BillHiggin

The BBO club IAC (Intermediate/Advanced Club) holds a "Dare to Declare" tournament most Mondays at 18:00 (GMT) that seems to match what you are describing.

Making up their minds seems the least of their problems on this hand. Once they start promising 14 cards in 3 suits and a no-trump stopper in the 4th, I think we can all agree that they should be under some obligation to self destruct.

You might find it useful to look at https://users.cs.fiu.edu/~pestaina/ModifiedC1MX.pdf for an existing set of agreements for this situation. They differ from you on 1S (they play that as transfer to clubs) and 1N (they play that as semi-forcing).

No need to change: 🀅 = MAHJONG TILE GREEN DRAGON -- Character code U+1F005 Easiest to enter via KDE application KCharSelect.

if you lick it into full screen mode ... (devil made me say it)

I think there are possible agreements (which are likely to be overly complicated) that may allow you to sensibly splinter and then bid on. However, if one just tries this without those additional agreements, you can end up with a horrible mess. Take the not uncommon auction where one partner splinters and then invokes blackwood over openers attempt to sign off. Now, one player will know how many aces are held while the other will know how much duplication of values exists in responders short suit -- good luck with that!

Tried it! Like it (almost). I would be alot happier with the split server situation if I could see this list but without the actual "offline" entries. Perhaps time has caused by "following" list to bloat somewhat, so the inclusion of actual offline entries means I must scroll a lot to scan it all (I remember the older windows version that would display everybody in a list that was so huge that it might as well have shown nobody).

Perhaps I will get used to this, but it is not going well. I am seeing a sudden reduction in people showing as online from my friends/following list. I thought that by switching between "competitive"/"casual" that I would see the lists for both servers, but it does not change. I normally hate those who immediately gripe about any change, but this one has me bamboozled.

Strictly using HCP with no adjustments would not be a good approach. Bergan dummy points, losing trick count or other evaluation methods would generally be better. But, you need to use your own judgement. Evaluation notes for this hand (regardless of evaluation method): * The j10xxx holding is worth more than most other jack holdings because the 10 spot supports the jack and that combination is in a long side suit (a possible source of tricks). * The AQ doubleton holding is a big red flag. Too much of your strength is concentrated in a short side suit. To count that as 6 HCP and also add for the shortness is way too much.

I thank you all for your thoughtful replies. I have learned from you!

The possibilities for the black queens: A) Both are on your left. B) The ♠Q is on your left and the ♣Q is on your right. C) The ♠Q is on your right and the ♣Q is on your left. D) Both are on your right. Each of these are as likely as the others -- i.e. 25% . Therefore, 50% of the time, both Queens will be in the same hand and 50% of the time they will be in opposite hands. The squeeze is slightly better than a 50% overall chance because of the possibility that the ♣Q will drop. There might be other adjustments (others are suggesting one might read the situation and fall back on the finesse, but my olds-timers restricted head is not quite grasping that yet).

Its a simple auction -- This was a par type contest and the instructions were to play 6H by S with ♦6 opening lead. So the bidding at the table went just as shown!

If I could "duck a club" then I would have my 12 tricks -- unfortunately, the opps would have their 2nd defensive trick first. For the squeeze, I would duck the opening lead to rectify the count (which is what I did at the table). Draw trumps, cash the top clubs (the ♣10 in my hand will be the ♣ threat), Return to hand with the ♠A and run the remaining hearts (pitching dummies clubs). This will squeeze either opponent holding both black queens and it is automatic -- if the ♣10 has not become good, then either the ♠Q will drop or the black queens were held in separate hands. If clubs split 5-0 or 4-1 and the Q does not drop, I will know where the ♣Q is but it is not clear that that will give me a useful read on the ♠Q.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa3hkjt976da5ct73&n=skj4haqd743cakj94&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=6hppp]266|200[/hv] Unknown auction, but final contract is known. Assume total points or IMPs. Opening lead ♦6 A black suit squeeze is fairly simple and the ♣Q might drop while clearing the Vienna coup winners in that suit. That would succeed if either opponent holds both black aces which seems close to 50%. Or we could just try a 50% hook. By choosing the ♠ finesse, we can still test for an unprotected ♣Q before committing to the finesse. Is there a good reason to choose one line over the other (other than that a squeeze is sexier). Today, it did not really matter - RHO held Qx of clubs!

Even without seeing the bidding, I can be sure that we have taken a shot in the auction. I do not add another shot on to that. Other than giving them an early chance to make a mistake (i.e. lead J towards dummy early), I am playing for the slight advantage of playing for the drop. if this rated to be the field contract and I needed a shot, then the hook is a way to do that. I do not attempt to read the hesitation.

So, I went to have a look-see. Mac, win, iphone, android all supported -- linux not! I gave it a try using the win version and wine, but have not yet had any luck. grumble!

I have no real inside information, but my assumption would be that BBO is writing to HTML 5 rather than any proprietary HTML at all. After all, their customers are running various browsers on a multitude of platforms. Edge is limited to windows only, users are using macs, linux, ios, android and possibly others.

This works the other way as well: "This will be my last hand" (hand ends and new one is dealt) "Well, just one more" <ALERT> Big hand <end ALERT>

http://rogerpf.com/bridge/aabridge aaBridge is a .lin viewer that runs on windows, macs and linux (not on phones or tablets)

On reviewing a transcript of an online bridge lesson, I encountered a method I had not been aware of (note that there are a rather large set of things that I am not aware of). Sometimes these lessons may be actually presenting the instructor's pet methods and their widespread adoption may be more of a wish that a fact. This article suggested that in competitive auctions that a cue bid show a 4+ card invite or better raise, while 2N showed a 3 card invite or better raise! Clearly the cue bid to show a good raise is quite widespread. The 2N call -- I do not recall seeing it. What would general thoughts be about this? Might it be more "law" like to use a cue bid when available below 2 of our suit as the 3 card invite+ raise and then 2N as the 4 card invite+ raise? Thank you in advance for your replies!

i do not want to pretend to offer god like (or even expert) opinions on these questions. In fact, I am interested in the invite+ raises in competition question and will forthwith start a new topic strictly about that (might I encourage you and others to favor multiple threads for multiple questions - you will get better answers and others will be better able to follow discussions that do not switch back and forth among several topics).

I am able to get the new version running in full screen mode (i.e. no tabs, address bars, menu bars etc). Currently I am running linux neon bionic (KDE plasma desktop like kubuntu, one LTS version newer than xenial). From the normal BBO launch page, right click on the "try a preview ..." message and select "open in a new window". That new window will still have the assorted space eating bars, but the F11 key will switch to full-screen mode with none of those (not even the system task bar). I have previously done the same thing on a kubuntu xenial system.

I appreciate and respect your suggestion, but the question is less about what the bids ought to be and more about what they are likely to be in a typical online informal game (i.e. you are partnering a non-regular partner that you do not believe to be incompetent and have had a typical online discussion of "2/1, hi enc ok?"). So, do you think that your suggestion is a reasonable expectation? (I am willing to accept that it might be).

Using 2/1, what do you feel are the most standard treatments for the ♠ bids in (unobstructed auctions): 1♣ 1♦; 1♥ 1♠ or 1♣ 1♦; 1♥ 2♠ (Yes, we have covered this before)

I also use Lynux. I just checked with Firefox, and what I get matches your windows screenshot. Pretty sure it is the same with Chromium/Chrome, can check if important.