Rado

Hi friends, Let us suppose that a great athletics 100 meters free run tourney is organised. All the competitors are ready to start run. Then much of their surprise the athletics TD announces: "Dear sportsmen, many thanks for joining our event. Today running is allowed using your left foot only" Regards Rado

Hi all, When doubling a splinter for a specific lead, there is minimum danger the Splinter to remain as final contract since opps usually have 9+ cards fit outside. Opposite to this in the example 2♦(4441)-2NT(relay)-3♦(singleton) DBL is dangerous since quite easy 3♦ might remain as final contract. Regarding whether this situation is alertable I think that pass of Splinter is alertable while pass of 3♦ no (with McBruce's addition for private message to Opps). Greetings Rado

Hi Jillybean and all, Further to Ben's post I would like to add some more info. Take-out dbl Opps opened 1/2/3... of suit and we double - that's the classic position for take-out dbl. When Opps opened at level 1st the take-out double may include following types of hands: 1. (11)12+ points with 3+ cards support for all unbid suits, for example opps 1♥ we DBL with ♠Axxx ♥xx ♦AQxx ♣Kxx or ♠AKx ♥xx ♦AKQx ♣AKxx 2. (16)17+ points with own 5-cards suit (may not have support for the other unbid) for example opps 1♥ we dbl with ♠ AKJxx ♥Axx ♦KQJx ♣x or ♠Qx ♥Jxx♦AK ♣AQJ10xx 3. 18+ points balanced with stopper in Opps suit (too strong for direct 1NT overcall) for example ♠KQx ♥KJx♦AJ10x♣KQx or ♠Ax♥AQxx♦Kx♣AKQx 4. any hand that has enough strength or tricks to bid game with minimum or zero support from partner When opps open at level 2 or higher then the min option (item 1) has to be a Queen stronger for each level (abt 13+ p for level2, 15+ for 3 etc..) Negative DBL Partner opens 1 of a suit Opps overcall with suit we DBL In my view it's called "negative" because usually denies fit for partners 1 Major opening. Standart treatement is to show 4 cards in the unbid Major and abot (7)8+ points. For example P openes 1♣ opps overcall 1♠ we dbl with ♠xxx♥AQxx♦Kx♣xxxx or ♠Ax♥KQxx♦xxx♣AQxx again when opps overcall at higher level the minimum strength rise with about a Queen for a level. Next we may discuss the responses Regards, Rado

Hi Flame, When 1♣ is only strong (15+) then all overcalls are aimed for destruction, meaning any hands (good or bad) will come into bidding provided some distribution is available. On the other hand when 1♣ contains weak option ( 12-14 balanced or similar) then the weak option statistically comes more frequent than the strong one and the overcalls must be normal - constructive. That's one of the reasons many world top pairs to use 1♣ opening with mixed weak and strong options. Regards Rado

Hi all, Opposite to Ron I play exactly DONT vs strong and Capp vs weak NT with my regular live partner. Both are simple methods which do not need mych memory. And with some "science" partners I play many many other conventions over NT with doubtful results:-))))))) Rado

Hi all friends, In my honest view one of the best achievements of BBO is the live broadcast from the world top bridge events. Many of us spent endless+sleepless nights of watching Bermuda, NABC, major tourneys all over the world. We all had the pleasure seeing reasonable and nice comments of volunteers sharing their time with us as commentators (Fred, Roland, Richard, Tommy, Bob, Marek, Wayne, Chris, .........., and many many friends...............) (the pure math shows more than 132 people involved in love with the bridge commenting). Much to our surprise when we tryed to ask our simple bridge questions to the commentators we received the automated message:" not available to private chat" ( or similar). What's happening? Regards Rado

Hi all friends, Very nice idea Lex about DND button/mode. Furthermore what about DNF mode = DO NOT FLIRT:-)))))) Rado

♣Hi all friends, Thank you Flame and Ben for the detailed analysis. First of all I was tempted to play low ♠ on the lead Suppose RHO with AQ10x must follow low too:-))))) Any way I played 9♠ covered by 10. Assuming the lead was from small cards we might be sure that RHO has max 4 cards in ♠ since with 5 or more he may overcall precision 1♣. Next 2 rounds of trumps pitching ♣ from dummy and RHO shows 1♦ + ♣ pitch. Now he might be 4414, 4513,4315, 31(45) or similar distribution. 6 cards in ♥ are also not probable due to non overcall. So we have great odds for ruffing ♠/♣ squeeze in case rho has 4 ♣ or the Q♣. Meantime we may check QJx in♥. So in my view the correct line is draw 3rd trump pitching ♠, AK 3rd♥ ruff, all trumps but one pitching ♥ and ♣ for the ending dummy KJ - - AK hand - - x J10x Now RHO must keep 2♠ and 3♣ - mission impossible P.S at the real table I played it differently but lucky made it LOL regards,Rado

Hi Ben I'm sure you will be not surprised that I've played multi vs multi defence. I works good. The only problem is to find non-lazy partner who to learn it and to see the follow-ups of the bids, which most of them are just common sence. Will be fun to arrange partnership bidding against multi Regards Rado

hi McBruce and all, Just an example from a tourney several days ago I was a declarer in not so good contract when my LHO was subbed. When the new defender come on the table I just simply wrote in common chat: Hi new Opp keep your ♥ and ♦. The hand finished in normal bridge way. TD's have enough job for arranging tourney, subs, bridge decisions so we must try to save their time as much as possible. Regards Rado

Hi all friends, One interesting hand from the last night tournament (BBO_Italy i think but not sure) Matchpoints, last board out of 14 and we hoped for a "top" to improve our desperate performance LOL dummy ♠KJ94 ♥AK106 ♦5 ♣AK92 hand ♠--- ♥32 ♦AKQJ9642 ( 8 pieces if lazy to count:-))))))) ♣J108 The bidding was far away from science (see the beginning of the message) but the final contract as Eric Rodwell said "the grand should have some play" 1♣ (precision, 18+p) - 2♦ (natural FG) 2NT (balanced, waiting) - 7♦ ( I don't know what to bid, but i need a top) all passed and lead 3 of ♠ What's your plan? what's the best %? what are the conclusions of non-DBL? Why ♠ lead, and not ♥ or ♦ or ♣ - these were some of the questiones that came to my sleeping brain ( was about midnight in BG when this monster came) Awaiting Yours Rado

Hi all friends, Today I received disapponting news that my friends Ece (ecepal) and Steve (2over1, topflight) are going to leave BBO. I wish we all the fans of our lovely game of bridge might try to convince them to stay with us. Ece and Steve please do not leave BBO we need you!!!!!!!!! Rado

Nice idea Chris!!!!! Meanwhile I have asked several times Maureen to play together but she was so busy. Hope in the near future we may play some boards or a tourney together. Keep the BIL Maureen - it's great!!!! Kind regards Rado

hi Aisha and all, The basic guidance for overcalling opponents NT is: 1. vs Strong NT (14+ p) - destructive 2. vs Weak NT (15- p) - constructive View the above, DONT and Meckwell perfectly fit 1., while for 2. almost all schemes including penalty double look fine. My preference against weak NT is so called Geneva convention: DBL = 13+ balanced, or minor 1 suiter or both majors 15+ p 2♣/♦ = ultra transfer for ♥/♠ with almost opening hand, no upper limit 2♥ = both majors limited (around good 8 to bad 14 points) 2♠ - natural weak (abt 10- p) 2NT...... - free as per you wish Kind regards Rado

Hi family and welcome to forums and BBO, I know many family pairs who are nice friends and we play regularly together at BBO. Feel free to join us Kind regards Rado

Hi all I have the feeling that posting advertisements for payed lessons/tourneys seems to be out of the scope of BBO due to several reasons: 1. BBO is free of charge online place to play GREAT THANKS TO FRED 2. BBO stuff, tech support, "yellows", TD's, club hosts all of them are volunteers sharing their time and skills for free - THANKS TO ALL VOLUNTEERS 3. BBO forums are free of charge 4. BBO forums moderators are again volunteers 5. One of the basis principles of BBO is NO RANKINGS, NO PRIZES which gives a great chance to keep cheating at minimum possible levels, allowing all of us to enjoy friendly atmosphere for playing bridge, discussing bridge, learning bridge or just making new friends all over the world Of course since it's Private site only the Owners of the site may decide whether to allow or not such posts Regards Rado

Hi friends, Please relax and do not go into another war confrontation. The original post by McBruce presented 2 cases of adjustments and at the end was written: "COMMENTS" So we have posted our comments and views. Whether right or wrong 100 heads might think better than 1 head only:-)))) I have the feeling that McBruce needed to assure himself about the correctness of his adjustments. So he has now different views. If he feels people need restricted SAYC tourneys let them play, if need more flexible, the he or other volunteer let make different. Regards Rado

hi Misho and all, First I think Misho had answered to himself that he should not been lazy and should protect himself by simply asking Opps what 2♥ was:-))))) I'm sure he has many many times in live bridge when someone "Know all bids" player puts himself in funny situations like the quoted above :-))))) Second when I play online or live I use to allert both transfer and natural 2♥ to avoid further complications, TD calls etc. 1NT-pass - 2♦ = transfer 1NT-DBL - 2♥= natural NF In my view better 10 times alert when no need, than to miss one when really needed Regards Rado

Hi McBruce and all, In the first case adjustment was just right. Furthermore I think that procedural penalty might be applied to the opponents of the sub for non-ethical behaviour. Trying to take advantage when sub is playing in the dark is far away from the game called "BRIDGE" At the second example I strongly disagree with your adjustment. Playing SAYC only tourney does not mean playing no bridge. If we start to investigate all boards whether they are played exactly as per SAYC we will need a body which to determine what is SAYC and what not. There are many many situations where no clear instructions what to do as per sayc as well as per other systems. For instance the "Expert bidding polls" in the magazines based on SAYC give us many many examples where the top bridge players cannot determine what is the correct "SAYC" bid:-)))))))) Kind regards Rado

Hi all, Why too many posters tend to stretch 1♣-1.. 3♣ range so much? Am I wrong that jump rebid after 1/1 opening shows good 15 upto 17 points and good 6 carder and does not deny or confirm 3 cards in partner's suit? suppose ♠Axx ♥x ♦Jxx ♣AKQJxx here again 1♣-1♥-3♣ seems normal and standart. In my view rebid with good 6 carders in 18-20 p range have not been clearly explained in SAYC and 2/1 and the only escape is "artifitial" reverse (2♦ at the original hand). For example in French standart such hands are opened 2♣, together with 23-24 bal range, while FG and 25+ bal are opened 2♦. Kind regards Rado

Hi all friends, I cannot remember whether we have discussed with Luis the 2♦ multi responses. Anyway many of good Bulgarian pairs use similar scheme for the last 3-4 years and it works quite good 3NT is to play 4♣is partner please transfer 4♦is partner please bid natural 4♥/♠is natural to play The main advantages are: 1. The "GAME" bids sound natural, simple and NF 2. With the modern tendency of opening weak 2's on a garbage in some positions/vulnerabilities you do not need complex sequence of bids/relays in order to play in your Major but not in the opener's : Qx KQJ10xxx AKx x for example 3. The flexibility of "right placing the contract" gives more imps/% than the eventual risk of giving more space to the defence ( anyway 4♣/♦bids strength is random and is based on good fits or on good cards) One funny disadvantage is when good players but not regular partnerships usually corrected 2♦- 4♥to 4♠- seems the human nature just likes more the complex than the simple :-))))))) (but never seen somebody to correct 2♦-4♠ to 5♥) regards Rado

Hi all friends, Nice problem posted:-)))) First of all let us not forget that 2 Aces might be missing, so it will be good Partner to ask for Key Cards and we to answer our King of trumps In our methods we may start with 3♣ as puppet Stayman or with 4♣ as trf for ♦ and FG. Although 7411 hands usually play better in the 7 cards suit at our example with 30-32 points surely 4-4 fit will give the precious 13th trick so 2NT-3♣ puppet 3♦ 1 major- 3♥ I have ♠ if now 3♠ then easy check keycards + Q of trumps and bid the right level if now 3NT (= ♥) then 4♦ as natural since Opener 2NT may have 4 Aces+ K♥ and Q♣ for example we cannot be sure of 13 tricks with ♦ trumps due to possible ♠ loser. Regards Rado

Hi Marianne and Fred, I think I know some of the facts about the arising of BBO idea, but I will need Fred's authorisation to reveal the secrets:-)))))). Btw it may sounds funny but I really cannot remember when I registrated for the first time at BBO but I remember very well the enthusiasm of all the pioneers. I hope Fred will tell us the full story after his team wins this year Vanderbilt. Best regards Rado

Hi Ron, Since partner might have originally passed with subminimum hand (5-6 points and bad 4 cards in ♠ after 1♥ overcall or he might have bid DBL with better hand but bad 4 card ♠ I think our hand worths 4♥ cue agreeing ♠. Game will be on with most of the hands while some ordinary: ♠AQxxx ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣Kx will produce nice slam If we change the bidding to 1♣ - PASS - 1♠ - 3♥ then the story changes to DBL in my view:) (even optimistic jump to 4♠ has some merit) Regards Rado

Hi Kenneth and all, The answer to your question might be found studying the world top partnerships' systems in use and after that trying to find the version or modification which suits most to your and your partner style. I'm smiling every time when some of our friends declare that MOSCITO is the best. Maybe it is really the best one, but still we cannot see major world successes based on MOSCITO:-). For example I will say that "System Rozkladowy" is the best ( variation of Ruminsli/Slawinski strong PASS) Rado