DonMario

As I was under the same impression about the frequency of uneven hands,I decided to check the distributions over about 20 daylong tournaments that I played lately. I was mostly interested in suit contracts played with 8-card fit. Interestingly I counted three 5-0, fourteen 4-1 and thirty-two 3-2 distributions which, within the margin of error inherent to the limited size of the sample, pretty much follows the expected probability of each distribution. I also checked for 9-card fit and it turned out a little bit off, but the 2-2 distributions was higher than expected. This goes to show that our brain likes to remember the oddities but quickly forget what is just "normal". I do not play team but I would expect the BBO dealer to follow the same rules as for the daylong tourneys. Now, two nine-cards suit in the same tournament that does not sound right.

Standard designed for printing days are not necessarily optimum with today's technology. Sure human play too.

While we are on the topic of changing looks, I wish the bidding for robot play would be shown in a format that corresponds to what we have at the table, i.e. W to the left, E to the right, S in front and nearest, N in front and furthest. I sometimes misread the bids (normally after a few drinks...)

I just wanted to share an interesting (funny??) bidding sequence that I used recently with my regular partner in a local club tournament. The normal sequence with standard conventions would probably have been 1H - 2NT (Jacoby)- 3S (short)- 4NT (KC asking) - 5D (0 or 3) - 6H (no need to ask for the Q with one ace missing) We have modified our system to bid hands that are the same strength as 2NT but with a singleton or void to be 1H-2S ( it can also be 5-6 hcp still with 4-card H, a sort of semi Bergen block. This allows us to bid splinter with 9-11 hcp with no particular interest in slam. We also use 4S for KC asking in H when there is no possible ambiguity. Finally we use a five steps answer to KC asking where the fifth step is 3+Q (second step is 0 possibly with Q or 3 without Q) So our bidding sequence went 1H - 2S - 3S - 4S - 5S - 6H. Needless to say that we alerted and explained the bids to our opponents, lest they think we had lost our mind...

If I knew how to rake in that type, I would not be playing bridge...Sorry, I could not resist.

I am talking about the daily, monthly, yearly, robot IMP, robot MP, speedball, etc...

Dear BBO colleagues, At the moment, BBO has all sorts of rankings for individuals but surprisingly no ranking for pairs, although the pair is the basic unit of the bridge game. I realize it may be a bit more complicated to manage such a ranking than the current ones but may be it could start with a simple speedball pair ranking. I am quite sure that would entice people to play in more regular partnerships than at present. I have myself locally sponsored a pair challenge in my club and within a year we have seen strong partnerships forming while before only a couple of pairs were regular partners. The level of the game has benefited from that action. If I receive positive feedback, I will make a formal suggestion to BBO management. Looking forward to your comments. DonMario

Dear BBO users, My partner and I have recently altered our system to use 2D as weak 2 in majors. During a speedball tournament my 2D bid was refused. Opponents originally thought it was a psychic Flannery, then called it a multi. The tournament director agreed with them and we got a 40-60 split. I am not arguing about the director s decision. It is his privilege and prerogative to take such decisions. I am merely seeking clarifications. First about multi, I was under the impression that multi were bids with more than two meanings. I guess I was wrong. More specifically, regarding the weak 2D bid, I was directed by the director (that s his job..) to check the Convention-Chart.pdf on ACBL website. I did so and I found the following quote weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit. unquote Now, english is not my mother tongue but to me the way it is written means that both conditions have to be breached for the bid not to be allowed. If the bid shows at least five cards in the suit OR is within the range of 7HCP, then it is allowed. I guess it should read are not within a range of 7 HCP OR do not show at least five cards in the suit. In fact the ACBL MID-Chart states the following as disallowed quote 8. Any weak opening bid which promises an unknown suit may not include as the unknown suit the suit named (the suit opened). unquote which by inference suggests that weak two bids can be for unknown suits as long as the bid suit is excluded. Any comments are welcome. Mario