bid_em_up

So it's a non standard treatment but it is forcing in any standard meaning? What? Does it make sense that you think echognome is dreaming and nuts for thinking a non-standard treatment should be alerted, or are you perhaps just being defensive? You are the one attacking him. So which is it, can you never pass or can you pass? Seems like you are trying to backpedal. You then contend in most of your posts that simple math is 18+6=game, and the response is always 6+. How many HCP did you have on the actual hand that you responded on? (hint, less than 6). As far as a bridge method if 2N shows 18-19 balanced regardless of whether it will ever be passed or not, it is a terrible bid with this hand. The hand is worth WAY more than 18-19 HCP, especially in support of spades, and 2N does not describe your hand at all. Sure 4S may take up a lot of room but at least it's descriptive. What gain is there from bidding 2N? Justin, it is non-standard in terms of what beginners and intermediates are "taught" in a book. I have not backpedalled one bit. Whether you, mike, matt, or anyone else here thinks the bid is alertable, I defy any of you to show me any proof that it is. I wont say that the bid can NEVER be passed (ok, maybe I did), but the original intent of this statement means the odds of it being passed are minute. The bid is natural. It contains the same meaning as anyone else plays it. Explain to me how that is possibly alertable. I say its "non-standard" because MOST people think its passable. In reality, it shouldnt be, as you have essentially shown the values for game. On this particular hand, I realize I have a 5 count. I also realize that I know I have a bid available over a 2N rebid that does not totally misconstrue my hand. Otherwise, I wouldnt bid 1S. Sorry if you think this is funny, but you know what? I really dont care what you or the others think. As far as what I said to gnome goes, I think if you go back and reread his original post, he is the one attacking me regarding our failure to provide full disclosure. I simply responded in kind.

I would hope that you now realize that this statement is wrong. It is incorrect according to experts (and non-experts) posting from Europe and NA. You may argue that it 'has to be forcing' all you like. It isn't. And any good player knows that: now, if you AGREE to play it forcing, that is fine.. and in the context of your stated methods (which I will hope to persuade you are bad), you can certainly play it as forcing... but don't go telling others (who are correct) that they are 'nuts' for disagreeing with you. As to your methods: 2 points. Do you mean to tell me that with AJ9xx xxx xxx xx you pass 1♣? Do you mean to tell me that with Kx AQx Jxx AK10xx you open a 15-17 1NT? I can assure you that virtually all good players, in a std or 2/1 or Acol style would respond to 1♣, and seriously wonder how anyone could pass. And almost as many would look at the 17 count hand and open 1♣, intending to rebid 2N over any response... the hand has a chunky 5 card suit, and 6 controls... to treat it the same way as Kxx AQx Jxx AK10x (a maximum) shows a lack of understanding of hand evaluation. Try and be realistic Mike. Would you pass the 2N rebid on AJ9xx xxx xxx xx?

What originally got me started on this subject was the quote from Bridge Hands (although I couldn't find again when I started this post). Probability that either partnership will have enough to bid slam, assuming a 33+ point slam = .70% (1 in 143.5 deals) Now this would include both balanced hands and unbalanced as well, although admittedly, unbalanced certainly may require much less for slam purposes. So why is that so frequently on BBO, you see two or three slams bid and made back to back? The ratio seems to be more in line with 1 every 5-6 hands, or is it just my perception of it?

I can agree with this. :P

We would pass this hand after a 1C opening, even with a couple of queens thrown in. Exceptions to this would be something like QJxxxxx xxx xx x or a hand similar to the one I actually held, Qxxxxx Qxxx xx x but even in these cases, responder is still bidding over 2N. There are very few hands where responder would bid over 1C and pass 2N. You say "Sometimes you just risk responding and then pass opener's 2NT bid.", we say, "if I have xxxxx xxx xxxx x", and I pass, my LHO is likely to balance. Now the 2N bidder should know not to get carried away later in the auction. We prefer to err on the side of caution, than what if's. Even if you respond 1S, there is no guarantees you can now stop any lower than 4S which probably goes down, but if you pass now, you may still be able to enter the auction later. (1C-p-p-x-xx-p-1S, is one way to do it.) "If you say that it is ostensibly non-forcing, but very rare that 2NT will be passed, then I think you are back to standard." This is essentially what I am saying, it is so rare that 2N will be passed, you may as well consider it forcing. "But if 2NT is forcing then I think it requires an alert." I don't agree for reasons already stated. But as I said, show me that it does, and I will be happy to alert it. That is a far cry from "not providing adequate disclosure". The bid simply is a standard 2N rebid, balanced 18-19, which does not require any alert whatsoever. If asked by an opponent, could partner could pass my 2N rebid, my answer would be "Its not likely, since he has made a 1 level response, we practically always promise another call". But I do not believe it requires an alert.

I agree. This was not a question or discussion for BIL. Sorry. I have already acknowledged that our particular treatment is non-standard or not the way it is taught. Kathryn did not know this when she initiated the discussion. I would not recommend this style for BIL players. Hell, I don't even like it myself but it's what partner insists on playing and it seems to work.

It isn't considered forcing in standard bidding. Peter You can sit there and say "its not forcing in standard" all you want to. The facts are assuming responder actually has his response, he is not passing the 2N rebid (or he shouldn't be). So the 2N bidder is getting another chance to take a call. The 2N rebidder does not know that responder does or does not have his actual response until responder were to pass 2N. As far as he is concerned, 2N IS forcing, whether you wish to recognize that fact or not. Unless, of course, you also believe you don't belong in 3N on 18 opposite 6, which is an entirely different debate. The 2N bidder is expecting another call from partner even in standard bidding. Or are you telling me, you really expect it to go 1x 1y 2N all pass whenever you rebid 2N?

What do you mean "Oh Please!"? Do you think for one minute that if 2NT is forcing it is not alertable? That is a very important concern. One of the issues which people have with the 2NT bid as made is that it is non-forcing. The second issue here is that you said that your 1♣ opening was 2+. That was not alerted either. I think you need to give some serious consideration to your disclosure. 1) It wasn't my disclosure, so don't bitch at me. However, I will bring it to my partners attention. Again. He should be alerting 1C, and I always do (or at least try to). I have asked him to do it before, and I cannot reach from Raleigh NC to NYC to press the alert button for him. It is beyond my control. He is also Egyptian, and does not play in ACBL land, and I am not certain that an alert is required where he comes from. (I am not saying an alert for a 2 card one club opening is not required there, just that I do not know). I can tell you that I ALWAYS announce that 1C openings can be two card suits whenever we commence play with new opponents, which is the best I can do to compensate for his failure to alert it. 2) In no way, shape, form or fashion is the 2N bid alertable. You are dreaming if you believe otherwise. Since when do 6+18 not equal game? How can it not be considered forcing? Since when is 1S and a 2N rebid alertable? Since when is 2N not natural in this sense? It is not conventional. It has no special meaning. If you think 2N is alertable, then I think you are nuts. The 2N rebid is always forcing in any standard meaning, it is responders decision to bid or pass over it. Responder can still pass the 2N response, however, the odds of doing so are effectively nil since they have made a response to 1C. This is no different than you or anybody else plays it. 3) I attempt to disclose everything I am supposed to. It is your opinion that the 2N bid is alertable. If you prove to me otherwise, I will be happy to alert it, but so far you have failed to do so. Until you do, it is just that. Your opinion. Nothing more. 4) Your last statement verges on the edge of insinuating that I am being unethical and I do not appreciate it at all. I, myself, try to make any and all information available to whoever asks for it. I believe you owe me an apology. If you have problems with my partners disclosure, please take it up with him. I've tried numerous times and you can tell how much success I have had. Short of refusing to play with him (and thats not going to happen), I cannot force him to alert 1C. I agree it is alertable, at least in ACBL land, and I do my best to alert it. And as stated above, it is always announced in advanced so the opponents at least have some warning of it ahead of time.

Yes! The fact that 2N is forcing is definitely alertable. Oh please.

I think it's much more fun when they end up in 6NT-1 instead of 6♠=. Is there some reason North isn't allowed to simply bid 6NT with a 1NT opener type of hand? Not going to happen.

If a call has other than a standard meaning the OP should say so. Otherwise, the practice in the Forums is to assume standard bidding. What do the three bids in this auction mean? Peter The OP isn't/wasn't aware of our partnership agreements. 1♣=2+ 1♠=6+, 4+♠ 2N=balanced 18-19 Anything other than what you would reasonably expect?

And I think you are mistaken. Well, if the 2NT rebid is agreed to show a normal 18-19NT, I must say I strongly agree with Han. If it systemically shows support that's quite another kettle of fish. Again, without knowing the partnership and/or its agreements, it is a seriously flaw to offer an opinion on this. Since I happen to be responder, I know for a fact that we cannot pass 2N after a response to 1C, which makes 2N just fine. It is not going all pass. That said, I acknowledge this is a non-standard treatment.

And I think know you are mistaken. Let me guess, you believe 2N is passable also, don't you?

Where did you get these percentages? Outerspace. The true percentages (approximately, and formatted in the same odd way) are well known: 2-2 split is 40% 3-1 split is 25% 1-3 split is 25% 4-0 split is 5% 0-4 split is 5% 3-1 with singleton king is 6.25% Well, to be honest, thats what I thought originally, but, The percentages you list (which are the ones normally given) are for all combined holdings of 9 cards (missing 4 cards). A little further crazy thought says, the percentages for a 5-4, 6-3, 7-2, 8-1 and 9-0 breaks are likely different from each other though, no? But I cannot find on the net the true odds opposite a 6-3 break, so I just wondered. For the moment, I will reserve judgement on where he got his odds from, hopefully a source can be provided. B)

Where did you get these percentages?

What would be the expected frequency (1 every X # of deals) of a making small slam by either side? Grand slam? Use whatever constraints you wish, I'm not looking for an exact calculation, just a reasonable approximation of how often you can/should expect a slammish hand to occur. I'm not really concerned about the freak 18 hcp slams or 21 hcp ones necessarily, just normal 30+ hcp ones or 26 hcps that include a stiff or void opposite no wasted values.

As a person with less than perfect color vision, I would prefer that colors be used strictly for aesthetic purposes and not to contain coded information. Even with the ability to choose colors, it is difficult for me to go thru all the combinations in the current windows client for names and backgrounds and not end up with some condition that results in a near invisible name (font color and background combination that is hard on my miserable old eyeballs). Even the four color card symbols in this forum cause me trouble. (after all, it is all about me). In an ideal world...you would be able to set every color for every item to whatever you can see best. I think part of the problem in the current environment is that you cannot always tell where your color change is being applied (this bugs me also, but I dont expect it to be fixed). Ideally, you should be able to click on any "piece" of the table, and change the color of that piece of the pie only, where you would immediately see how it affected everything else. This may not be feasible, though. The 4 color font suggestion would let you set all 4 colors to whatever color YOU could read best making it ideal for YOU. B) If you wanted to see everything in black, you could. If you wanted Red, red it is then. This way, you could view all chat in whatever color works best for you, if thats what you choose to do. But for others who would like to be able to switch colors to identify different things, then that would work best for us also.

A few other things I have noticed, again they may have been mentioned already: No movie available. No IMP score on table. Edit: This apparently is dependent upon what table type you are kibitzing. If a regular table the IMP score is there, if it is a team game the IMP score is not there (for kibitzers). No indication of last hand results on table. Please change the chat area to white w/black text. This black on green is hard on the eyes. (yes, I realize that Fred has said that "colors" are not final and will probably be redesigned by a graphic artist of some sort. I just wanted to put my 0.02 in on that. If possible, it would be nice to change the font color for different forms of chat, i.e. blue for kib chat, red for table chat, green for private chat, orange for chat from friends, etc. (or whatever color the user selects). It would also be nice to be able to change all the colors ourselves, as in the current Windows client, but may not be possible. If you scroll up in chat, it never automatically returns you to the "current" chat. You stay wherever you scrolled to until you manually scroll back down. I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing..... I'm positive somebody mentioned this but....default chat should either be kibitzers or Table, and the two options should be at the TOP of the list, not the bottom. Currently, I get a list of all the people making comments, with Kibitzers and Table chat options at the bottom of the scroll list. This would be a pain if you had 200+ kibbers making comments. Preferably, just because somebody makes a comment, they do not show up in your chat window as a person to talk to. I don't know why, but if I click into the chat area itself (not on a persons name), the chat default goes to one specific user, who I think might be the first person to chat when you signed on. It changes from Kibitzers, Table or whatever else I have selected in the chat scroll list, to this one particular person. Edit: It defaults to the person you first chatted with. Can you edit your profile yet? Can you turn off chat from lobby or enemies? Ok, I guess thats all for now. B)

You can resize most of the areas of the window by clicking on the divider and dragging it. Unfortuntely, you can change the size of the chat window vertically...but not horizontally. (You can increase/decrease its height, but not its width). On my PC @ work, the size of the chat area is much better (2" ad, 12" typeable area) so it must have something to do with my display settings at home? (Its also a different ad now....so the specific ad could have some bearing on this as well.) Your suggestions did resolve #4 & 7, thx. Although I am pretty sure I did attempt to do what is required to add a friend last night. It was late though....so I could have done something wrong.

Finally took BBOTV for a test drive last night, I encountered the following issues which may or may not have already been mentioned: 1) I could chat to a player in a tournament while kibbing them. 2) I could log into BBOTV with a different ID while logged into BBO Windows client under this ID. 3) I attempted to establish a table using the "partner/opponents" option. All of these players were playing elsewhere at the time. It would not create the table, it simply told me "Player X not available". This could be frustrating in that many times people are already playing at one table, but we are trying to establish a new table for them to join. 4) I must be dumb. I could not figure out how to add anyone to friends list. 5) Ad window too large and/or chat window too small. The chat area on my screen was approximately 2" across while the ad area encompassed the other 12" of the bottom of the screen. (Dont ask me what my video resolution was, I don't know....would have to check). 6) This may not be functional, but I could not find a list of tables in play? 7) Friends list was in one LONG scroll bar, instead of muti-column. This is fine if you have only a few friends in your list, but being able to view them all at once in a columnar format is much more practical, imo. Overall, I was generally pleased though. Thats all for now.

hehe, i kinda like this idea also. I third the motion. Especially important when I explain a bid at length to the opponents...I'd like there to be some evidence of this beyond scrounging through log files. Unfortunately, while I "really" like the idea, and it is one that could certainly be useful, a little more consideration prompts me to believe that it just isn't practical. I have a hard enough getting opponents to understand that alerts made in the bidding box are not visible to partner. They get mad about it, fuss, cuss, yell, holler, etc. that it is unethical to "self-alert". Sad, but true. Most of these folks are computer illiterate and do not understand the online environment. Can you imagine the hassle of getting them to understand that partner cannot see your chat? Especially when they, in turn, start responding in kind to where the whole table sees it, making partner now aware of what you said anyway? While the average forum poster can appreciate this idea, in practice, I do not know if it could actually work.

Are you saying that your 2M raise combines both the balanced 15-17 raise and the 11-14 distributional raise? Or is 2M always the balanced 15-17, and 3M would be the distributional raise (like a K/S structure)?

1) Personally, I don't believe there is an "in-between" option for this hand. Either you open it 1H or you open it 2H, but you must open it. Pass isn't an option. Had you opened it either 1H or 2H, is the problem solved? (I would devalue the doubleton QJ♦ and open it 2H, but thats just my preference) 2) Given that you chose to pass the hand, the proper way to bid it is to start with a transfer to 2H, followed by a raise to 4H. While I don't agree that this would be a "mild slam try" in this context (you are a passed hand, after all), you certainly show a hand of this type and partner holding a hand rich in controls for his 1N opener along with a heart fit might continue on.

The person in your seat defends worse than he bids. Allowing 3C to make was ridiculous. Don't sweat it too much. Personally, I'm with Mikeh. I think pass is the better choice of calls at the 2nd opportunity, and I prefer 2H to double now. 2S is just plain crazy. I'd rather treat this holding as containing a 6th heart, than to imply a 3-5-4-1 hand (or 3-5-3-2 or 3-6-3-1). I would think that X now, should imply longer diamonds than spades (or at least equal length in the two) since we have already heard a negative X on our left. This hand resembles nothing of the sort and the fact that we have additional values does nothing to change that distortion. I expect if it goes 2C p p, partner should be able to listen to the auction and realize that I have the best hand at the table, and balance accordingly. I would have preferred X initially to put both majors in play immediately than to X now as well. I'm also perfectly willing to treat this as a 17 hcp hand and correct 1D or 2D to 2H. As usual, I evidently am in the minority though.

hehe, i kinda like this idea also.