coyot

It all depends on agreements. If you agreements say bid 4♥ each time you have 8card and bid 3♥ each time you have 7card, then it is OK. If your agreements say that you (usually) follow the 3-2-1 or 4-3-2 or 5-3-3-2 rule, bidding 4♥ is one or two tricks above what you should bid. If your bid promises that vul.vs vul. you will go down 3 against yarborough, partner might want to defend 4♠ with 5♥ if he contributes 2 tricks (5♥ would then be down 2 for +120). So, on this particular hand, you were lucky :-), but unless your agreements with partner cover 4♥ with 7 losers red vs. red, you may be in for a few bad scores :). (I would bid 3♥ on this hand as it lacks shape... give me 74 with minor and the same honor cards and I will bid 4♥ :)) But, certainly, don't listen to an "expert" that says you should have passed - that is nonsense... the only question is, how high do you jump :)

Why do you expect partner so surely to have singleton diamond? Classic hands will be of 3-4-2-4- or 3-5-2-3 shapes (the latter with bad hearts). The unlucky normal would be xxx - KQJx - Kx - KJxx

Several possibilities: 1) dummy reversal 2) developing clubs 3) crossruff. Diamond finesse comes to mind at trick 2. If it holds, cash the ace, cash all side tricks and crossruff the rest. You're missing only Q9 in spades, chances are good that opps will not be able to overruff you twice. If diamond finesse fails, basically the same plan. In either case you seem to have 2 tricks in each suit so you only need to make 4 crossruffs and two big spades. But, thinking about it, it seems to require clubs 3-3, so it will be equal or inferior to line 2). (It might work with clubs 2-4 also, but that is not very likely distribution (4 clubs with the long hearts).

Good point Ben! If you HAVE the agreement, alert. If you're just using your judgement and don't have an agreement, no need for alert. I've used superacceptance of a transfer with a 4fit and good hand without agreements, hoping that partner will take it naturally (invitational). Rebidding 1NT when you have no agreement about spade suit is the same - judging that it will be a good bid even when you happen to have 4 spades.

1): high heart from dummy, ruff ace low 2) Ace of spades 3) King of spades 4) low spade ruffed. 5) high heart, discard a club 6,7) cash your high clubs (hoping for 3-2 break) 8) heart, ruff low in hand (opps started with 9 hearts, not likely to be 7-2) 9) spade jack led, ruff with the king. Why cash the clubs? If RHO has 3442 shape with AQxx in diamonds (well, 3 spades, 2 clubs and at least AQx in diamonds to be correct), he will REFUSE to overruff your diamond king on the 4th spade trick, discarding one club. Then you must ruff fourth heard to get in hand and start playing trumps, but he will win the first trump trick and play his remaining club, forcing you to table and ruffing another club trick with his low trump.) You have to rely on the clubs to break 3-2 anyway - because if you execute the two spade ruffs and cross back with 4th heart ruff to start playing trumps, RHO will win and return a club anyway to force you onto the dummy again. I see no other way of making this contract - you simply need clubs 3-2 and RHO with at least 3 spades. (Unless the spade queen drops in 2nd or 3rd round of spades).

Our travellers usually have the fields: Contract, declarer, tricks, N/S, E/W (or, alternatively, +N/S, -N/S). Some versions have contract+declarer in one field. Most people prefer the notation of tricks -n, =, +n, some write the total number of tricks scored (without any sign).

I don't want my partner to jump to game on any hand that does not rule out slam possibility against strong doubles. There are several other possibilities how to bid these hands. 4♠ is a terrible shut-out, after which a possible 6♣ is absolutely unreachable. 2♠ with a passed hand is passable, with an unpassed hand should not be. So, with passed hand, bid 3♠ to say "I would very much like to play 4♠, unless your hand is totally unsuitable.

I was wrong with my theory of the double being penalties. I got it explained properly by a friend yesterday that this kind of double shows a good opening hand with diamonds (trapping pass) - so it is sort-of-takeout, yet it gets converted to penalty quite often.

Oh, online bridge with pickup partners is a wholly different story. The statement about partscores deciding matches applies to f2f bridge where good, established partnerships battle. That assumes that you know your methods over various preempts etc. An established partnership will miss good games very rarely.

Yep, cash two spades, ruff third spade. If they can't overruff now, I'm all set because I discard a club on heart honor and then only have to decide which suit to lead from the dummy to ruff in hand (as an overruff would kill me). Heart looks quite safe when it comes to it... so I will score 4 black top tricks, one trick in hearts and six diamonds (2 ruffs and 4 in hand). If RHO has 2 spades only, no way to make unless one of them is the queen. If he has 3 spades, he is welcome to overruff the king with ace :), then it will be 1 ruff and 5 diamonds in hand.

I would suggest a simpler system - add the sum of player skills and map that to a color scale somehow. (Don't think that one expert and 2 novices makes a "tougher" table that all advanced). And as for the skill setting: As long as it is purely user-selectable, there's no reason to ban "private". And since we don't want to induce more cheating, we don't want system-wide results-tracking. (With the exception of a system suggested someplace - paid anonymous indies with no kibitzers and given system...) What I would suggest: Create an article in the bridge library, maybe in the form of a test, that would "suggest" you your skill rating (Leave it as user-selectable). Maybe it could just say: If you routinely use these techniques in play, consider yourself advanced... if you also handle these on daily basis, you're an expert... This would probably help to at least UNITE the perception of the skill level scale. I've discovered that my perception of intermediate, advanced and expert is significantly different from what other people, including BBO officials, think. My experience is that "Expert" is the most abused rating. I've seen so many "Experts" on BBO play significantly worse than I do :-) - and I KNOW that I'm FAR from expert :unsure:. Some of these self-proclaimed experts might just think they're expert because i.e. they another "expert", saw him play and thought "Hell, I can do better than that..." (If you search the forums for my ID and "advanced", I am sure you will find one of the posts where I describe what I consider to be intermediate, advanced and expert bridge...)

Utter nonsense to alert transfers? Does that imply that you would want natural stop bids alerted? OMG, where is the world coming to? Many of the succesful czech pairs play ACOL written by Ota Svoboda, which includes two staymans and natural stop bids (weak NT). It is absolutely AGAINST any sense to alert a natural bid! You don't get an undeserved plus if some opp forgot to alert a transfer, UNLESS the lack of alert causes damage (lead-director double etc). These alerting guidelines are meant to protect the innocent and save their time. I certainly don't want to waste my mental energy when playing online bridge or playing while travelling abroad by thinking: - oh, I should really learn what do they play here. Do I get a penalty if I fail to alert some natural bid? - oh, this double of my diamond stopper must be a takeout, so if the other opponent passed, they're in a bad fix... I readily agree that you should "alert if you think yr opps should know about this bid." - but use this rule only AFTER the rule "alert ALL artifical bids".

I think this is covered by the higher preferences. If you rate WJ as 3 and SAYC as 1, you will get WJ preference with anyone who does not show equally strong preference to SAYC over WJ. (But of course, those scales can be much richer...)

1) I would not want to play 2♦ when I know that trumps break badly and have to push my luck, relying on the 4card with declarer... Why not lead a club and prevent him from diamond ruffs in that case? 2) Imagine holding something like AJ10x-xx-Kx-KJ1086. You're looking at 4-5 tricks against a club contract. Would you overcall in clubs with this hand? Some would not, because there is no need to hurry into the bidding (especially with two suits to offer - wait what you hear...) (To the latter point - there are MANY cases where your hand gets upgraded during the bidding - and this is a typical case. Overcalling 2♣ can wait to see whether your values are working or not, typically depending on what major suit your LHO offers.)

I don't think the chief problem of this hand is lack of stoppers. It is lack of other tricks! Good defenders will be able to read the spade position. If the lead shows worthless doubleton or tripleton, you can't count on declarer to play the remaining spades like crazy. If he has AKJxxx, he will gladly take the first spade and switch :-). With likely singleton on the table, you have exactly 0 spade tricks at the moment :-) The biggest problem of this hand is getting 8-9 tricks in the side suits. Partner's distribution is most likely to be 1-5-4-3 or 2-4-4-3... If he indeed has 3 clubs, you need him to have the ace (AND hope for a good break. Q10xx behind you means you're dead.) Of course, you COULD miss a 3NT if everything goes well. But, given your two longest suits, your best chance is in defending 3♠ doubled :-) - there the spade queen is a sure trick (and the 10 a chance for second) no matter what defense does, whereas in 3NT you rely on the defense to try and run the spade suit to make tricks for you in it... but if LHO happens to have a red 5card, RHO can take the first spade and make a deadly switch... No clue? Simple math. If you believe opps have 9card fit (or possibly 8card if they're really brave), statistically it is quite unlikely that your side has more than 9card fit in clubs... 8card fit is almost guaranteed. (In the 26 cards your line holds, there are at 4-5 spades, therefore you can have at worst 3x7 in remaining suits... but more likely have 8-9 clubs and 2x6 in red suits... So the clues are here. At best, there would be 18 tricks, 17 is more likely. (That holds for suit contracts). So, if 5 clubs (11 tricks) makes, they will go 2-3 under - 3 being more likely, because of your spade holding. I haven't studied LOTT for NT versus suit cases, but at first sight, the 5 clubs contract seems to get 2-3 tricks from spade ruffs, so you can expect the total amount of tricks to decrease by 2-3 - and since 3NT is 2 tricks less than 5♣, the same or better math applies :unsure:

I like Hardy raises (but I know only some modified version): 2NT is any support, 16+ 3♣ is limit raise with 3-card and shortness or 4-card without shortness 3♦ is limit raise with 4 card and shortness (minisplinter) 3 in other major is 12-15 with 4 card and shortness (minisplinter) 3NT is 12-15 with 3card without shortness 4♣ is 12-15 with 4+card and no shortness, promising 2 of AKQ in trump suit in 4card or 1 of AK in 5card 4♦ is 12-15 with 4+card and no shortness, denying the good trumps (0-1 of 3 tophonors in 4card, 0 of 2 tophonors in 5card.) That leaves limit raise with 3-card without shortness (bid via forcing 1NT) and 12-15 with 3-card with shortness (bid via 2/1 GF). The only thing requiring agreement afterwards is how to ask for the shortness, but there is nothing too complicated in it (usually you ask with +1 and use NT or trump suit to show shortness in the farthest suit to save space.) The simplest alternative I've played and liked was: 3card limit raise via forcing NT 4card limit raise or better or 3card GF via 2NT 3card with a really good side suit via 2/1. After 2NT, 3M balanced minimum, 4M balanced, enough to accept 4card invit, 3NT balanced stronger (15+), new suit jump void, new suit non-jump fragment (promising a singleton in one of the remaining suits. This seemed quite playable, but the approach of describing declarer's hand is not a good idea when playing against good opponents, so I switched to Hardy, which is basically suited to keep as much information hidden as possible, unless you really need it (promising SOME singleton, partner does not have to ask...)

Strange... from what I've heard and seen, team matches are won and lost in partscore battles :unsure: Most of reasonably good pairs have a good game bidding - and reach most makeable games. Furthermore, the swing of game vs. partscore is +420 - +170 (+250 ) vs -50 - +140 (-190 ) NV, 450 vs. 240 Vul - which basically says "if in doubt, bid the game unless you're sure the cowards on the other table won't".

Noone tries 3NT? OK, the risk of losing 5 tricks in majors is too big :unsure:. 2♠ for me, then (I am an exotic creature that plays 1♠ rebid as forcing and 2♠ as splinter - everybody laughs at it, but I still refuse to change).

I don't quite follow this. Opposite a minimum classic-shape takeout double with your 'wasted heart values', say: Kxxx KJxx x KQxx we find that 4♠ is very likely to make with chances of an overtrick, while they may well be taking 10 tricks in hearts. Even without the ♣Q, the hand might just scrape up a takeout double. Yet even opposite the working 8 count here the spade game has some play. If I've been made to pass first time, I can't imagine bidding anything other than 4♠ at my second turn. Sorry, but the minimum you painted is OPTIMAL and highly improbable (4441 shape :unsure:). And, given your spade length, the conditional probability of the doubler having a 4card becomes much lower. His most likely shapes are 3424 or even 3523. (Or, even 3433 if he has a little extra strength, maybe). Anyway, the point I want to make is simple: Jumping to game is wasting space if partner happens to have anything better than classic takeout. Jump to 3♠ will be hardly ever passed by the doubler, because it gets the message across that you have a very good hand on long spades... and if you fear that partner will pass this, you can always bid 2♦ and listen for what partner has to say. Any of the above auctions will protect you against better than classic takeout hands - and you will hardly ever miss a good game. I am again asking the proponents of jump to 4♠: What would a jump to 3♠ show (that would be SO frequent a type of hand that you would consider it too good for 2♠ and not good enough for game? (Not mentioning the possibility to bid game-hands via cuebid. It does not cost anything, partner will most likely bid 2♥ with minimum, 3NT with stronger notrump and jumpsuit with a strong onesuiter.) [i am not trying to argue that this hand is too weak to play 4♠ against a regular takeout. I would most likely reach the game, too - but I don't think that a direct game jump is a good idea, especially when I have a lot of other options, of which some might easily protect me from those sad cases where partner's hand turns to be unsuitable for 4♠.

You must be kidding... This basically says that you don't have to alert anything, because, after all, opps COULD have protected themselves by asking for further information! This is a bianco check! OK, I know what you intended by this point - but to decide whether they could or could not ask more would be very thin ice anyway, giving a lot of room for TDs to make wrong decision. Making alerts dependant on the perceived level of opponents is not a good idea, as well (as said above, I'd set my skill level to Novice immediately :-)). 1) Make it simple - not ACBL like. The point that ACBL alerting rules mainly prevent passing UI between the two bidders is a important one - we don't need this on BBO. 2) Make it understandable to anyone and make it, if possible, NOT depending on any particular bidding system. I would agree with alerting/announcing: 1) NT range 2) openings that do not guarantee 3 in minor or 4 in major. Helene_t: if 1♦ overcall over 1♣ denies 4card major and IS alertable, why should not an NT rebid denying 4 spades be alertable? It carries quite similar kind of information that might be useful to opps as much as to partner!

In CZ, we prefer the "difference method" (as most of Europe seems) - how many under/overtricks were made. The alternative is the total count of tricks taken by declarer. Americans are strange :unsure:. Why would I have to do the math? Not that substracting 6 is hard :-). And, if I recall correctly, BBO vugraph uses the same notation as Europeans :)

I think that if your system specifically allows 1NT rebid with 4card support for partner's major, you should alert it. It is an "against the system philosophy" agreement, highly unexpected if embedded in any natural system. And it may mislead opps. My main point is that you should make opponents aware that a specific agreement exists. I do not want full explanation unless I ask, of course - but if your bid tells your partner something extra, I want to be aware of that - and I think that the purpose of alert is just this - opps, you might want to know something I just told my partner... There are cases where most of players ARE aware of the existence of such agreements (as is the favourite-of-mine 1NT rebid), but I am sure that you could think up some example where the existence of an agreement or negative inference is not obvious to the opponents, yet they might act differently, should they know about it. But I'll stop spamming the forums with my desire for active full disclosure, I'm sure that everyone must have gotten the message now and they're simply not interested B)...

This reasoning may be ok, but I wouldn't follow it because pard may be on a different wavelenght. For instance, pard may also think "if pard has clubs, why didn't he bid 1D-2C?" By the way, pass + double is a common way to deal with canapé openings, so I don't agree this double HAS to be penalties. It can be so if you agree that with pard, but without any agreements, I'd be weary to take it as penalties. And take-out with 1 suit left isn't nonsense. Especially if you open 3-card minors. He might not have good enough clubs to overcall at 2nd level. :-) We're not talking about canape openings here - that is quite a distant topic. Sorry, if you open on 3-card minor, you usually DON'T rebid the other minor. 1♦-p-1♥-p 2♣-x Don't tell me that partner seriously wants to play in spades OR diamonds, when the declarer has effectively shown 5 diamonds! Of course there might be 3-suited bidding where the double is reopen/take-out, but not when opps bid the suits seriously!

I've been wondering about "what system do opponents play" quite often... A possible solution to clear out misunderstandings would be: Require every player to configure his profile to show bidding systems that he is capable of playing. Probably an extra page with a set of checkboxes, or an .ini file. The systems could be ordered by preference... When two players meet at the table, the system could try to "preselect" a system for them, based on the combined preference value. If it could not find a match, it could choose SAYC or BBO basic as default or force the players to agree on a system. This preselected system would appear somewhere on the table so that the opps could see it. I believe that in 99% of the cases, the system would be automated - you'd sit down at the table (be it indy, pickup, tourney sub or MBC) and you would see what should be the best match for you and partner... This would clarify a lot of problems and wrong assumptions. Also, the system could keep track of basic bidding conventions (only the simple ones, in order not to help the bidding side... just alertable openings and maybe transfers etc...) and alert them automatically. There would be more uses for this enhancement, not just preventing misunderstandings. Basically, your "view" settings could filter out people that don't play any of the systems you play. This would allow quick filtering of: Possible partners at registration desk Free seats in MBC. Also, individual tournaments could easily specify the allowed system(s). The .ini file could allow for a few levels of knowledge: 3 - preferred system 2 - know and play this one 1 - can give it a try 0 - no way. Similar thing could be implemented for language: 3 - fluent 2 - passable 1 - read only (or, more likely bridge only B)) 0 - Not a word apart from basic swearwords :)) This would again allow you to filter tables, players, possibly vugraph commentators. (Vugraph commentator would only have to specify which language he is broadcasting in explicitly). I know this would mean a whole truckload of work, but I think that it would greatly improve the quality of bridge experience, especially for pickup bridge.

I don't like the idea of letting "partnership agreements" slip outside of the alerting regulations. What would your definition of artifical bid be, then? Example: 1♠-3♦ as strong with diamonds 1♠-3♦ as strong with diamonds and fit showing 1♠-3♦ as strong with diamonds and fit showing with a side singleton. All three hands contain "natural" strong diamods. Should any of them be considered artifical? OK, I think that the 2nd and 3rd are artifical as they speak about other suits than just diamonds... But I am not sure whether all players would feel the same... Problems with known conventions: Is a natural 2♣ nonforcing after a NT artificial bid or not? Another, subtler example: 1♣-1♥-1♠ - as denying balanced hand (promising 54xx or 4441) 1♣-1♥-1♠ - as any hand with 3+ clubs and 4 spades 1♣-1♥-1NT - as denying 4 spades 1♣-1♥-1NT - as 12-14 balanced, denies heart support 1♣-1♥-1NT - as 12-14 balanced with anything. If you think about those, you will find that the bidding line has exchanged quite a lot of information, to which are the opps entitled as well. Especially the last case, denying full support, may score significant gains, because with known heart fit, opps may want to balance, while when the fit is not expected, they might fear a misfit board and pass, letting you steal their contract. These are just the most common examples of negative inferences that are NOT obvious (as compared to 1♣ opening, where the negative inference about absence of 5card majors IS obvious). In some cases, these inferences may be very important in the bidding. There are a few possible solutions: 1) alerting rules that conform to full disclosure (WBF style, alert all bids that carry explicit or implicit agreements or partnership experience) 2) simple alerting rules (as your suggestion) 3) a set of rules that will explicitly state what is the expected approach of the bidding system. (majors first, NT range later or vice versa... own suit vs. support first... long suit vs. shortness showing first...) 1) This may be painful and timeconsuming, if you don't have your CC posted. (There have been suggestions how to make the BBO help players so that they will not have to type long descriptions repeatedly), but produces the best results when it comes to level playing field 2&3) Getting rid of "pointless alerts" causes players either to resign on getting the information or to bother opps with unnecessary questioning. For example, I tend to interrogate opponents quite a lot, because I expect them to have agreements they don't share voluntarily...