EarlPurple

1. Use enums or const ints inside a namespace, not #defines. 2. Don't put using namespace std in a header file. (Although you've put all the implementation into the one file and I see no file-scope guards). 3. Member variables should be private, not protected. (As you don't have virtual destructors you're not going to derive from these classes anyway). 4. I hate K&R bracing style. 5. cout - is this a console app? 6. Ever heard of std::for_each ?

1. I live in the UK. So if I became a bridge teacher here I'd have to teach Acol. Which is why I resisted becoming one. I didn't want to teach Acol. In fact I'd have to teach Standard English. 2. I disagree with the part "forget the complicated system you've learned" because I don't think my system is complicated. I think it's fairly simple. Opening 1♣ when you have a 4-card major is as simple as responding 2♣ over 1NT when you have one. It's just a different context. And I think players would get used to it very quickly but you've immediately jumped to the conclusion that "natural is easy, non-natural is complicated". 3. Yes, eventually I would teach them sayc but not because they have to play it, but because they might want to play it (if they play with a partner who plays it) and because they might play against it. I might teach them precision for the same reason - and all sorts of other conventions they might come up against at the table so they'll not feel uncomfortable when they show up. But then I would like to train players for tournament play, not for kitchen bridge or "simple systems only" contests. Now how about a hand: ♠ Kxx - QJxxx ♥ Ax - Kxx ♦ KQxx - xx ♣ QJxx - Axx Playing sayc. Likely auction 1NT-2H-2S-2NT-4S using transfers. Not playing transfers, it would probably go 1NT-3S-4S ? Playing Acol you open 1 of one of the minors, say 1D. So 1D-1S-1NT-2NT-3S-4S. That's probably the "correct" auction. Again will it be found? Playing my system 1D-1S-2S-3S-4S is the simplest auction. 2S is a basic raise, 3S invite and 4S bids game. What is the EHAA auction? Will you get to 4S? Give these hands to beginners - how many will reach 4S on it?

I bid it earlier but then I'm swayed by the fact I will play the hands. I think I chose (4). Having Axx in partner's suit makes me tempted to play this in NT where I may be able to run off quick tricks in diamonds.

I would advocate Minibridge too. You need to teach play and defence. I originally came across Minibridge in 1992. Back then, the side with the most points could pick the contract, but I suggested at the time they should have to pick at least 1NT, 2 of a major or 3 of a minor. I think they eventually implemented that. Another suggestion is to multiply the number of trumps by the number of points and divide by 20 suggesting the number of tricks they should take. If NT, divide by 3 and that's the contract. Thus declarer cannot always choose his contract which means some contracts may be unmakeable which will at least give defences a chance. If defences never stand a chance then players will never learn to defend or at least the defending side will get bored. The system I described (at the 1-level) uses artificial 1♣ and 1♦ bids but natural 1♥ and 1♠ bids. But in a 5-card major system, 1♣ and 1♦ are often not the longest suit anyway. But then do you teach Stayman? So you can bid 2♣ to show a 4-card major! In fact my 1♣ bid is a bit like puppet because you ask for 5-card majors (direct major bid) or to bid diamonds to show a 4-card major. So again, one system repeated in different places. So now I have said that you can bid clubs to look for 4-4 major suit fits, but what you find totally artificial in one situation you probably think is pretty natural in another. By the way, you may shield your players from Stayman but what happens when they go out and play and find their opponents use it? Will they get confused? Probably. For me, the most important thing to teach a beginner (beginning at bidding with some playing experience in minibridge) is to bid game. Beginners have tremendous problems bidding game. That has been my experience anyway.

I think if you taught them the system I have shown, got them to use it for a while, and then tried to teach them sayc or Acol, they'd be resisistent to change as well. It would be interesting to experiment with beginners who were taught one system and those who were taught another on a number of hands and see which ones bid them better.

Why didn't East lead a club back? Anyway he didn't so if I finesse and West had Qx in spades he might be endplayed? Anyway, I choose to finesse because I can still make sometimes even if West has Qx when he started with Qx, xx, xx, AQJxxxx. (Must cash both my hearts).

Once you teach them something though they'll be very resistant to change later on. And so many are reluctant to try out anything non-standard. After all, their teacher told them and it's standard so it must be best. You can go for a totally natural system, in that case possibly 4 card majors and possibly even strong NT to go with it. Of course they'll end up in the wrong contract so much of the time and then you'll have to introduce all the intricacies. What do you teach them about raising partner's opening 1 of a major? On 3-card support or 4? Is a jump strong, invitational or pre-emptive. When I first started I had a concept of if you were strong you jumped to show it, so I naturally assumed it would apply to trumps too. With my "system" if you want to force game you respond 2♦. Nice and simple - one bid to remember. My system is of course foreign but I'm convinced it is easier to learn.

Not sure 6♠ is such a great contract although it's probably better played by South as West is less likely to find a diamond lead from 4 small than East is from a singleton when West has the ace of spades (in which case 6♠ is beaten regardless of the position of the jack). And if spades are 4-1 then you go down on a force. So you need 3-2 spades and finding the jack, and diamonds 3-2 or if 4-1 then East to have ♠A

I didn't describe my opening bid structure fully though. You don't open with balanced 12-point hands. So the opening range is a very sound 13-15 or has some shape. 1♣ and 1♦ opening is not complex when you think about it. You are basically training them to think majors first, and aim for 3NT in most game-bidding situations where you don't have a major fit. Only with very shapely hands would you normally play in 5 of a minor, although you might often play a part-score hand in 3 of a minor where you can't make 9 tricks in NT (most likely a competitive auction). Actually I think sayc-type minor-suit openings can be more complicated. For one, they don't promise the minor, particularly 1♣. For that, a 4-card major system (as taught in the UK) may sound simpler but it's so hard to find 5-3 fits, and you don't want beginners playing 4-3 fits. (I prefer not playing them myself). If they do find themselves playing in 1NT with minor-suit fits, it's likely the opps have missed 2 of a major anyway. The only real problem is that after 1m pass 1NT 2M it's hard for the opening side to compete to 3 of a minor when they haven't found the fit yet (which they might not have). But that can happen anyway. For a beginner, you can also make the opening responses to 1M the same, although you have to question whether 1♥ pass 1♠ shows 4 or 5 and how you'll find a 5-3 spade fit. (I don't think Flannery is the answer). 1NT can be played as non-forcing, 2♣ as invitational values and 2♦ as an artificial game-force, immediate raises pre-emptive in nature and jump-shifts to be fit-showing. I'd prefer to teach my players that bidding is a language and not all pairs use the same language (bidding system) as other pairs, but it's vital they use the same as each other. After playing some sessions together they would be taught about other systems around, not so much so they can play them but so they will know they are likely to play against them.

Take out (negative) doubles are going to occur far more frequently than penalty ones because if my partner is long in diamonds and RHO is long in spades, chances are higher that I will be long in hearts and clubs. Hands where you would make a take out (negative) double are often those where you would be "fixed" for a bid without them. That's why they were introduced and became so popular. What I have seen too much of is a player who opens light then pulling their partner's penalty double. It's one of the advantages of sound opening bids, although it's true that light opening bids will encourage more interference.

The simplest system I could come up with (though it might not be simple enough) for a bright beginner is: 1♥ and 1♠ are 5-card majors 1NT is 16-18 1♣ promises a 4-card major and 1♦ response enquires, whereas a 1NT response is weak, 1♥ and 1♠ show 5-card suits, 2♣ is a semi-positive with no 4-card major and 2♦ forcing to game. 1♦ denies a 4-card major. Again 1♥ and 1♠ responses show a 5-card suit, 1NT is a weak response, 2♣ semi-positive and 2♦ forcing to game. So the responses to 1♣ and 1♦ are effectively the same. 2 bids are more advanced. If I'm going to play the system myself I would like a multi: 2♣ 18-21 (but not 18 balanced which you open 1NT) OR a weak 2 in diamonds. 2♦ game force or weak 2 in either major or 22-23 balanced. 2♥ and 2♠ are pre-emptive with 5 card suit and 5 card lower suit. 2NT a matter of taste - could be one of the balanced hands or could be pre-emptive. Of course you probably think the 2-bids are far too complex for beginners, but actually in the UK multi-bids have been very popular for a long time and a lot of the time it's relative beginners who wanted to play them because they didn't want to drop their strong 2s. Of course I will also teach them competitive bidding by the law of total tricks and get them to learn that bridge is a competitive game and the opponents are there to make things hard for you.

anyway it appears you can boot the same player a large number of times and it counts as just one boot. So if you boot GIB 50 times presumably that counts as only one boot, not likely to get you into trouble.

So I can boot "GIB" 100 times and it counts as only one boot? Good. And all the GIBs count as the same (not 3 different players?). Good. So I'm safe.

The original post though was talking about booting bots, not people. I have been booting them in games with me vs 3 bots because I never thought there was any harm in it - it felt like a private game to me, I even hid the table. I didn't even know the scores were going in for comparison, and there was certainly nothing contrived in the scores - they were all achieved with normal bidding, play and defence with no player attempting to throw a bad result. And if you're so concerned about the scores for other people, what about a pair who sit at a table with 2 bots, lock the table from kibs and then tell each other what they have, i.e. cheating against the bots, so they will always get good scores? Maybe they are sitting for bidding practice, so they don't even want to play out the hands, particularly if it's gone wrong. Perhaps you should give warnings to players who are booting, and suggest they play in practise mode (I think it exists) whereby they get comparisons but their scores don't count on the travellers so effectively you can do what you like / skip hands at the end of the bidding or undo and boot bots without getting into any trouble. This should continue to be the case even after the bots are no longer free.

And I promise tail wind in the bicycle lanes! Roland Good. If you like cyclists so much then how about coming to London and build me a nice tunnel between Golders Green and the lower part of Hampstead Heath (near the Royal Free Hospital) to cut out that horribly steep hill.

Well I have paid for Jack. Can't integrate it into BBO. And those who have paid for GIB as standalone software won't get any discount on here. I thought we might see GIB used expanded so we can partner GIB in tourneys, have them sit in as sub for disconnects etc. How will paying for it work? A small fee for unlimited usage or pay-per-use? But I know how this works - you start with a small fee and eventually it just becomes a major business. Saw it happen on okbridge, where we first paid $50 for unlimited use then within a few years it was $200 if you wanted to play in tourneys. I thought that perhaps GIB could have been introduced here in its limited form for free by Ginsberg with the hope that it would impress enough people to go out and buy the full product, thus in some ways being free advertising for him.

Well GIBs haven't reported me to abuse yet. But maybe if I'm hosting the table I have the right to decide whether or not to allow undos. And I've tried having GIB sitting only in opposition but when I switch seats the hands change so I have to put a bot in there at least for the start of the hand, and for the last trick so it doesn't show up as "passed out".

Well you can hardly get worse than the bots at zone. I might agree to pay for bots who would play faultless bridge, who would play my system. I hope the boot and ban rule doesn't apply to bots because when I sit at a table with 3 bots I boot all the time. For one, it's the only way to get an undo, then I have to run across the table to get the undo and need to boot one of the opps bots as well, and that's to undo bot partner's idiocy.

your system looks nice but could break if the opponents compete over 1♣ or 1♦

making myself invisible didn't help - my table still got requests. Marking the seat as reserved does help but then I can't run around the seats. And why when I have done a run around the seats does the result of the board sometimes come up as passed-out and the result in the sheet in dark blue?

Jack's DD solver is better because it will tell you exactly how many tricks are made with each play, not just whether or not the contract is making. Usually good to know when someone has sacrificed and is obviously going down to know exactly by how many. I would like to see the ability to have "plug-ins" (which you may have to pay for) to add extra functionality. For example, if I have the right plug-in, it will put a number on each card telling me how many tricks will be made with that play.

in the UK standard means high cards are: - in attitude signals, showing encouragement. But an honour denies the honour immediately above it. - in count signals, showing an even number - in suit-preference signals, indicating a high-ranking suit. The general "standard" is also to play attitude on partner's lead, count on declarer's lead. Some change this to attitude primarily, then count if partner doesn't want attitude, then suit-preference if partner doesn't want either. More flexible players make the signal they want to make and hope partner reads it right. Many will, of course, invert the signals, usually both or neither, sometimes just attitude. I've never seen anyone playing high-low to encourage or an odd-number.

Any chance of a table where you don't receive any requests to join at all?

and if I boot all the GIBS I can undo. 1!H Dbl 2!H 6!D because I happened to have an enormous hand with a void in hearts, singleton spade. 6!D Dbl'ed by LHO and 7!D by partner and I thought I was fixed. Until I discovered I could actually boot all the GIBs, then I'm finally allowed to undo my bid and rebid 6!D then run round the table bidding each hand as it SHOULD have gone (i.e. passing the double as partner) and only at the end of the auction reinstating all the GIBs. Sorry but GIB can't claim a victory against me by giving me 3 opponents. However it's crazy that in a game with one player and 3 bots, I am so limited by my options.