athene

I find this sort of hand really hard; it's possible to construct layouts where all sorts of things work, but I don't have any good intuitive feel for what will work best on balance. I suppose partner has doubled because he has the diamonds and spades held and hopes the hand won't play well (also he might hope a double with short hearts will deceive declarer). I constructed some layouts where everyone is sort of sane; i.e. partner has a singleton heart but some stuff in spades (A10xx, K10xx). If he has a heart honour, the contract is usually down whatever I do. Otherwise, if he has a doubleton club it's making and if he has a singleton club I need to cash the other club, so I continue with the ♣A.

Play the default as scramble and just agree specific auctions where it's Leb. I don't think there are many where it shld be Leb. (Opps open 2M is the main one.) One point is that if you play scramble, you can use that to show strength/not for the highest-ranking suit which is often the unbid major and what you need. So for example: Opps have some weird auction to 2♠ and pd doubles. 2NT is scramble. Now if you bid 3♥ that is definitely good with hearts. If you had bad with hearts you would bid 2NT scramble, pass if pd bid 3♥, and pull anything else he bid to 3♥.

I guess I am coming to this a bit late but I have done a lot of work on various systems of this type, looking at all the possibilities, optimised for different things like rightsiding, memory, shapes out low, etc. I am not sure which parts of the system are things you actively wanted and which have been forced on you. i.e. Did you start out saying "we want to play a 15+ 1♣ with shape relays over all openings, and we want all non-freak shapes to come out under 3NT, and preferably as low as possible" and then just see where that led given the ACBL licensing rules? Or did you say "we want to play a strong club with a weak notrump and 4-card majors?" You seem to be trying to optimise just the last small degree of freedom you have left but my first instinct is to 'back off' a bit and ask ok, what are the most important (non-negotiable) features and what are you prepared to change? Bill Frisby

If you are going to play for AKx hearts with opener, just go to dummy and lead the heart, and if he ducks, OVERTAKE then a small heart, bingo.

It's a pain to have the computer tied up for about a minute whilst the browser loads, which on my system is what happens. (No, I haven't got anything set up wrong; my computer is just very old.)

Hi - when a tournament ends, BBO spawns an instance of my web browser to go to the results page. Does anyone know if it's possible to disable this? Thanks Bill Frisby

Hi, When I thought of this question I thought it wasn't very interesting because it seemed a "no-brainer" to me, but then I asked two people and between us we covered all three possibilities, so I guess it's not so clearcut :blink: Imagine you are going to play with your regular partner in a big teams event. You can have any pair in the world you like to substitute in for you in ONE area of the game:- bidding, declarer play, or defence. The rest of the time they sit out. So if you choose bidding, they bid the hands then you have to play them (or defend them), etc. What area would you choose? Feel free to name your preferred pair if you like although that's not so important.

Fred suggests:- (1♠) Pass (1NT) Pass (2♠) Pass (Pass) X Frances suggests:- (1♥) Pass (4♥) Pass (Pass) X [and other similar sequences] These have something in common: you had the chance to act over the denomination earlier and didn't. (OK, in Fred's example you declined acting over 1NT rather than a spade bid, but since X there is t/o of spades, it comes to the same thing, pretty much.) There are other situations like these, where such 2-way doubles might work. The basic idea is that if you pass then come in, you either must have a huge trap or a very shapely light t/o. You can't have a lot of the middling hands, so ambiguity is reduced. How about:- 1♣ (1♠) Pass (2♠) Pass (Pass) X or (1♠) Pass (2♥) Pass (3♥) Pass (4♥) X Having mentioned this, I must say I am not a big fan of two-way doubles because you just can't ever rely on opps to have the fit they claim to have. I constantly see people bid to the 2-level with 11-card fits or the 3-level with 7 (even 6)-card fits :)

I'm afraid don't know much about it - I haven't read the Roman Club book; there might be some stuff in there about it. In the 1966 Bermuda Bowl final, Board 81, this hand came up:- [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sj10haq54da82c9842&w=skq865hj10d10643caq&e=sa42hk98dq9ckj1075&s=s973h7632dkj75c63]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] North was Lew Mathe and opened 1♥; East, Belladonna, doubled. Now South (Hamman) psyched 1♠. West, Avarelli, couldn't show spades and strength easily - if he had doubled it would have meant the same as bidding 1♠, which would have been SHORT spades. So he just bid 1NT and they missed game. Belladonna said it was Avarelli's fault not the system's. Not that this really answers your question - sorry :)

Perhaps you are thinking of the t/o doubles in the Roman Club system played by Belladonna-Avarelli in the Blue Team? They used to make offshape t/o doubles and advancer started with his shortest suit. I think they had some problems with it especially with opps psyching and some of the other Blue Team members tried to get them to drop it but Belladonna was convinced it was sound.

Your spade shortage is more important than your fifth diamond, I think. If partner has ♠xx or ♠xxx, his decision to bid on over 4♠ is often tipped by whether you have two spades or one (or none). It's easy to say "partner, with three spades, will know you have a singleton" but in my experience, if you deduce partner's shortage because of a fit the opponents ought to have, you get killed a large proportion of the time when they don't have that fit.

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=s74h5dkq10942c8765&w=sakj853hk6djckq93&e=sq10haj98da865ca104&s=s962hq107432d73cj2]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] North opens 2♦. I was East and passed (borderline I thought but I have little playing strength and not good diamonds - with just slightly better spots I have excellent chances for a double stop and would bid 2NT). Partner balanced with double, I bid 3♦, he bid 3♠, I bid 3NT and there we played, for 720. Obviously it's easy to point out some deficiencies in that auction :lol: Partner and I had zero agreements, which didn't help. I was just wondering whether it would be possible to bid the good grand and know what was going on. How should the bidding should go after North opens 2♦?

Hi, If you open 1NT and they overcall in a natural suit, it's better to play double for T/O. If you are really happy with penalty doubles here then OK, but I would recommend not. If they overcall something artificial, that's where it gets murky. People often double the artificial bid just to "show values" but it's not enough just to agree this. You have to agree what your subsequent actions mean. For example, if opponents bid something else, is pass forcing? Is a new suit forcing? Is double penalties? I would recommend playing like this:- If they overcall 2♣, just play "system on". So double is Stayman and all other bids are as though no intervention. If they overcall 2♦+ natural, double is T/O from both sides. If they overcall 2♦+ artificial, double just shows values, and when they bid on, double is still T/O from both sides. If they overcall 2♦+ artificial and you pass and then double later on, that's also T/O.

Meckstroth in his book ('Win the Bermuda Bowl with me') says that opening 2NT on balanced 19-counts isn't something that is particularly desirable but they do it because it solves other problems in their system. Basically after 1♣ - 1♦ they don't use 1♥ as a strong relay so they would have trouble with all the balanced hands otherwise - especially as they like to play tight ranges for all NT bids. Designing a strong club relay system you are best-off sorting out everything else and then thinking "what hands am I stuck with?" and trying to use 2NT for those. This is better than hunting for germ warfare for 2NT, since (as has been pointed out) most destructive uses aren't that wonderful. For example I use 2NT as 10-15 HCP and 7+ hearts in my current relay system as I can't unwind all the extreme shapes after opening 1♥ (my 1♥ opener is 1♠ ;) ). If you really want a "fun" use for 2NT, play it as 5/5 with hearts and a minor. Good for pre-empting spades, and you have a bit of room to invite (3♣ pass/correct, 3♦ = game-try in hearts for example).

A clear 2♠ in my opinion. Not only can partner have lots of hands which will make game easily, but if you pass, you let opponents in and then you have to go to 3♠ anyway.

How many sane people have you tested this theory on? Think of it as a postulate, not a theory. I have read both Truscott and Reese and whatever other material I could find on Buenos Aires 1965 and I am 95% convinced Reese-Schapiro WEREN'T cheating. The basic thrust of the prosecution's argument goes like this:- 1. We have accused them of cheating. 2. If they are innocent, then all of us who accuse them must be liars and conspirators. 3. Therefore, if you maintain their innocence, that's tantamount to accusing us of dishonesty. 4. Everyone should be innocent until proven guilty. 5. Therefore, since you haven't proven we are guilty, we are innocent. 6. Therefore, our charges are true. 7. Therefore, Reese-Schapiro cheated. The simple fact is, people will see what they want to see. I am sure Reese and Schapiro annoyed a lot of people. I only met Schapiro a few times and never met Reese but they both seem to have been pretty unpleasant characters. I am sure they annoyed a lot of people. A lot of people, I am sure, WANTED them to be guilty. But believing these accusations is like believing all the people who claim they have been abducted by aliens. They aren't *lying* - they really believe they have been - but they are self-delusional. People who are told "R-S are cheating; watch their fingers and see if they tally with this list of heart suit distributions" and report back that yes, magically the numbers tally, aren't necessarily lying, but it's naive to think they have proved anything. The only compelling evidence would the equivalent of a double-blind trial (as used in drugs testing, etc). i.e. give ALL the hand records of the competition to a strong bridge player who doesn't know ANY of the surrounding details. Then ask him: "which of all these pairs playing in this event are signalling length in the heart suit?" If that player, JUST from the hand records, says "clearly pair X, playing for team Y, are up to something", then there might be a case.

Even though 2♣ will often work out, the real cost comes in the future when you find partner stretching to respond to your 2♣ overcalls with not much, just in case you have a billion HCP, and you keep going down in things when it's your hand.

I think Cascade missed the point about JLall's decision simply to keycard for spades. Yes, if you are off the ♦AK, you are probably losing imps by bidding slam [i.e. it will make less than 50% of the time]. But that's not the point. Your main equity from the 'crude' approach comes from keeping the auction simple and getting to slam when all the 'disciplined' / 'scientific' / whatever bidders are fiddling around with strange distortions like 3♣ and not getting anywhere and the slam is cold. You are accepting that you might end up in slam off ♦AK diamonds. That will sometimes - even often - cost you. But you get a good proportion of that back when you actually make the slam anyway. That's all that "making 6♠ off ♦AK" does - it just helps out your percentage.

Yes, the suggested line is basically working. The cards were how you are imagining - LHO had ♣J10x and you just have to be careful to avoid any silly overruffs. Maybe this hand is less interesting than I thought - I tied myself in knots trying to combine chances and duly went down. :)

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=st3hkq43dajt96ca2&s=saj6hajt52d7ckq65]133|200|Scoring: Total Points You open 1♥ and reach 7♥ with no opposition bidding. Lead is ♣J. I thought there were two possible lines: * Pitch a spade on a club and try to ruff three black losers in dummy * Reverse dummy and set up diamonds. (If you play trumps, West turns up with three. If you play ♦A, diamond ruff West drops the ♦K.) [/hv]

I am not that convinced (Martel does go on in that interview to say that he gave up playing the defence since it was a lot of hassle for not much upside, basically). I think the main problem is passing with your 1major openers. For example, suppose it goes: (1♣) P (1♠) P (2♠) ? And you have a 1♥ opener? You are really making life hard for yourself. Much nicer to be able to show the hearts right away. It seems to me he gives up too much to pass with a whole host of good and reasonably-good hands in order to use ALL high bids as pre-empts and sometimes get in a later penalty double when they walk into his suit (this isn't going to happen much).

I think it's very close between doubling and getting partner to pick a slam. Perhaps it depends exactly how often partner is likely to pull a double and/or how aggressive opponents are. We might also get a bit of extra value from opponents saccing in 6 (7?) hearts - again helps to know them.

2♦. No 11 count, no aces, no spots, no trick source. If partner does something over 2♦ - ok, then I might admit to having a 10 count. A more interesting problem is what you bid if partner continues with 3♣ over 2♦, perhaps.

OK thanks... just as long as it wasn't us doing something silly, that's fine :) Bill

Hi, I have a friend with a Mac who uses the Flash version of BBO. All is fine with normal play but when I serve a teaching table and she plays or kibitzes, she encounters lots of problems. She doesn't get the right cards and the bidding isn't updated properly. Is this a known problem? Thanks, Bill Frisby ("athene")