peaceman

u just reminded me of a vivid experience when i had to play 4 sp on a 4-2 fit, making it for a flat board because the rest of the field is in the cold 4 hrts. Wish i had written that one down : )

u wld get more than vegetables fired at u for this pun in west texas : )

note on your tag line: Bertie's style of liberalism applied particularly to his relations to women : )

Big egos definitely seem to go along with bridge, and game players generally. Bridge seems to suffer particularly accutely (along with poker) from individual players greatly exaggerating in their own mind how good they are. A classic ego sign. By no means confined to expert players (who obviously have some excuse to think they r great, but still tend to overextimate their position on the expert gradient.) Many experts r nice, but not that many r truly humble in my experience, and the weaker the player, the more they seem to think they know what is going on... pure ego.

yr hand plus kx or q x of hrts would be 3 clubs i think--as it is two clubs is fine bid. Don't forget pard may be placing a card or two in yr hand because both opps r seriously limited.

While i don't necessarily think it should take my suit as five cards (although it should be) it ought to take it as natural, other meanings being completely impossible. Therefore it should raise or pass. It did offer an explanation of its bid -- natural -- in a suit which was equivalent to its hearts, at one level higher.... Surely the default meaning of any very odd sequence ought to be pard is bidding a natural suit? I think the programming got confused by the capp somehow. Over a natural two clubs, the cuebid is clearly a game try in hrts with the hand pard had.

Had an interesting GIB experience on January 1st, playing with 3 bots. I think it was board 39. I opened 1 NT. LHO bid 2 clubs, capp. Pard passed & over the 2 di relay I bid my nice 5 card heart suit. LHO passed. Pard bid 3 clubs, which was infoed as natural, so I passed. Pard actually had an Ace, a King, 4 small clubs & 4 small hrts, so I think was trying to make a cuebid of some sort, in order to show constructive values perhaps? Maybe pard assumes a new suit at the three level should be forcing? An obvious fit bid perhaps? Wasn't obvious to me. A direct raise to 3 or 4 hrts would have been the normal action, I think.

I have had a fair amount of experience at recruiting and training players in the 18-26 age range. I taught at an ACBL sanctioned student run bridge club in Toronto for 5 years. The goals of building an U21 team for 2010 and builiding up interest in bridge among under 21s are not entirely compatible. I think the latter more important than the former, but good luck with both : ) My first suggestion is: remember that bridge is supposed to be fun. Only players that have completely devoted themselves to the game for a long period will go back to the duplicate trough after a terribly stressful and unfun touirnie. Younger players can be terribly self-conscious about their weaknesses, even when very talented -- in team sports nobody jumps into the big leagues before going through the little leagues, which have a very different atmosphere. F2F tournies, bringing forward all the fun social aspects of the game -- as well as the excitement of visiting new places, which cannot be underestimated in that age group -- are a must I think. Local clubs can probably be recruited to defray some of the costs. I started to play at 14 and my small town club was encouraging in every way. My second suggestion is: make use of your ACBL Tournie Directors to spot talented U21s playing in Sectionals & Regionals. "Buy" them entries to team events in local clubs. And of course spread the word about BBO, the youth chat forum, etc. A few regular events online for the juniors who play regularly, perhaps with commentators, would be great fun. Have Junior-Master games online. Trying to hasten their technical development too quickly would lead to burnout. On the other hand, once a community of a variety of levels is created, natural leaders with organizational and/or playing talent will emerge and push forward. They can start clubs at their high schools and universities, taking care of your recruitment issues for you a few years from now.

If u hav made the (not uncommon) agreement that 1 sp is forcing in this sequence, then 2nt is likely 18-19 bal, with sp too good to bypass... If not, 16-18 semi-balanced with good clubs 4-2-2-5, or 4-1-3(2)-4(5) having at least one di stopper (sometimes, even with a 4-4 major fit it is worth while to play at the three level -- missing 4 top tricks & nothing else -- so I take this sequence as sniffing for the best of 3 sp, 3NT, or 4 sp contracts.) 2NT should not be passed here, because it is logically implausible that opener could be running away from his own bid suit when responder has supported it freely.

Either Flamingo, because it flies, or, if could pick my own option...Dennis Rodman.

This is an interesting thread to me because it addresses the issues of the evolution of bridge rules and customs. I feel it is a mistake to assume that people will treat the online game the same way they treat the f2f game. The online game has options & handicaps that simply don't exist in the F2F game, so naturally it must have guidelines suitable to its unique structure. For example, people say things in the online game that they would never dream of trying to get away with in the F2F game, because they r protected by anonymity & the fact an enraged opponent or partner could never hurl a drink at them. Rude comments & impatience with pard's errors at this site seem to me to be on the rise, altho the culture here is generally far better behaved than at (unspeakable) MSN and some other places. A pet peeve is "experts" who quit the hand immediately when they becom dummy, becuase they r disappointed with pard's bidding or -- just as often -- embarrassed by their own lapse. What do u do when opps ask you about their partners bids? Do u give them private chat "explanations" or table-chat "explanations"? The former option is not available F2F. A lot of beginners take it as rude that no one will help them learn what is going on, so i answer their enquiries when the situation seems clear, or suggest to them where they might have gone wrong if an argument appears to be developing. It never ceases to amaze me when an "expert" parachutes into a game opposite a "beginner" or "advanced" player, then starts to berate them for not understanding actions that r clearly beyond the level of sophistication their pards r advertising in good faith. It probably would be a good idea for site organizers to establish general rules about what, if anything, can be "announced" to the table, or "asked" of pard. There r plusses & minuses of both "don't ask, don't tell" and the more relaxed approach to bidding, but surely having no guidelines or restrictive guidelines which r frequently ignored by the players are both pretty useless. Perhaps the guidelines could be different in the "main" room and the "relaxed" room, to reflect the different style preferences?

I was into games of all kinds in public school, tho had few friends (family lived on isolated island until 13). Was the 70's, before internet, too...sigh. On holidays played hearts & 9-5-2 with my older cousins. Got "Scarne On Cards" for christmas, read the bridge section & decided this was the coolest game. Went down to the local (small town Ontario) duplicate club & announced I could play because I "knew the rules". Was 14, but looked 11. After a couple of weeks letting me kibbitz, regulars began to take pity & invite me to play. Came 2nd-4th for months, but got my name on a trophy within the year & was writing the local bridge column about 3 years later. Was swingy & inconsistent player (still am 30 yrs down the road -- have won section tops at tournaments with as many as 13 zeroes.) After playing about 4 years, was invited to "fill in" for a regular afternoon home game, & was completely disbelieved when i mentioned it was my first time playing rubber!

As long as the online game is free, ther will be whackos to put up with. Some have brain chemistry issues, others feel free to vent hostility when there are few or no available serious repercussions, such as a punch in the face. Even banning players seems unlikely to me a viable strategy, since people can change their indentity, can't they? The only solution is the positive one of getting to know people by name & playing with the types u find congenial, since once a person takes a name it is his/hers until given up (or even after change to another) -- so positive reinforcement must be emphasised over the negative, over attempts at controling bad behaviour. Bumping itself can be a very abusing behaviour when the captain uses it to comment on the bidding & play at the table. I think the site does a pretty good job with this issue, but bridge players in general need to understand online play does involve some major re-orienting of how one thinks about social relations -- basically, the real world model does not apply. One of the great advantages to online play is that you can yell & scream at yr partner all u want -- as long as u don't type it in -- so vent & save on ulcer pills, as necessary....it will probably have positive effects on your face-to-face games if u can learn to interpose that little censor-response.... RE: the dummy sticking around. If dummy leaves, too often it gives an implication that declarer is in trouble, and so may affect the defence or declarer play of the hand. If u really must leave, I suggest saying that u got a phone call or someone is at the door, etc., so no inferences can be taken (rightly or wrongly).

Dear Dr Todd, I would like to address the issue whether yr bid was a psych or "deviation" from the system explanation your partnership usually gives, or gave in this case.... Having one or two hcp more than the 5-8 you described is not a big deal, in my view, but the fact that yr hand has essentially no entry (unless pr has one of a very few specific holdings) suggests to me it is a psych, or, if borderline, more on the psych side of the border than on the deviation side. I think it wld have improved yr explanation to say "approximately" 5-8, but even then, there is an IMPLICATION in such a range that the hand may have a quick defensive trick, and PROBABLY has an entry. It is easy to see that an opposing partnership who failed to find a slam might leap on this idea as a rationalization for why (not defending the reasoning, of course.) 0-9 wld be a better descriptive range if indeed yr partnership occasionally bids on this sort of fert-esque rubbish. Could it be that yr partnership does not define the bid as 0-9 just in order to avoid pr having to take into account that u may have a nullo? To me, replacing the q with a king makes it an entirely different sort of hand -- because partner is odds on to be able to get to yr hand at least once regardless of which denomination yr side buys the contract in -- and I doubt not that any weak partnership u may have been playing against would not have felt enabled to call the director if u had a K or A...because their (belated) concern was whether they missed slam or not, & they were looking for an excuse to lay blame, & found one... When one has made a mistake (the opps), and when one has been accused of being unethical or ignorant (yr side, when they called the director), there is bound to be a certain amount of defensiveness & self-rationalization on both sides. I synpathize with directors & how difficult rulings on the fly can be. Remember, u get what u pay for. To my mind, receiving a bad ruling is like the ref "not seeing the call" &, sure, we like to gripe ....BUT I think that experienced players (online, & in club games) should be extra careful to avoid giving inexperienced players who call the director on them the impression that wiggling, self-rationalization & "shady" behaviours r cool. If I had made that -- I think risky -- bid (I probably wld, online, if behind, unless I had a really touchy pard) I think I wld have bent over backwards to admit to everybody that I was psyching or semi-psyching. I think that when I deviate from partnership agreement it is a good idea to claim a semi-psych & let the chips fall where they may. Weaker players have to get used to the idea that psyching occurs, & that sometimes they will get bad results from it. I leave it up to the director to deal with whiners & pulers & definitely DO NOT want to model for my opponents that sort of behavior. I don't think yr explanation to the director seriously smacks of self-rationalization, I think u have a genuine perception that yr hand was within permitted "deviation" limits, whatever those might be -- and i understand that this thread was started in a genuine spirit of inquiry as to what those limits might be. I believe u to be a serious player, in other words.

I would bid 4 sp right away, not because i am concerned opps will come in at 5 level if i bid 4d, (I believe they will come in at 5 level anyway), but because if I am lucky enough that they do bid 5 clubs, & it comes back to me, I then hav easy mild slam try of 5d, & my hand is described. With a first round control in either clubs or hrts, instead of 2nd & 3rd, I wld want to bid something other than four spades first, so with this hand, i take the milder approach -- no interest in defending, it seems to me, & way more sp than partner could guess... so Im planning a two bid response structure....that describes my hand.

A little clarification: I was not intending to imply that people who do not play count signals can't be experts, altho perhaps i did accidentally do so. I am uncertain as to what the exact proportion of count-preference very good players to attitude preference & mixed preference vgps ther are out ther -- i hav certainly seen examples of all. I would grant that for a lot of players --even those who win tournies regularly -- pure count (esp. if it always "tells the truth") is probably a less than optimal method. I was trying to make the claim that for a CERTAIN type of high-visualizing mind, count is by far the best option, and that if u don't hav this sort of mind, count is probably worth learning, but not worth using unless pard insists. Having a scarily good visualizing mind is by no means sufficient for consistent good results - but i always like it in my pards ! Getting the information u need earlier than someone else in yr seat wld pick up on it is a key sign of a quality player, but the information that people look for, & therefor the best tools to aquire it, definitely vary according to the type of mind u hav. Many expert players wld rather play with a weaker pard than another expert who has an incompatable style, method or temperament. Also, ther is still plenty of room for innovation in signalling systems. Granovetter, for example, some years ago came up with a method that varies according to cards in dummy that seems quite reasonable. I would be interested to learn if anyone has tried it & found it good or bad. If YOU don't hav the sort of count - oriented mind i was talking about, experts will happily switch their signalling methods to what suits you best (esp. if u r paying them to play!). Everybody tends to bend over backwards to make it easier on the weaker pard don't they? (not intending to imply any particular poster here is not an expert, nor that i am.) I like the analogy made from the world of chess, and agree that as players move up through the various levels of the game their strategies & tactics mutate. Creativity (knowing when to break the rules --whatever u perceive the rules to be) is a key element at the top level of any human activity, i believe.

To count signal or not to count signal...good question... I hav played for many years with a variety of pards, from intermediate to known expert names...generally short term casual play & lots of online play, some tournaments. Among experienced players, ther r basically three types -- the attitude people, the compulsiv counters & the "signal what is important when u need it" people. The most advanced defenders tend to be compulsiv count- oriented people. These r the types that can narrow down the possible hands declarer & pard has to two or three possibilities after one or two changes of suit...maybe at most 5 tricks, on some hands. It is a persons visualizing power, not their experience in the game that determines if they r this sort of defender. If u r this sort of defender, u will be very very reluctant to play anything but count signals. If yr pard is this sort of player, pard will benefit greatly from playing count signals & u guys will defend well, even if u occasionally do stupid stuff because u didn't "get" what was going on with the hand fast enough. Yes, of course even compulisve count types recognize ther r times to false card, but they generally hav a good enough view of the hand to be able to factor this in -- especially when yr false signal fools declarer the way it was intended to. But if pard is well abov yr level, usually best to give honest count except in situaltions when u hav either very few or a whole lot of the defensive values. Many want to hav their cake and eat it to, so will play attitude for the first couple of tricks, then switch to count. But these types really belong in the third category listed above. The advantage the serious counters gets goes away if count signals dont start immediately. Of course the vast majority of bridge players never do aquire this sort of visualizing skill (it tends to show up early, & especially if the game is learned quite young). If u r a compentent average player, attitude signals will probably get best results for u & pard. Experienced players with average visualization skills will always count out a hand & not, say, pitch a good card toward the end on a pseudosqueeze, because by that point they know what declarers remaining cards are. Even average players can count up to thirteen as they go, but that is not the skill i am referring to at all. In short, if pard insists on count signals, play them & be grateful. Count signals should of course be tried out by intermediate level partnerships, just to see if u can "trigger" the sort of advanced visualization i am talking about.

On the subject of the chat window... Would it be possible to have the chat window for composing yr chat pop up a little higher on the screen? Currently it comes up at the bottom of the permanent chat window, obscuring any new messages which may be coming in while you are composing a message. Wouldn't it be more convenient if the composing window popped in just a couple of lines higher? Then you could read the new messages that are coming in as you are composing. Thanks for yr attention.---great site!