Little Kid

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but how about this regarding BBO ratings: Compare the results of players with tables where similar skill levels are displayed (or maybe average the table's level). If people keep getting good results, maybe they should increase their rating to compare with stronger tables. If they keep getting bad results they can reduce it to get roughly average. I assume nobody wants to keep getting minus IMPs just so they can put expert in their profile. It seems like a fair way to assess skill level yourself without having all the issues of blaming partners for poor skill levels you get assigned by a formula. Also you can just put Private if you don't want to bias comparison. It definitely isn't perfect but I would imagine people might end up putting up more realistic skill levels. Now everyone just puts "Expert" so that they don't get rejected from every table they try to join (while they are often intermediate at best). I don't even know if it is possible to implement this or how much it would slow down the rate at which tables get compared though? Any thoughts?

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sakt64h6dq84ckt76&w=s53ht95dakj532c85&e=sq7hkqj7432d9cj93&s=sj982ha8dt76caq42]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

Matchpoints are lame :)

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sakt64h6dq84ckt76&s=sj982ha8dt76caq42]133|200|Scoring: MP Pass-(3♦)-All Pass[/hv] Anyone to blame for NS getting a bottom?

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=s52ht62dxxxxxc873]133|100|Scoring: MP 1♣-(3♦)-Pass-(Pass) X-(Pass) - ?[/hv] Would you pass this kind of hand? Does it depend on the spots in ♦s? What is the minimum kind of hand with which you are willing to sit out the double in these situations?

2♠ right away, problem solved :lol: Preempt wth preemptive hands.

I am not sure but I think 2NT would have been inv+ and 4+♠ for the pair I was kibitzing. I was assuming: 2♠: simple ♠ raise 2N: inv+ 4+♠ 3♣: Nat GF 3♦: Nat GF 3♥: inv+ 3♠ 3♠: preemptive etc..

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=skthj94dq8ckj9852]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♠-(2♥)-?[/hv]

I guess it depends on whether you play attitude as showing or asking? Never really thought about this, just assumed with no big cards I would discourage. It is interesting though.

♣

I would give count here too.

When dummy came down after the bidding she started sighing and then played her contract :lol: I mentioned something about trust in her declarer play which seemed to work as an excuse :P

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sq852hk753dajt63c]133|100|Scoring: MP 1♦-(Pass)-2♣-(Pass) 2♦ - (X) - 2♥ - (Pass) ?[/hv] Your are playing at the local club against one of the better pairs. Although maybe a tad lighter than your usual openings you decide to open 1♦, showing 4+ ♦s. The auction proceeds, 2♣ being 10+ natural. What do you bid now? Double showed the majors and points.

The way I think about it, signals are given in this order: attitude > count > suit preference. Although not perfect it seems like a reasonable way to start signalling for a beginner as you can apply it in many situations. Partner leads a suit: tell him whether you like it or not by playing a low or high spot card if the trick is already won by a big card. If dummy can win partner's suit with something like a Jack, you usually won't have higher honours so now I would give count as it rates to be more useful to partner (he also knows you don't have higher honours). Once partner knows both count and attitude in a suit, you can still make use of your cards for extra info like suit preference. If partner is running a suit and you want him to switch to a higher suit later, play your spot cards from the top. Declarer leads a suit: give count because attitude is usually fairly straightforward. If he is ruffing the suit in a suit contract we have stuff in it, if he plays it in NT he has cards in it. Count tends to be more useful in situations where declarer leads a suit compared to attitude (eg. for holding up a high card vs NT). Once again if partner has a clear idea about count, you can still play suit preference on the run of the suit if you had something like xxxx. This is quite a simplified version though because there are situations where one signal takes precedence over another. For instance cashout situations mean suit preference is more important than count. When certain information has been found out from the bidding it is no longer necessary to repeat that information in your carding, like Phil's example of the Weak 2 preempt and dummy tabling a 4card suit. Nonetheless they seem quite general guidelines and most of the time you'll know what partner's cards mean if you are on the same wavelength. As for the lead of the Ace I am not very sure as I never played anything but std or udca carding. If I agreed to play attitude on Ace I would give attitude when he leads the Ace :D If you play the Ace as asking attitude, wouldn't your partner have played the K from AK if he was interested in count? Situations where I think attitude would no longer apply is when dummy shows up with the Q, marking partner with AK and thus also making your attitude clear. Another might be when you see a singleton in dummy, partner is probably more interested what he should switch to than whether you think his Ace pleases you or not.

Without agreements I would assume: no, no and yes. I haven't the slightest clue what people on BBO would play it as.

1NT. I don't want to miss game by rebidding 2♣. Not opening 1NT on these hands also makes my 2m rebids less descriptive.

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sak9765432hqt8d5c]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♦ - 1♠ 3NT* - ? * 3NT: Good 6-7 card suit, semi-bal hand with unbid suits usually stopped. You respond very light to openers and his strength is anywhere from a minimum GF to just under a 2♣ bid. Normally 6222, 6331, 7321 and 7222 shapes. [/hv] Do you agree with 1♠? What would you do if the auction proceeded like this?

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=sq8ha9542dk7ca742]133|100|Pass - 1♥ 1NT - ?[/hv] Opps silent.

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sa972hk92da97cqt6]133|100|Pass-1♣ 1♠ - 2♠ 2NT - ?[/hv] Three passes to you and you open 1♣. 1♣ can be 2, your raise always promises 4♠, 2NT is natural and invitational. What do you do at IMPs and MPs?

I would bid 3♠ too, gives partner much more information to work with in evaluating his hand again. If you can manage to get your void accross next you basically just need to know about keycards to find small or grand slam.

What are their leads and carding?

I'll ruff, I don't think LHO would have led his A♦ if he could have gone for a less risky ♣ lead. I think LHO has A♣. It seems odd that RHO didn't give his p a ♥ ruff if he has only 2, perhaps he has AK♥ doubleton? It would be kind of annoying if LHO got in with the ♣A and give his p a ♥ ruff.

Partner is of the "bid what we can make" school without giving too much info to the opponents. 4♣ and 4♦ would be splinters but I don't think not bidding either of them denies a shortage. It makes sense that 2♠ is a ♦ raise but we don't have firm agreements and am sure he would not bid it before agreeing it.

It looked like 1 or 5 to me at the table, a little surprised at all the 3NTs.

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sahat862daq75cq83]133|100|Scoring: MP (Pass) - 1♥ - (Pass) - 1NT* (Pass) - 2♦**-(Pass) - 5♦ (Pass) - ? *1NT = Forcing **2♦ = 4+♦[/hv] Your style is to open quite agressively (any 5-4 11 count qualifies). Partner will not play 2♠ as a good ♦ raise in this sequence.