wank

I was told that there are also players who would rather overcall after RHO opens 1♠ with ♠Qx then with ♠x because they hope that their overcall will make you finesse through their partner? you've been reading too many books. that's just something zia said in a money game to try and psyche out the oppo.

IMO Double will work more often than other calls and Gnasher's example ♠ Axx(x) ♥ Ax ♦ Jxx(x) ♣ Axx(x) illustrates why. Opposite your ♠ Kx ♥ xx ♦ Qxx ♣ KQxxxx 3N is excellent and partner may bid it, especially if your responsive double denies four ♠s. 3♥X is will probably be defeated by two tricks. Higher contracts by either side are against the odds. really? i see 3hX rolling home on this magical layout Two rounds of hearts to start (no double-dummy leads please) if clubs are 3-1 declarer has the tempo to establish 2 spades giving him, 2 spades, 2 diamonds, 5 hearts. plus anyway, the diamonds are probably frozen for the defence. double is a great bid for BBO vugraph commentators - seeing all the hands it allows you to find the right contract and, if relevant, the right defence. back in the real world, it's not remotely descriptive.

lesser players will often not know relatively low cards are winners. if it was an ace missing, the argument is reasonably sound. if one of the winners was for example, the 13th heart, e.g. the 8, i would think the argument ridiculous.

is it permitted to play part scores on this forum? 4c is a free bid at the 4 level ffs. it shows a good hand. if partner has enough to make 5c, he can bid.

and i've seen bridgemates millions of times, and seen them set up and working correctly about once.

Lol. Thanks. The 3H bidder was me. I'm used to playing with people for whom a second in hand red [unfavourable in american, i believe] weak 2 is tantamount to an acol 2. this partner and i had only played about twice before.

good players plan the bidding and play because they are good players and forsee the problems which might arise. bad players don't think so far ahead. it may be poor play, but i wouldn't call it terrible, especially if it was referring to any ethical/legal aspects.

It's UI now, but will surely be getting sufficiently strong AI as soon as partner bids again. When partner's next bidding box card is laid down on the table next to his original pass you will be woken up to the fact that he passed as dealer. You will then have AI that you misbid and that partner is likely to have interpreted your call as if it was opposite a pass. Yes, the UI removes the prospect that your partner mistakenly put a non-systemic, 3rd meaning to the bid, but that's a negligible chance, so the AI is sufficiently strong to make the UI meaningless. To rule that the information remains unauthorised would be to say that you can see partner's subsequent bidding cards without seeing his adjacent original pass card. For the nit-picking amongst you, this presupposes bidding boxes. If using ye olde fahioned silent bidders, then yes it's unauthorised and would remain so, unless another player asked for a review of the bidding. I suppose in theory, the player would be woken up if he had good reason to ask for a review of the bidding himself, but it would be a little tricky to convince the director he wasn't just asking to allow himself to be woken up - a subsquent insufficient bid or a player exposing his own psyche maybe?

I had this situation a while ago.... One player revoked during the play, repeatedly ruffing a suit. Eventually, declarer (my partner) got to the stage where she could claim. She did so. The opponents accepted. The play had made perfect sense. It wasn't a situation where the revoker needed to have started with a maximum of 11 cards or some such. The revoke therefore never came to the attention of the non-offenders until the hand records were reviewed that night in the bar. The revoker was a sponsor. His partner is a globe-trotting professional. Assuming the globetrotting pro was aware of his partner's revoking (100% imo bearing in mind he saw declarer's hand following the claim), does he have any duty to comment? If the sponsor became aware of his own revoke, does he have a duty to point it out? The match was actually on BBO vugraph (good luck inputting the play of the cards), should this have any impact? I suspect the answer is they can keep schtum. When I queried the matter with the directors, I was told that I should check my opponents' cards to look for revokes after the board. I was a trifle shocked by this. Firstly, people frequently put their hands back in the board immediately and I was once told it was technically not allowed to remove them again, unless told to do so by a director (is that true? the person who told me this was a director, albeit a club one.) Secondly, and more importantly, asking to check one's opponents cards after every hand would seem incredibly rude.

2cXX scores more than game imo

i like the mini. i just meant it's a little too dangerous to open a mini in some spots, obviously. and as i said i don't want to play variable because that involves 2 sets of sequences. so in those situations when it's too dangerous to open a mini, 1nt is unused and can offer greater definition to other bids. i'm very happy to have a very loose 1D and keep the mini in the safer positions. colo, you're right i didn't spot the small 11d8 section, so any series of replays is possible, despite what i said before. and yes we're opening 1D with 12-15 bal in those spots. , as for the rest of the system, 5cM, 2/1 GF, nearly forcing NT, 16+ 1C, 2C 6+ clubs no maj or 4-5+, 2D weak 1 major, 2h 3 suited short diamonds, 2S 4s 5+C, 2NT 5-5 mins 12-14(15) i could play 1NT as 4S and a longer minor, freeing up a 2 opener for something destructive (dump 2S). this would have the added advantage of making the 2H opener guarantee 4H. then i'd get all the relay possibilites as opener would have denied 4S in an unalanced hand (i can find somewhere to stick 4441).

the 2C opening having a 4cM was always a bit crap in my experience - you miss a lot of major fits especially part-scores or when opps intervene. i realise the 4S-5D hand isn't a problem. it was more the idea of of freeing up the 1D-1H-1S rebid and effectively the 1D-1S response, allowing a relay based approach which interested me. As I said relays need to be GF or sub-GF to be legal, so something like this: 1D - 1H = relay,upto invitational values 1D - 1S = relay, GF 1D - 1NT = nf, 5+spades I've never developed my own relays, so there's a good chance this is an absolutely absurd idea.

Playing precision with a 10-13 NT, 5cM, 2C 6+ no 4cM, we don't want to be opening 1NT in a lot of positions/vuls. Could open a stronger NT in these positions but that would involve learning 2 sets of rebids and whatever. As my 1D opener is pretty overloaded (including 1435, 2425, x4x6 hands etc) I was thinking of taking something out of it. I'm only thinking of constructive options. A simple option would be a lond diamond opener, similar to a precision 2C. This would be good in terms of pre-emption and frequency and would certainly simplify bidding these hands, especially awkward 6-3 of partner's major hands, but on the whole 6 card diamond hands are not the most problematic, so is it a bit of a waste of time? If so, what might you suggest instead? We are playing 2S opener as 4S 5+C . We could for example take 4S 5+D hands out of 1D instead which would lead to all sorts of interesting relay possibilities for 1D - 1M. However, 1M relays in my area must be only 1 of negative/semi-negative (not defined but let's say this means below a GF) or GF. We could play a sort of reverse Roman 1NT (am i misusing the name?) for 4H 5+C which would in connection with the 2S opener, massively relieve the stress on 1D, but that seems like a bit of a waste on frequency grounds. Suggestions? Thanks

i'd prefer to run the small risk missing 7 than wrong side it. how would you feel about partner's 5s response on AKQxxxxx Qx xx x with a diamond lead?

this hand came up in the english premier league, which is effectively the english trials. it's a league, not a knock-out so random punts have less merit than normal. i would bid 5♥ too, albeit unhappily. the bid chosen at the table was 7♥. partner had AQxxxx Akxxx x A. with a few sporting major suit breaks 7♥ proved to be cold. what's your reaction?

1 response later and the problem was found. you do have quite a good hand, even for a free 5 level bid. anyway, this isn't the real point. a few more replies and i'll explain.

Kx Q10x Axx QTxxx All vul 2D - 4D - 5D to you

not true on this auction. A slow 5♦ wouldn't imply anything in particular. Surely the most likely explanation for a hesitation would be choosing between Xing and supporting.

No reason 3♠ should necessarily be setting trumps for 2 reasons. Firstly, playing this opening structure, responder would need to bid this way with a slammish hand 4-4 in spades and diamonds, so even if you assume 3♠ guarantees 3♠ that shouldn't be setting trumps. Secondly, why can't 3♠ just be a game probe? Would you be happy bidding 3NT on KQ Jxx Axx AKJxx? Obviously you would need to enquire a little to find how these people bid such hands, which is admittedly often a pointless process as people who can't work out which bids are legal and which aren't, are unlikely to have thought a great deal about the subtleties of the 3rd round of the auction.

partner isn't guaranteed to have a penalty pass and even if he does, our defensive contribution may very total 1 trick and we're going to get the wrong lead, so i don't want to double. if he doesn't have a penalty pass and the bidding goes XX - 2♦ - X or some such we'll feel a trifle sick that we forgot to bid our AKQxx.

that's not true. the framework is as I wrote it above. individual conventions can be licensed as well. this is outside the framework.

Well, as per the title of this section of the BBO forum, it's for international laws, so one would hope it's possible to get a less biased response here than communicating with the EBU committee whose response might be influenced by politics. I don't consider your reply to be very constructive, which is sad considering I saw that you're one of the moderators for this section of the forum. Do you write to all the original committee members before you comment on a hand posted in the appeals section? Do you write to the original director who gave a reported decision with which you diagree, in case there's some relevant extraneous information? With regard to your criticism of the word 'random' with regard to this convention's licensing, the fact that it's not a popular convention - I've never played against anyone using it - but it is one of only 2 WBF HUM methods to have got licenses (the other of which, the nebulous minor, is a common convention, albeit in an uncommon context) does appear random to me. A parallel could be drawn with the multi 2 diamonds. defending against which was considered too complex for players under the EBU's old system intermediate level of conventions [level 3], but which was allowed by the EBU specifically because it was popular. If this convention is not considered to be too complex to defend against, then there is no reason why the entire raft of 1 level openings can't be relaxed, for example why not a Stevenson 1♥ - 1 bid lower so easier to defend against in theory, or a stevenson 1♦/♣ showing an opening bid with the longest suit being a major. On the other hand, if it is complex to defend against, why is it given an exception when it's obviously not very popular (I would be shocked if this convention had crossed the threshold into being considered 'popular')? I have no problem with the licensing of this convention per se, as I would much prefer an anything goes approach. However, whatever the rules are, they should be applied consistently.

had to wait until someone bid 6h - that was my unsuccessful choice. partner has kx kxxxxx xx xxx. 6♥x is 800. you've got 2 bangers and the K♠ against 5♠. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx i'm pleased a trump was the most popular lead v 5♦x though - that's the same 550 i conceded, as would a club be. declarer did rather well to guess spades. as it happens, +100 wouldn't have been much of a victory - teamies sold to 4♥ unlightnered so that made. _ [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sj9xhkjxxdxckqjxx&w=sk10xxhxxdkxxcaxxx&e=sqxxxhxxdaqj10xxxc&s=saxhaqtxxdxxc109xx]399|300|[/hv]

I noticed on the EBU website that there is a random convention which has been licensed called the 'Stevenson Spade' whereby a 1♠ opener shows an opening bid in which one of the minors is the longest suit, and which says nothing about the majors. This would be a HUM according to the WBF. There is only one other WBF HUM allowed by the EBU: a nebulous minor opener in a non-strong minor system. It's obvious why this might be allowed - people are relatively well exposed to precision 1♦ and the lack of a strong minor opening shouldn't make a great deal of difference. On the other hand, I can see no reason whatsoever why an exception should be made for this Stevenson Spade. If I'm not mistaken there is an EBU Laws and Ethics committee member called Stevenson. Obviously the 2 might not be connected, but if they were that would be more than a trifle suspicious and would lead to some to conclude that the committee isn't very impartial. Perhaps someone could shed some light on that. Either way, perhaps you could comment on how justifiable you consider the licensing of this convention within the wider EBU approach to the licensing of 1M openings which is as follows:- Agreeing to open 1 of a suit is permitted if it promises 4+ cards in a specified suit, forcing or not. Agreeing to open 1 of a major is permitted on any hand if it's forcing and promises a hand conforming to extended rule of 25. Agreeing to open 1 of a major is permitted to show a [semi-]balanced hand in a specified range but must not be forcing.

in general we play fit jumps. no particular agreement for the actual auction, unsurprisingly. that would definitely only be 4d though - no chance of p taking 5d as fit too