granguru

1. NO 2. NO 3. NO 4. NO 1. it is obvious. there is no agreement with partner 2. it is obviously sufficient, as there was no agreement. Nevertheless ACBL member tend to take advantage of the rules and force you to explain your own hand even partner will not know your description. This is having an unfair advantage. You are not entitled to describe your real hand farther than your biddibg suggests. Furthermore, opponent attitude is unethical. In order to follow fair play rules you might explain voluntarily something more, but definitively you are OK with what you have explained already. You could have said "Natural" to avoid the probable conflict following a negative answer. 4. Definitively NO. S/He is the kind of person who makes new players run out of the clubs and making them quit tournaments forever. Unfortunately some BBO directors dont understand this and make terrible mistakes in many of these situations, by not explaining defensive player rights and acting accordingly.

MPs and IMPs tourneys are 2 different games. Almost all experts and world class perform better in one game or another. It is very rare to find a player who do it similarily in both events. As Zelandahk pointed out MP asks for agressiveness, while IMPs best strategy suggests to be wisely conservative. Why do you do different? 1. Management of the double bid In IMPs the double is used mainly as a bidding tool, not with a natural meaning, at least most of the time. It is unwise to have the double as penalty at low levels, and many conventions are devised to help in competitive bidding to describe hands to find the best possible contract. Aim is getting to the right contract before trying to penalize opponents. 2. System orientation IMP suggests "solid" preempts, no psyquics. Clear high level competitive agreements is a must as a wrong decision could cost 17 IMPs, the price of 2 or 3 games-partial bad decisions. In MP each hand may give you something from 0 to a top, whatever it is. It doesnt matter if you get the good hand playing 1C or 7S. So your system must have a Drurylike option playing pairs, no so evident playing teams. Systems who are primarily designed to destroy enemy's weapons instead of building the best uncontested auction possible are good for MP but not for IMPs. A pretty good example is EHAA system (Each Hand An Adventure) 3. Management of the 2 and 3 level competitive bidding According to what was said in point 1, we can also add that in competitive bidding at a low level the law of Total Tricks wisely suggests to compete with fitted hands as fast as possible and as high as the total number of trumps recommends. So when opps go beyond that level it is correct to pass in IMPs and to double in MP. The reason for this is that 3C made =110 while 3D -1 vul =100; therefore you must double as 3D -1 will give you a near to zero result anyway. The price/performance ratio is awesome in favor of a risky action in MPs while pathetic in IMPS (you win nothing and you might lose giving a game out of the blues) 4. Preemptive bidding In MPs you might take much bigger risks, as you can get just a zero by getting to a bad contract than by giving away an overtrick. The total points at risk are constant and depend on the number of hands played. For sake of simplicity say each pair plays 25 hands. Then each hand is worth a 4% of the possible percentage a pair can make. Instead, in IMPS you need at least 2 or even 3 goodies to cover a failed bad slam. 5. Top and bottom strategy. Trying to win or to come well? We have to be aware that the main difference to consider if you like to win in IMPs and MPs tourneys is that in the first case you are playing against one opponent while in MPs you are trying to overcome a bunch of pairs of different skill levels. So the best strategy to win a team match is not to play perfect bridge, as one could suggest, but to make less errors than the (unique) enemy...you have to beat one and only one opponent. On the other hand in MPs, you have to defeat all the pairs in your line (usually, if std Mitchell fixture is being used). So, in MPs you try to make the maximum number of tricks, and according to the risk/chances of succeding ratio you risk the contract in order to achieve this goal, even you might go down. Safety plays, therefore are much less avoided in MPs than IMP. For instance, you are playing 3NT and you can duck one trick in order to ensure the contract against a Jxxx-0 distribution. A nice play at IMPs, but considered silly at MPs, as the chance of a 4-0 split is less than 9%. So, playing for a better split wins 91% of the time 70% or more of the top amount while 9% of the time you earn a full top. You win 630 points (top 10) or a 6,3 average per h and playing from top, and 9x10=90 or 0.9 average points per hand playing the safety play. As we see MPs is more getting the maximum reasonable score in each hand. IMPs is going with the long run statistics. 6. Style So, complementary to number 5, the style should be winning the most tops possible, as, for example if you make 10 tops, 3 zeroes and the rest are 60% average hands you will make (in 27 hands game) 184, that is 68.(1481) enough to win most of the time. Instead playing solid you might make 60% average not enough to win. Maybe a good strategy if there is a classification round, but not for a 1 session round. 7. Room considerations. The room is something to consider, even it is in both cases. Mainly if you are in a very good contract you play differently as is is a rather popular one. You can make a safety play if you got to a extraordinary good slam or game, as you might lose very little points against ensuring to earn the top or near it. In Imps you will always ensure a slam if you can make the safety play, no matter how good it is, as you are risking 980, 1430, or alike scores, against losing a meaningless 30 points, which can represent 1 or even 0 IMPs at the comparison. Here the though is what will be the average contract and how can I do better. In teams you might just think how will my seat play the hand in the other room. You need to guess how will 1 opponent player act, and not a statiscal result coming out from the general knowledge about the average level of the room. 8. Skills Deceptive plays, endplays, squeezes, complex position solving capability are more usefull in MPs matches as many times it just gives an overtrick or 2. But this is usually a huge gain in MP score. On the other hand a player who has bright memory for complex bidding systems and conventions can do better in IMPs, where the precise slam or game is more meaningful. 9. Concentration Teams matches requires a deep concentration during all the match (mainly). In MPs there are 7, 8 or 9 interruptions of the play to change opponents and table. You might get distracted during these tourneys because of that, not the case in teams, where you play 8, 10 or 16 continuous boards. For this reason many pairs like to win North South line assuming they will do better if they dont move during the session. Other fact that influences results is when a bad board has been played. Some players do review the bad hand for the next 3 boards when they are at a IMP tourney, as the damage could result easily in the lost of the match. On the other hand, experienced players are well accustomed to have zeroes in duplicate games and dont care much about them. They know that if they got 3 zeroes they can still win if they have the adecuate number of top boards. So, the ability to concentrate on the next hand, forgetting the past ones is another factor to be considered on the potential bad performances. Some pairs do comment during pair intermezzos but not during team matches. Performance will be affected as it generates alfa-waves, disturbing the peace of mind. All comments should be kept for the end of the session, whatever it is. 10. Table presence Some players do detect and are pretty aware of players atttitudes at the table. This is of greater value in pairs tourneys for the said reason that an overtrick might be so valuable. For instance, if a pleyer takes a long time to lead against 3NT declarer knows he does not have a naturtal 5 card suit to lead, nor a clear sequence of honors, and the hesitation will be translated in valuable information to construct opponents hands and the best line of play. If a player hesitates in the middle game it will mean something, etc. etc. If a player led a different than the normal suit some information will be given. Timing of play plays a huge role in pairs. This is also valuable in IMPs but the impact of these extra-bridgistal issues are more relevant in MPs, and the players who are very much for the details will get more profit in pairs than teams. In pairs there is usually no screens so some body and visual information is transmitted to the table by all players as an automatic communication of feelings human beings are giving all the time (anger, joy, faces, tics, noises, eyelashing, body and hand mouvements, and so on).

Puo fare la correggione dela imprecisione per mezzo di re-editing la prima nota. che e 4 ♦(4♠) Passo o Contro? Perque 5 ♥ e interrogativi per i Re e non 4SA o 5 ♣?

Regarding bidding procedures: 1. A superior approach to respond over direct interventions is: Bid with 5-7 HCP. Pass with 0-4 HCP X with any 8+ HCP A different approach is: Bid with 5-7 HCP Double with 0-4 HCP Pass with 8+ HCP Last option allows to trappassing more easily. It is preeeminent to give distribution with the most common strenght 5-7 HCP as you can be high preempted having to guess the hand. 2. It is common expert style to open with a 1-level bid all strong 2-suited hands. Personally I never got stuck in that contract when we had a good game or slam. So, I would suggest the following sequence: 1♥ (2♠) P P 3♠ (4 or less losers) ... 4♣ 4♦ 4♥ 4NT [RKCB(♥)] ... 5♣ 5♦ (♥Q ask) ... 5♥ (no ♥Q) decision time... Odds: If dummy has xxxx needs 2-2, around 40% chance; if dummy has Jxxx 67%, if dummy has Qxxx 77%, if it has QJxx, then around 100%. Given opponent bids dummy is surely short in ♠. If it has some small honors, chances are that they are in ♣ and ♥. Being 8 ♥ cards outside (from declarers point of view), and 4 in dummy, it is 40% chance dummy has Q or J (10/50 each case), 30% dummy has QJ (15/50) and 30% dummy has no honor (15/50). So a guessing bid of 6♥ has a chance of success of (.67x.2 + .77x.2 + 1x.3) when opponents have a 2-2 or 3-1 split, i.e. about 58.8%. No extra for a 4-0 split as in that case you should always lose. So, with no knowledge of (or tools to know) dummy's trump quality, the right action is to bid the slam. *This answers the question of giving up or asking for the Q. Assuming p has 4 cards, if you have tools to ask before 5 ♥ then it is a must. If not your best shot is to bid the slam anyway. If dummy might have xxx then probably best to make a Josephinelike 5♥ invitation. Parter should go on with Qxx or Jxxx or better. If you open strong 2: 2♣ (2♠) Pass (0-4) 3♥ (3♠*) 4♥ *As posted, no wonder your p thought you were winning the match 4NT 5♣ 5♦ (♥Q ask) ... 5♥ decision time again (See odds abovementioned) As Fluffy quoted, in this sequence the ♥ suit will generally be 6th or longer, so Jxxx should respond as "Yes" to the Q ask. But if you play an improuved TAB (Trump asking bid) after 0-4 HCP, such as: 5♣ = 0AKQ points 5♦ = Q 5♥= QJ 5♠ = K 5N = A or KJ (if an A is allowed in the 0-4HCP response) After 5♣, 5♦ asks for the ♥J or, upon agreement, a K then 4NT 5♣ = 0AKQ 5♦ TAB 5♠= ♥J or extra length 6♥ (thanks P) Pass (you are welcome) I would like to ask readers if they had noticed that with just 1 entry to p hand (such as ♦10) 6♣ turns out to be a much solid contract. Probably no way to find it playing natural style. It is pretty interesting to study Reese convention explained by Lovera. Although it seems to work fine with 1 suited hands mainly. After opponents interfere, a jump in a suit sets the trump and asks Aces immediately. Then, another suit asks for K. Answer are positive only if dummy has 3 or more trumps and at least a K. In this hand Lovera proposes to jump to 4♦ establishing it, with 0-1-2-3 steps for 0-1-2-3 Aces, respectively; then asking for Ks. But that procedure does not solve the ♥ dilemma, immo. A first improuvement could be to answer RKCB instead of plain Blk. Another improuvement could be to use, after RKCB ask and answer, next no-suit as length/Q ask and other new suits as CAB and potential trump suit, if repeated. What do you think?

It is not a good idea to include a stiff A in the splinter bids. It might be good one time, but in the long run it will be misleading. Some experts even treat a stiff K as Kx for this matter.

What's the problem? 1. If 2♣ is GF: 1♦ - 2♣C GF 3♣ - 3♦ 4♥ RKCB(6) ....5♦ 7♦ if you use 4♥ as splinter, then .... 3♦ 4NT 5♠ 7♦ 2. If 2♣ is not GF for u, then 1♦ 2♦ GF 2N stoppers in both majors cues follow ....3♣ 3♥ 3♠ 4♣ 4NT 5♣(3) 5♥ Qask 6♣ 7♦ or 1♦ 2♦ 2♥ control ...3♣ control 3♦ 3♠ second round control 4♣ control ... 4NT 5♣(3) 5♥ Q ask 6♣ 7♦ 3. If you open 2♦ it follows: 2♦ 2N 4♦ 5♣ 2+1Q (as per 5th edition of RKCB, Edwin Kantar, sequence abovementioned is obsolete) 5♥ 5♠ 7♦ or 5♠ CAB instead of 5♥ ....6♣ (2nd round control) 7♦

I just would recommend E to read about zar points. He has no opening bid. 24 zar +1 if you consider that ♠ might be a final contract. What is the sense of opening that hand? Lead-directing? showing strong suit? constructive? Charles Goren wrote in 1950 that all 4333 should deduct 1HCP to evaluate bidding. It is still a good advice. BTW, partner has also a balanced hand, although 5 card support. But 14+6=20 and no major advantages to play the hand instead of defending. Add to this the vulnerability and that 5 out of 6 HCP are OUT of the trump suit and it is clear that 3♣ is wrong.

if std SAYC used: 2♣ 2NT(8+, positive) 3♦ 4♦ (RKCB(♦)- 4 level minor suit agreement 4♥ 4♠ (asks ♦Q+Ks) 5N* 6♣ *♦Q, all Ks - CAB in ♣ 6♥**7♦/NT **3rd round control after 4♠, asking it could also go: 5♣ (Ks, ♦Q ask) 5♦ 5♥ (♥K) 5♠ 5NT (♠K) 6♣ (CAB in ♣) 6♥ (3rd round) 7NT after 2♦ relay: 2♣ 2♦ (relay) 3♦ 3♠ (suit) 3N 4♣ (suit) 4♦ 4N (RKCB,♦ agreed) 5♣ 5♦ (♦Q&Ks?) 5♥ 5♠ (more Ks?) 5N 6♣ (more Ks?) 6♥ 7NT yes, all Instead of 5♥, opener can bid 6NT=♦Q, all kings. Then responder can easily bid 7NT.

There are 3 cases not considered up to now, and first is that it is a slam try without ♦ control. You want to bid just under the step you want to hear and not other option to partner. The second is that partnership uses 6 RKCB. Then after both suit have been immediately supported 4NT asks 6 KCB, including both rounded Qs to check with certainty if there is a grand slam or just 12 tricks. A typical hand ♠Ax ♥Qxxxx ♦Axx ♣KQx vs some ♥AKxx ♣Axxxx and Kx xx or ♠xxx ♦x. Surely, without any agreement, the most common idea between non experts is that it is a non-standard SPL bid. Gerber is used always after a NT bid by partner so it is not to be considered. Among top experts, specially those who use 4-level minor suit agreements is directly RKCB(6). Answers are 14, 30 (or inverted) 25, 2+1Q, 2+2Q. If first or second step answer, then first no-suit asks number of Qs. Kindly

Agreements are a must over hi level preemetives. A very good one is (3♣) 4♣ = ♦+M Then 4♦asks M and 4M is natural. 4♦= ♥+♠ (3♣) P (3NT) follows the same logic as before (3♦) 4♣ =♣+M Then 4♦ asks M and 4M is natural. (3♦) P (3NT) follows the same logic as before (3♥) X P 3NT 1-suited slammish or ♦ ♣ Then doubler chooses his/her best minor (3♠) X P 4♠ Then 1-suited slammish or 4NT=2-suited I do not put the defense over (3NT) as it is too large to include it here...but it is a kind of complex RIPSTRA and italian GHESTEM. So, if you have SOME agreement alike, 4♦ would show a maximum of 3 losers and a 2 or 3 suiter hand, not a major minor hand. Then (3♦) 4[♠] shows a 4 or 5 losers hand (3♦) X and then 4♠ shows a GOSH hand (3♦) 4♦ shows a 3 or less losers hand (3♦) X then 4♦ shows a slammish hand (3♦) X (3NT) P 4♦ same as above (3♦) X 4(♦) P P X shows a 2-suiter slammish (3♦) X 4(♦) 5♦ shows a 1-2 loser hand So here I would bid 4♦ then over 4♥ would look for 6/7 ♥. Over 5♣ I would bid 5♦ or 5 ♠, depending on the losers count. I would fall off chair if p bids ♠. Probably many will find a different approach to this situation. The real main point is the fact that you need consistent prearranged agreements with your partner to deal with this kind of situations at the 4 and upper levels.

The rationale in this very common case is: normally bid the 4 card suit as you will show 9 cards to your partner who will better decide as per 1♠/♥ 2♠/♥, where you have shown 6 cards only. If you keep in mind that bridge is mainly a game of fits and not a game of points it might make you understand that trying to find a fit with partner is the most relevant thing during bidding. Later we will have to check for controls. Points are at the bottom part of the list, specially in unbalanced hands. Players who tend to make unilateral decisions like to bid the 6 card suit. Players who like to have partnership deliberations would tend to bid the 4 card suit whenever possible. The exception is when the hand is very weak. The reason is that you will need to ruff many times and also need to pull out trumps, and a 4-4 fit will not be sufficient in many of those hands to arrive at the port. In those cases a long trump suit is preferable. This hand has only 6 losers, a pretty semisolid ♥ suit so there is no reason to deny the 4 cards side suit.

Hi: I have made a lot of extremely complicated CC with the bidedit during the years, as it was the Ultimate Club system, where I surpassed the maximum permitted storage size. Which is it right now? Now, I have constructed the FULL Fantoni-Nunes system, with around 500 KB bss file. (normal versions have around 50 KB) 1. If I use the CC all goes well, but when we open and they interfere, alerts dont popup on the bidding box. Why could it be? At some moment I remember having seen, over our weak NT openings, SW choosing the wrong overcall, apparently selecting a 3rd seat overcall alert, when it wasnt the case. But at least it has shown something and if we put just the most common defense it should work. What can be happening? 2. 2 lines, (2C 2D and 2C 2H) are corrupted, probably because detailed explanation originally written was extremely long. I eliminated them (the entire opening) and the whole tree of that opening alerts do vanish except for those 2 lines, who reappear again and again. I have tried to eliminate them through the notepad editor but, after it seems all perfectly correct, they still re-appear when using the new version of the bss file. Merging will probably function if I merge the old bss into a new bss where those 2 lines are already described. Am I right? 3. Is there a way to select opponents corresponding overcall for the same bid?. Say, we open 1NT and they bid 2D, which has different meanings according to what each pair play. How to select the right one when we have described many alternatives trees? It seems this point is not solved. 4. Are there some display problems if one player is using windows and the other web's? Is there any uncompatibility? 5. What is the best method to update the CC while you are playing, (even you might not havr them available till next session)? 6. What is the right method, without sending the file thru email, to transfer new versions to your partner? 7. After you made a set of bid sequences over an overcall and you give it a tag, new addings to that set cant be tagged as the tag field becomes blocked. How can it be done? Say, you tag "Ghestem" to a set of responses over an Italian Ghestem 2C intervention over your 1C opening. After a while you want to add new responses over that overcall, but now you cant put the initial tag (or any other) to this new bid. thanks a lot

Just wanted to know about the actions over an overcall over the 1NT opening in direct and 4th position...

Have just played 4 hands and have a general feeling about this feature: 0. I will start saying I found the game addictive and with many advantages, but here I am to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The option to play whenever you want at your own pace is wonderful. 1. My main concern is that it is much harder to win this type of tourneys. It seems the 14 other competitors are the top of the list of the real tourney, which is unfair. Should be a random selection or a distribution that will produce a 50% average rank. It may not be so, but I had the feeling. 2. Bots of the tourney should have the same level of skill (SW version) as the one we are playing so that they do the same when we play as when they played the real tourney. I played 1NT and made 3, a top surely. No: 37.5% Why? Most of the games were 1NTx made 1, even 1 was 1NTxx. Strange, to say the least, as humans dont X 1NT with 14, and usually declare with 5 points at the other side and a 5th card suit. 3. (Spanish) Translations are very very poor. A warning is missing for trick one when it starts from the right. Some texts in the same line or area are in English and some in spanish. A text says that cards are being exchanged to permit you to BID, when it really is to play the hand. I undestand that this is not the definitive version, but this a failure seen since some years ago in many places. If you touch the button for explanations on the game the whole text is in English, untranslated. 4. Even what I said in number 1, I feel this is an easy way to earn points, and fast. You might get points with just a 51% result. For the ones fishing for them this is an excelent alternative, but not for the prize seekers. It should be a BBO$ reward, even more if it so hard to win. Even this could be a virtual carrot (players will win once in 100 games or such a low percentage) would make the game more challenging and attractive. Even a hall of fame could be installed. A simulation with different level of players, or a real statistic might give you some figures to think about this point. 5. There could be a ranking of the day/week of the higher %. 6. Once I got a message that the tourney could not be loaded. Retried and it worked. Warning message should be improved. Will this be a frequent error? Probably not, but I can not tell. 7. This point is not particulary restricted to IT, but to all bot play. Fred informed some time ago that bots wouldnt continue till the 7 level if necessary when a. one competes to the 4 level with a minor suit b. one double with a gosh hand and later show the suit and a strong hand. Bot continues up to the seven level resisting to let partner play the hand. c. after a, say, 2NT overcall for minors, if p chooses D and opponents continue bidfing to game, if you give him an opportunity to play in 5C (with a 5-6 or 5-7) it takes it as a cue and jumps to 6D which is obviously doubled. Frustating thing is that 5Dx is a top and 6Dx is a zero. 8. Bot playing is very very good. Bot bidding is also pretty good. Bot defending has the major fails. It is time to improve their defensive methods in at least the signaling area. 2 basic signals would improve and solve 80% of the defensive play. 1. Understand the trick one signal: Hi=encouraging Lo=Discouraging. (in future versions you could give player a window to select the signaling system he/she wants). A poll could be made to use the commonest method used by BBO players. 2. Understand the SPS signal when partner gives him a ruff chance. Lo=low suit return Hi=highest side suit return Middle= no special interest or trumps (if a valid option) Probably there is a work to do in coding what is encouraging when a 6 (f.i.)is returned. No doubt, but a percentage play can be detected. If bot led the 3 and has seen the 4 from declarer and dummy has the 5 there is a very high chance that the lowest side suit is asked. Finally, anything is better than a blind return, as today, which is very frustrating. This implies also a discarding technic for the declarer-bot according to the signaling defense is using. Discarding hi under Hi-low if declarer wants continuation(and viceversa). Using UDCA bot must discard Lo to encourage continuation.(same method used by the defense). I understand that there are some players who dont care about signaling or, worst, bot will most of the time make better decisions than following partner's desires, This can be solved permitting the player a "no signals" option. Then the logic does not considers analyzing partners cards. As in real life the signal is an ask not an absolute order. Bot might consider, for instance because he has no more trumps, that a different return is better, and do so. But most of the time both analysis, human and bot's, should match.