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.

I think that playing with or against regular partners is always a more enjoyable experience. However, the only option offered currently is to invite a player to sit at the first open table, which does not always match our expectations. Worse : even if one of us finds a good private table, and asks host to reserve seats for us, some other player will almost always have joined before we have finished typing the message. I suggest two things : 1. Allowing to invite partner to seat simultaneously at the table we pick in the list. If it is a private table, the host would see the request as a pair, so he can either accept both of us or reject both of us. 2. Regular pairs should be displayed differently, in order to quickly find a good matchup. This could be done in several ways : Creating another lobby for regular players to play. Of course we can specify in the description of the tables we create that we would like regular ops, but nobody seems to read it. When two friends sit across, display their names in a different color (orange ?), both at the table and in the tables list. In a same way, when a player is in a seat reserved only for him (most often because he and his partner are a regular pair), display his name in a different color. What do you think ?

This. I play 2♣ after an overcall differently with my partners, but whatever its meaning opener may rebid 2♥ with 16 or even 17pts and 6+♥. You bid accordingly.

After some research, I think these cards would suit pretty well.

Yeah, I guess I can add '?i=my_code&c=d' to the address then parse the page, but I would have liked a more direct way. Never mind anyway, I managed to make the server ssh to another machine in order to run dealer. Very dirty way, I know.

Is there also a hand generator written in php ? I have made a bidding database and I would like to generate some hands with constraints for bidding practice. Unfortunately, the server I use does not have the necessary libraries for dealer or deal, and only has Python 2.4 so redeal does not work either.

Sorry to bump the topic, but is the idea going to be considered ?

Probably something like 1♠ (-) 1NT (2♥) X (3♥) 4♣ (4♥) And now an unclear decision for South. (double ?)

I pass : the preempt is likely to put more pressure on partner than on the opponents. Would be a different story in 1st or 3rd seat.

I'll bid 5♦ right now. Partner probably does not have many ♥ for his preempt, so it is very unlikely they stay in 3♥ if we pass, and there is a slight chance they can make 5♥. I don't want to help their decision over 5♦. Furthermore, by sacrificing now it is very possible they leave it undoubled thinking we bid to make. If we pass then sacrifice later, they will know to choose between X and 5♥. I think the second question is ambiguous. If I first passed hoping they stay in 3♥, then it is an obvious 5♦ bid. If I first bid 3♠ for some reason, then I'll be consistent and pass 4♥.

Neither do I. What would be the point of typing '→' instead of 'H', a perfectly clear key ? (probably for those who are not familiar with a keyboard ? then learning to spot CDHS on a keyboard should not be as hard as remembering which arrow corresponds to what) Arrows might be useful in the play, though, to select a card then play it with Space.