Old York

Self rating works reasonably well but there will always be exceptions BBO masterpoints are awarded to players who are prepared to play/sub in certain tournaments, but many "novices" build up high numbers by playing in BiL tournies. I would like to see a way of restricting tournies to masterpoint holders, and maybe have the option to set the level to 20+ MP etc. Tony

My favourite book was by Rixi Marcus This is because the title says it all, so there was no need to go to all that trouble of actually reading it :lol: "Bid Boldly, Play Safe" ......but then, I prefer Imps Tony

Think about how the bidding may have gone at other tables I bid 4NT rkcb, perhaps others did not Had I received a 5♠ response, I would have bid 7NT Tony :lol:

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sa5hakq6dak84ck98]133|100|Scoring: MP 3♠ - 4NT 5♣ - ? 5♣ = Zero keycards[/hv] What is the modern trend? Should we still bid slam/grand slam even though 2 keycards are missing?

Perhaps E/W thought that they desperately needed a top and had nothing to lose? The double by opener can often backfire in this situation, asking partner to bid at the 3 level is very dangerous. Imho, opener should pass Tony Edit: It looks like opener has 2452/2443 distribution?

Weak notrump openings often have this effect. Here in the UK we used 12-14hcp as "standard" and often shut oppo out. If an oppo is sitting over the mini-nt with 14 or more hcp, then a double etc was advisable. Was the 1NT bid alerted as 10-12, or were oppo kept in the dark? On the subject of deliberately concealing a 4 card major by refusing to bid Stayman 2♣, it occurs that this logic would also require you to jump to 3NT in response to partners 1♣/1♦ opening with any game going hand that did not include a 5 card major. An Sayc 1♣ opening denies a 5 card major, but may contain a 4 card major, so the natural approach is for responder to show suits in ascending order (often bypassing a 4 card diamond suit). If you have no faith in the 4-4 major fit, then it makes sense to bypass these too? Tony

It did not occur to me that partner would bid 2♣ with only 6 or 7 points, this is a silly gamble which deserves to fail. With 8 points, game is possible opposite 17hcp, so rebidding 2NT is fine, this is why opener must pass with a minimum Tony

Many players lead Ace for Attitute, King for Count, which seems sensible after a pre-empt, but nothing helps on this hand. Declarer is well on his way to claiming With the given hand, many would open 3NT Gambling, although the hand is not ideal for the bid, and north should not normally pass, it is interesting to see 3NT making an overtrick for +630. 3♣ opening on this hand is not the best bid [hv=d=s&v=b&s=sq64h2dqcakt97643]133|100|Scoring: IMP Contract 3NT by South Diamond lead[/hv]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s93hk542daq3ca543&w=saj842hqdjt86c962&e=sk76ht863d9752ct8&s=sqt5haj97dk4ckqj7]399|300|Scoring: MP 4♥ by South J♦ lead[/hv] Hope you can all see that 3NT fails quickly on a Spade lead when 4♥ is making an easy 11 tricks Many thanks to Ron Klinger for this hand Tony

This is were your logic leaves me cold. Bridge players are a community I am certain that respected authors and tournament directors disagree with every word you say, although there is some merit in your attack on lawmakers, we have no alternative but to obey these laws, correctly and justly enforced by TDs. This creates a level playing field for all Otherwise it simply isn't cricket, old boy Tony Sorry Tony I thought community was the correct word. I looked it up now by Google Translations and I receive "Forening(danish) -> Association" What I have named community is therefore 'association'. I think of ACBL, English Bridge Federation, Danmarks Bridge Union. Those have laws, those have lawmakers. Thats those I attack. There are no laws outside associations(hope we can agree that we both understand the same now by the word 'association') A loose group of persons have no rules. I do not expect others to obey laws created exclusively by the English Bridge Union, but the World Bridge Federation Rules should be followed by all (with some regional exclusions) I think the word "laws" is wrong in many contexts and "treatments" etc should be used, many of which are controvertial and difficult to enforce The word community is perfect for BBO, and I hope that we all play within a community spirit. BBO is like a "virtual" village/dorf/dorp/aldea/villaggio Wikipedia "Since the advent of the Internet, the concept of community no longer has geographical limitations, as people can now virtually gather in an online community and share common interests regardless of physical location." Tony I think that this thread is now closed, the original post has been answered, and Fred has given excellent advice and explanation. I have never been offended by Claus's comment, and find them entertaining and thought provoking

West has an impossible guess if you have the agreement to play 3 from 63, but has the same guess if you play the normal hi-lo because declarer can drop the Queen from Q3. As for the Spade switch, it could be right or wrong, another guess I prefer to bid as 4th hand, hoping to go 1 down when 3♣ is making, but at Imps the decision may be closer. But the main feature of your hand is long spades and no defence to 3♣. Also, bidding 3♠ may push them into 4♣/5♣ Tony

I prefer not to have these agreements and play each hand on its merits, opening the major only if it is "rebidable" and opening 1NT if half the strength is in the short suits. Rebidding a 3 card minor is a fairly good option if one suit is exposed, or rebidding 1NT/2NT whenever prudent Tony

Exactly, I agree 100% Which is exactly why you should play low from dummy This put enormous pressure on North if he does hold Q9x(x), while still allowing declarer to finesse later if he believes that South does have the Queen I would still prefer the lead to run up to the West hand :) Tony

There is no ♦9. I don't understand the Rubber Bridge comment! :) No worries. You semed to be emphasizing Rubber Bridge by mentioning it twice A rubber bridge problem, as presented in most books and magazines, is a problem with only one possible answer which guarantees the contract against any possible distribution of the unseen hands. These problems often involve taking a seemingly unusual line, which often involve giving away a seemingly unnecessary trick as an insurance policy Tony If you examine the hand I posted, you will see that it is correct to cash ♣KQ at matchpoint scoring, even though this may lead to defeat, but at Rubber/Teams/Imps you should overtake with Ace and allow opponents to have their ♣J, which ensures 9 trick

This is were your logic leaves me cold. Bridge players are a community I am certain that respected authors and tournament directors disagree with every word you say, although there is some merit in your attack on lawmakers, we have no alternative but to obey these laws, correctly and justly enforced by TDs. This creates a level playing field for all Otherwise it simply isn't cricket, old boy Tony

OK, so some of us prefer to hide these explanations from partner, and some of you prefer to have them visible. I did not expect us all to agree. np. The way bbo is set up, we all have the CHOICE. My only argument was whether or not these explanations should be displayed by default The options are already there on CONV button, but should the default setting be on or off? The vast majority of players would never expect to see these explanations, so why not switch them off by default? Players can then CHOOSE to switch them on if needed. Seems like a reasonable question Tony

Your current location may not have anything to do with the flag you fly. Many people just choose the prettiest flag they can find. Most choose the flag that reflects their place of birth or language Many Tournaments are restricted by flag, not easy if we all start using regional flags. British or Irish tourneys already have this problem. This is a shame, because we tend to use a different system to the rest of bbo. Brits can choose England, Scotland, Wales or N Ireland, all of which would be banned in a Brits only Tourney. Players from Northern Ireland are banned from Irish Tourneys. Obviously unintensionally, but to litter your profile with additional flags is not the answer Tony

I hate being forced to ruff with high trumps, the lower the trumps in dummy, the better suited they are for ruffing with. Chances are that you only need one ruffing trick anyway, which 4-4 fit will give you on (almost) all occasions Reading this entire thread just shows how often Stayman is "abused" and gets players into the wrong contract at the wrong level. If a "judgement" call of 3NT can produce 10 tricks, maybe 4♠ could produce 11. Playing unusual contracts will most often lead to unusual scores Simulations have proved that an extra trick will be available, even if dummy is 4333 or 3433, which may seem illogical to many Tony

Opening with 9 points seems highly unusual, but np Let your partner declare the hand in 6NT, any opening lead is likely to give him his 12th trick On the actual hand, the rule of 11 tells you that it is unlikely that South has Qxxx, it may have been slightly better to play low from dummy on the heart lead, South may have led from 109xx, Qxxx, or even 10xxx, third hand plays high quite often from Q9x. You played well enough, If it all goes wrong just put it down to experience Were trumps 3-2? maybe ok to ruff high? Tony

You played this hand without me? I am hurt You know that I would always lead ♥8 unless you doubel Hobbes :)

No. I have the book too. So why specific to Rubber? or what have I missed? As usual, RK gives a superb example which also shows the difference between Imp and MP declarer play Tony p.s. What is BBO policy on reproducing hands which are the intellectual property of others, and may even be copyrighted? p.p.s I do have RK's express permission to reproduce his hands on BBO (for teaching purposes)

In the original hand, was not ♦9 in dummy? With ♦9, the hand is a Rubber Bridge/Imp problem Without, it becomes a probability problem and any mention of Rubber Bridge is a red-herring Tony

This was discussed in detail in another thread where 3NT score 54% but 4♠ scored 77% at matchpoints, At Imps, 3NT might be the "practical" bid Tony

Per which law? Sorry, my mistake What I meant was..... A TD should never interfere whilst kibbing, unless certain that a pair are cheating or using highly unusual methods (etc. means other infractions which is certain to damage oppo) The word "certain" is not optional I have read the other thread, but experts seem to disagree on the exact intention of the lawmakers Tony

Your Partner's 2nt is exactly the same now, as it would be in a direct raise 1NT - 2NT. Stayman is used to ask opener to show a 4 card major, it has no other meaning. Opener should re-value his hand and bid naturally, passing with 15hcp or bad 16hcp, bidding the best game with 17hcp or good 16hcp Bidding 3NT with 15hcp and a 5-card suit is usually a bad gamble, which might work I do not know what you mean by Stayman abuse, unless the 2♣ bidder holds no major suit? The only complexity is if opener has both majors 1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♠/4♠ would then be correct Both sides should announce system and carding methods at the start of each round If you say "Sayc" then carding methods should be standard (Hi=Enc). If you deviate from this you may be penalised Tony