hotShot

We bid game first, game was bid unforced (4♥ over 3♣) and the 5-level belongs to opps. So dbl is (almost) pure penalty, and pass would have been forcing. The only reason I could think of to change my mind, would be a preemptive rise to 4♥, but you did not mention that.

You imply hat 100% games have the same frequency as 40% games. If this would be the case you are right. This bridgebrowser query result says that 50+% of the boards at least one side can bid and make game. (Double dummy results say 60% game can be made, so the difference can't be bid.) I guess that means that looking at all games one has bid, there should be more games made, than down. While looking only at the close games, going down slightly more often than making is best.

That doesn't follow, even when vul at IMPs. If you were able to bid perfectly - that is, bid all games with a greater than 3/8 chance of success and none of the others - then you would expect to make much more than half of your games. I think you are wrong David. If i bid all games that have a 40% chance to make, i'll loose 60% of these games. If i win more than 40%, either my estimate is wrong or most of my opps belong in a lower league.

I don't like it, but i think this call for a reopening dbl.

Since you seem to know a fith reason, why don't you share it with us? At least that would be more interesting, than to know who did it. Edit: Thank you officeglen for adding reasons. Maybe they just wanted to do something completly different. :)

based on a very small sample (200 deals) DD-analysis gives: opener 15-17 HCP, no 5card major, 2+ cards in any suit (chances are: 15: 44% 16:33% 17:23%) responder 8-10 HCP, any shape HCP 8- tricks 9+ tricks 23 78% 22% 24 75% 25% 25 42% 58% 26 25% 75% 27 * 14-% 86+% *insignificant number of deals This indicates that somewhere between combined 24-25 HCP there is the break even point to bid 3NT. Vul.@imps you can risk 35% contract to break even, non vul it should be around 43%. Playing MP you should be better than 50%. So responder should bid game with good 9+. If responder holds bad 8 the chances are less than 23% to have combined 25HCP and 55% to have less than 24. So as Hannie recalled, only on a small range around 8+ and 9 an invitation makes sence.

Caren the reasons to change your system are always the same. 1) Something does not work as well as planed. 2) You found a bidding sequence you and your partner interpreted differently (usually with a bad result). 3) Analysing your results you find a system based weak spot. 4) You got into a bidding sequence where you could not show your hand properly. They are just less frequent in established partnerships formed by expert+ player. Every decent bridge player will play a board as good as a world class player once in a while, world class player just do it 95+ of 100 boards.

You'd hope so, but for bidding systems the Law of Exposure counts. People will play what they are taught or hear about, not what works. A great example of this is Cappelletti, which has it completely backwards. 2♦ is the worst possible bid to show both majors of the 4 options (Dbl, 2♣♦♥). Who said evolution is a fast process?

There is another aspect for weaker partnerships, the importance of the bidding system is overrated. If there were a supirior treatment, the laws if evolution say that this treatment will get dominant. The fact that an WC level different systems are used, implies that no system is supirior. Judgement makes the difference. If you force WC-player to use a different system, they might feel uneasy, but because of better judgement, better declarer play, better leads and better defence they will still dominate the field. It is easier to blame the system than to admit, that your declarer play, your leads or your signaling was flawed.

I agree with you that there is no perfect system. After a while you get to know the weaknesses of your own system, which causes a sort of awareness for alternative methods that avoid these weaknesses. So if you see an intersting treatment, that seems to fit to your system and bidding philosophy, you try it. The problem of each convention is that it's hard to to see the full effect it has on the whole system. It is obious that makes no sence to combine Benjamin with precision. Playing a natural 5M-system changing your NT bid from 15-17 to 12-14 seems a small change, but the average strength of the 1m bids grows by 1.5 HCP and the average length is about 0.3 longer. This will have an impact on your aswering structure over 1m bids as well. Many strong NT players respond to 1m openings with less than 6 HCP, if they are short in this suit. They do it, because usually partner is weak and there is no fit. They know that there is a risk to go down for a number. Player that are used to play a weak NT, expect partner to be stronger and longer in his suit. They have the experiance that it is no big risk to pass.

What about: 1♠ - 2♥ (forcing) (5+♥) 2♠ - 3♦ (forcing) (3+♦) 3♥ (preference) - 3♠ (fit suit setting) 4♣ (cue) -4♦ (cue) 4♠ (no ♥ cue) - 5♣ (cue) 5♦ (cue) - 5♥ (cue) 6NT (1) - 7NT (2) (1) Now North sees: 6♠, 3♦ 2♣ and a♥ playing NT (2) J♠,J♦ and a Q♥ unshown grand has at least 50%

The double of 2NT is negativ and shows the only remaining suit ♠.

All cell phones in the US are designed such that their location can be triangulated. This service is ostensibly so that care providers can locate 911 callers. The service is documented at http://www.hearusnow.org/wireless/whatsats...yphoneservices/ As I understand matters, it doesn't matter if the phone is "on". SO long as the phone has power, they can track the location. Hey! I watched 24 and they need to keep the bad guys talking for at least 3 minutes or so to track the location. And the phone can't just be switched on, power wise. Almost everyone's mobile phones are turned on at any one time. That won't help in tracking. Sorry Rain, it can be located as long as it is booked into a net. And there is no need to talk! But to do it, they must know your phonenumber. And you can bet they don't need 3 minutes to get it.

When you hover over you bids it shows what they mean. You will be less surprised, what the bot does when you read what you are promissing :D.

If you right click on the name you posted to there is a "copy chat message option" you can use to get your message back. After that you can past it with Ctrl-V wherever you like.

You are about 1 trick short of a 2♣ opening, so 1♦ is fine. Your hand is strong enough to bid 2♠. How is you partnership style on 1m - x - pass? Could this be very weak without ♦? If partner holds a ♠ stopper we are close to make 3NT, we need 2 tricks in partners hand to make 5m. You have 3-4 defence tricks and it is very likely that partner holds 4♠, so there is a good chance that 3♠ is down. So i think dbl is the best bid now. You showed that you are: - strong - short in ♠ (he should be able to guess the void) - have tolerance for ♣ and ♥ - have a few defence tricks (because of dbl on 3♠) Partner has to make the final decision.

Every piece of software that has grown in fuctionality over more than 5 years usually hat to be redesigned and recoded. The ovious reason is, that the original concept did not include things that were added later, so they do not fit where the logically should be. Also efficency is not important, if there are only a few user around, but when you start to reach system limits, they become a major issue. A lot of design decisions seems to have been made thinking of about a (few) hundred user. (Have you ever tried to look for users begining with z kibbing at a vugraph?) I don't think what we see of BBO will have to change much, it's the internal design that needs a lifting. We all will benefit from that, once it's done. There will be more results/board in the MBC, the myhands area and other services might be reachable from within the BBO client. Of cause directing/creating team and tourneys will get a better management system. The downside of a redisign is of cause, that all your development capacity is locked redoing something that had been done before and your product will seem to have stopped evolving for a long time.

Partner will usually have 7-11 HCP, the chance that we can reach game are minimal. I think the best chance is to keep the 4th seat silent with a preempt. So i choose 2♥.

Have you tried the mbt's? People playing there at a rate of about 2 min a board, and enjoy it. This type of tourney i suggested is for those who really like it fast.

I think rising your own preempt is a bad habit. This is asking for a dbl and your hand is not good enogh for that. You made them guess and now it's time to prove they guessed wrong So dbl 4♠, or pass.

I thought about a minimum amount of time, but i think the thrill of this speed based tourney is, that everybody has to play as fast as possible. A major aspect of this thrill is that you don't know how fast the others play. Maybe instead of the round clock the percentage of finished tables could be displayed. At rates of 80-90% you will take most of player with average speed to the next round. Since all tables play the same boards, complexity is not an issue. Since I can see no way to determine which of the pairs was slower, the slow table must be excluded compleatly. There will be some injustice involved, but i think people will accept that. I would prefer to be excluded once in a while when opps play to slowly, if i don't have to wait each round or at the end of the tourney.

Lets assume we let them play 3♠, how many tricks is this hand worth? Not much! A ♠, a ♣ and with luck a♥ as LHO holds most of opps HCPand can have AQ♥. So partner needs to bring 2-3 tricks to bring opps down, if he holds that 4-5♣ are possible. Opps are no vul, so playing is often the better option.

You are about to loose 2♣, 1♦, 2-3♠ tricks. Of cause there is a chance that partners hand will cover a few of these looser and you will not go down 3-4. At this vul. down 2 is to much, so you need 2-3 tricks from partner. If additionally one of your kings is worth a trick, 4♥ won't make. In this case even down 1 is to much. So pass is the correct bid at this vul. w/r 5♣ is obvious, because down 3 is still better than (edit:6♥) 4♥ making.

Playing some sort of SAYC i would choose 2♣, with only 3 looser i think this calls for an almost game forcing opening. I should be able to show both ♥ and ♣. Bidding can go something like that: 2♣ - 2♦ 2♥ - something n♣ After that partner should will know if we settle for 4/5♥, try a slam or penalty double opps.

But if partner is strong, he will bid again. You need to bid only under the assumption that he doesn't bid again, and under that assuption he' limited. Anyone for avoiding this problem by opening 1NT, btw? Partner described his shape perfectly, without knowing about our fit he is out of options, especially because he is unlikely to have a ♠ stopper. So his choices are: no stopper => no 3NT, no fit no bid and dbl => most likely penatly here, and if he's not strong enough to see it down 2 and without good trumps, he should not do that. So he needs information about my hand, and if I don't give any he will just pass. [edit] I know, that we have only 1♠ looser, partner has only 2♥ so we might get away with 1♥looser, we won't have more than 2♦ looser and 1♣ looser. And we did not need a single point of partners HCP for that. He will hardly have any ♠ hcp. ♥Q, ♦Q, ♣J will ensure that 4♣ are only down one, and partner will have more than that.