dcrc2

If you're playing on a touch screen (phone or tablet) I think the Funbridge way is massively better. Playing BBO on a phone is horrible because of how difficult it is to pick out the right card - the Funbridge design solves this completely. I would agree that if you have a mouse then the BBO method is better. More generally I think Funbridge is optimized for playing on a phone, whereas BBO's phone UIs are poor.

I don't disagree with that. But I think that if you're happy opening 18-19 balanced at the 1-level, you can just play Polish or Swedish Club. I suppose you might still ask, could we switch the minors around and play "Polish Diamond" instead? But that loses you the opportunity to play 1NT with 18-19 balanced, and I don't really believe that the possible advantages of the switch will make up for that. But the premise of this system was, what should you do if you decide you want to open 18-19 balanced with 2♣? I think that's a reasonable choice, due to its effectiveness in competition, even if the constructive sequences are slightly less efficient. Not especially, no. But it mostly comes for free. I think you must have chosen a bad example, because "opener has a weak NT, responder has 0-5" doesn't actually use up any bidding machinery at all. These hands are bid the same way as if responder had 6-10: there's no need for opener to know the difference. I'd have said that the bigger problems are when opener has something like 17-20. Then opener's life would be easier, when partner responds, if he could know that this promised some values. But then again, the methods that standard systems have for these situations are rather crude, so I'm not convinced that we're losing much, even if we have to go more slowly to take account of responder's possible 0-5.

Sorry I promised to post some continuations and then didn't get round to it. Over 1♦ (balanced/long clubs) I'm sticking with natural responses, and there aren't too many possible ways to arrange things afterwards. I don't think you can realistically avoid getting to the 3-level with long clubs and extra values. 1♦:1♥ = natural, 0+ HCP ... ... 1♠ = natural, wide-ranging but not forcing, often a weak NT ... ... 1NT = natural, no major ... ... 2♣ = natural, 11-15 HCP ... ... 2♦ = 3+ ♥, 15+ HCP ... ... 2♥ = natural min ... ... 2♠ = clubs, 19+ HCP, not 3 ♥ or 4 ♠ unless GF ... ... 2NT = 22-24 HCP balanced, not 4 ♥ ... ... 3♣ = natural, 16-18 HCP, not 3 ♥ ... ... 3♦ = 4 ♥, usually 22+ balanced ... ... 3♥ = 4 ♥, short ♦ ... ... 3NT = 25-27 HCP balanced, not 4 ♥ 1♦:1♠ = natural, 0+ HCP ... ... 1NT = natural ... ... 2♣ = natural, 11-15 HCP ... ... 2♦ = clubs, 19+ HCP ... ... 2♥ = 3+ ♠, 15+ HCP ... ... 2♠ = natural min ... ... 2NT = 22-24 HCP balanced, not 4 ♠ ... ... 3♣ = natural, 16-18, not 3 ♠ ... ... 3♦ = 4 ♠, usually 22+ balanced ... ... 3♠ = 4 ♠, short ♦ ... ... 3NT = 25-27 HCP balanced, not 4 ♠ 1♦:1NT = no major, 0-10 HCP ... ... 2♣ = natural 11-16 HCP, or three-suited short in ♦ with 15-18 HCP ... ... 2♦ = ♣+♥, 16+ HCP ... ... 2♥ = ♣+♠, 16+ HCP ... ... 2♠ = 6+ ♣, no major, 19+ HCP ... ... 2NT = 22-24 balanced ... ... 3♣ = natural 16-18 HCP ... ... 3♦ = ♣+♦, GF ... ... 3NT = 25-27 balanced 1♦:2♣ = 5+ ♦ (6+ if less than GF) 1♦:2♦ = 5+ ♦ and 4+ ♣, not forcing 1♦:2♥ = 5+ ♣, inv+ 1♦:2♠ = GF no major 1♦:2NT = natural invite 1♦:3♣ = 5+ ♣, less than inv. As for the 1♣ opening (showing diamonds), there seem to be several possible ways of doing it and I'm not at all convinced I've found the best one. I'm currently trying transfers over 1♣, like this: 1♦ = ♥, 0+ HCP 1♥ = ♠, 0+ HCP 1♠ = no major, 0-6 or 11+ HCP. 1NT = no major, 7-10 HCP. 2♣ = 5♠4♥ inv. 2♦ = 4+ ♦ invitational+ 2M = natural inv. 2NT = weak, 5+ diamonds 3♣ = 4+/4+ minors, 6-10 HCP 3♦ = 5+ diamonds, 6-10 HCP I won't post too much detail as I'm liable to change this, but the most difficult one is always 1♣:1♥ where I'm trying: 1♣:1♥ ... ... 1♠ = 5+ ♦, forcing, no 4-card major unless 19+ HCP, or 6♦4♥ min ... ... ... 1NT = relay, negative or inv+ ... ... ... ... 2m = nat, 11-18 ... ... ... ... 2♠ = nat, 15-18 ... ... ... ... others = 19+ ... ... ... 2m = nat preference, 8-10 HCP ... ... ... 2♥ = art. GF not wanting to bid NT ... ... ... 2♠ = nat, 6-9 ... ... ... 3m = inv. ... ... 1NT = 11-14, either three-suited (short ♠) or 5♦4♥ (at most 2 ♠) ... ... 2♣ = 15-18, three-suited short ♠ with at most 4 ♦ ... ... 2♦ = 15-18, 5+♦4♥ ... ... 2♥ = 15+, 3 ♠ ... ... 2♠ = min, 3 or 4 ♠

If you add 18-19 bal to the 1♦ opener you're still forced to the 2-level with that hand as there's no space to stop; if I'm forced to the 2-level anyway, I'd rather open it there, so that I get the advantage of having shown the strength if there's an overall. Of course you could switch the minors back to the normal way round, letting you stop in 1NT, but then that system already exists, and I wouldn't have anything to write about :) Or you could open 2♦ on 18-19 balanced, but I find that too pre-emptive. 2♣ gives you about twice as many useful sequences I believe. [Edited after I realised what the quote actually meant.]

Yes, you've got it, this is exactly the sort of sequence where the system is supposed to do well. The non-forcing 1♦ (2x) 2M sequences (and 1♦ (1♠) 2♦ transfer to hearts) are the number one reason for playing this. The "solution" is just Lebensohl: opener's 2NT rebid in competition shows (normally) a minimum with 6 clubs, and a direct 3♣ shows a better hand with 6 clubs. Note that opener will have 6 clubs here, otherwise he would be passing or raising partner's suit. That's precisely why all of those three-suited hands were taken out of the 1♦ opening. It could still be a misfit. Maybe responder should be a little cautious with club shortage. But when opener has 6 clubs and the opponents bid to the 2-level, it's not that easy to avoid the misfit anyway - you can let opponents play, but not with much confidence that you're doing the right thing. I wouldn't agree that there is a lot to sort out. Opener is showing a 6-card suit, and limits his hand with his rebid; responder has shown a 5-card suit; the opponents have shown something too. There's not that much left :)

Yes, sorry you're quite right that in an uncontested auction the weak NT hands are handled no better than standard (and potentially it could be worse when a standard system starts 1♣:1♦). I meant to say that the handling of balanced hands will be better on average, and that the gains come when the opponents compete. I've made a one-word edit to the original post to make it closer to that intention.

I've been thinking about better ways to arrange a strong NT, 5-card major system, and am looking at this approach which seems to fit together nicely: 1♣ = 11+ HCP (no upper limit) with 3+ ♦, not balanced, forcing. (Will be either 5+♦ or three-suited. If only 3 ♦, then precisely 1=4=3=5 or 4=1=3=5.) 1♦ = 11+ HCP (no upper limit), balanced or ♣, forcing. Specifically one of four hand types: (i) (11)12-14 HCP balanced / 5♣422 (ii) any strength, three-suited short in ♦ (iii) any strength, 6+ ♣ (or can be 5 ♣ with 19+ HCP) (iv) 22+ HCP balanced 1♥/1♠ = 11-20 HCP, 5+ cards 1NT = 15-17 HCP, balanced or 5♣422 or (optionally) 5♦422 2♣ = Either 18-19 HCP balanced/5♣422, or game forcing with a 5+ major. 2NT = 20-21 HCP balanced To put it another way, this is similar to the very common system "1♣ = balanced or ♣, 1♦ = unbalanced with 4+ ♦ (including 4♦5♣)", except that: (i) Hands of precisely 1=4=3=5 and 4=1=3=5 shape are moved into the diamond-showing opening. (ii) The 1♣ and 1♦ openings are switched around. What's the point of this? The main aim is to bid balanced hands better than other strong NT systems, in competitive situations. In a standard 5cM system, minimum balanced hands are lumped together with minimum unbalanced hands. This system tries to keep the types separate so that unbalanced minor-oriented hands open 1♣ while balanced hands open 1♦. It's not quite perfect in this respect, as hands with long clubs also open 1♦, but then the club length gives you a safety net if responder incorrectly assumes the balanced type. The distinction makes life easier for responder in competition. For example, opposite a balanced hand, responder should strain to introduce his own 5-card suits, even if they are relatively weak. Whereas opposite an unbalanced hand, you want to wait for a better suit, and rely on take-out doubles otherwise. So this system is similar to Polish/Swedish club in that it has an opening which "shows" a weak NT. I like those systems too. But this system lets you start hands with real clubs at the 1-level: that's not always better, but it's definitely more flexible, and in particular gives you a better chance of finding your major-suit fits. The other difference is opening 2♣ on 18-19 balanced. Sometimes that's worse than starting at the 1-level (you certainly can't play in 1NT); sometimes it's better (especially in competition). If you have an uncontested auction, good methods over 2♣ allow you to bid at least as accurately as over a standard 1m opening. And you can play in 2M, which most standard systems don't allow. (Some systems open 2♦ on 18-19 balanced: that gives you significantly less space than 2♣.) Why have an opening showing 2+ ♣s and an opening showing 3+ ♦s, when it's easily possible to achieve either {2♣, 4♦} or {3♣, 3♦}? Because majors are more important than minors. The 1♦ opening doesn't just show 2+ ♣s, it also implies tolerance for both majors. (Opener will not be short in a major unless he has 6+ clubs.) Why should the minor openings be unlimited? This seems to fit well with putting 18-19 balanced into 2♣. If 2♣ had to handle all game-forcing hands as well as 18-19 balanced, it would become very awkward. When 2♣ only has to handle the major-oriented game forces, it's much better. And super-strong minor-oriented hands are not well handled by a standard 2♣. Add to that the fact that you rarely want to pass a 1m opening anyway, and when you do you're still usually worried about missing a better spot. Making the openings forcing allows responder to explore with a very weak hand without getting hanged for it. Why are the 1♣ and 1♦ openings switched compared to standard? If the minor openings are forcing there is little inherent benefit to bidding the suit you've got. The unbalanced hands are more complicated to describe than the balanced hands, so it's the unbalanced hands which need the space more. I'll post some suggested continuations if anyone thinks this is interesting.

Yes this one is +2940. Indeed Robin had already said exactly this a week ago back in the other thread: Why is it different? Because here, if East had not revoked at trick five, declarer would have taken five black-suit tricks and had eight tricks in revoke penalties, totalling 13. East cannot be allowed to gain from his revoke so declarer is awarded 13 tricks. In the original thread, there is no corresponding point in the play where, if a revoke (or a set of revokes) had not taken place, declarer would have collected more than 10 tricks.

I'll continue to address the simpler example of where the fourth revoke didn't happen, allowing declarer to win two spades and three clubs. This is the first point of disagreement and adding yet more revokes just confuses things. Law 64C2(a) says "the Director adjusts the score if the non-offending side would likely have made more tricks had one or more of the subsequent revokes not occurred." Applying this to the third revoke, this Law is telling us to compare two results: - The actual number of tricks made at the table. - The number of tricks which would likely have been made if the third revoke did not occur. The actual result was that declarer made two spades and three clubs, plus four tricks* for revoke penalties, making 9. If the third revoke did not occur, declarer would have made two spades and three clubs, plus four tricks for revoke penalties, making 9. Therefore there is no adjustment under Law 64C2(a). You seem to want to consider a third scenario, whereby the revoke takes place, but the subsequent play differs from what happened at the table. But nowhere in Law 64 does it suggest that you should be considering this. *(Perhaps it's unclear whether the calculation should include the tricks transferred for the first two revokes, but it clearly makes no difference because the number transferred is the same in both cases.)

I think this is where the argument goes wrong. Yes, let's suppose that the fourth revoke did not occur. Then declarer would have made 2 spades and 3 clubs, and the director would be called. The director has to consider whether an adjustment is required for the third revoke. The director would do the following calculation: Number of tricks actually made by declarer = 5 (plus 4 for the two penalties) Number of tricks which would have been made without the third revoke = 5 (plus 4 for the two penalties) Therefore the director would determine that declarer had not been damaged by the third revoke. Basically the issue is that while the defenders could have gained by revoking at trick three, they then gave that trick straight back by returning a spade, meaning that declarer was not actually damaged. Therefore, when analysing the situation before the fourth revoke, there should be no adjustment included for that third revoke. [Edit: After thinking about it some more, I'm unsure whether this is really the main problem with the argument. But it's certainly the first place where it is clear something has gone awry.]

My preference is to bid this hand starting 1♥:2♣,2x:2NT. You wait until the third round to show support. This distinguishes it from 1♥:2♣,2x:3♥ which promises a genuine club suit.

You need better methods. My preference is not to relay on unbalanced hands in the first place. If you insist on relaying with all shapes, OK but you're going to need to have a better variety of asking bids. If your only choice is controls vs QP, that isn't going to cut it. A good method is to have a way to set trumps. This should certainly be possible here where your suit is a major. Then normally the first response is keycard, but after that you can find specific cards in other suits.

What's the point in the draft Laws being sent out for comment, if we can't get them to clarify important things like this? The Laws need to say either: 1. If it is unclear what the player's intentions were when making the bid, the TD should find this out without making the information available to the other players. or 2. If it is unclear what the player's intentions were when making the bid, the TD should allow any correction which is comparable with one of the possible intended meanings. There's really no excuse for leaving this sort of thing open to interpretation!

There is a bug whereby the app incorrectly highlights whose turn it is to bid. This only happens at the start of the bidding: after a call has been made it gets sorted out. If you are dealer, then you do get the bidding interface but often a different player is highlighted. On Android v4.0.3

Declarer is a player who is known to have poor eyesight. Midway through the play in 2♥, RHO leads a club and declarer, seeing this as a spade, puts the ♠A on it. This isn't a revoke - declarer is out of clubs. Declarer realises his mistake after everyone at the table looks surprised by his ♠A play. Now declarer wants to take his ♠A back and the TD is asked whether he is allowed to do this. As much as we try to accommodate players with disabilities, I suspect we can't just allow declarer to take his card back. But can the card be taken back at the request of the opponents? And if so, is it appropriate for the TD to suggest this to them?