Jyrki_63

Partner and I might have chance, but I do predict our auction would peter out at either 4S or 5C. Our system is 2/1 Transfer Walsh with a few extra agreements. The bidding would begin 1C(1) - 1H(2) 1S(3) - 2NT(4) 3S(5) - ? Explanations: 1) Our systemic opening bid for balanced hands in this range without a 5 card non-club suit (1NT opening is 14-16, 2NT opening 22-23). 2) Transfer to spades. 3) Default acceptance (South could be very weak if they cannot tolerate clubs). Here 17-18 balanced without 4 card support would bid 1NT, so this is either 12-13 or 19-21). 4) XYZ showing a desire to play in 3C opposite 12-13 (1C only promised 2 cards, so this is usually 6), or a strong hand with 55 majors. 5) A 19-21 hand bids something other than 3C. Looking at the red aces as opposed to slower honors I would think that we want to play in a black suit. But at this point I'm not sure about the continuation. It is not impossible to envision the actual hand, but it is usually prudent not to play partner for a perfecto. As South I would probably be happy to have located a 53 major fit, and suggest 4S. There is an inference that this might be 56, allowing North to correct to clubs. But it could simply be a judgement call, thinking that Moysian is the best chance. Particularly at MPS. It is undiscussed, to what extent 3S denied interest in 3NT? After all, North has shown 19-21 balanced with exactly 3 spades:-) A tough hand. I'm not sure I would want to be in 6C with Jxxx trumps in the West. Is there not a danger of you getting tapped after a red suit lead? Need two ruffs to get to the long trump hand: once to lead towards QT of trumps, and the other to draw the Jack of trumps. At that point the trumps are exhausted, and the spade suit is still untouched! I guess a better timing might be to develop the spades earlier, but I'm not sure if that helps?

Where are the rules, hands and results of the Bidders Challenge discussed? I see nothing here. Anyway, there are a number of things I find troubling. In early March I got the invitation, and proceeded to submit my guesses as to the best bids. But, unlike in the months prior to this, I never got a confirmation e-mail. Instead, late last week I got another e-mail prompting me to submit my bids. Today I did just that. But - I still did not get any confirmation e-mail. - The rules of contest apparently prohibit several submissions. Will I now be disqualified? I don't think I managed to exactly duplicate the answers from the first submission, as the hands are rather wild, and mood will affect my decision. Don't get me wrong, this kind of a contest is a great idea. But there are kinks to be worked out. At least in my browser I couldn't see the explanations of the alerts (a severe handicap). I then figured out that if you download the pdf-file, the alerts are explained there. Such tips could be stickied somewhere to get new participants up to speed quickly. Also, as of late it has felt like a contest of figuring out "which overbid will describe this hand the best assuming partner has the right hand" rather than actually evaluating the chances of the said fit. Ok, I'm exaggerating a bit. It is just that I haven't gotten used to the fact that a cautious approach will not win many points here :-). A sound approach may be too take the aggressive approach. Even if the cards were unkind, I will get "protection" from the panelists. More seriously, I do welcome reading the experts discuss a problem somewhat out of my comfort zone. How else could I extend that zone otherwise?

You would think that most human players would bid 3NT with that South hand for sure! I could think of two reasons not to do that: A) Concern about hearts. After all North tends to deny a 4 carder in the unbid major (though where else could those 5+ points reside?). B) Possibility of a high club contract (particularly if North has short hearts, and the points consist of SA, diamond quack and some club length. But in that case 3C would be a more logical rebid, unless systematically it would mean something else. But is either of these a compelling motive? 3NT is the practical bid.

With my regular partner I do the same. But we play Puppet Stayman, so 2H/S to a 2C query shows a 5-carder. Works quite well when you can GS with all bad hands with 2+ in both majors and 5+D (if the quacks and pips suggest it may be prudent).

If N bidding is to make sense (a big if, but let's try anyway) the 4S bid should also be a cue bid denying the ace of diamonds. A fit in one of your suits is implied. Because you don't have a diamond control, I would just bid 5C and hear what N says next. The actual hand probably passes unless it somehow divines that you must really have diamond shortness (which is why it made the invitation). Of course, I may have made one or two unwarranted assumptions about the meaning of 4S. The descriptions of the continuations are off for sure. Who knows? If N raises you to 6C, West may lead a safe heart :-)

Thanks for the bit about the meaning of the first double. At some level I was aware of that. After all, the expectation of getting covers for my heart losers played a big role in my hand evaluation. Anyway, that doesn't change the fact that 4C is, in my opinion, the logical rebid. The suggestion that I should Double as my rebid sounds dangerous. Even if not strictly for penalties won't that show tolerance for defending 3SX and no interest in a heart contract? Typically 3252 or 4243 shape with extra strength, may be 2353? If that same bid used also for 0364, the range of hands is too much to sort out with subsequent bidding. We are at the four level next already. And we may well belong in hearts (this is MPs). Even if partner doesn't have five, it looks like this hand may play well in a Moysian. If I bid 4D, GIB may well pass even if we want to play in a rounded suit. That could still be right, of course. I do appreciate the difficulties of defining a bidding system with rules a computer could follow. Reading the older thread (thanks for the link!), the way I see it the problem is that due to the 5-card major system we cannot have a blanket rule that the first bid suit is the longest. But this does not apply if A) both bid suits are minors, or B) the subsequent bidding implies that the major suit has 5 cards or more (when the systemic opening on a 3 or 4 card minor is out of the question). In other words, this seems to be something that could be fixed simply by "just adding an if...then -clause" or two. Of course, the system definitions should primarily be geared to dealing with the more common hand types as opposed to these wilder hands. --- Mind you, I'm sure this and many other problems with GIB's bidding have been discussed earlier. Yet, the search didn't show anything. Apparently I also miss something about how to best use this resource.

This I have never understood. I realize that with a weak hand the opener may need to open, say a 4 card diamond ahead of a 5 carder in clubs, if they plan to show both suits. But with a strong hand?? Zenith hand from yesterday I open 1D, the opps interfere with 1S. First GIB asks me to show a second with a TOX. The RHO pre-empts with a 3S. I have extras with 0364 shape, so I show my clubs. With 33 in the minors GIB then later decides that clubs make a better trump suit? I do know to look at the bid descriptions. It says that my 4C promises rebiddable clubs. But that is just ridiculous. Say GIB is 55 or 54 or 44 in the rounded suits. We are never going to find the club fit unless I bid them. Furthermore, as I am willing to commit to the four level, I promise extra strength. Therefore we are not in a situation where I might want to open in a shorter suit. Several years ago GIB insisted on playing in a 52 heart fit instead of 65 available in clubs. I had a strong hand with 6 clubs and 5 hearts (judging from the bidding I could have only had four hearts). Exactly what rules is GIB following when making a preference? It is as if it never believes my minor openings were real suits.

Hi, Is it possible to get the existing software to handle the following? Or may be develop the necessary functions? We have been running a teams league for many years. And, as the pandemic is still with us, the need to move it to an internet platform is clear. A single session consists of several teams knocking heads, a 32 board or a 28 board match. The extra needs are: - A single TD handling it. - The same set of boards is to be played in all the matches, IMP scoring. - We also absolutely want to have comparisons between the results of different matches. Something like the average Imp scores per deal. Basically to rank the pairs that played on a given night (in different matches). We call it "Butler scores", but I'm not 100 per cent that term is in international use. This is for the bragging rights within the team as well as for post game analysis, checking out what we did better (or worse) than the field on individual boards. Does something like this exist on BBO?

Hi, Today I was prompted to take part in a survey as to why I did not participate in BIC2. I thought why not. But, apparently my answer to the second question disqualified me somehow. No matter what I answered (and clicked OK), the survey will not advance to the third question. Is something wrong at my end? Is this yet another instance of "if you block google analytics and ads, your opinion doesn't count"? Anybody else got stuck at this point, too? Cheers, Jyrki

This has been bugging me for a while. I realize that the system forces GIB to *initially* think of my minor suit opening as "potentially short", but Does GIB ever make INFERENCES about my subsequent bidding about the length of the minor suit I opened? I realize that it is difficult to program a simple bidding engine, but I thought GIB maintains a list of possible hand patterns I might have while making later bidding decisions. Yet, it has done things like the following: After I opened 1C, and then bid and rebid hearts to show a 2-suiter moose, GIB gave a preference to hearts with a doubleton support, shunning the five card support to clubs. At the 5 level. IMPs. After I open and rebid clubs (GIB responding 1S), GIB chooses to, yet again, to bid that misleading "2NT=balanced, invitational, 10-12". It had only 9, but two tens and two acee. But it had xx, Jxx in the unbid reds. Jxx in a suit overcalled by my my LHO. I mean, it is fine to stretch an invitation. But why on God's green earth not show ATxx support in a hand that does not have a semblance of a stopper in either of the unbid suits? What is wrong with the natural 3C? That 2NT rebid by GIB ostensibly showing a balanced 10-12 is my pet peeve. It can contain pretty much anything. If there were one bid I would want to be redefined (may include at least QTx in all the unbid suits) this would be it. Many years ago GIB used to count singletons here, making that bid with 6HCP and 65 in two suits it was unable to show naturally. More generally, GIB often puts us into a Moysian major instead of a 54 (or better) minor fit. Of course, that can work (at the 4 level). Have any of you had relative success in steering GIB to minor suit contracts? Or otherwise making it realize that if I open clubs, the opps overcall and support spades (with my GIB partner inserting a double to show its 8xxx of hearts) that I really must have clubs, when GIB has 3 small spades itself and 5+ support. I have tried stretching to rebid my suit, but then GIB places me with more strength at puts us too high. Sometimes passing works, but it feels so wrong with a 6-bagger and a decent hand.

Thanks, Barmar. I could swear that News item was not there when I posted my query :-)

Hi All, My system: Windows 10, Firefox I think the following problems started when the COVID caused a large number of users to show up here. Is there a list of strange things somewhere? I scanned this subforum, but it only went back a couple of weeks for some reason. This is probably old hat. But if so, WHERE IS THAT INFO? - When playing in a Robot tourney, the system keeps asking me "Are you there?" every few minutes. Even if I have played a card a few seconds ago. Have I misconfigured something? - In the VuGraph menu, EVERY table is listed as having a single kibitzer. Surely this is false. Is the problem at my end or elsewhere? - Today (July 10th) I am not seeing any Daylong tournaments. Have they been cancelled? Thanks for any info, Jyrki

Thanks. That makes sense :-)

Hi, I have been wondering about this. I would like to mark more people as "friends". But whenever I click their icon, the only options are "follow", "neutral", "block" (I am translating the options from Finnish, so these may not be quite accurate). With players who are marked as friends, the opposite holds. I cannot "follow" them. I am uncertain whether this is related to the fact that the option "follow this player (during this tournament)" is now missing from the options. I occasionally kibitz a pairs tournament, and want to keep kibitzing, either a friend or an interesting player. How do I do this with the current version/interface? Grateful for any insights, Jyrki

Without any gadgets this hand is difficult to describe. I see the merit of opening 2NT, the risks notwithstanding. It may also be difficult for partner to realize that he should probe for a heart slam on a marginal hand with decent trumps and SA - he won't know about the source of tricks. I have a suitable gadget in both my longstanding partnerships. With my first longsuffering partner we included this hand-type into multi. But then we would have had a problem if we belonged in hearts. My current regular partner came up with a way of showing this that meshes nicely with the rest of our bidding structure. Our basic structure is Transfer Walsh with 5c majors and 2/1. Furthermore: 1. All balanced minimum hands without a 5cM in the 12-13 and 17-18 ranges open 1C, as do 19-21 without a 5+ non-club suit. IRRESPECTIVE OF MINOR SUIT LENGTHS. 2. So a 1D opening is nearly always unbalanced. An exception is the 19-21 balancedish with a five carder. 3. After 1D-1M: A) a weak hand with 3 card support shows it via the gadget of bidding 2M-1. B) a 3D rebid promises 6+ cards in the 15-16 range, and denies 3 card support for M. C) any strong hand or a 14+ hand with 3 cards in partner's major goes via 1NT, which is a variant of Gazzilli. 1NT can also be a weak opener if it would have wanted to bid a natural 2M-1 (so over the expected 2C rebid from partner, opener's 3rd bit of 2D shows a weak hand with long diamonds, if M=H, or a weak opener with 5+D and 4H, if M=S). Anyway, with this whale we would go via Gazzilli. If partner bid hearts over my 1D, my 3rd bid would show 17+ with three card support, or if partner bid spades, my 3rd bid of 3D would show long diamonds, forcing, and denying support. There's a lot to discuss about the continuations, but the basic structure is quite nice.

Thanks, Barmar. Found them (other than free Daylongs, but didn't look for them, yet). I would rather use the screen real estate covered by friend's faces with this other stuff, but may be I figure out a way to do that :-) May be the semi-persistent problem with the chat hanging will be gone with this update? We'll see!

Where are all the missing parts? a panel for reviewing the auction a link to the results of the earlier hands the settings menu The view is very barren. I get a feeling that this would be fine, if I were accessing the site on a smartphone or another device with a small screen, but I am using a laptop with 18 inch screen. Don't like it at all. :angry: I was directed to BBO/v3 with the promise that there would be unlimited Daylongs. Didn't see them yet, either. What's the deal here? Cheers, Jyrki

I have had possibly related problems. I can find that grey box where the chat messages go all right. But if I click that box and start typing no text appears in that box! This happened to me once last week. Just 10 minutes ago it happened again. Last time logging off and relogging in helped. Today that didn't help, but while I was searching this forum for technical support the problem went away! Can anyone figure out what is causing this? My system: Windows 10, Firefox.

More in the same vein. Yesterday GIB insisted on playing in hearts with its 2-card support instead of a less disaster prone 64 fit in clubs. My link 5C makes unless the bad guys find their heart ruff. 5H didn't score well :-)

Partner and I missed the boat on the following deal from our weekly club game (IMP pairs scoring). North (dealer) opens 3D (white all). Partner (East): K9865, A9875, A9, 8 Me (West): QJ32, 2, Q75, AKJ32 We both ended up passing. You can see this was not a success. 4S poses no problem. Even 6S makes with careful play as South has Qxxx in clubs and the opps spades split 22 (their diamonds split 71 and hearts 16, the pre-empter had the ace of spades). But my question is about bidding. My partner's attitude to bidding is "healthy optimism", I'm a bit more cautious. Post-game he reproached himself gently for not getting into the act with 55. I'm inclined to absolve him. His suits are kinda ratty, and his hand is worth a single bid only (= at most). Picking the wrong suit could be a disaster if I have a weaker hand (this time I would probably try 3NT over partner's 3H, but that's coincidental). Doubling may have a better change in locating a fit, but he would not be thrilled by a club response from me. My problems are similar. 4C is an option in the pass-out seat, I guess. But four of a minor always has the air of trying to land on a dime. Doubling does not appeal much either, because it doesn't take Yogi Berra level foresight to look ahead and divine that partner might prefer hearts. And first doubling and then bidding a suit promises more than I have, I think. This time a double would make partner light up, and he would have bid a "pick-a-major 4D". But not all days are as sunny as this was. Ok, so sometimes pre-empts work. But let's get to my questions: - How would you have bid this hand with your partner (do describe your methods, please)? - In our post-game analysis I suggested that if we adopted equal level correction, then I could chance a double, and over the expected heart bid introduce spades as a way of saying "sorry, pick another suit". - But if playing ELC like that how should the partnership handle the cases of A) a stronger single suiter (if 3S rebid shows this how do I describe a hand with strong spades and some slam potential) B) when the partner of an ELC doubler has a hand that wants to bid game in on major opposite a normal TOX, but not opposite an ELC TOX hand as my actual hand. - Are their other methods? Partner and I play Leaping Michaels over weak twos. A good way of describing stronger 2-suiters, but unsuitable for partner's actual hand. Thoughts? Oh, we ended up winning anyway. The attendance was low, our optimism reaped rewards on other hands etc...

If you say so :-) Wonder whether delaying the diamond play (or playing the Jack?) would have helped? But, if GIB has DK and declarer AQ, then I need two diamong leads, so I can't really wait, can I?

GIB is pretty much useless if you ask it for a preference. I once held 46 in spades and diamonds, and GIB had 24 there. Afterwards I regretted introducing spades at all after the opps had contested in hearts. GIB gave a preference to spades. At the five level. I guess GIB simulator parameters lack the logic to take into account that a minor suit opening is a real suit when the opponents reveal a 9+ card fit in a major. A hand from yesterday's day long: North (GIB) 4, 7532, A3, AQJT53 South (me) A53, A, J985, K8642 I open 1C. LHO overcalls 1S. GIB doubles - wouldn't be my choice, but if GIB thinks it is a must to show such a heart "suit" so be it. RHO raises to 3S. That is passed around to GIB. Then GIB doubles again! IMHO that is bizarre beyond belief. In my book that bid denies club support. Assuming GIB has values in the red suits I pass. This was not a success. GIB cashes the CA. Leads a heart to my ace. I switch to nine of diamonds to deny interest (dummy had Txxx in diamonds). GIB cashes the ace, but fails to give me my heart ruff (as I denied diamond king that is the only chance, so I don't know about its simulations??). 3SX made with 6C cold our way :-( Anyway. If that double only shows extra strength then the GIB system should be changed. How am I supposed to divine that it is not showing a red two suiter with only four hearts (or a weak five carded unsuitable to a 2 level call in the earlier round). Is GIB somehow forbidden from showing 6 card suppport to my first bid suit with a natural bid????? I guess my unfamiliarity with GIB's system is to be blamed also.

Indeed. Worked like charm today. Thank you to whoever fixed it!

I have had some problems, too. The latest daylong was the worst ever. I got the "table closed, Error 2032" message something like 6-10 times per deal. I guess/hope this was a temporary problem, because I just love this format!!!!! A few related questions: 1) I relatively recently switched from the standalone BBO exe to the browser based BBO. I never saw daylong tourneys from within the windows program. Is that to be expected, or was there something wrong? 2) Are these problems due to connectivity problems at my end? When I was eventually able to resume play, I had to replay the card I had already played. That somehow suggests that a broken connection might be the problem. I switched my connection from wireless to ethernet halfway thru, but that didn't really help. Was there something wrong at the BBO end?

Been burned twice recently. May be next time I remember? The bidding went Me GIB 1D 1S 2H 3C 3D 3H 3S 6D I held Ax, AKQx, KJxxx, Jx GIB had KQxx, xxx, AQT, xxx In a way I understand GIB. I had a minimum reverse, and it must have played me for three card spade support, hence a singleton club (I checked afterwards). BUT.... If I had 3 spades, surely I would tell GIB about it sooner, and reply 3S to its FSF??? I would think that my 3D already denied both a club stopper as well as 3card support, so how will show honor doubleton support (in case GIB has a goodish 5 timer or better)? If 3D did not deny three spades, then: A) how do I show secondary (honor doubleton) support when a FSF follows my reverse? B) what should I have bid after GIB's 3H? C) This was IMPs so why did GIB bid 3H instead of 4D setting trumps. At MPs 4H is an interesting shot that may work well.