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?

Well, with no disrespect intended towards anyone, I have to say I am beginning to agree with the comments from the original poster at this other topic/thread http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=28203 This discussion is rapidly going off topic (and way over my head) in that the replies are geared towards how the hand should have been bid and whether or not the use of Michaels was justified/correct in the situation given. Perhaps I did not phrase my original question clearly enough, but the original situation, as given, was that East (rightly or wrongly ) decided to apply Michaels to describe her hand. Given that this was a "pickup" partner and that we HAD NO PRIOR understanding or agreement, my only question was, was it correct of her to expect me to interpret 3♣ as Michaels or would 2♦ have been a more descriptive/accurate/correct/conventional bid? To repeat and clarify, the auction went like this, with South as dealer ... South - 1♦ West(Me) - Pass North - 2♣ East(My Partner and our Partnerships Opening Bid) - 3♣ South - Pass West - ?

My original question was regarding the correct (or normally accepted - if there is such a thing) usage of Micheals CueBid in this situation. Now, if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that Michaels should not even be used at all in this situation. I'm getting more confused by the second ;)

Well I consider myself as a "beginning" intermediate, and clearly I had no idea what the answer was either! ;) But the question remains ... can anyone point me to a resource (preferably online) where I can read/research further to find out what would be considered "standard" or "normal" in this situation when the partnership has no specific prior understanding or agreement regarding use of the convention? Or, is there just no such thing as "standard" in this situation?

I feel like a complete novice asking this question, but I have searched several sources and have not found an answer nor have I found any specific examples of this situation. The specifics of the hand are not important, just looking for rules (or guidelines) in how to correctly use Michaels CueBid in this situation. I was playing with a "pickup" partner in a tourney at BBO. Dealer is South, and opens 1♦. I am West and Pass. North responds 2♣. East has 5-5 in the majors. What is the correct cuebid -- is it 3♣ or 2♦? Actual results :D South passed after East's 3♣ bid, I was confused (and did what I always do when confused) and passed. North also passed. Result=E3♣-7 vulnerable -- it was a most humbling experience. Thankfully my partner was gracious enough to reply with a "npp - we'll do better next time". Had East bid 2♦ I would have interpreted THAT (rightly or wrongly) as Michaels. What should the bidding have been?

Quantumcat, even if ♥ and ♦ splits are against you, you take 3♥ 5♦ and your 2 black Aces for a total of 10 tricks = 3NT+1. If the splits are better you may have 1 or 2 overtricks B) EDIT: After some further thought .... Cover ♥ lead with ♥9 from dummy. If RHO does not drop ♥T you just scored an extra ♥ trick. Otherwise take trick in hand with ♥K or Q. If dummy wins, you lead small ♦ to Ace and return to dummy with ♥'s, or if you take trick in hand, then lead ♦A and return to dummy with ♥'s. Either way, the ♥A and J in dummy give you 2 returns to dummy, which is what you need should the ♦J not fall.

Take the ♥ lead in hand with Q or K. Play Ace of ♦ from hand. Return to dummy with a small ♥ from the hand to J. Play the rest of the ♦'s. If ♦J does not drop, you give it out, and regain lead with whatever. Return to dummy with ♥ Ace and cash the rest of your winners.

Thanks for the responses and apologies to the experts to whom the answer seems so obvious ... perhaps my question was better suited to the Beginners and Intermediate (of which I am one) Bridge Discussion forum. I will try to be more aware next time I post. Here is the entire hand layout ... I encountered it last night in a tournament I was playing in at BBO. [hv=d=s&v=e&n=s8763hj8dak9ck753&w=sj42ht9643dt6cq86&e=sakt95h7d74caj942&s=sqhakq52dqj8532ct]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] There were 80 tables in the tourney and not one single East used Michaels Cue Bid after the 1♥ opening by South (there were about 3 or 4 tables where South opened 1♦). Of the 80 tables only 2 ended the auction with the final contract held by East/West. One ended up at 3♣xW-1 and the other at 3♠E+1. And they only managed to bid to that because North responded 2♣ to South's opening bid allowing East to bid a natural 2♠. Although I also list Michaels Cue Bid in my repertoire, I was unaware that it could be used in fourth seat after LHO opens ... it seems many other "self rated" advanced and expert players in that particular tourney were unaware of that as well :(

Dealer South E/W Vulnerable Scoring - Matchpoints You are East and hold ... ♠AKT95 ♥7 ♣AJ942 ♦74 South opens 1♥, your partner passes, North bids 1♠. What do you say?

Still a "relative" newbie here ... been playing at BBO since this past March. I have played at tables in both Main and Relaxed Lounges, have played in lots of Individual and Pairs tourneys, and have dabbled a bit with $Money Bridge. But what is a Team Match and how do they work? What do I/we need to do/know in order to participate?

Our partnership would have south opening 2♣ with this hand. Using Steps, north would reply 2♠ to indicate 7-9 HCP. At this point, and with his distribution, south realizing partnership holds at most 28-31 HCP between them would sign off with 3NT. North would correct to 4♥ and if south's holding was less than 3 card ♥ support he would pass. North's correction of 4♥ promises at least 6♥'s in his hand. But now, knowing a nine-card fit exists, south could/would explore for slam using Blackwood RKC and would likely end up at a 6♥ contract. And north, now knowing that South would not have explored for slam without at least 3 card support for ♥, and being NV, can gamble and raise to 7♥ knowing the actual fit is a 10 card fit. Still not scientific, but more often than not, it would get our partnership to where we want to be :D