mtvesuvius

Even 655321 has a Facebook page!

Doesn't matter. This is a queen ask that is unsure whether partner has 1 or 4 (Is that even possible?!)

This is why I prefer 1430 :P Anyway, it should be the ♠Q and the ♣K

I meant as long as the interference wasn't 2♣ or higher. Badly worded I suppose :)

I prefer to play it on as long as I can bid both 2♣ and 2♦, although I don't believe that is standard.

Me too -- And of course Lurpoa upvotes it!

No way, but it seems Lurpoa is!

I like 5♦ directly, since I just don't think I am going to get the information that I need from any other calls, and my later bidding may be tougher after 4♣ or 4♦, as is the case here. Given that I bid 4♣, which is not unreasonable, I'd like to try 4♠ now but I'm not so sure if it is a cuebid or still looking for the best game with a two or three card black-suit discrepancy (4117 or something -- Would that double 3♦ or bid 4♣?). If I think partner will read 4♠, then I'll try it... Otherwise I guess I would try Keycard and hope for the best. Over 4♠ if partner can't keycard or cuebid at this point, I think I let them play in 5♥. This is a tough problem IMO... Maybe I'll just sit there and wait until it goes away.

I play 2N as Scrambling or 2 Places to play in all these spots usually... Therefore I think I'd bid 3♣, and hope for the best. Tough problem though.

In that case, I would say playing with some good players, as well as doing some review/reading will help some. As Free said, this sounds like a concentration problem a bit as well.

I thought it would be fairly easy to scroll down. Apparently I was wrong.

97.564% irrelevant and 99.313% already covered in another thread. NOTE: My percentages may not be exactly accurate. I rounded down for elements of stupidity, and rounded up for carelessness.

He probably wants to know if there is any chance of defending 3N... If it shows an outside A/K, then trying to defend 3N has some merit, especially if the opponents tend to sit these things out -- LHO will pass "hoping" partner has a heart card, and RHO will pass hoping the same thing. It isn't likely, but certainly a consideration if it shows an outside card. I don't see any reason to complicate our decision of a large number of diamonds though. I'd bid 4♥.

I'm not really sure here... I haven't played any systems where 1M responses weren't forcing. Personally I prefer to play 2N as the 6m3M hand because I think that hand is much harder to bid. By giving it such a definitive definition, it allows for better bidding after 2N. I think if it were "any very good 3 card raise", it would be too hard to sort out what strain to play in below 3N, while still being able to sign off when responder is weak. Perhaps if 1M responses were limited it could work though, since there wouldn't be such thing as slam tries. I can't say from an experience standpoint, just a theory one.

Not everyone is a robot and counts losers. GIB seems to be more human than you if that's how you evaluate every hand.

It is probably strong enough to double and correct, however I think this is a similar principle to not opening 2♣ on a lot of two-suiters. If we double and correct here, we'll usually lose the club suit, or at least make it really hard to introduce it. I would start with 1♠, if I can survive the first round of bidding, I'll be able to show my hand quite well... If not, we may not have missed a game anyway. 1♠ then jumping in clubs for me.

I had a period like that about 8 months ago... It was right before I started doing some teaching work, as well as starting playing with a few new partners etc. For me, I just grinded out a bunch of hands and eventually was over it. Finding some new partners who were both much better than me, and much worse than me helped me improve a lot, and gave me a better general opinion of my skill level. The one thing I am still consistently at around 10% on is guesses for Queens. In the past year or so, I'd say it cost me roughly 50 platinum points -- Perhaps even winning the Fast Pairs. I'm sure that I'll eventually get over this, but until then I am virtually guaranteed to get a zero (or lose 12 IMPs) whenever a contract hinges on finding a queen. This is infinitely frustrating, and I'm honestly not sure other than just developing table feel by playing and maybe reading a bit, what else I can do. I wish I were able to improve my guessing skills, but it is a rut I'm currently in, and am having trouble getting out of. I do everything by playing though, so perhaps brushing up on some books and reading some would help as well -- For me I know it probably would not, however a little book review certainly never hurts. Regardless, sticking with it is important, even when it seems to be incredibly painful and annoying -- I had a session of a national pair event where I declared 8 contracts. Out of those 8, 6 of them depended on guesses for queens to make the contract or an overtrick (almost as important at MPs). If I were to flip a coin each time, I'd have been like 15th in the event. As it was, I got every single one wrong, and we didn't even place.

That's a very manageable way to do things with the current system, the trouble is that in order to see the picture, you have to be on the web version, and have to view the person's profile, although it certainly makes it easier for "at a glance" purposes. Sorry I left out K-S... I probably left out a few others that didn't come to mind last night.

The obligatory once a month posting about skill level obv... Anyway, I think having segregated rooms would be against the bridgebase theory and goal -- The self rating by itself is silly enough, splitting BBO up based on the ratings would be even sillier.

Over 1♦-1M-2N, I usually play: 3♣ -> 3♦ then: -- 3♦ is to play -- 3oM is GF with exactly 4M -- 3M is to play -- 3N is a quantitative invite 3♦ is natural and forcing 3oM is GF with 5+M (Usually a slam try) 3M is Invitational with 5+M 3N is to play However, this structure becomes completely irrelevant over 1♣, so perhaps it isn't nearly as useful unless playing precision. I use it whenever I play a strong club, so 1♦ is limited... Then the 2N bid is a little lighter, and therefore the need for the Invites/Signoffs IMO. In a 2/1 context I like Paul's structure a lot.

matmat beat me to it, but - LOL. I'll let you read matmat's post to explain why 2♦ is an infinitely awful bid.

I completely agree with this view. A structure like Paul's could be (with a reasonably small amount of effort) remembered at the table, whereas I could never play any of Don's gadgets, since most of the time they are in obscure and rare auctions that aren't broken anyway. I have a reasonably good memory (I have played three different relay systems IRL in the same day), but nowhere near enough to remember all the nuances and odd system things Don would use. If he can play them at the table and remember them all, as well as find a partner to do the same, more power to him. However most of us, including myself, find his ideas quite impractical and create a large system tax. Personally, instead of discussing 6 Keycard Blackwood in 2NT opening/overcall auctions, I think anyone's time would be better spent working on defensive or competitive agreements.

Personally I would never need or use this feature since I don't play pickup games on BBO, but IMO it is a very good idea and would greatly improve the experience for plenty of people while not ruining it for others. It seems like an improvement that has many ways to win and no ways to lose. A small symbol on a profile, quite similar to the number representing the number of MPs won, would work best IMO. Just one or two letter abbreviations are fine: P = Precision PC = Polish Club 2/1 = 2/1 STD = Standard American FP = Forcing Pass HM = Homegrown System O = Other SSSOFAGTIACGWAP = Several Small Species of Furry Animals Gathered Together In a Cave Grooving With a Pict etc...

3♠ is this auction should be a last train to 3NT type probe, basically saying that you don't have a heart fit and still want to leave 3N in the picture. I agree with your bidding up until 3♠ here... GIB's 4♠ is not unreasonable since a 4-3 spade fit may play very well here, although with such bad trumps, I think 4♦ would be better. 3♠ cannot be natural here, and having GIB interpret it as such seems silly. That being said, once GIB bids 4♠, I'd probably pass. This hand brings up a more general principle about GIB though, which is that once it thinks it has found an 8 card major fit, it will demand to play there -- There just isn't a way to overrule it. This is all fine and well in some cases, but in others it prefers 4M to 3N when extremely balanced and given a choice of games (I'll post an example hand when I find it), or when I invent a bid I think cannot possibly have a 4 card suit (i.e. here), and it refuses to give up playing in that strain. One way or the other, this is something that needs fixing IMO... GIB tends to be very unilateral in these auctions, and refuses to respect partner's decision to play in another strain.

And what do you suggest o' great one?