coyot

No trump ranges should be based on a very simple principle: the lower you bid, the wider the range. You could even play 1NT as 11-15 as there would be plenty of room to explore the opener's range (i.e. by sacrificing transfers and playing two staymans). Once you have to bid on higher levels, you need minimum point range because there is no way to place invitations!. You definitely need 18-19 for 2NT and you can split 12-17 into two even ranges or 11-17 to 11-14 and 15-17. You don't need two-point range for opener. It is quite easy to accept invitation when your range is 15-17... Any 17, Any 16 with 5card, Any 16 with 2x4card and some 10s... My guess would be that constructive bidding after 1NT opener is the most sophisticated part of major bidding systems - and it works quite well.

Why shouldn't it be? Reverse Bergen is rather basic, compared to all the exotic stuff played by beginners over here. Topic: Is this such a bad slam? If East has ♦A it seems to have chances. But Gerben and Frances are right. OK, I must have my view shifted - I would think that Intermediate bridge would be something along the lines of starting with cue-bids, two-suited overcalls etc :rolleyes:, not playing complicated major raises :D. Good or bad slam? If you look at it from double-dummy or combined hands perspective, you could come up with some layouts for defense hands that would work. But, in order to make this slam, you NEED diamonds 3-3 AND a good lead - location of diamond ace does not matter the slightest bit. Now, the probability of diamonds 3-3 is below the requirements of a good slam :) - case closed. From the bidding point of view, this is DEFINITELY a bad slam. I don't want to bash sceptic too much, but Frances and her word "dreadful" hit home. What do you know from the bidding? Your side has 26-28 HCP. Your hand contains no shortness and no good side suit. Given the silence of your LHO, it is quite likely that you're not the only one with balanced hand. I would try to prod my partner with 4♦ to show that if he is really interested in slam, we might try. But I need him to have a really GOOD hand - especially when it comes to shape. Give him the nice maximum xxx-Jxxx-xx-AKxx and your slam is a confident game with a good chance for overtrick :).

Yep, sound advice Frances - 2NT openers are fine for this type of hand. Anyway, I am looking at the bidding AND the forum: Is Reverse Bergen Beginner and Intermediate Bridge?

Bad... club lead will most likely come anyway - opps will hardly lead diamond from ace (or queen, from your point of view). And, this is a BAD slam - because even on a good lead, it needs diamonds to break 3-3. Why bid 6♥ on 27-28 HCP without a shortness? No good side suits?

What does 3♦ promise? If it is 5-8 with 4card support, I guess a little more asking would be called for. I'd opt for 4♦ and then 4♠ after my p's likely 4♥. This will show enough so that if his clubs are AK or he has ace of diamonds as well to bid slam... You need something more than a club ace for the slam to make. Does 4♣ guarantee ace? Wouldn't your p bid it with KQJxx in clubs? (I certainly would if my p pushed me with 3♠. 6♥ straight away is very optimistic - especially given the likely club lead.

I don't like it much. No extra values, club suit is not exactly nice and if any major suit becomes trump (with 4-3 or 4-4 fit), diamond ruffs will likely create trump tricks for RHO. Give RHO the ♥9 and boom. I would patiently bid 3♠. If my p has good values, he will bid the game confidently. I have a bare minimum with somewhat defective major points. (Give me AK in clubs and Jxx in hearts and 4♦ is much nicer bid.. but still not enough :angry:)

Bidding went: 1♠-p-1NT-2♦ 2♥-3♦-4♥-p p-5♦-5♥... P held [hv=d=s&v=n&s=sqhq10xxxxxdxxcqjx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]. We were in a good sacrifice against 5♦, with the only bad thing being that half of the field played 4♥-1 :-(. I don't recall exact hands of opponents, but my LHO definitely had 4 small diamonds and heart void + AK in spades... My p took a long time before his 5♥ bid, but having read and understood LOTT, made the right decision.

I think even Basic Precision should handle different types of interference. (I don't play precision but I like to interfere with it :angry:) The system should be able to handle: 1) standard overcalls (there I would vote for standard approach - classic negative double, promising unbid majors for sure) 2) two-suiters with at least one suit specified (here cuebid of the specified suit can be used as strong and anything else as non-forcing freebid) 3) two-suiters with no suit specified (dbl showing points, own suit nf) - opps will have a tough time preempting so you can afford to use strong double. 4) shortest-suit overcalls (1NT for having their suit and double for takeout against that suit - or the other way round) 5) shortest or longest suit overcalls. I'm using the latest method for disrupting strong club and it works wonders against casual partnerships and intermediate/advanced players. Never suffered a doubled disaster, few times perhaps gave them some hints or led a wrong suit, but quite often they missed a slam or played 3nt instead of a suit contract...

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s9xxxxhakxxxdj9ck]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Had this in a club pair game yesterday Further partnership agreements were forcing NT (with 3card support when without shortness possible), 2/1 GF or a good rebiddable suit, Hardy raises. I will add p's hand later :angry:

Using player notes is not exactly fair as you're using information majority of other players in the tournament likely do not have. There are a few possible enhancements: 1) Prescribed bidding system for individual tourneys (exact list of allowed conventions etc) - I would highly recommend this one 2) Disable "viewing of player notes" during tournament 3) (Privacy breaching) Show player notes to everyone at the table (not kibitzers) 4) Cyclic seating. In many indies I played, the seating system made all variations of the four players at the table. I.e. 3 boards per round and you play with all 3 partners one board each. In this case, the only "damaged" player will be the one that plays with the "overbidder" the first board - but that cannot be avoided anyway.

Another "standard" variation: 2♣ promises inv. values and after 2♦, 2♥ or 2♠ is natural, showing 5-4 (and forcing to 2[NT] or 3M. Garbage allows passing any response (and best be used with 5 diamonds and 3+ in both majors). I've never seen the variant above (with 2♥ weak and both majors.) Also, lot of people like Smolen (which has the 2♥ and 2♠ responses swapped, therefore letting the 1NT hand to declare in 5-3 major fit.

Some people play all 55 artifical bids as unlimited - I've found it helpful to use it on two types of hands only: 1) when willing to sacrifice against a modest hand (given vulnerability) 2) when strong enough to have slam interest against a modest hand Add a queen to one of your 5cards and the hand qualifies as strong... you'd then something like A, K and a bit of length in support for the slam.

A few possible enhancements for TDs: 1) change the dialog that comes up when s1 calls the TD to be not modal - so you can leave it floating for a while (or create a message instead of the dialog) 2) require player to provide reason (i.e. dropdown with possibilities or just disable the "ok" button until a reason is given. 3) Add "Later" and "After tourney" buttons to the dialog, so that the player will know that I am aware of his problem but cannot solve it right now. This will prevent multiple calls. 4) 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)... 5) (non TD, just came to my mind) - what if "!table" entered in chat worked as a link to this table? Would it be easy to add and of any use? I can imagine greeting a friend by "!table" when his bubble pops up...

I'm not sure if this happens between any two versions, but I just upgraded to 4.3.4 (I think from last stable version, but could have been 4.3.1 :rolleyes:) and noticed the following settings lost: 1) language (seems to do autodetect). 2) small chat font 3) smaller lines in main screen 4) lobby chat ignore not sure about 5) use felt, 6) animate messages

Wonderful... in my noobishnes I hadn't that figured out... [None the less, the tooltip should be changed/disabled]

I am just TDing a small tourney and I noticed that when I am kibitzing at a table, I can select "tables" in the right menu to appear between current table and chat window... and when I hover over a table, tooltip appears "click to kibitz at table n" - but clicking does not work B) This is probably known... well, there would be another suggestion then: In this table listing, I think that TD would be glad to see the progress of play for each table... I imagine that the Table column would be able to handle two extra chars, so that in each round, you could see i.e. board number and state... Table 1 1P (1st board of round, play) Table 2 2B (2nd board of round, bidding) Table 3 F (finished) Or, as an alternative, some color coding could be used - i.e. background of the first column could have different colors (finished tables, tables already in next round, tables behind time... Especially the last one would allow TD to "preventively" visit the slower-playing tables to observe potential intent in slow play, without having to rely on word-evidence.

You're welcome :P In theory, Baldi's Vugraph operation could be replaced by BBO, no doubt about that. You would only have to enter the results from the vugraph rooms to the system (just as results from any other table). Edit: The Baldi's VuGraph (called Rama) is an integrated part of the system - when the operators finish "playing" the board, the result is automatically updated... But it should be no problem to configure the system as "no Rama shown" and simply collect the results from the VG rooms just as any other results and enter them into the system separately...

It pays to have a good agreement with p about these auctions. We play a new suit after a double as a good hand (16-17+) with own suit, but it is invitational... So basically with every 20+ hand where there are good chances for game even against 2-4 HCP, you have to cuebid...

I guess it would be a good idea to require TDs of Individual events to preselect a system that is going to be used in the tournament. For a start, there could be the following: BBOB, BBOA, SAYC, SA21, ACOL, WJ, Precison The TD could have the option to "allow" usage of any system the partners decide to agree upon. Selecting the system would automatically append it's definition to the Tournament Rules, possibly allowing changes. Then the individual events would gain their real value, because your play wouldn't have to be based on guessing what bids will partner understand. I know this would put a strain on the TDs who would have to deal with complaints against out-of-system artifical bids... So there could also be the "no system" option which would allow for the current chaotic indies - but this option should have to be manually selected and generally advised not to be used.

I don't need to shoot 3 or 4♥ because my hand is limited by 17HCP - and if I'm going to miss a game agains K10x♥ and a minor ace, I'll be happy that I didn't go down a few agains KJ KJ in minors :angry: If partner bids 3m over 2♥ I will bid 3♠ to show a good 6card. (Which should both cause partner to evaluate minor Aces well and show that I am not afraid to play against singleton spade....

Drury must be alerted as it says nothing about clubs. If the 2♣ bid by partnership agreement neither promises nor denies spade support (and only denies 5♥) and is systematically bid on 4+♣, there is no reason to alert. If it promises spade support or conveys any other special meaning, it should be alerted.

As you are saying, you are making a combination of assumptions and hopes. The question that you have to ask yourself is: do the opponents have available to them the same information from which to make those assumptions? All that the rules seek to achieve is a level playing field on the matter of disclosure of agreements, while at the same time allowing players to capitalise on their skill derived from their knowledge of bridge. That you are playing in an environment in which a particular interpretation of the bid is predominant is arguably a matter of public knowledge, ie general bridge skill. The opponents are (or should be) no less aware of the environment in which you are playing than are you and your partner. I think that if you had fast typing skills and no shortage of time in which to make the disclosure, then you probably could list the prevailing popular methods in your own country and that of your partner (to your knowledge), and that would be the fairest disclosure most in keeping with both the spirit and letter of the law. And of course if you are incapable of complying with that for practical reasons, it is advisable to err on the side of caution and disclose more rather than less, but only because your reputation is more valuable than the result on the hand, not because it is intrinsically fairer on the hand in question. Damage to your reputation may be unjust, but no less real for that. Pardon me, but a matter of public knowledge in certain part of Earth does NOT equal general bridge skill. What for you is a matter of public knowledge might be different to anyone who spends most of his time in a different "public". There is no need to disclose popular methods in any country. If you are from a country where most people play Wilkosz and your partner is from US, when you bid 2♦, you HAVE made a decision about implicit agreement. You might decide to stick to US customs or BBO customs (which happen to be the same). In any case, you SHOULD in this case tell opponents what is the meaning of your bid. It is slightly complicated by the fact that 2♦ in that case was a natural bid... But imagine this particular situation: Your profile says nothing, partner's profile says he plays 2♦ multi. You made no agreement. Now, if you open 2♦ with a 6card in major, you could according to your logic tell your opponents "no agreement" when you made purely artificial bid :angry:. Anyway, I think that for the sake of avoiding those problems, we need Indys to have a prescribed system...

I don't think this is a valid point. You could then open 2♦ as multi, hoping your partner will get it. Your hope for this opening bid HAS some foundation. When choosing the bid, you assume something (in this case, you're assuming that your partner will treat it in it's most natural meaning, weak diamonds, because you're playing on an american server with majority of players playing 2♦ natural - and you HOPE that your partner will make the same assumption when seeing your bid. Therefore your disclosure should be "natural (or natural weak)", not "no agreement" - because when you say "no agreement", you may lead opponents into believing that the bid was made according to your profile or your partner's profile... I know it is not fair to your partner, but the current alerting system protects the opponents and I guess it is better than if it were protecting you and your partner.

I don't know if you're familiar with the Baldi program. I happenned to be one of the operators on the last Euro Youth champs... The Baldi's software is a complex suite that does a LOT of things aside from two-table broadcast to the auditorium... In fact, it does practically EVERYTHING, mainly scoring. Apart from approx 4-5 vugraph operators (it is a very tedious task and I would not recommend trying to pull the show in 2 :) for the two rooms, there must be two more to enter the score strips into the system and verify them. The system produces score sheets for each session, various types of ratings, Butlers etc. The main VG auditorium contains three screens - one for video from open VG room, one for "digital" from open VG room (hands, bidding and play) and one with running results for all the matches. BBO broadcast last year was realized via another 2(3) operators sitting in the auditorium and retyping what they saw into the BBO... Unless I am missing out a lot of BBO capabilities, BBO could cover approximately 10% of what the Baldi's old software does. (Very old software. You cannot imagine what we went through when Baldi's colleagues by mistake failed to ship his main Novell server and we found that on a Saturday afternoon with the show starting Monday morning :)) On the other hand, to take a little revenge on the EBL - last year the whole staff was volunteers. We did everything for free (and our BF still ended in red numbers) - so if they use the lack of VG operators as an excuse, they should instead say that this year's event organizer has lack of commitment :-)

Wouldn't 3♥ be constructive heart raise? No need to block, simple fit showing would be 2♥. If partner is strong enough to be interested in 4-4 club fit against weak hand (0-4(5)), he can afford to push me to 3rd level by 2♦ cuebid. If he has mere 17 HCP with flat shape and no diamond stopper, he can't expect any good contract to be found unless I am willing to speak over 1♠ on my own.