Leaderboard

If ,as you say, result is immaterial then what else except the DQ.?As regards the bidding with strange partners is sometimes comparable to sheer madness.Witness the bidding .The player holds S-AJxx,H-A,D-AK10xx,C-xxx. His patner opened a 15/17 1NT. A nd the bidding went 1NT-P-2C-P-2H-P-7NT and all passed!!! O f course his partner called the TD and director booted him out.His partner proceeded af.fter both opponents answered 2 rounds of D to claim all 13 tricks.His hand was KQx-KQxx-Q9x-Axx The pairs event had been aptly named PARTNER IS ALWAYS RIGHT.

In IMPrecision notrump systems, we don’t require super accept on four card support, and we also don’t have mandatory relays (usually opener breaks the relay with a known major suit fit unless the minor suit fit is bigger). I’m not convinced that a 5-3 fit in a major even necessarily plays better than the 8+ card minor suit fit, so I don’t really see the need to find 5-3 major fit on these hands. It’s not like you are upgrading a non invite to game here. 4-4 fits are different because you can potentially set up the minor (with four trumps in the same hand); I think Qxxx x Axxxxx xx might well make game opposite a strong notrump with four+ spades but that Qxx x Axxxxx xxx is much less likely to make game opposite a strong notrump with five spades. Overall, openers five card major is quite rare. Catering to this will cause you a lot of problems (slow auctions where opponents can double for the lead, information about shape that helps them defend, ambiguous sequences in competition where it’s hard for opener to know whether to bid on) for very little value. I think if you’re that concerned about playing in the major every time you have a 5-3 fit, you should open 1M and not 1nt and then play some Gazzilli form to solve the rebid problems.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-trump-kushner.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

anyone remember the Hackett defence to weak 2's? We used to joke it was propaganda spread by the hacketts to get people to play the defence against them.

Yuk!

Compatibility for me is composed of several unrelated factors: 0. Friendliness: There is no objective way to measure this, so I would stick to the Friend/Enemy lists. As this is already shown, there is no need to factor it into the compatibility. 1. Completion rate: This should be a factor, even though it is indicated separately. 2. Do we have a language in common? - This would require the possibility for each player to state the languages he is able to use for communication. 3. Knowledge of Bidding systems and conventions: There should be a list of well described bidding systems and conventions somewhere in BBO, and each player should be able to mark each system and convention with "unknown", "known", "used before", or "like". The relative amount of matches should be an important factor for compatibility. 4. Carding: Similar, but shorter list. 5. Declarer play: For each board played as declarer, and for each card played, determine if the player chose the optimal double dummy action or not. Use this to compute a % value "double dummy action chosen". The smaller the absolute value of the difference of this figure is for 2 players, the more compatible they are. I think this should be the most important factor. 6. Defending: same as declarer play, but it should be taken into account if the defenders shared common carding methods or not. It could even be implemented for each user to assign a weight to factors 1-6. Factors that should be not used for the compatibility are: Nationality, self-rating, masterpoints, ratio of number of friends/enemies, IP address (as this depends on where I happen to stay currently, or can even be totally meaningless when a satellite connection or a vpn-tunnel is used.) How often the par contract or better was reached should also not be taken into account, because this is to much dependent on partner and opps. Having available the %-Values for declarer play and defending might also help to identify cheaters. Karl