MomoTheDog

Lighter doubles are not part of GIB's CC. http://online.bridgebase.com/doc/gib_system_notes.php

Also, in the exported text file, it will be great if the IMP or MP score is attached to each hand played.

BBO really needs an automatic download feature for travellers to be displayed directly on the screen or saved into the hard disk. (not just a pair own's results). It is slow and cumbersome to navigate the results via the web. This in my opinion is the most important feature that BBO is lacking.

Without specific agreements, I can't see any other way other than this to be natural IMO. Whether this is the best use of the bid is of course an entirely thing altogether.

One of my favourite books in my bookshelf is the ACBL Bridge Encyclopedia. Unfortunately, it's starting to grow dated especially in articles related to online bridge, which has grown immensely since the last edition (2001). Does anybody here know if a new edition is in the works?

I've read recently about Rusinow and Journalist leads and they seem to have distinct advantages over standard leads in that they clarify a lot of ambiguities. These leads also appear pretty simple. If they are good (with little disadvantages from what I understand) and are theoretically beneficial, why aren't these leads adopted in a more widespread fashion by the bridge players over the world?

I open, seize the initiative of the opening bid!

This is an excellent opportunity for youth players, especially for countries where youth bridge is not fully developed. I'm not sure how I can help, but if you need me for youth BBO teamgames, I'm available.

Also sent personally to bridgebase. [hv=d=s&v=e&n=s98742hj42dt8c754&w=sajt3hkt98dkqj3c6&e=shaq7653da965cjt9&s=skq65hd742cakq832]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding went (south-west-north-east) 2c-pass-3c-pass pass-pass-pass This was in a tournament. I am west, the 2c was NOT alerted and the opponent did not say ANYTHING inform us about their bidding systems (which was precision). I have an obvious takeout double if I was aware their methods was precision (2c = opening hand, 5 or more clubs). This would have very easily allowed us to reach 4h by E-W regardless of what north bids. The tournament director is "*********". I informed his about the damage caused by their failure to alert. He then said, "looked at it cannot adjust because you either x or bid" I have no idea what he meant, and I continue to plead my case, but everything I said was ignored. I am very unsatisfied by both the outcome and the way this tournament director handled this case.

With a pickup partner, one should aim for practical straightforward bridge. It's a clear 2nt opener for this reason as it quickly defines opener's hand.

Some very informative responses here. Thanks guys and girls.

BBO is filled with Polish experts who play the Polish club but do not adequately self-alert their bids - which slows the game down immensely. What advantages does this method have over a far more natural Precision or even popular SAYC/2-1/acol methods? Doesn't stuffing a multiple different meanings to openings make it easy for competent opponents to profitably preempt them? As I understand, the Polish club is incredibly popular at all levels of bridge in Poland, but why is it popular if their methods are so convoluted, unnatural and confusing (not to mention being incredibly hard to learn)?

Partner is almost certainly asking for a spade lead.

This is not only correct, but it is often the most practical thing to do.

This is penalty unless you have some super-specific agreement. It is more useful as a penalty double at this spot.

There's nothing wrong in bidding the straightforward 1s.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=shdc&w=sq97hkqj4d74ck532&e=sakt653ht95dk5cq6&s=shdc]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] I am West, my advanced pick-up partner is East. Bidding went W [space] [space]N [space] [space]E [space] [space]S [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]1d p [space]- 1h - 1s - 2c 2d - p [space]- 2s - [space]p p - [space]p Partner made 10 tricks and I was reprimanded for not raising. When it comes to pick-up partners, should I take it for granted that they understand my cue-bids (meaning a limit raise or better)? Or is this my mistake for giving too much credit to my partner?

Deal of the week is an excellent educational resource and inspires interest on Bridge Base products. Fred unfortunately has not continued these deals in recent years, perhaps it can be revived in the form of guest writers of expert/world-class standard? I really miss DOTW.

Best to try for 13 tricks here. I'm guessing you win the lead with the declarer's A♣. Draw trumps (hoping they break 3-2), play a club to the dummy's king, play the ace of spade pitching a small club, ruff a club - if clubs break 3-3, you have 13 tricks. If it doesn't, I think there is a squeeze lurking somewhere here.

It's a clear 2h. You must definitely indicate you have 4 hearts. This is a reverse (i think), and shows greater values. When partner responds over your reverse, you have the option to show your 3-card spade support by bidding them (eg. 1c-1s-2h-3d(4sf)-3s.

It's a clear bergen raise IMO, this will help partner the most as this is the most descriptive and "point-limited" bid.

This is an extremely fabulous idea and it's success may result in another boom in the popularity of BBO. Weekly Swiss teams event, 6 boards a match, 6 matches, would be an extremely fantastic idea. Put in some cash prizes. I'm salivating at the thought. In fact, this is the most important feature that is currently lacking.

This is fine. Both players have bid exactly what they had.

Unless I complete misunderstand the principle, the principle of restricted choice calls for a clear finesse. In the choice of the play of the trumps suit, I think this principle alone should override the playing style of the leader or other psychological aspects.

I lead a super-standard spade, like what every elementary bridge textbook says, and we obtained a very poor score for the bottom board. (11 tricks make on a diamond lead, otherwise 12 makes) Partner indeed had a void diamond suit, and I was abused by my "expert" partner after that. The reason why I am posting this is that I'm just checking if this a standard "mini-lightner" double lead that I am supposed to make with an "expert" partner, without any prior discussion. This was partner's holding ♥Q42 ♠AKJT752 ♣642