WrecksVee

I agree with the above choice of S J Simon's "Why You Lose at Bridge". I re-read it every few years.

Another book to consider is "Washington Standard" by Steve Robinson. This is a total 2/1 approach except of one exception with 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦ when 2NT is NF, to handle the invitational balanced hand. This a complete system with some optional treatments. It is used in whole or part by many in the DC area. While allowed in DC area the recent ACBL change made Robinson's defense to 1NT that uses 2♦ to show either major GCC legal. Roth Stone came before KS. As originally presented 2/1 was 100% forcing and forcing 1NT response was used. KS used 2/1 GF if either partner raised the other OR bid NT. In effect this is the Lawrence method. However much of both these systems goes back to ideas of S. Garton Churchill and his "one over one" approach. The original Roth Stone even followed this to the idea that no forcing opening was needed though unlike Churchill they played weak two bids in all suits. Churchill's ideas of the "utility" 1NT response, Opener's new suits rebids forcing and strong single raises are echoed in the forcing 1NT, KS use of new suits forcing on Responder and inverted raises. KS is the source as far as I can tell of the modern inverted raise treatment but its roots go back to Churchill.

Is it me or have the robots gotten worse lately? So I did not copy the hand. The auction with me as Opener went 1♦-1♥-2♣-2N-3♣-all pass The robot failed to take a preference back to ♦ with four card support and a void in ♣. At least it was consistent so this silly result was repeated at other tables.

Uday just posted on sign in page for client. Tech issue re loss of a machine, they are working on it

Yes, BBO went down 10 minutes ago. Cannot access via cline t or older software

IF the as described meaning is correct than that info and not "pass or correct" should have been explained. The agreement if exacting enough to specify exactly 3♠and 4+♥ should have been stated.

For Mike Lawrence you should also add The Complete Book of Takeout Doubles.

So when can we sort by compatibility? This may be garbage in, garbage out BUT I would be curious to look at all the five stars to see if they seem to be a possible good partner. My regular partner has not been on line and I eagerly await to see our rating. See the various Misadventures of Rex and Jay if you what to predict what might be expected IF that was the data source. We have been regular partners for nearly 10 years despite our differing views of many facets of the game. Given the factors listed for this I expect a high rating rather than the outliers shown in the Misadventures which are used by us to sort out partnership disagreements.

I am not sure what I would answer in 2/1 or SAYC. But playing with microcap (Misadventures of Rex and Jay) we have three ranges: 2m <= average 15; 3m good 15 to bad 18; 2NT long minor GF good 18+. So the likely 3m is 16-17 HCP. I think 2/1 or SAYC the same when a false reverse or jump shift is used for the GF single suited hand.

The hand was played in a team match. At the time I did not consider "dummy points" but bid 3!S based on 6 LTC. Partner's hand was something like ♠Kxxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣AQxx. So he bid 4♠. ♥ broke 1-4, x KQ8x, and ♠were 3-2 and the contract failed.

[hv=pc=n&n=sqj72hat9842dkqc8&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1hp1s2c]133|200[/hv] Obviously Rex and Jay did not agree. So we are asking the forum for their opinions. Thanks, Wrecksvee AKA Rex

NV vs V playing IMPs partner in second seat and this auction comes to you: (pass) - 1♠ - 2♥ - ? You hold: [hv=pc=n&n=s64hq7dkqt8543c32]133|100[/hv] What call do you make? What plan? All input as to how to handle this hand or useful agreements welcome EXTRA CREDIT: If you feel that uisng a weak NT impacts how to respond please comment. For the record I know the opener will only be 5332 if holding 17-20 points, i.e. he is most likely unbalanced. Wrecksvee AKA Rex of Rex and Jay

Clearing the cache did not correct the problem. Any other ideas?

When I log into the client I get this messager: Fatal Error: Critical file not found: BBOTourneyManger.swf Error #2036 The effect of this is that I cannot see scores and I do not know what else since I either quit and use the software or change machines. What can be done to correct this? Thanks, Rex V. Settle AKA WrecksVee

Wrecksvee AKA Rex of these misadventures. It was pointed out that 1NT left open finding the 5-3 ♥fit. That and showing my ♦stoppers were my intention. Also IMO if partner has some extras and 3♥ than game is possible. So giving partner one more chance seems best. I really dislike raising to 2♠as IMO that will lose the 5-3 ♥fit if it exists. Also I fail to see why this hand is much differnt than 2=5=5=1 when passing 1♠ is not a good option. The idea that the rebid shows a balanced hand seems unplayable in this sequence. In rebids NT is often balanced at the higher levels. But with less than 11 HCP 1NT is needed to keep the auction open in case partner has extras or if no other call including pass is reasonable. So the 1NT reebid by Responder can be unbalanced. Sorry to be too lazy to look back at the other posts, but thanks to the person who pointed out that the failure to make a negative double greatly increases the chance that the 2♠ raise is on three cards. Jay and I should be more open about our methods when we ask for opinions. We open ALL 12-16 balanced hands with 1NT. So we have either an unbalanced or semi-balanced hand for one of a suit unless we have 17-20 HCP. In a constructive auction 1♣-1♥-1♠shows an unbalanced hand as we rebid 1NT with 17-20 even with four spades. But this competitve auction might impact that if Opener lacks a ♦stopper. But save for that rare case Opener's bidding for us shows 4♠ and 5♣ since with =4=1=4=4 we open 1♦. The 12-16 1NT may seem inaccurate. Yet IMO we make if up in one over one auctions by not having to allow for partner holding a balanced minimum. Also 1NT-3NT is harder to defend given the five point range makes it harder to count Opener's hand. That our idea at least and we have played this way for many years without considering giving it up. Of course laziness and stubborness might also be factors in not changing our agreements