fan13027

My regular partner and I have been using Blackwood RKC 0314 for quite a while. We are also working on developing a Full Disclosure Convention Card. After considerable trial and error, we finally discovered that it is impossible to write custom conventions to include in our convention card. We did note however that there is a BBO supplied convention to include except it is written using 1430 instead of 0314. In order to solve our convention card problem we decided to switch to using 1430 instead of our regular 0314 so we could include the pre-defined convention for full disclosure. But now I am noticing that in fact more people seem to play 0314 as opposed to 1430. It causes even more confusion if I find myself playing in a tourney with a "pickup" partner because I have 1430 displayed on my profile but will use 0314 responses if that is what they have on their profile. Of course I know I could solve the "confusion with pickup partners" problem if we just quickly came to an agreement at the start of a tourney. But now that I am paying more attention to it, it raises the question for me (as an intermediate player) ... is there a preferred method between the two choices and if so why?

Perhaps this thread is more appropriate for the software requests/suggestions forum, and if so, moderators can feel free to move it. Or, if my rant is too hot a topic, I guess moderators will remove the post entirely ... feel free! First the rant .... My partner and I play very regularly in the eveings on BBO, usually 3 or 4 tourneys each evening. Invariably all the tourneys WE participate in are marked as either English OnlyDuring Bidding and Play or just plain English Only. Unfortunately not everyone abides by these rules and speaks foreign languages anyway. I consider myself tolerant and don't really mind at all as long as it is not during actual bidding or play. Lately, however, after repeated similar experiences, I am becoming convinced that it is NOT lack of english skills or ignorance of the rules that causes this behavior but purely a clear disrespect/disregard for the rules as posted. My partner and I always observe the language rules (and all other tourney rules) as posted, even though we are both fluent in Hungarian. When we first encountered these situations, my partner suggested that if opps, after politely being requested to observe posted rules, continue to speak non-English during bidding or play that we play tit-for-tat and begin using our Hungarian language skills as well. I insisted however that we maintain the "high road", refrain from playing the childish games, and simply call Director after repeated offenses. Maintaing the "moral high road" has provided for some amount of self-satisfaction for a period of time but my patience is quickly wearing thin on this issue. Opps continue to abuse the rules and when the Director is called they either maintain complete silence or apologize in (surprisingly) good English. As soon as the Director leaves the table they revert right back to the previous behavior. So my partner and I have reached the place where we no longer wish to tolerate this and I have relented and told him I would happily engage in the tit-for-tat game he originally suggested. And now the question .... I know that tournament directors can turn chat completely off. I have seen it happen when tourney participants begin discussing hand results that other tables have not yet played, or when perhaps (as during the recent US elections) general chat becomes too polarized or over-heated. So the question is, could the software not be modified for directors to have an option to AUTOMATICALLY turn off chat at tables during Bidding and Play and have it turned back on during other intervals (I guess this would only really be useful in Swiss Movement tourneys where there is usually a lot of waiting for other tables to finish). Is this a valid solution? Should more tournament directors consider just turning off chat entirely during a tourney? I know this latter would not be a popular solution as many player consider these tourneys a "social" event and enjoy keeping up with their friends in far off places, as do partner and I. Or, do partner and I sink to their level and begin engaging in the childish games? Edit: One last question. Do tourney directors only see the current chat at tables, or do they have a way of scrolling back thru chat before they arrived at the table thereby allowing them to VERIFY that rules have been broken? Even though I've never been one, I know that the tourney directors job is a difficult and (often) thankless task. If there are any TDs reading this post I would particulary appreciate your thoughts, insights, and past experiences with this situation.

Most clubs will have a contact e-mail or web-site url listed in their tourney information. Many are "fun" clubs and have no special requirements for joining other than you going thru a free registration process. I've joined 3 or 4 clubs doing nothing more than registering with my BBO User ID and providing a personal e-mail address. Your mileage may vary! ;)

Brilliant! I clearly have a long way to go in my bridge education :D

When posed here as a question/problem, the answer is obvious ... even to me. But the logic of HOW this is clearly helpful to me in this scenario escapes me. I assume you pitch a Spade on any ensuing Diamond return. But, if my nightmare scenario occurs, which has North holding Spade A63 and South holding Spade QJT and Club Kxx, I still don't see how this is helpful.

Phil, this looks very interesting (and likely more effective than what we are currently using). Is there a name for this convention so that I can do some research and read more about it? Or, if not, could you please give more detail about the promised minimum HCP and suit length (I am assuming 5+ for majors and 6+ for minors) for the 2NT thru 3♥ responses?

Thanks for all the responses! I encountered this hand playing with my regular partner/mentor (who happens to be my 84 year old father) and although I have learned much from him, I DO FEEL like sometimes I am playing with a partner from "20 years ago". I was West and partner decided to go directly to 3NT on the rebid. I guess it didn't make any difference, in this case, as there was no slam in the hand. But nonetheless I was a bit disappointed that he didn't take the time to at least explore for a club fit or to allow me to indicate my hearts. Without the direct route to 3NT there would have been enough bidding room to explore a bit and still safely stop at the inevitable 3NT contract.

[hv=d=w&v=n&w=s8543hat753dq8c85&e=sk2hk4dak52cakq76]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The bidding has proceeded ... West - Pass North - Pass East - 2♣ South - Pass West - 2♥ -- This is a STEPS response indicating 4-6 HCP and says nothing about distribution North - Pass East - ?

Thanks Codo for the reply, although I already received the answer (somewhat begrudgingly) fom Trumpace and pclayton. I also did receive the same reply from an advanced bridge player of my acquaintance, so there does seem to be some conscensus (amongst those that would even deign to discuss the question) that 3♣ should be viewed as artificial and 2♦ as natural. Thanks for your advice about the inappropriateness of the use of either of these two bids to show a 5-5 in majors in the auction as originally described. This thread really is best laid to rest, but I do feel the need to defend myself nonetheless. It was NOT MY CHOICE to use either of these two bids, it was my partners decision! She was the one that bid the 3♣. And after the hand was played out she informed me that her 3♣ bid was intended as Michaels. Again, I do realize that Michaels was entirely NOT appropriate in this situation, but my confusion (and question) lay in the fact that IF SHE HAD INTENDED TO BID MICHAELS I would have expected to hear 2♦, as my understanding and interpretation of Michaels is/was that the suit FIRST bid by opponents is the one to be raised. In this case that suit was ♦. But it appears I was wrong ... no problem, I've been wrong before and that is how we all learn ... by making mistakes. In this case, I just wish my lesson would have been served up with a little more tolerance by those who frequent these forums.

and from RichMor Seriously folks, no disrespect intended, but (if you're going to introduce equivalents here such as the 16HCP balanced hand example) let me introduce my own equivalent. Your responses to my original question have been akin to this ... JOE: Hey Mike, I'm buying a new car. I can only afford the Chevrolet or the Pontiac. Which do you think I should buy? MIKE: Joe, if I were you I'd buy the BMW. Good evening gentle folk and have a good night.

I don't disagree with anybody that Michaels is NOT appropriate and that neither response (within the confines of the bridge world) is appropriate. BUT, try to confine yourself to considering ONLY the use of Michaels. My partners intent (over which I HAD NO CONTROL) was to open her hand using Michaels Cue Bid. In that context, one of my two "either/or" options has to be MORE correct than the other. Which is it?

OK, one last attempt and then I am really gone. Please understand folks, I am NOT trying to be deliberately argumentative here. I started the thread trying to learn something and asked what I thought was a simple question. Please teach me, I am eager to learn! In the context of Michaels and ONLY in that context .... after (1♦) - P - (2♣) what is the BETTER of the responses - 3♣ or 2♦. Please note ... the question is NOT what is the MOST appropriate response, but of ONLY the two choices given (and given that my partner CHOSE and INTENDED to use Michaels - rightly or wrongly) which is the MORE (again NOT most) appropriate response?

No. I'm beginning to think people are being deliberately obtuse here ... I asked an either/or ( a pick one of these two) question and the reply I get is NO?

No indeed! I play both, as did my partner in this scenario ... at least according to her BBO profile. And had she bid 2NT I would have understood. That was the point of my original question ... not whether Michaels was appropriate in the situation or not. My partner (beyond my control) chose to describe her hand (which held 5-5 in majors) with Michaels. Her bid after (1♦) - P - (2♣) was 3♣. The original question was, considering her intent to bid Michaels, was 3♣ a correct bid or would 2♦ have been better?

and also from awm It is getting very frustrating here, but I will give it one last attempt. After that I will probably be gone from here abandoning all hope of ever learning anything in these forums. Let me try, once again, to make it clear ... my question is not IF Michaels should be applied but HOW Michaels should be applied. Let me try to draw a completely different (and entirely arbitrary) scenario here and pose my question once more ... [hv=d=s&v=e&n=shd765432cakqjt98&w=shakqjt98765432dc&e=sakqjt98765432hdc&s=shdakqjt98c765432]399|300|[/hv] You are East. The bidding goes like this ... South - 1♦ West (for some inexplicable reason) - PASS North - 2♣ Your bid! Despite the obvious advantages to your bidding 7♠ at this point, I am standing behind you (kibitzing) with a loaded gun in my hand pointed against the back of your head and I say "Bid Michaels Cue Bid and do it in such a manner that, regardless of who your partner is and regardless of their skill level, they are MOST LIKELY TO UNDERSTAND your bid to mean Michaels describing your hand as 5-5 in majors or you are a dead man!". What is your bid?