hotShot

North 5♣ bis is very strange. He has to assume that his partner understood his bid correctly. Since South did not bid, North has to assume that South does not have 3♦ or 3♣. If he had bid 5♦ he would have shown a 6-5 distribution giving a new information to partner. So bidding 5♣ suggests that North knows that South missunderstood his bid. The knowledge that South missunderstood the 2NT bid is UI to North, because he can hardly have gained it from the bidding. (In f2f bridge he might have heard partners explanation.) Bidding 5♣ uncovers the missunderstanding that happend. North has to bid what is least suggested by the UI. Possible bids are: pass, 5♦ and 5♣ Bidding pass or 5♦ should be ok.

Luis, when North bids 5♣ it is to late, the damage is done. West was told: North holds 5♥, he has to act upon this information. Of cause he can decide not to trust South, but i don't think it is a winning strategie. Counting the missing ♥'s North is left with KTxxx, 2 save tricks for North if playing ♥. It makes no sence to bid this 8 card suit and it is impossible to play 6♥. So the decision not to bid his suit definitly happend, before west bid 3♠. At that time west did not know that North had in fact the minors. At the time when the picture "is completly clear" West bid his heart suit. Even East understood that West has good long hearts and does not "correct" to ♠. But With the bidding space gone and East can't bid the slam. South gave an explanation that does not fit North hand. It is NS task to prove that S actually told what the agreement was. If NS can't prove that e.g. by pointing on their convention card, the TD has to assume missinformation. If the explanation of South is right, North missbid and there is no adjustment. So there is missinformation. There is damage and they are related => score adjustment.

Lois I do not agree with you here. You say that west knows that North holds both minors, can you back that with facts? If North holds ♦ and ♥ as explained, West can expect East to be short in ♥ and East can hold lots of ♣. Void opposit parters long suit, is not good, if the suit has top honors. Furthermore ♠AJ is not what you would want to use tu ruff your ♣ high, you would want to use them to draw trump. So stopping in 4♠ is not irrational. EW could still ask for an adjustment, even if stopping in 4♠. East 3♥ is a transfer bid, so West is forced to execute the transfer first. Now North 5♣ bid, is some sort of illegal wake up call. IF this happend in f2f bridge, North might have overheard South explanation and gained UI about the mistake. North would not be allowed to use that. So the 5♣ bid might have been illegal. After the 5♣ wake up call of North, west tries to tell partner about his good ♥'s, but East does not recognise this as slam try. So there is missinformation, illegal use of UI, damage and all is related.

I will include this in the next version (most likely to be released within the next couple of days). Thanks for a good suggestion, Ben. The next version will also contain a simple mechanism for including what I have been calling "floating conventions". I have made the necessary programming changes for this to work and it seems to work well (at least for the RKCB example we have been discussing). Still not sure about the best way to handle opponents bids that are "qualified". I like Hrothgar's suggestion of a standard vocabulary (which would allow for this process to be completely automated). Thinking... Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com The ability to 'Copy and Paste' is always usefull but wouldn't it be better to allow a 'multiple bid' at a position? {1♣,1♦,1♥,1♠} - (1NT) - (pass) - ? If the structure is changed one would only need to change it once! Otherwise one might forget to update all the copies. How do you handle: (1♣) - (1NT) - ? If 1 NT natural (some range), or if it is polish (1♦ and a 4card Major) or something else? I bet the bidding in 3rd place might be different. If one wanted to cover all possible bidding sequences there are d * ( 36! )^4 of them. d stands for the average multiplicity of the meaning a bid. This is quite a lot .......

Without the misinformation it would have been easier for EW to find their doublefit. With this information included, it is more likely to try 6. There is no need for EW to prove how they might get there, TD has to adjust to the best score that is probable. The ruling is fine.

Well just some ideas .... ad 1: Allow to define a bidding tree fragment that is not yet attached to the bidding tree. As for example RKCB: basebid, question ( fitsuit ? ) can be attached to bids 4NT, ....... step1 0 | 3 aces of 5 counting K of <fitsuit> as ace step2 4 | 1 aces of 5 counting K of <fitsuit> as ace step3 2 | 5 aces of 5 without <fitsuit> Q counting K of <fitsuit> as ace step4 2 | 5 aces of 5 with <fitsuit> Q counting K of <fitsuit> as ace The bidding box should have a button "anker convention at this bid" showing the list of unattached conventions defined. The programm can now attach "basebid" to the bid made ask for the fitsuit, and it can attach step 1..4 to next 4 bids. ad 2: Define a standard for alert messages: HCP Range min/max cardlength for each suit free text field This will make communication easier even without the use of FD, as dialog box and display can use the selected language of the player. Additionally FD can read that information, and act on it. It might be a good indea to cache this information as long as all players stay at the table or a partnership is playing a tourney. This way the players will have to answer the question just once. Don't let it turn your hair grey .......

At MP's you get 1 MP for any score that is worse then yours and 1/2MP foe each that is the same. The percentage your get is is taken against "number of scores -1". So if you don't make a makable game, everyone making it will have a better score. If a board is played 11 times, and it is made 10 times you will have 0%. It someone shares your score you will have 5%. Your only hope is, than making the contract is so difficult, that a lot of other players will go down to. This can save you an average score but never a good one. If you are very lucky, the right line of play fails (e.g. a fines is not working). Your line may then go down less, but this should be very rare. At IMPs you loose/win if you play differently than the others. Missing a makeable contract can cause a big swing. If the others miss it, you win big, if you miss it they win (of cause they need to make it first....). So making makeable contracts should be your best line of improvement.

I think that N is to strong to bid only 4♦over a 3♠ preempt S should only dbl with a good hand. N should bid 4NT for the minors and if he's not sure about is, at least 5♦ is a better bid.

A psyche is a bid made with the intention to disturb opponents ability to find their best contract, hoping to get away with with a good score. A disruptive bid is a bid made with the intention to punish partner with a very bad score or push an opponent with a very good score, not even hoping to get away. In this case, North opened 1NT hoping that partner would bid Stayman, so that he can pass. If South raised to 3NT or more, he would have to take a bad score.

The problem is that the second dbl carries to few information about your distribution. You could bid 2NT to show a strong hand with some hold in all suits and to protect your K's. This must promise very solid ♠ stopper. You could bid 3♠ instead, if your partner could smell the psyche, she would know you hold 5 cards then. Again protecting your K's. You are right, you should not push to game, if you are not playing, because your minor K's loose value, if your partner gets declarer.

Usually ace asking bids are above 3NT, in f2f bridge without screens alerting slam bidding sequences is more help to partner than to opps. Many local organisations regulate that artificial bids above 3 NT should not be alerted. You 3NT bid should be alerted.

To justify an adjustment we need a violation of bridge laws and i don't see any. If 2♦ was not alerted NS should assume it is natural, which is in fact right. After E initial pass, his bid is oviously weaker than an opening. W did not open, so to E it is clear that N is strong. E plan seems to be to take NS some bidding space and hope that S will not have a bid over 2♦. The bidding shows that indeed S passed. For some reason W thought that 2♦ was some sort of michaels, just an expensive missunderstanding. With NS able to make 6, a move was justified, but did not work in this new partnership. Misunderstanding -> bad score -> no need to act for the TD.

"No fit, no bid!" So "pass" is not intended to be a "penalty pass", it is just an "desperation pass". Common among players who don't know better. Good players and established partnerships should not need to use desparate means. So from this one board you can't conclude about NS style of dbl. As pointed out before, if this is the second incident of that type, this is a different story.

1♠ not my choice here but it's ok. - 1NT Well, no choice 2♠ well with this weak hand and weak suit one might have passed 3♣ trying to save your partner, just don't do that 3♦ what on earth is that? 3♣ is bad, but 3♦ is even worse. So i put the blame on West :).

Lets count: EW have 10 tricks in spades: 1 ♠* +3 = 760 after pass from S > 620 in 4♠ after 2♣ from S. --> pass is bad. EW have 9 tricks in spades: 1 ♠* +2 = 560 > 140 in 3♠ --> pass is bad. EW have 8 tricks in spades: 1 ♠* +1 = 360 > 110 in 2♠ --> pass is bad. Conclusion: Pass is ridiculous. North could very well hold this hand: [hv=s=sj3haq86dq876ckt8]133|100|[/hv] How many times is 2♣ down? Let us count: 2♣X-4 n.vul. = 800, worse than 1♠X+3 which is only 760

Some think opening 1NT with a singleton pays off most of the time. It it does not work, you just pay and move on. .

1) There is nothing wrong with opening 1NT with a singleton. But if it is partnership agreement to do so, it needs to be alerted. 2) North 3NT bid, with a 6card suit that is not a trick source in NT and 2 doubetons is unusual. Most players would bid 4♠. But scoring is MP and often there is 3NT+1 and 4♠. So bidding 3NT is no surprise, even if it is unusual. But it could be revealing a partnership agreement or partnership experience with opening NT with singletons. As TD i will ask NS what 3♠ instead of 2♠ would have shown, and ask N why he bid 3NT. I will add a note to both players profile, about this action, so that i know next time. This time i can't proof partnership agreement/experience, so i will ask them to alert their 1NT bid in future, explaning opps that a single is possible. Because now they have a partnership experience about it. 3) Adjustment a ) It's not sure there is an infriction, because it is only there if there is a (implicit) partnership agreement. b ) I don't see damage. c ) So there is no damage caused by the missing alert. => no adjustment

Case 1: Without an alert opener showed a 3+ length in ♣ without a 5 card major. South has no need to act. If 1♣ is alerted as strong, south knows that west is weak and will have trouble to find bid over south preempt. very likely the bidding will go: West [space]North East [space]South Pass [space]Pass [space]1[cl] [space] [space]4[cl] Pass [space]Pass [space]4[sp] [space] [space]all pass So EW had the benefit of an undisturbed bidding sequence, caused by the missing alert. So: 1) no alert 2) there was damage 3) damage caused by the missing alert => Score correction Case 2: North dbl is not irrational, wild or gambling, 3rd Jof♠, AQJ of [sI] should be worth a trick or two. South promissed a double stopper in ♣ so 4♠ might go down. South has a gambling 3NT opening and no bid left to describe his hand after a natural 1♣ opening. South 3NT over a natural 1♣ opening should show ♣ values. South can hope west might lead ♣ giving them a good score. I think the 3NT bid qualifies as gambling. TD's should not support this by adjusting NS's score, but EW should not benefit from their missing alert. So a split score would be appropriate (Setting EW to 4♠ undoubled). Since this is not possible yet, i would assign a Ave-- online, making 4 new enemies ........

I'm in the lobby and the message apears: tourney #xxx needs a sub Now i go to the tourney list, read the tourney description and check the condition of contest page. If it is a club tourney i go to the the clubs home page in the internet and read the club rules. If the tourney is not over yet, i can volunteer to be a sub. If i get the invitation to sub in, i can only see my future partners profile and not the cc he has posted. After i join the table i check if my partner posted a cc, read it, discuss some changes and modify it before playing on. Is there anybody here who thinks, anybody has ever acted this correct way or someone ever will? If i see a sub is needed and i'm willing to play, i register as fast as i can and hope i get in. I do not expect to have a cc posted, nor do i expect my opps to have one posted unless the say so. Usually the the time is running out, so i try to finish the board as fast as i can hoping to find time at the end of the round to make some agreements with my partner. In an IMP tourney with a low number of boards, in a vul@imps situation a player with a lousy 12 count, raised his partners weak 2 into 3NT. Good bridge ? No Unusual at BBO? No Successful at an typical BBO tourney? Sometimes you will win big (more often you will loose, but there are people out there you don't care if they are 2nd or 101th, if they can just stand on the number 1 spot once.) Cheating? No. Opening 2NT with a 7 card♣ and 9 HCP, is one of those baby psyches, most of the time partner will bid some sort of stayman 3♣ that you can pass. Opps will be silent because they expect you to hold something like 20-22 hcp. This is the sort of thing you do, when you whant to gain a lot of IMPs in a few boards. It won't pay of most of the time, but if it does you get big points. A player typped +++++ or something! So what? I've meet lots of players at BBO who start typing dots or 'test' or something else, if you don't act immediatelly. Are they all exchanging secret signals? Maybe they cheated, maybe there is live on Mars and maybe i remember not to sub into abalucy tourneys.

No one? Speak for yourself Hotshot. Any serious parnership will have generic defences. Dear Hog! A convention that does not specify a suit and does not specify, if the hand shown is weak or strong, is not so easy to defend against. If you and your partner can invent and agree on a good defence to a complicated convention, during the seconds you have between getting to a new table, and start playing the round, i'll accept you as bridge gods. Us mortals, will just use some general agreements, which will not restore the equality of opportunity. Allowing one side to gain an advantage by suprising opps with an unusual method, is unfair.

There is not much to add to 1-4, so i'll commend just 5/: Brown sticker conventions are just conventions, but complicated ones. Nobody is able to think of a good defence, and agree with partner about it between change of round and start of play. This gives one side a huge advantage. This is why those conventions are usually banned on low level events. At high level events they are allowed, if a system description is published early enough. Strong players are expected to prepare a defence prior to a tourney.

Nice one dog :(

There are 2 ways to play this and both are valid partnership agreements. 1) Inferfere light in second seat, raise solid in 4th seat. 2) Interfere solid in second seat, raise light in 4th seat. Those who prefer the 2nd way, claim that the 2♦ bid is not a good idea, but agree with the 3♦ raise. I prefer the first way, so i dislike the 3♦ bid. What happend here was: Interfere light in second seat and raise light in 4th seat. This is no way to reach success.

I would not bid 4♦, because there is a chance that opps will pass on the 3 level and miss game. No need to push them to 4♥. (I think they bid 4♥ and not 5♥ as stated.) You should rethink your strategie against strong ♣ systems. You should open normaly against them. After they bid 1♣ is the time to act. Since 1♣ shows strength and not suit, opps need bidding space to find their fit. So treat e.g. the 1♣ openeing as if it was a strong NT and use a NT defence (e.g. Cappelletti) against it, taking away the one level and a lot of the 2 level. The idea of using a strong 1♣, is to save bidding space for the exchange of more information, taking this bidding space is more disturbing than just sending them on their well established bidding pathes in second seat.