johnallen

My wife has vision issues and sometimes mixes up hearts and diamonds when they are adjacent. It would be quite helpful if the suits were four different colours (purple hearts, green clubs) as on some sites. Perhaps this could be a user option. Thank you. Allen Woolfrey

My wife has vision issues, and often mixes up hearts and diamonds. Allowing different colors for each suit would help her (and others) immensely. Please make this option a priority. Allen Woolfrey

Please help me understand standard practice for this common situation. I have not found a good written description of this. I open 1-minor, and partner raises to 3-minor. He has about 11 points, 5+ support, and no four card major. Now what? 1. If I have a minimum minimum, I think I should pass. 2. If some of his points are dummy points, he may have 9 HCP, so 3NT may be a bad idea unless I have a medium hand. Do I ignore this possibility? 3. If I have a good minimum or a medium hand, I want to try for 3NT. If I have the other suits stopped, I can bid 3NT directly. If a suit is open (e.g., a worthless doubleton), I think I should bid stoppers and see if partner can bid 3NT. Example: My 1 club opening is raised to 3 clubs. I have a worthless doubleton in diamonds. I bid 3 hearts to show a stopper and deny a diamond stopper. If partner has a diamond stopper, what does he do? Question: What is the general approach for deciding when to try for 3NT, and how does a partnership bid and ask for stoppers? Regards, Allen Woolfrey

CTL-W works ! Thank you for your help.

Thank you everyone. BBO under Wine works reasonably well under Ubuntu 7.10 following these steps to install: 0. Install Wine using the Synaptic Package Manager. 1. Do "wine bbo_setup.exe" 2. Copy Symbol font "symbol.ttf" to ~/.wine/drive_c/windows/fonts Then: 1. The launcher on the desktop should work. If not, run "wine NetBridgeVu.exe". 2. When BBO starts, you are told that the Gecko installer should be run. After it is run, BBO works as far as I've tested it. However, the "Back" button is off the screen, so the only way to leave a table is to get out of BBO. Does anyone know how to see the back button and other controls at the bottom of the BBO window?

There used to be a thread on this that disappeared recently. I am running Ubuntu 7.10, and BBO seems to install (using Wine) but fails when I try to run it. Does anyone have it working (other than on the Eee)?

Thank you. Are there any other common bids to clarify in SAYC?

Maybe this sounds pedantic, but the ACBL summary of SAYC (January 2006) says 1M-2N is Jacoby, so it's Jacoby. SAYC is well-defined, which is its strength. Let's play it as defined, and educate those who play it incorrectly. Maybe there should be a category like "Strict SAYC". Does this sound too idealistic?

My thoughts: Assuming K♣ on side, we hope clubs are 3-3. If Kxxx-xx, we lose the King anyway. If Kx-8xxx, we lose to the 8 if west covers the J♣ lead and we make the mistake of cashing clubs in dummy (throwing away the 9♣ winner). If west covers J♣, we win with the A and lead low to our 9♣ winner, then get back to dummy with a carefully preserved trump entry to cash the rest of the clubs. If west doesn't cover the J, then repeat the finesse with the 9 and overtake with the 10. Cash the A, and the K better fall or we were never going to run the clubs. If the K doesn't fall, lead a small diamond, and hope the A is with east and he takes it. We can then use the KQ to pitch spades in dummy and establish the J or 10. There is more to think through. Good problem. Other thoughts?

Eddie Kantar's "Modern Bridge Defense" treats this topic fully. However, his "Bridge for Dummies (2nd. Ed)" provides simpler rules that I suggest are more appropriate for Beginner/Intermediate. He states (for second hand play): "... if you have a sequence of three or more equal cards headed by an honor, such as Q.J.10.4 or J.10.9.8...play your highest equal, the same card you would have led had you been on lead." I suggest the phrase "equal cards headed by an honor" answers the question about J.10.9.

To return to the original question: Is the consensus that (since) '9' is not an honor, it therefore is not part of the consideration of what card to play? For example, would those who play highest of 3 or more touching honors and the lower of touching honors play '10' from 'J.10.9'? What about '10.9.8'?

I heard an interview with Eddie Kantar (from BridgeHands.com). He explained that he wasn't satisfied with the first edition of "Bridge for Dummies", but had more control over the second edition and was happy with it. The diagrams look fine to me. I quite like this book. It teaches defensive bidding effectively as well. I think if it wasn't a "... for Dummies" book it would get more respect.

My recommendation for the best beginner's book is "Bridge for Dummies", Second Edition, by Eddie Kantar. Kantar is a world-class writer (and player), and this is a well-written, simple-to-understand book that provides full coverage of standard bidding and play. This book teaches Jacoby Tansfers and Negative Doubles as part of today's standard bidding, which I am glad to see. Audrey Grant's books are good, but you need the whole series to get the overall picture. The SAYC book is terrific, but is more for people who have learned the game enough to want to learn the discipline of SAYC. Much as I think 2/1 is the future, I personally think it's not in common use by the mainstream player. Graduate to Max Hardy's book on 2/1 "Standard Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century" when you are ready to read about 2/1. Hope this helps.

If we make the rule that opener cannot rebid beyond 2 of his opening bid without extra values (14+), then: 1. With GF values and 4225, responder can bid 2♣ over 1♥ then 2♠ over a 2♥ rebid by opener (showing a minimum). This reverse by responder empowers opener to raise to 3♠ with 4 card support, and responder can place the contract. (Opener must bid until game is reached after the responder reverse.) 2. Without GF values and 4225, responder bids 1♠ over 1♥ and hopes to mention his clubs if that seems relevant. Thoughts?

Stephen, does this mean anything more than a bare minimum? Are you suggesting that 14+ is enough extra?

Thank you everyone. My objective is to understand the rules for a standard natural system that I can play with my wife (beginner/intermediate) that she can play with friends without much discussion. Consequently, I will shy away from "new minor forcing" if possible. Building on the comments so far, I can see two alternatives to the discomfort that Rule 3 might lead to: A: Allow responder to pass a 2NT rebid (e.g., 1♥ - (P) - 2♣ - (P) - 2NT - (P) - PASS). This is non-standard, but seems reasonable if we say that opener has defined his hand as a minimum, thereby leaving responder in the best position to decide the contract. This is similar to saying Rule 3 is "off" if either opener or responder has limited their hand with a 1NT bid/rebid. B: Require that opener's 2NT rebid show extra values as awm notes. I like "A" better because it seems to be widely taught that opener's rebid of NT at the lowest available level shows a minimum hand. Also, awm noted that a lot of people allow responder to pass 2NT in this sequence. What do you think? Is this a good "natural" approach, or can we stick with Rule 3 and remain "natural" as long as opener does some thinking ahead about responder's potential problems?

Thank you. A follow-on question on Rule 3: If many people play that responder (after an initial 2-level response) can pass opener's 2NT rebid or minor suit raise, does that call into question the benefits of the rule? In other words, would you say that Rule 3 is a good one and should be followed, or would you say that what many people do in practice is a valid exception to the rule?

I want to validate my understanding of responder's rebid--what is forcing and what isn't. I'm using the SAYC booklet from the ACBL (Rev. Jan.2006) as the base, with elaboration and clarification provided by "Standard Bidding with SAYC" by Downey and Pomer. I find that these two sources say almost the same things, but are not complete in themselves. Would those more experienced than I please verify where I have interplated over a gap. I have not included all forcing sequences (e.g., reverses or jump-shifts by responder). 1. "After opener rebids in a suit, a new suit by responder is forcing. If the new suit is the fourth suit, the bid may be artificial/conventional". (ACBL-SAYC). This is clear enough. 2. "After a 1NT rebid by opener, bids of a new suit at the next higher level are non-forcing." (ACBL-SAYC). This is also clear. 3. "Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two level unless opener's bid is at the game level. This applies when responder is an unpassed hand". (ACBL-SAYC). This is also clear. 4. "Unless responder's first call was 1NT, the bid of a new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing for one round." (Downey and Pomer). This does not reconcile exactly with Rule 2. However, if we take the view that Rule 2 takes precedence, then I suggest that Rule 4 would be better worded: "Unless responder's first call was 1NT, or unless opener rebid 1NT, the bid of a new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing for one round." Alternatively: "If neither responder nor opener has limited his/her hand with a 1NT response or rebid, the bid of a new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing for one round." I would appreciate comments on Rule 4 particularly. I would also like to know if the above rules are common practice.

My original post was: However: This is confirmed on page 71 of "Standard Bidding with SAYC" by Downey and Pomer: "Unless responder's first call was 1NT, the bid of a new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing for one round." It looks like I have to revise my thinking and confirm with my partner.

Maybe playing Acol in the 60's colours my thinking too much, but to me the sequence 1♣ - (P) - 1♠ - (P) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♥ shows no support for clubs and a 6-10 point hand with 5+ spades and 4+ hearts, and asks partner to pass or convert to spades.

Regarding the sequence 1♠ - (P) - 2♦ for example: 1. Kantar, in "Bridge for Dummies" 2nd Ed says on page 191 that the 2♦ bid promises a minimum of 11 HCP (maybe 10 with a strong 6-card suit) and promises to bid again..."That promise written in blood, allows you to relax knowing that your next bid cannot be passed." 2. Downey and Pomer in "Standard Bidding with SAYC" say on page 72 "...unless opener rebids game, the responder in a two over one auction always promises another bid." My question is whether this is common practice, or whether responder might pass in a sequence like 1♠ - (P) - 2♦ - (P) - 3♦ - (P) - ? I was faced with this problem holding: [hv=d=n&v=n&s=sa10hq3da86542cj97]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] and felt bound to bid a reluctant 3♠. This is where we played it, in a 5-2 fit with partner holding Q6432 in spades. Not great. The hand played somewhat better in 3♦, but is still not terrific. My partner's full hand was Q6432 64 KQJ AT4. Is this a "Sometimes things don't work out" situation, or is there a better way to bid this?