Old York

Was it a mistake? Maybe it depends on the circumstances. If the slam had been bid by Zia, in a last ditch attempt to win the Lederer single-handed, then we would all applaud his audacity If the slam was bid by a nameless novice in Bbo Relaxed at 3am after a bottle and a half of vodka, then why was it posted here in Adv/Expert Forum? We will never know.... perhaps the hand is sheer invention to make a dubious political point? Tony :lol:

Perhaps it is perfectly legal for a player in Denmark to give a full explanation of every bid he makes to his partner, perhaps modern bridge would benefit greatly for all bids to be explained to all players, but I prefer to adhere to the old-fashioned rules of the game Tony

I do have strong feelings about this and have posted on this subject before. Many players refuse to play against oppo using Fd, some Tds have tried to ban the use of Fd. The answer is simple, and complies with the Laws.... BBO should simply remove the option to view your Partner's alerts (with the exception of teaching tables etc) Fd is a great idea, but it is being mis-used. This causes a great deal of resistance to its use Tony

Yes, I agree. Obtaining UI from your partner's alert is a big problem. How is this done in professional tournaments with screens? On BBO etc, it would be very simple for the software to divert all queries to the bidder's partner. The bidder would simply click the alert box before making a bid, and his/her partner should answer any queries. This would also be done without his/her knowledge as the query/answer would not be visible, so no UI Tony

Self alerting seems to cause more problems than it cures. In normal f2f bridge, it is your partner who must alert, and subsequently explain any agreements. With online bridge, effectively, you are answering on your partners behalf, so must try to give the answer that your partner would have given had he/she been asked. Also, although we usually insist that all artificial bids are alerted, it is actually only agreements that should be alerted. A TD should never interfere whilst kibbing, unless certain that a pair are cheating or using highly unusual methods etc. Having said that, I might have asked the opening bidder if an agreement existed. I do, however, find it a bit odd that after asking for a stopper and being shown one, responder decided to bid 5♦ and not 3NT. Were oppo duped into doubling? ..... or did they both overbid wildly? The takeout doubler bid three times and his partner showed a minimum response with 1♠ but then doubled 3♠. Too much bidding at this table :P Tony edit: actually, it was the weakest hand who made the final penalty double

Immediate 5♣ I would be quite happy with -200 or -500 on this hand, looks like oppo have an easy game at least My main concern is that most would not open 2♣ with so many controls missing, so opener has a very distributional hand, possibly with Club void and both majors At matchpoints, I expect most to be in 5♣x anyway Tony

This is just pure paranoia, ignore it It is laughable and very sad but, I would like to know why sometimes we get red dots, why sometimes freeze and sometimes total crash, especially when internet connection is perfect Tony

If you open 1♠, how can partner get you to game with: ♠Txx ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣Qxxx ♠xxx ♥xxx ♦Qxx ♣xxxx ♠Tx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣xxxxxx certainly not 100% game, but worth +620 with 2-2 trumps or single ♠Q If this is Imp scoring, red games are worth stretching for Tony p.s. If partner has ♠x ♥xxxx ♦xxxx ♣xxxx he can claim £10,000 from the Earl of Yarborough?

A top scoring regular player in my swiss pairs once took a totally unnecessary finesse with KQTxx in dummy and Axx in hand, sure enough he found Jxxx in second hand. The dummy was not short of entry cards He was certainly a good enough player to lead to King, back to Ace and then take the marked finesse, so why finesse at the first opportunity? I will never be convinced that this play (and many others) was not double-dummy, he always has kibs at his table.... but it is impossible to prove that he is cheating I have banned kibs ever since, and this player immediately stopped registering I only wish that I were allowed to name this player. He plays in most free tournies that allow kibs, often winning with 83% etc Tony :)

I would probably have opened 1♠ and rebid 5♥ on the given hand, but am worried that I cannot get the no-trumps in first. I hate being dummy on hands like this Tony

Looks like we need an artificial 2NT here. This preserves the 3 level for exploration Is there a lebensohl or similar bid available? 1♦-(2♥)-2N*-(p) 3♣*-(p)-3♦* 2♥ overcall was pre-emptive, but 3♥ and 3NT responses seem to make the situation worse Tony

I would like to have the option to add Lebensohl etc to my FD without having to edit the entire system The optional conventions that can be added by using the "Manage Conventions" button do not include this, and writing my own convention_leb.bss does not work Is anyone updating and adding these .bss files? Every time I log-in I get the message "Updating Convention Cards" but nothing seems to change Tony

In any f2f event these players must have a cc, but continuations are often omitted. Most bbo tournies demand that artificial bids are alerted and explained upon request This pair had blatantly failed to alert on other hands and had been warned They refused to alert, director was called and then they refused to explain The 2♠ bid looked highly unusual with xx in both majors I have very thick skin, we need to have thick skins to post on bbo forums :) I am always happy to admit when I am wrong Tony

This is the type of situation that I was thinking of. If you are genuinely damaged by an unfamiliar or unusual 2♠ response, should the board be adjusted? In a Swiss Tournie, I had a pair with identical profiles and similar names who refused to explain their methods in exactly this situation, so I booted them and got 30 mins of abuse. they seemed to think I had only booted them because they were on table one but I had not even noticed this Tony

Many TDs are running large Indies with no kibs to try to avoid this problem 1. It cuts down on the usual methods of cheating 2. It cuts down on the frequency of accusations I stopped allowing kibs in my Swiss Pairs and a few high-scoring regulars stopped playing. I let you draw your own conclusions It is far too easy for regular pairs to cheat, or for one player to log into BBO using 2 or more identities. It is almost impossible to report these players because there cannot be enough evidence. I hope that security issues will be tightened up soon, multiple log-ins should be very easy to block which should stop players kibbing their own table (esp as zzzz1234) Tony (Duke of York)

Whist skills are certainly not out of place at the bridge table, poker skills do have their place but tend to be overused. You still need to know when to fold Tony Edit: Poker players never publish their disasters I would love to see a team match, Bridge vs Poker, preferably non-goulash

I must admit that the overtake puzzled me. Was there any significance to the card at trick 2? Suit pref? It all looked a bit unnecessary and may block the suit?

I am quite happy to open 2♣ on this hand, but I would prefer to treat it as an Acol Strong 2 if possible (Benji) I have a very good 6 card suit, 4+ losers, 5++QT and a good 22 count. It is far too good to devalue to 1♠, too easy to miss game or slam (maybe 4♥/6♥) imho Tony

I would never consider myself to be an advanced rubber bridge player, never get the practice these days :( Edited Tony

I insist on a 1NT response to 1♣ to be serious and show 8-10, unless playing inverted minors perhaps Tony Edit: If you normally open 1♣ on garbage hands, then it may be unsafe to open 1♣ here?

The wording here is curious. Did RHO imply that playing low was a mistake or a misclick? Maybe we need to know his exact wording LHO and Dummy had no reason to get involved. Your partner had no reason to explain (to the table) his reasons for refusing. Calling the TD is not an accusation of guilt, that is what TD is there for, to settle any bridge problem without argument In future, maybe it is best to call TD without hesitation or comment Tony

"Is bridge becoming more like poker?" No, of course not. Poker players would never be so reckless Bridge does seem to be reverting to Whist, however The object of whist was to make as many tricks as possible with a randomly determined trump suit. Just like modern bridge, the trump suit was chosen at random, but no longer at the turn of a card. Now we use random bidding methods instead There is only one remaining bridge rule, but this has been affected by inflation since the thirties, so now reads: If in doubt, bid 5 more Tony :lol:

This is a slightly dangerous agreement to have. As soon as you start to deviate from standard practices, the more chance there is of getting into unusual contracts. This is a gamble at duplicate, sometimes you win and get a top, sometimes you lose and get a bottom. The normal contract of 2+♠ is likely to give you a good result, so shooting for tops is unsound. The question of whether or not the spade game is "pretty easy" is a mirage It is not recommended to bid borderline non-vul games at Imps, and even less so at MP. Again, you are just as likely to get a bottom as a top. Playing in 2♠, you should get an excellent score for making 1 or 2 overtricks, so going 1 down in 4♠ is an unnecessary risk Pushing for game with an Aceless hand is optimistic, partner is a passed hand with no Heart support. Using normal methods he should have 8-11hcp and 5 Spades, so game seems remote Tony p.s. Many players may choose to respond with a 4 card suit, but it is not necessary to include this in your system, allowing partner to use his judgement without hinderance is usually best

I honestly think that this is the crux of the problem, the vocal minority who hate to be de-railed by unusual bids and cannot be bothered to do any research. They will immediately complain loudly to the Host and try to get these "new-fangled" bids banned. In my own BBO Tournies I am guilty of being persuaded by the minority, Sorry all Good news from bbo-juniors, they have lifted their ban on Multi Anyway, here is the ACBL "permitted" defenses to Multi: http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/3b.htm Trying to keep an open mind Tony ;)

In a perfect world, oppo would be given full disclosure about these treatments. In practice, many partnership agreements are left undisclosed. The negative inferences can be very subtle, easy for opener to understand, but impossible for oppo The use of 2♠ is often semi-psychic, and opener fields the psych by failing to bid 4♥. Is this 100% ethical? These special treatments and continuations work best if oppo are uninformed and confused. This worries me greatly, especially if oppo are less experienced Using Multi against advanced, experienced oppo is good fun, and can easily gain or lose, so it is perfectly fair and ethical. Using Multi against inexperienced oppo is almost always bound to gain an unfair advantage. Using Multi against BI with special partnership tweaks just seems to convey a win-at-all-costs attitude I wish I could see a way out without banning Tony Edit: I will kib some Benelux tournies... I am genuinely interested in learning :(