biggerclub

A ♠ does appear to scuttle the grand if ♥s are 3-1 (which they were).

Me too, but what else? 4H sounds like support for all strains or short ♥s. 4NT-ish style previously led to disaster with this partnership. 6D is about right on values, but there could easily be 2 fast ♥ losers. My thinking also, but it is always easier to spot partner's mistakes than one's own.

[hv=pc=n&w=sakq62hadqj965cq2&e=sh842dakt832cak64&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=3hdp5dp6dppp]266|200[/hv] At least we had no reason to fear that the other table would find the grand.

Let's start assuming no competition: [hv=pc=n&w=shjt86542dat52ct2&e=skj9753hakdkqj74c]266|100[/hv] West dealt. Seeing both hands, it's obvious that the grand in ♦s is cold barring something highly unlikely in one or both red suits, but how to bid it?

So . . . while I would need a glossary to interpret some of the values/terms, it does not seem to be above my bridge or programming abilities. You may be right that I might lose interest as I delve into the complexities of the abyss . . . .

It is generally agreed that GIB is horrible. The best there is, but still horrible. I am not trying to make a super bridge bidding robot. Just one that can be tuned to my system. I would love to have the GIB code (6000 lines doesn't sound all that daunting to me . . . ) and just modify/massage that. I assume however, that GIB is proprietary. Maybe not. Could I have it?

This is what I am asking . . . how or in what basic (robot) bidding program can I have this flexibility? And how difficult is it to hack existing bidding engines? (For example: 1C = 17+ HCP any distribution (i.e., all 17+ HCP hands) or 11-16 HCP with 5+ Clubs and Clubs are the longest suit; etc.)

Thank you. I don't think that this is quite what I was thinking either.

Would probably work but way over my head at the present time.

Thanks for the suggestions. Bridge Buff looks like it won't work as I am Windows 8 now. Blue Chip does not seem to fit the purpose either. It was a shot in the dark at best. /s/ biggerclub, aka the mad scientist of bidding

Is there software where I can enter rules for bidding (i.e., program my own system), and it will play/practice with me?

I put quite a bit of energy into trying a system with 9 HCP as the lower limit to open and could not find a satisfactory solution to bidding out shape and strength. I was persuaded that moving toward more sound openings, with weak 2s for all strains, was the solution. Any 1 bid (other than the pre-emptive 10-13 1NT) shows a maximum of 7 losers, while the "weak" 2s show the 8 loser hands with "safe" trumps. I do like the stronger 1C opening and I am considering splitting the strong ranges between 1C and 1D in this system as there is no reason that 1D could not be "2-way" just as 1C is in the current iteration. I just have to work out how we can give a negative response to the 1D opening, stay low enough and not hijack the MAJ suit responses, etc.

For Matchpoint Games, I think it is better to open the 4 card MAJ than to risk losing it with a weak NT. And for IMPs, I like the pre-emptive value of the major suit vs. the minor suit opening although 1NT is even more pre-emptive. I would favor 1 of a MAJ with 4-4-3-2 (especially with a weak doubleton) or 4-4-4-1 shape. I have never had much difficulty playing 4 card majors though so your mileage may vary. Without 4 card Majors some solution needs to be found for the specific 4-4-1-4 shape.

I am sorry if I confused you. To me Rusinow leads refers to the practice of leading the lowest of touching honors. The convention described by my sometimes partner was for opening leader to impart information about the length of his holding through the selection of the card led. And obviously the question is what are the advantages (which I am quick to see) or (more importantly) the disadvantages of playing such a convention/system?

So here is my latest thinking . . . . 1C = either 17+ (or 5 or fewer losers) or long Clubs, without or without a shorter second suit. 1D = either long Diamonds or off count NT 1H = 4+ H's but not canape . . . so if 2 (or 3) suited, should not have a 5 card suit, unless Hs are also 5+ 1S = see 1H but Ss. 1NT = 10-13 NV 1 and 2. 14-16 otherwise. The 1D off count NT with 14-16 should be either the best 11 (AK, A) or 12-13 All 2 level bids = 8-12, 8 loser hands with good 5 or often 6 card suit. With 7 (or 6) losers, open 1 of suit 2NT = Strong (4 or fewer losers) minor 2-suiter. 3C or 3D = attempt to sign-off. After a 1C opening: 1D = all hands <8 HCP. Negative response. 1H = Positive response, 4+ Spades, may have longer minor 1S = Positive response, 4+ Hearts, may have longer minor 1NT = Positive response, 5+ Clubs 2C = Positive response, 4+ Diamonds 2D = Positive response, 6+ Hearts and 8 losers (8-12 HCP) 2H = Positive response, 6+ Spades and 8 losers (8-12 HCP) 2S = Balanced GF Opposite weak C hand After 1C - 1D Opener bids 1H = 19-20 or 24-25 NT or 4+ Hs, may have weak Clubs hand (5+ Cs, 4 Hs) or strong but not GF Hearts hand F1 1S = 21-22 or 26-27 NT or 4+ Ss, may have weak Clubs hand (5+ Cs, 4 Ss) or strong but not GF Spades hand F1 1NT = 17-18 NT; Systems On 2C = Single Suited Clubs and 13-16 6-7 losers 2D = Strong but not GF minor suited hand F1 2H = <= 3 losers in Hearts 2S = <= 3 losers in Spades 2NT = 23-24 NT After the 1C - 1D - 1MAJ sequence: 2C or 2 of openers MAJ = 2x Neg (0-5, no Ace) 1S/1H or 1NT/1S = semi-pos 5-7 general and balanced (usually) Anything else = semi-pos and shape and implies some level of fit for one of opener's suits Bidding must get to 2 of opener's MAJ or 3 Clubs so Responder can go slow with strongish hands After the 1C - Positive Response sequence: Cheapest Clubs or Cheapest bid of suit shown by Responder = weak hand with fit if accepting Responder's transfer. Any other bid shows the strong C opening, sets up a game force and invites Responder to make a second x-fer to show his second suit. Over the limited openings: Natural bidding through the 1 level, with 1NT non-forcing but showing as few (that is as strong) as 8 losers 2/1 GF 2NT/1 MAJ = Jacoby Raise 2/1 GF shows 7 or fewer losers, no fudging

Has anyone played this convention when leading an honor (from a sequence) where A = even, K = odd, Q = even, J = odd . . . etc.? A sometimes partner (he lives in Vegas, I in LA) brought it up last week.

Well I generally like mikeh's POV but here I go with the analysis that pard is short in spades so we have no wasted values and my hand is golden for pard so . . . x over 3♠. When he bids 5♣, I convert to ♦s.

MP scoring. You and your partner play XYZ. Opponents pass throughout: 1♦ 1♠ 1NT 2♠ . . . . Does this always, or nearly always show 6+ Spades?

A sometimes partner asked me about this one today: Opponents open 1♣ which can be as short as 2. No alert. No "could be short" explanation. Sometimes partner and his then partner miss their own contract in ♣s. Table ruling went against him. Makes a significant difference in the final result (club gives free play for first overall). What is the ruling?

I am satisfied with my results so far. I'm adaptable.

NV v VUL and against certain weak pairs, I am coming in over their NT until they learn how to x for penalty. Especially against the "experts" who play "all low level x's are takeout." I play mostly MPs, however.

I am willing to allow partner to bid her own hand. Lord knows, she usually does. And more.

I am no expert, but I am in the 2♦ camp. And again, concerned about no Aces. So give me just the A♣ instead of the K, and I am willing to go 3♦.

We need the form of scoring also. At MPs, PASS. At IMPs, very close between PASS and 3♦. I also think that this is a DNE (does not exist) auction at IMPs. Partner told her whole story with 1NT, she cannot now override your decision. Given that . . . maybe I should PASS at IMPs also. Before partner gets us in even deeper.

Logically this seems like the right treatment, but I am always afraid to just spring it on my partners without previous discussion: (P) - 1♥ - (P) - 2♦ (P) - 2♠ - (P) - 3NT (P) - 4♦- (P) . . . . or (leaving out the OPPs' passes this time): 1♣ 1♠ 1NT 2♦ 2♠ 3♣ 3NT (or 3 ♥) 4♣ . . . Logically these and similar auctions seem like minor suit slam tries and 4NT should reject the try and suggest a contract, not ask for Aces. Still, without prior discussion . . . .