myprac

Not sure what my rebid would be with North's hand, but 2♣ seems out of the question with 22 HCP. GIB did this at every table (I was practicing with basic bot). [hv=sn=myprac&s=ST5HAKT432D7CJ653&wn=Robot&w=SJ32H75DKQT943CT8&nn=Robot&n=SAQ9HQJDA8CAKQ742&en=Robot&e=SK8764H986DJ652C9&d=n&v=o&b=1&a=1C(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20C%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P1H(One%20over%20one%20--%204+%20H%3B%206+%20total%20points)P2C(Opener%20rebids%20his%20C%20--%203-%20H%3B%203-%20S%3B%2011+%20HCP%3B%20rebiddable%20C%3B%2012-16%20total%20points)P2H(Responder%20rebid%20--%206+%20H%3B%206-10%20total%20poin)P4H(2-3%20H%3B%203-%20S%3B%2016+%20HCP%3B%20rebiddable%20C%3B%2016-%20total%20points)PPP&p=CTCAC9C3HQH6H2H7HJH8H3H5DAD6D7D4D8DJH4D3HAC8S9H9CJS2C2S4C5S3CKS7CQS8C6SJC4D5S5DKC7S6STDQSQSKHTD9HKDTSAD2]400|300|[/hv]

[hv=sn=human&s=SKT6HAK942DA3CQJ5&wn=Robot&w=SJ5HQ87D954CAKT97&nn=Robot&n=S743HJ653DKQ82C64&en=Robot&e=SAQ982HTDJT76C832&d=n&v=n&b=37&a=PP1H(Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20H%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P2H(Simple%20raise%20--%203+%20H%3B%207-10%20total%20points)P4H(5+%20H%3B%2021-%20HCP%3B%2018-22%20total%20points)PPP&p=CKC4C2C5SJS3SAS6S2SKS5S4HAH8H3HTHKH7H5S8DAD4D2D7D3D5DKD6DQDTSTD9&c=10]400|300|[/hv] I was practicing with basic bots and when checking the traveler I couldn't figure out how anyone could make the contract. This is what I found. I've seen this among human players but this is the first time I've seen it work with robots. Is this an upgrade? You can now claim when playing robots? And they'll accept the claim even if the contract is unmakeable?

[hv=sn=myprac&s=SAQ854HA98D8CT762&wn=Robot&w=SKJT96HJ63DK75CAJ&nn=Robot&n=S7HKT74DAJT32CKQ5&en=Robot&e=S32HQ52DQ964C9843&d=n&v=o&b=1&a=1D(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P1S(One%20over%20one%20--%204+%20S%3B%206+%20total%20points)P1N(2-5%20C%3B%204-5%20D%3B%202-4%20H%3B%202-3%20S%3B%2012-14%20HCP)PPD(Penalty%20double%3B%20requests%20S%20lead%20--%2013+%20HCP%3B%20rebiddable%20S%3B%2020-%20total%20points)PPP&p=C3C2CAC5CJCKC4C6S7S2SQSKD5DJDQD8S3SAS6D3H9H3HTHQH5HAH6H7H8HJHKH2H4C8S8SJCQC9CTSTD2D9S4DKS9DAD6S5D7DTD4C7]400|300|[/hv] It appears that GIB's code permits it to request a lead but not to fulfill that request.

Playing in the Main Bridge Club with unknown opponents ("take me to the first seat available"), I had an opponent who bid 7NT in circumstances where it could not possibly have been a serious bid. My partner doubled, and the 7NT bidder redoubled despite having no hope of making the contract. Then, on the opening lead he conceded all 13 tricks. Checking hand records, I saw that this was not the first time this person made a random bid of 7NT with no hope of making it and no reason for a sacrifice bid. It's the bridge equivalent of vandalism, ruining the hand not only for those at the table but also for others hoping to get an honest score from playing the same hand. Have others encountered similar behavior? Thoughts on this? My link

Your RHO's opening bid of 1NT was passed around and you must make an opening lead from this collection: ♠73 ♥J9642 ♦JT85 ♣85 Based on the bidding we can make some limited inferences about distribution and infer that partner has some strength. What's the smart way to think about leading from this hand? The default choice of ♥4 seems unlikely to succeed because your hand has no plausible entries to use this suit if it sets up. If partner has a good suit, it's most likely to be one of the black ones -- but leading from one of these doubletons could be just the help declarer needs to establish that suit. Does anyone like ♦J, top of a broken sequence? Or do you stick with ♥4 with the thought that this is the lead least likely to help declarer?

[hv=sn=obree&s=SJ98742HAQJDCK954&wn=Robot&w=S63H32DKJT8754CJ3&nn=Robot&n=SAK5HK654DA932C62&en=Robot&e=SQTHT987DQ6CAQT87&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=PP1D(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P1S(One%20over%20one%20--%204+%20S%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%206-12%20tota)P1N(2-5%20C%3B%204-5%20D%3B%202-4%20H%3B%202-3%20S%3B%2012-14%20HCP)P2S(Retreat%20from%20notrump%20--%205+%20S%3B%206-11%20total)PPD(4+%20C%3B%205-%20D%3B%204+%20H%3B%205-%20S%3B%2010-16%20total%20points)PPP&p=H3H4H7HJS2S6SASTSKSQS9S3H5H9HAH2HQD4H6HTS4D5S5C7HKH8C4D7DAD6C5D8C2CTCKC3SJCJC6C8S8DJD2DQS7DKD3CAC9DTD9CQ]400|300|[/hv] GIB did this at two tables. I guess East's balancing double is okay as a two-suited takeout, and I can see the problem it poses for West, but it can't be right to pass here, can it?

With too many cards the only correct call is "Director!"

First time I've seen a two-suited bar bid. Fair to assume it would allow partner to correct back to responder's first suit (♥), rather than bar any further bidding?

In GIB's bidding system a takeout double is in effect something of a multi bid, normally showing a minimum point count and what might be called "takeout double distribution" (2- in the suit that is doubled, 3+ in all the others) but also being used with a strong hand that may not have that distribution. In the latter case the plan is to show strength (and alert partner to the possibility of a shape that isn't suitable for a normal takeout double) with a second bid. I assume that what happened here is that North saw it had strength for the second kind of takeout double but then found it didn't have a suit of good enough quality for a followup bid. One way to avoid that would be to adjust the criteria for the takeout double so that in cases where it means "strong hand, off shape" there has to be a rebiddable suit other than a major suit opened by opponents, so there's a place to go if partner bids your short suit. In this approach North would pass on the first round despite holding 19 total points. NS would end up defending 2♥ with opponents nonvul, which seems like a waste of North's hand but is certainly better than playing in 2♠. Another possibility would be to make a second bid from doubler mandatory, at least when the result could otherwise be a five-card fit. In this case North would have to bid 2NT, because retreating to a minor could also lead to a five-card fit. I assume this hand falls short of the HCP criterion for 2NT in this situation but it seems like the least unappealing choice given that South's free bid shows at least a few HCP to go along with North's 17, and North holds stoppers in the unbid suits and two in opponents' suit.

From practice with basic robots: [hv=sn=myprac&s=SQ853HD9854CKT986&wn=Robot&w=SAKT9HJT876DJ7CQJ&nn=Robot&n=S2HAK943DAQ32CA53&en=Robot&e=SJ764HQ52DKT6C742&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=PP1H(Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20H%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)D(Takeout%20double%20--%203-5%20C%3B%203-5%20D%3B%202-%20H%3B%203-4%20S%3B%2012+%20total%20points)2H(free%20raise%20--%203+%20H%3B%206-10%20total%20points)2S(Free%20bid%3B%20new%20suit%20--%204+%20S%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%206-1)PPP&p=HJHKH2D4HAH5D5H8H3HQS3H7D8DJDQDKS7S8STS2H6H9SJSQD9D7DADTC3C2CKCJCTCQCAC7D2D6S5SKSAD3S6C6HTH4S4C8C4C9S9C5]400|300|[/hv]

That's interesting. I was under the impression that if anything basic robots were more likely to bid "by the book" because they don't look for creative alternatives. I guess in this case forcing doesn't mean forcing.

Hmm, should have included "Yellow Card." Also, I suppose some people say just "Standard American" when they refer to this system though most are aware that that term tends to be used loosely and want to specify SAYC when that is what they mean.

I'd like to clarify a small detail. The document says to subtract a short suit point if the short suit has honors. "Honors" here must mean point cards as it wouldn't make sense to do this with tens. I'd like to confirm that it applies to all point cards in short suits, not just unguarded face cards. I understand the rationale for treating a singleton ace as being worth less than six points but want to be sure that's what you intend.

The hand is from practice with the basic robot, which I suspect is getting pretty tired of me by now. I've never tried the downloaded version.

Just for fun, wondering how most people pronounce the oft-abbreviated name for this system.