WrecksVee

I think all the suggestions made to describe the hand were good. I would also suggest since it is unfamilar in the ACBL that it be pre-alerted. I have played Keri in ACBL events for 5+ years and haver always done that to be sure it was clear to the Opps.

The heart of this thread was to determine whether 3♣ was forcing. Everyone who has mentioned that good bad 2NT is needed IMO acknowledges that without further agreement that 3♣is forcing. Since partner has forced twice it is hard to take pass as NF. More importantly I did not double 3♥because the 3♣ denied interest in defending. We are playing support doubles and I had passed possibly concealing penalty double of 2♥. Partner then denied wanting to defend and forced with 3♣. I showed my ♦ length as it was the cheapest descriptive bid and waited for him to tell me why he forced. While he may have both black suits he could also have a ♠ one suited GF. The crux is now that having heard two forcing calls I am supposed to assume the pass of 3♥ is now a sign of weakness. What I heard was a request to double if I had the possible penalty double. Surely I should not have less to double. I figured he might have 6♠ that were weak so I tried 3♠ to show my good two card support. Jay will never agree to play good bad 2NT. So we need to handle this without such an agreement. I think on style/agreement is to fall back on "traditional' natural bidding, whatever that may be. So IMO Jay over bid his hand with 3♣ and then expected me in this case to ignore what I was shown. I hold that you can not blow hot and cold and need to consider what minimum you have promised. So if you do overbid you can not expect partner to be able to figure it out. For our partnership I think the best suggestion I saw above was to make a negative double with Jay's hand. That gives a good chance of being able to show the weak distributional hand that was held without forcing.

I am glad to see someone else remembers Churchill. I think early editions of the Kaplan Sheinwold book "How to Play Winning Bridge" also included this treatment. I always assumed it was an influence on KS from the Churchhill system as there are others IMO: e.g. weak NT and new sut rebids forcing by Opener. Kaplan wrote an intro to Churchhill's system book and so was aware of the ideas. As Roth also sometimes played with Churchill I felt that Churchill's utility 1NT idea was an influence on the idea of 1NT forcing.

I am hoping to use a mobile wireless router to use my netbook to access BBO as the location I am at lacks Wifi. Can someone give me an idea what sort of bitrate is involved for using the software and the client? I want to determine what access plan is reasonable for this purpos. Thanks, WrecksVee

The title is a quote from a post by Fred Gitelman on June 9, 2008. Is something in the works to provide a better means to form a pick up team match? The old software method of chatting to the lobby worked well in my experience. However I understand that has other drawbacks. I think some sort of automated advertisement to the lobby solely for setting up team matches would be a possible solution. I am curious to know if anything is expected soon to correct what for me is a serious shortcoming in the newer BBO version. Thanks Rex V. Settle AKA WrecksVee Posted 2008-June-09, 12:19 Our current thinking is that the large volume of lobby chat and its low signal to noise ratio make it an ineffective mechanism for putting games together. For new users to BBO the default setting is that lobby chat is turned off. We learned this lesson the hard way after hearing repeated complaints from new members that they found lobby chat to be overwhelming. There are other disadvantages of lobby chat from our point of view: - Lobby chat is the easiest and most efficient way for a crazy BBO member to disturb/upset lots of other BBO members - A strain on our servers Sorry for those of you who are inconvenienced but adding lobby chat to BBOFlash is not likely to happen. Eventually I expect we will come up with some new and largely automated ways of putting tables together with players. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com

I use Keri so I would have bid 2♠ over 1NT asking for range. After partner shows a min (2NT) or max (3C) 3♥ shows a 6+ suit slam try. Klinger in his book suggests immedicate key card responses with a fit with 3NT (skipped in the steps) to show rag doubleton in support. I think cue bidding is better to see if we have all suits controlled. if not we can stop in game or bid RKCB.

Can anyone provide responses to this conventional treatment? I have seen it being played. I am assuming 1M-2NT shows three plus card support and values to invite or better. Any info as to other agreements that mesh well with this convention are appreciated. Thanks

Wahington Standard is 2/1 forcing to game. Lawrence's book in 2/1 GF unless the 2/1 suit is rebid. The choice is a matter of style. Max Hardy would also be a good choice. If a website is OK I suggest looking at http://www.rpbridge.net/rpbr.htm the home page of Richard Pavlicek. The system file on the version of Eastern 2/1 he played with the late William Root is interesting. Finally you could consider Kokish and Kraft's Modern American Bidding which is software and a booklet on their proposed methods.

I vote to splinter assuming I am playing that it shows 13-15 HCP. This is my standard agreement and is taken from Washington Standard. A jump to 3♠ would show what most are assuming is the range of a splinter, 9-12 HCP, with four card support and some singleton. With out that agreement I lean toward Jacoby 2NT as then the splinter is needed for the weaker hand.

Rex, one of the Misadventurers I will add that our overcall standards are 7+ HCP and any five card suit at the one level: yes 96542 really is a five card suit. So I have no problem with Jay's Qxxxx. Not everyone agrees with this style but we have used it comfortably for many years. We are more concerned with competing and finding a fit then directing a lead. Most will allow that a bad agrement is better than no agreement. :D

FYI my hand was actually ♠void ♥AKx ♦AJTxx ♣AJxxx I do like the comment that I should have given more weight to Jay's failure to bid 3NT.

I got this message and the suit symbols did not display. Can this be recovered to display correctly? Thanks Rex aka WrecksVee Hi, most of my notes are in Australia, but the following should give you an idea: 1♥ 1♠ 2N Artificial GF with no side suit, maybe not balanced, maybe 4-5-2-2 3 Relay 3• short •, 6+, maybe 3 3 6+, maybe 3 3 5-3-3-2 3N 2533 exactly 4m 20-21 4-5-2-2 cue-bid 4 17-20 7+ very good  4 18-19 4-5-2-2 1♥ 1♠ 2N 3• 5+ suit 3 encouraging, mild+ slammish 3 6+ suit 4m splinter for  4 6+ 1-loser suit, nothing special on the side

For several years microcap and I (AKA Jay and Rex's Misadventures) have played a five point range 1NT, 12-16. We open 1NT with virtually all balanced hands including those with a five card major. We use Ron Klinger's Keri structure from his book "Bid better, much better over 1NT". We refer to the "system" as Mostly Unbalanced since our one of a suit bids are balanced or semi-balanced hands unless holding 17-20 HCP. We use 17-18 and 19-20 as the NT rebid ranges with the 2NT jump rebid intended as forcing. This added definition is a gain to us. The 1NT has inherrent inaccuracy but IMO preempts the opponents more than it impedes us. My rule is to pass with <=9 HCP and invite with 10+ HCP. You win some, you lose some. Keri is some help as we can make an invitational bid in 2♥ or 2♠ and play there if rejected when there is a fit or play 2NT. We are comfortable playing this. But that could just be that a bad agreement is better than no agreement

This is Rex of the Rex and Jay Misadventures. I held this hand. While everyone has forced to game no one suggested the 4♣ splinter. I selected that bid as we play the direct raise to 4♠ as denying shortness with 18+ to 20 HCP. We do play a 2NT jump rebid as "forcing". Using that bid to show the strong balanaced raise was considered. But for us it is no longer feasible as we have changed the meaning of 2NT to 19-20 HCP "intended as forcing": responder may pass with a subminimum response. So in our methods my choice for a direct raise was between the splinter 4♣ or the strong side suit raise using 4♦. I feel both of these are flawed. But I think the bid of 4♦ is worse then 4♣. As the long suit raise always has control of one side suit with a singleton or void, I think such a bid should deny high card control in the fragment. OTOH I dislike splintering with a void as partner might over value Axx of that suit. Also the hand is weaker than expected in highcards which is made up in playing tricks due to the side suit. Does anyone have any suggestions for methods to handle voids and singletons separately? Any other ideas for raising partner's one over one response? I do like the idea that the direct raise to 4♠ is distributional. However Jay and I have had good results being able to pass our 2NT rebid. So we are not willing to give up the strong natural jump to 4♠. But other ideas are welcome. FYI 4♠ was not a success. Jay hand's was something like xxxx xx xx AQxxx which fit poorly. To add some bad luck the ♦KJ was offside. :) Evaluation question: everyone seems to feel this hand is worth a shot at 10 tricks. I agree since I estimated it as 8 playing tricks: (♥A, two ♣ ruffs, and 5 ♦ tricks. But strict Losing Trick Count is six losers which should only bid 3♠. Does anyone feel this hand was not worth forcing to game? Thanks, Rex aka WrecksVee

Can this be elaborated for the non-technical? I find this response meaningless. :)

Is anyone playing any form of Romex these days? I am reading "Improve Your Bidding Judgment" by Neil Kimelman. The author mentioned that he had played Romex for 20 years earlier in his playing career. I had not thought about this system in ages until this reminded me. So I am curious if there are any system users on BBO. WrecksVee still dazed from spending a week at the NABC in DC.

White vs. red, you deal and pass holding ♠Jx ♥QTxxx ♦J9 ♣K8xx The auction goes pass-(1♦)-3♣-(Double) and back to you. You expect partner to be aggressive at these colors. Per agreement you expect partner has 5 or 6 playing tricks at these colors. What do you bid? Do you have any other plan besides an immediate preempt? Comments please. Thanks, WrecksVee Finland Awaits!

The shape is ugly for a takeout double. I think a double over 1♥ OK but not great. Over 2♥ pass seems right. In the pass out seat it is said that you must (ought) to act if short in the Opponents' suit. I think this is unclear here as it not a fit auction. Perhaps the hand is a hideous misfit. As it is MP I think a 2♠ balance with the plan of running to 3♦ would be my choice. But I can understand pass also. At IMP I feel that pass is better since I feel the upside is small and the chance of disaster does not seem worth the risk.

Thanks Hotshot for the quick reply. My rusty high school German is adequate. This raises a question I once had. Is there an English version of SEF? If not is there a link to a French version that anyone would recommend?

Can anyone direct me to information about this system. Thanks!

Partner deals and the auction goes: 1♣ -(pass)- 1♠ -(2♦)- pass -(pass)- ? Playing support doubles Partner has denied three ♠ as the agreement in effect is to always show support. What do Responder's bids mean here? How light should one reopen? When should Responder pass? If vulnerability matters please discuss how it impacts the situation. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks

Does anyone have a FD CC for Kaplan-Scheinwold, preferably KS-updated? Thanks!

Hello Bob, I am in the camp who feel 2/1 is workable with Precision. Bob is a regular teammate and was kind enough to share his system notes. This was a question I was going to ask. I suggest looking at Washington Standard, Hardy, BWS, Mike Lawrence, et al. All such works can be a source of ideas. One question to resolve is whether 2/1 is 100% GF or if the rebid of the 2/1 suit can be passed, say after 1M-2X-2M-3X. Personally I favor the 100% GF approach with three level jump shifts over 1M as natural invitational bids. This is the approach suggested in Washington Standard. I suspect that 1♦-2♣ might remain "standard" as it seems a better fit IMO. But it could be played as GF to be consistent. I feel 1♦-2♥/♠ are best as strong jumpshifts and 1♦-3♣ would be natural and invitational. BTW while I like the Washington Standard approach, I do not get to use it in my most practiced partnership as my partner does not care for it. So whatever you decide needs to take partnership harmony into account. Comments above re the advantage Precision limited openers have using 2/1 seems correct to me. You can bid shape with less worry about limiting the hand since your one bids are already limited. I feel that would work well. Standard 2/1 folks can not know what to do with doubleton ♠ and a reasonable 13 HCP that they make a 2/1 on over 1♠. But in Precision after 1♠-2♣-2♠ (showing 6+ cards) a jump to 4♠ placing the contract is reasonable. Standard bidders using 2M rebid as both a limit call and also to show much stronger hands without a convenient rebid only promise 5 cards here, so the knowledge of an eight card ♠ fit is not yet known. Rex aka WrecksVee

After years of being able to play bridge at lunch, my employer has blocked access to BBO. Are there other ways to try to reach BBO that I can test to see if they are also blocked? I got around this by using remote access software to go to BBO on my home PC. But my current software is giving me trouble. As I am unable to play bridge at lunch I thought I would make use of the time asking for advice. Thanks!

OK, WrecksVee weighs in. Re the superaccept, I have already upgraded my hand 20 HCP for its excess of aces and kings to open a 21-22 NT. I chose not to superaccept as given the HCP range I did not think 5.5 cover cards that out of line and I expected to be cue bidding over 3NT. In retrospect I should have superaccepted. But it never occured to me that the reason to superaccept was that it would be my last chance to play 4♠. :) Re cue bidding and not superaccepting, this hand with values in all suits and excess controls should superaccept. It was a lazy bid by me not to do so. But not all good hands with four card support are best shown by superaccepting. Change the ♣AK to the ♦K and ♥K plus some J and I make the same upgrade to open 2NT 21-22. But then cue bidding seems better. On this layout over a 3NT rebid a 4♦ cue gives partner the knowledge that no ♣A or K is wasted opposite the void or at least highlights the lack of ♣ control. Even if the ♣QJ are wasted in the 2NT opener, that is still 18+5=23 out of 30 working HCP from Responder's POV, so 6♠ would be worth a shot even if it is only a 5-3 fit. When partner shows 6+ spades and slam interest I "know" I have the right hand. Sadly mistaken; as 4NT is down we lost a game swing on the first board of a 10 board match and are unable to recover. I think the best comments here were those who suggested bidding a Texas transfer to sign off. As Jay felt that was where the hand belonged, then Texas gets to the desired spot without promising extras. But neither of us thought of that in the follow up discussion.