redtop

At least in the USA, BAM is always played as "short" matches. Basically you play 2-3 boards against each opponent. So the idea is to create a BAM movement in the software. BAM movements are done one of two ways. They can be played within the same section where all the NS pairs play all (or nearly all) the EW pairs, except of course their own teammates, or they can be played in separate sections where all the NS teams in one section are EW in the other. It would be possible to have games like this scored at IMPs, which is something I've never seen attempted, but we have to walk before we run. A little history that predates my bridge career. Go back to at least the 1970's, maybe earlier, and tournament team games were KO or BAM. BAM lost some popularity because it is not random enough and the same teams won all the time - remember this was also before the days of flighting or stratification. Someone, somewhere (The Bridge World?) developed the idea of Swiss Teams as short IMP matches and that quickly became the most popular form of teams.

I realize that BBO has been running as fast as it can just to stay in place - but I'd really enjoy the ability to play BAM, whether ACBL sanctioned or not. Would others like to see that? Is this a small, medium, or large programming challenge?

It's good to play good/bad 2N to handle these kinds of hands. I would treat this as the "good" hand and bid 3!C, with 5 losers, good clubs, and a useful honor in partner's suit. Owning the boss suit, I don't see the need to jump to 4!S at E's first turn. Admittedly he has serious negative factors for slam (2 heart losers, the wrong minor-suit holding - reverse the minors and it's MUCH better), but I'm not tremendously worried about being outbid to 5!H. Notice that if the opponents bid to 5!H, partner will likely have a stiff !H and 5!S will make. But E has a 5-loser hand also and regardless of what the prior auction means, anything short of 4!S would be quite cowardly.

It's definitely true that the "best" psychs are on very weak hands, white vs. red in 3rd seat. By far the best psych I ever had was when I had a topless 8-card diamond suit and out, at matchpoints. I think it was both white. I opened 1NT. The opponents brushed aside the interference and got to 4H. I led a diamond, finding Kx in dummy. Declarer decided to eliminate the diamonds before doing anything else, holding Ax. After all, what could go wrong? When my partner ruffed at trick 2 and we got 2 tricks when the rest of the field got one, we got something like 11 on a 12 top. I also recall opening 1S, not in third seat, playing Bergen raises, on a 1-3-6-3 shape. Partner bid 3D, which I passed. That was a success. Sometimes you sweat bullets. I once psyched on a balanced 4 count and partner, who had passed a ratty balanced 12 count, doubled them in 3N, and we nipped it a trick. Another time, on the last board of a regional, I thought we needed a good board to win. I opened 1N in 3rd seat, both vul, on a balanced 4 count. The opponents got to 3N when 6 was cold, and we did in fact tie for 1st. You need a partner who can take a joke. Practicing online, I once opened 1N in second seat on a weak 4-2-6-1 hand. I figured that if partner bid 2D (showing hearts) I could pass, and if he bid 2H (showing spades) we'd at least have gotten to a 9-card fit that the field wouldn't find. I think he bid 2D and I passed, the opponents came back in, he forced us to some insane heart contract, and then cancelled our date for an upcoming nationals. Presently I usually play 10-13NT white vs. red except in 4th seat, so I can't really psych 1N. The problem is that opponents play penalty doubles over weak notrumps. If you are playing strong NT and they are playing DONT or any other system that doesn't allow penalty doubles, they will find it hard to get their values across, except maybe with a long long pause, and then taking the double card and slamming it onto the table. (Just joking, the overwhelming majority of players are ethical.) The key to a successful psych is to be able to project sensible auctions that will lead to a favorable result. Having a runout is a big plus.

I remember about 25 years ago, I was teaching my then-girlfriend to play bridge on The Sierra Network, and the one thing I said most was "Don't underlead Aces against a suit contract!" I can't remember the last time I led one on opening lead. I'm not that good!

I'm sure there are other threads on this topic. I'm not sure I've ever actually posted on the BBO forum before. I am not a consipracy theorist. I don't believe bots are secretly programmed to cheat. But I can't help but wonder. What do you lead from: J32 J98 732 T742 Against 2NT - 3NT? By bot opponent found a spade lead, which is of course the only lead to break the contract. On another hand a bot holding something like: Q xxx xxxxxx xxx Lead the spade Q on a blind NT auction, finding Jx in dummy and AKTxxx with partner. I can possibly understand the second. It could pickle the spade suit but it could be the only thing to aid partner, who is more likely to be the one with enough tricks to defeat the contract. But it seems like bots find a LOT of blind leads from short suits that hit partner's long suit. It's almost like you want to play the partner of the opening leader to be the danger hand in that suit. Now, I could be wrong in what I'm about to say. On the first hand I gave, the bot could be doing a simulation and if you simulated a zillion hands then a heart lead would almost have to be better than a spade, but if you only simulate a hundred or a thousand there could be plenty of random noise to made a spade more successful. But it seems like bots hit partner's long suit a lot of the time. I've been online for a zillion years and heard whining about the randomness of online dice and cards forever. Hell, we all remember when people used to complain that the computer deals in ACBL tournaments were non-random. Most of the time, when people whine I challenge them to state specifically what they think is crooked and to collect data in a scientifically valid experiment to prove it. Nobody ever does. Bad players just like to blame losing on something other than their lack of skill. I haven't done a scientific study. But - I still don't get it - can someone explain? Am I halucinating? Not about these two specific hands, but in general, it really seems that when I'm declarer in NT, RHO is more likely to be long in the suit led than LHO.

Like anything, you need an agreement on the strength ranges. IF you have an agreement it can be this weak, maybe you could do it, but still that's a dangerous agreement to have, and it will kind of preclude using the gadget on some stronger hands. When partner has a good enough hand to make your bid useful, he will often get overboard. Partner also has a call coming and can come in, although there are certainly hands he'll be preempted out of the auction. What will likely happen on this hand is that partner will bid clubs and you will certainly raise to 5, but you might miss the good save because you don't know about the double fit. I might well bid at favorable vulnerability if our partnership agreements allowed.

I believe it has been claimed that encrypted signals are inherently difficult to give in tempo. However, the same was claimed of odd-even, which was banned for a while. (It is now permitted only on the first discard.) I believe that Bobby Wolff claimed that people playing odd-even would tank to show that they didn't have the right card to play (i.e. holding KQ64 they would tank, then play the 4, while holding KQ63 they would quickly play the 3). So you hold Axxx in a suit and the K is in dummy and partner encourages. Is it illegal that you know that partner has the Q and not the A because of your hand? When partner shows the trump Q in a keycard auction and you hold it, is it unfair that you know partner has extra trump length and the opponents don't? I think that if someone wants to do the extra work to play encrypted signals AND can do so in tempo, let 'em. Hard work and good theory should be rewarded.

There are "seams" in every system. 2/1 except rebid has drawbacks, unconditionally forcing vs. semi-forcing has drawbacks, jump shifts can mean various things but only one general hand type (usually). I personally prefer semi-forcing and I'd bid 1N with this hand. If pard has a bad hand and passes, at least I'm two levels lower than 3S. I might just blow partner a kiss, referring to my heart, and if he smiles showing hearts I would bid 1NT but if he frowns I would make a limit raise in spades on the lack of duplicated values in hearts. Oh wait, sorry, I would like to be allowed to continue to play bridge tomorrow. Seriously, what you would "like" to bid depends on his heart holding but you have no (legal) way to find that out. If you are playing naval bids (semaphore cing), you have a system bid here (1NT) or you can lie. If you have to lie, bidding theory suggests you tell the smallest lie possible, but here you don't have to lie at all.

I would interpret double as card-showing, penalty-oriented. Pass is way too chicken. If partner has the spade 10 and heart A I am cold for +110. This is also a terrible vulnerability to sell out at. I think 2S should be the same as if RHO had raised clubs, new suit constructive after an overcall. Partner should know that spade honors and prime cards elsewhere are working and other cards are not. I wouldn't bid 3S, although I think it's definitely weaker than 2C followed by a spade bid. But I don't expect the auction to end at 2S; I expect to bid 3S later and partner may have another chance to evaluate his hand.