jbaptistec

Deal 1 : ♦J, passive at MPs since partner is likely to be broke. At IMPS I would lead a ♥. Deal 2 : It looks like with a passive lead, declarer will score 4♦, 5♥ and at least 3♠♣. Both S and N are likely to guard ♠ so I would lead the ♣Q. Even if declarer has AKJ, this is unlikely to be declarer's 12th trick (though it costs an undertrick if declarer has a ♥ loser). Deal 3 : ♣K Deal 4 : ♣7, WTP

This hand is one of the reasons I am for the use of 4-color decks. Anyway, the score must stand.

Awkward guess indeed. Opposite a simple 1♥ overcall game is dubious, especially with that distribution (ops will quickly set up ♠ vs 3NT and ruffs vs 4♥), and X just transfers the guess to partner (who will probably score -730 a bit too often for the X to be good). Against very good opponents, I would pass at IMPs and X at MPs. Otherwise 4♥, in case they want to push to 4♠.

Am I the only one who did not even consider X here was for penalty ? (for me X is 100% takeout) I would pass this. And X with at least [♠AJxx ♥x ♦AQJx ♣Qxxx] or [♠QJxx ♥- ♦AQ10xx ♣Q10xx]

Hand is a bit too strong for a ♦ transfer followed by pass, and too weak to force game. I would try 2♣. Over 2♦ -> pass Over 2♥ (unlucky) -> invite in NT (since 3♦ would force game) Over 2♠ -> 4♠

Isn't [1♥ - 4NT - 5♣ - 5♦] an ask for the ♥Q ? I like 2♦ followed by 5♦ (or by 4♦ if slam hope)

Double too. We did not X on 2♦ so partner will probably guess not to lead a ♦ when this is right. And as pointed out sooner, this is unlikely to help the opps to pick the final contract.

This feature would indeed be useful.

I think this example might be better. Suppose we run a tournament with 2 sections : one section with only two tables, one section with 10 tables. On some deal, pairs A1 (in section 1) and A2 (in section 2) score 3NT when all the rest of their respective fields went down. Should both pairs score 10 cross-IMPs ? Or should A1 score 5 IMPs and A2 10 IMPs (EDIT : actually, only 9), since A2's result was compared to more tables ?

Thank you for your answers. We were not playing 2/1 GF, so after 3♥ opener judged his ♦Axx was golden. Our auction went 1♥ - 2♦ - 2♥1 - 3♥ - 3♠2 - 4♦ - 4NT3 - 5♥... (1) 2NT would have shown 15-17 (2) 2nd-round control (3) RKCB Fortunately we had horrible breaks so every game was also doomed.

[hv=pc=n&w=sk8hj9632da62ca54&e=saqha84dkqt85ct72]266|100[/hv] IMPs, all red, spots approximate. West deals, opps remain silent.

What about filtering by country instead of system ?

1) 4♦ without particular methods. I like the offered alternatives of the conventional 3♦ and 4♣ though. 2) Obviously, answer the RKCB. If partner cared about your void she would have asked for first round controls instead. Probably if she had bid 5♣ you can reach the slam.

I'm not sure if it would be easy to implement, and I do not really care of my position in the replay, but i admit this would be a good option.

I think this should hardly be a priority. I am myself a Steam user and would not think to look for bridge, poker or other classical card or board games software here. There is another reason : it would probably take far too much time to produce a version which : Matches the design of other softwares : if we released BBO as is on Steam, players who just wanted to test bridge out of curiosity would just jump to another game, judging mainly by graphics. Offers a fun-to-play solo mode. As far as I know, every game on Steam is playable offline. Provides a clear tutorial to bridge. The only advantage I see would be to use Steam cloud computing in order to store played hands. I think this is really insignificant.