggested the language-specific survey - most people would want it but this survey should show which language groups have a significant real demand for it (and would be worth the hassle of trying to pre-arrange the commentators).

I told you ;), 35% plus 65%/2 = 67%. (plus the additional chance of J10x in hearts in one hand... (Which would be 52% * 3/7 * 2/7 if I am not mistaken, approx 5% total). In layman terms, good enough (it goes over the 70% which I remember seen as a good grand requirement.)

It's a strange question - I can hardly decide at the table knowing both hands ;) I would hardly decide for 7♦ unless I knew about Axx in diamonds and two doubleton kings :). But when it comes to odds, 7♦ needs diamonds 4-2 or 3-3 and hearts 4-3 or 5-2 with the doubleton being on the same side as doubleton diamond. Good diamond break: 84%. Good hearts break: 52%. Total: 43%. Add for the extra chance of both red doubletons on same side: (30% and 48% and 50%) 7%. (Actually significantly less, because the 30% and 48% are odds for the 4-2 and 5-2 divisions, but the chance that if those two divisions occur and the same time in the SAME hand is much less than 50%). Rough estimate would be something below 50%. 7NT: 35% for 3-3 plus 50% of the remaning 65% (finesse) = more than 60%, clearly superior.

IMHO this poll should be split for individual languages, or, better, ran system-wide on all users. I don't know if that would be technically possible, but it would provide the best results for decisions. Imagine the following options (for every player whose country does not generally speak english as their primary language): a) I don't watch vugraph any often ;) I watch vugraph often and: ba) My bridge english is good enough so that english commentary is sufficient bb) I would really welcome commentary in my primary language, thank you. bc) I would really welcome commentary in my primary language and I am able and willing to provide it occasionally. [Checkbox]: I would want my language commentary for every vugraph if possible, as a separate channel selection. c) I don't care d) If my language does not raise significant interest, I would prefer commentary in another language (selection/checkboxes) Of course, this message better be translated so those who don't understand english at all don't just close the window :) Running this poll on every user would certainly tell what is the real demand for commentary. You would get both absolute and relative numbers and would therefore know which groups it is worth to satisfy. I guess that English, French, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, Turkish and Polish would be among the groups with a high demand, while i.e. Dutch and Danish are both small enough and english-speaking enough so that the amount of people who would need native language commentary is very low (=not worth the hassle, meaning that if the commentator is available, we'll use him, but if he is not, we will not search for him actively). Technically, language filters could be implemented easily hopefully. Don't have internal knowledge of BBO messages, but if any property could be added to the structure that carries the message, each user could then have .language property checked against his filter - and non-matching messages would be filtered out (lobby chat, kibitzers, non-TD tourney chat etc.).