PetteriLem

Simply [3+♣, 4+♦, 6+♠; 11-21hcp; strong rebiddable ♥; biddable ♠; 12-22 total points] was the explanation GIB gave. 6+4+3=13 so where are the strong rebiddable hearts? Surely GIB knows 3 0 heart fit wont play so well at any level. Isnt GIB supposed to do simulations, how can it get anything but horrid scores from heart contracts?

I pass. If the auction goes all pass, I am confident 1♠ wont make. Should 1NT come back I double it. Perhaps I shouldnt, because 1NTX could make or I have to find a bid over 2♣ from partner. 1♠-p-1NT-p; 2♣/♦ will be annoying and I dont know what to do. 2♠ maybe, double - I could be 2-suited or real take-out of ♣ or pass and miss 4♥ at worse. 1♠-p-1NT-p; 2♥ is easy to pass. If the oppponents go higher, I just wait and double. Anyway pass is my chouce. I think double gets me into trouble. Often partner has the same problem as above (trap pass and double), but this time I have distorted my distribution. Partner will insist clubs and I hate to correct him. Of course double has a big upside and that is 4♥. I dont think I will ever find it, if I pass first.

Partner had 2 chances to show life: initial pass and pass over 1NT. I doubt he will do anything else than give preference to my minor and pass 3♠, but maybe it is possible he could do more. Partner is short in spades and very weak. When I have more, partner has less. Not everyone balanced, we landed well and it seems wrong to risk a probable good score. I pass, but if I decided to bid it would double, because -2 would be a top.

I am tempted to double, but I cant, because I think I should have maximum hand with 6331 distribution for it, which is pretty far from what I have. I cant pull the pass card just yet, so I try 2♦.

West didnt co-operate when he blasted 4♠ that should be a clear warning for east that the cards he looking for arent to be found in west's hand.

"After a player makes an insufficient bid (law 27) (of lesser rank than the last bid at the table), his LHO first receives the option to accept it, in which case no penalty is assessed. If rejected, the offender may replace the bid with a higher legal and natural bid in the same denomination without penalty..." from wikipedia Bridge law. I am very curious about the natural part, which seems to imply that if I bid 1♠ now, I can possibly replace it with another spade call with natural meaning guaranteed by the law. Have I misunderstood something?

I would open 1♣ despite the clubs are weakish for a jump rebid. I think we find slams better, if I show my distribution and strengt right. I would certainly open 1NT from 3rd or 4th position.

I would probably bid 3nt, because partner invited (possibly the weakeast of all invites in my book) and I clearly have as good cards as I could have. We easily have one suit open, on the other hand we cash ours quickly. I tend to favour that we are quicker, that's why I go for it.

That is not a problem hand. With a real problem hand, I raise a major with 3 cards happily, try to bid 3 card side suit or blame my thoughtless opening bid.

It doesnt really matter as what we are trying to achieve is a correct ruling for a group of pairs not for a single pair. It is known that optimum ruling may require it to be wrong in each and every individual case, but be the best for all as an average and from this point of view a single case is meaningless. When we are trying to determine what a group of bad players would have done, we give a ruling for that group only, but we just dont say so. This is where the idea of misjustice stems from.

KJT9 in dummy and AQ behind it. When declarer plays to 9 and it is taken with ace, what is this manouver called?

You shouldnt be upset, because anyone who has played with GIB a lot knows that GIB is at most 1-2 jacks short its usual cue-bid strength and it is not even forcing you to the 5th level. It is important to know that GIB will always cue-bid with absolute rubbish, if you show a hand with 25+ points, which can happen quite often when both sides bid vigorously. If GIB had something useful it would not bother to cue-bid, but simply jump to the slam.

1♦ - P - 1♥ - P; 2♦ - X= punishment for me. I mean a seriously good hand with long diamonds. I dont like any of the takeout double options, because the opponents are unlimited and have not shown fit. Although I would choose option 1, if I have to pick one; at least I am trying to show a playable spot for us.

I have to confess that I find it absolutely shocking that we even have to talk about ratings in bridge. Ratings are absolutely standard in chess and for the reasons I told makes finding a suitable opponent simple. I did not consider what kind of distribution of different rated players there are in chess or in other sports. I find the exact distribution not too important as I dont have any means to get it. I was just trying to elaborate what probelems there are without ratings. Someone with better math skills can make the exact calculation how often one finds a wanted opponent randomly depending on the distribution. The thing I know is how smooth it is to find an opponent in chess due to a rating system and good seek options it allowes. I do not have any intention to start tournament series for pairs or indys which are rated. I do not understand why I should even think about it, but thanks for the concearn. I have seen evil chess players who seek only games with white pieces and thus inflate their true rating by 100 elos or what ever is the correct number. In case they actually play better with black pieces and on purpose deflate their ratings, I couldnt care less. I have heard of people who mess with time settings to their benefit to inflate their true ratings. They play with shorter time limits, if they cant beat you with longer ones. I despise them. I have met players who refuse to play more, if you beat them too often to protect their inflated ratings, how terrible. To avoid unncessary replies I intend to continue playing bridge in BBO with or without ratings and do not consider playing only chess due to my love of ratings in case someone suggests it.

My view on this issue has always been the same. Looking from chess perspective, I would certainly not play chess in a site where there arent ratings. It is complete waste of time to play against random opponents. It is very important to play against opponents which are slightly better than you, then you can improve the most from the games. You have a chance to understand, what the opponent is doing better than you. When the difference in strengths become too wide, you wont know even hit you, when you lose. In other words you wont be able to execute your plans at all, you end up making weak attempts to avoid instantly lost positions. I would divide chess players in 5 strength categories. If you play against someone outside your category, it wont be pleasent for either of you. You can easily see that, if players have to play against a random opponent, u have only 1 in 5 chance to get an useful opponent. Even 1 in 2 chance is too little for me at least. It is possible to give ratings for tournaments only, then you cant choose your opponents so easily. If ratings are restricted to indys, then you cant even pick your partner.