nullve

1.,2. I would have opened 1♦ with a human 2/1 partner unless we had special agreements like 2♣(strong)-2♦(waiting); 3♥ = GF, 4H5+D 3. If you double,

1. I was planning to rebid 2N. (3♦ is just suicide.) 2.,3. Instant tournaments on BBO are robot tournaments. 4., 5. :) 6. I'm not sure what your advanced(?) robot partner would do then, but when I uploaded the deal to a teaching table and passed 3♠ as South, my basic robot partner

Instant MP tournament. [hv=pc=n&s=s6hakjtdakq765ca2&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2c2sp3s?]133|200[/hv] What goes through your mind at this point?

If the 1N opening is as in the OP and the bidding goes P-(P)-1N-(2x), maybe Responder (to the 1N opening) could assume 15-17 BAL and be right almost every time even when holding a near-opening hand himself.

Whatever opps 1N defence is, we should never be in a worse position after 1N-(2x) than after (2x). So we might decide to defend as if we had we forgotten we already have opened 1N! I've already been thinking about using the same idea (=: Principle of Amnesia? :blink: ) in similar situations in my own system, just to simplify things.

SOPHIE

1♣: similar to the "NAT or BAL" 1♣ opening of many 2/1-like systems but includes 23+ BAL and GF primary C hands 1♠,1N: inspired by a version of T-Walsh suggested by helene_t (and which should be standard IMVHO) 2♣,...,4♦: part of my home-grown range-first relay structure (most relayers would hate it, but I think it fits better than Symmetric Relay into a 2/1-like system) 4♥,4♠: PKC sequence (I guess Ulf Nilsson (ulven on BBO) came up with the name 'Parity Key Card (Blackwood)'). 5♦,5♥: including shapes in the spiral might be a new idea 5♠,6♦,6♠,7♣: standard spiral scan, I guess

[hv=pc=n&w=sa543hatdq82caq86&e=s7hk3dakjt4ck7542]266|100[/hv] nullve-nullve: 1♣(1)-1♠(2) 1N(3)-2♣(4) 2♦(5)-2♥(6) 2♠(7)-3♦(8) 3♥(9)-4♦(10) 4♥(11)-4♠(12) 5♦(13)-5♥(14) 5♠(15)-6♦(16) 6♠(17)-7♣(18) 7N(19)-P (1) "NAT(ish) unBAL or 11-13/17-19/23+ BAL" (2) "D or BAL" (T-Walsh-style) but denying 7-12 BAL (3) "11-13/17-19 BAL" or "10-12/16-18 unBAL" (4) unBAL GF w/ primary D (but 4H4D(41) possible) (5) relay (6) "13-15" (7) relay (8) 5D5C2-H or 4H4D(41) (9) relay (10) (21)55 (11) Parity Key Card Blackwood agreeing C (12) even # of key cards (13) 2155 ask (treating 2155 as the next card in the spiral after the trump Q) (14) not 2155 (so 1255) (15) ♦K ask (16) ♦K and ♥K, no ♦Q (17) ♦J ask (18) ♦J, no ♥J (19) contract

And still 11-15? If so, how would you bid with. say, a) 11 hcp and 3424 opposite 11 hcp and 4243 b) 15 hcp and 3424 opposite 7 hcp and 4243 ? Maybe a) 1♥-1♠; 2♣-2N; P b) 1♥-1N; P ?

You could also apply Restricted Choice under the assumption that West would lead passively.

Or maybe 1N = 15-17 BAL or Intermediate 2♥, which is not a brown sticker and would free up the 2♥ opening for lots of Swedes.

A similar opening: https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/68461-multi-1nt/ The standard 1N opening in 1st/2nd seat seems rather overloaded to me if partscore hands are to be treated with the respect they probably deserve, so I'm happy I've found a way to avoid opening 1N with 22(54) in my system so I no longer end up in 2M on a 4-2 fit (or, alternatively, 3m on a 5-2 fit) after Crawling Stayman. But I agree that 1N in 3rd/4th is probably underloaded (at least in my system) and recently I've actually been toying with an opening structure in 3rd seat that includes 1♣ = either strong or a hand sith subopening values (but 8+ Milton Work points in order for the system to be non-HUM) that is not suitable to open 2♣+ with 1♦ = a MIN Precision 1♦, 2♣ or 2♦ opening 1N = 14-16 BAL or a MAX Precision 1♦, 2♣ or 2♦ opening 2♣+ = "preempts".

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|nullve,~~M252e403,nullve,~~M917hpeq|md|4S8532HKDAK97432C2,SKQT64H9854DJCA97,S7H632D85CKQ86543,SAJ9HAQJT7DQT6CJT|sv|o|rh||ah|Board%2014|mb|1N|an|notrump%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20!C;%202-5%20!D;%202-5%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2015-17%20HCP;%2018-%20total%20points%20|mb|2D|mb|2N!|an|Lebensohl%20-%20Forces%203C%20by%20partner%20--%20%20%20|mb|P|mb|3C|an|Forced%20--%202-5%20!C;%202-5%20!D;%202-5%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2015-17%20HCP;%2018-%20total%20points%20|mb|3D|mb|3S!|an|Lebensohl%20--%204+%20!H;%2010+%20HCP;%20likely%20stop%20in%20!S%20|mb|P|mb|4H|an|2-5%20!C;%202-5%20!D;%204-5%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2015-17%20HCP;%2018-%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|DK|pc|DJ|mc|12|]600|450[/hv] Click on 3♠.

A related idea: Robot bridge with only one "defender" but two pseudo-dummies. (No need for a best-hand format since you never get to defend with a robot anyway. Harder to game the robots in the auction since the "defense" will be vastly more precise. Might therefore (strangely) resemble "real" bridge more.)

So on chess.com I don't have to sit down at a chess board and wait, hoping someone with a rating not much worse than my own will show up. And my opponent (who I usually get the moment I press the 'Play' button) can't just leave mid-game without losing rating points and receiving a warning. Why can't BBO do the same, but for pairs instead of individual players? Btw, there are 448,103 playing on chess.com 43,114 playing on BBO right now. So much for

Why on earth did pairs get to choose who to play rated games against?

You're right. Suppose I intend to play Polish Club but then pick up, as dealer, ♠J ♥AK84 ♦AT3 ♣86432, which I believe is a bad hand for the system. Clearly, I shouldn't be allowed to, say, a) open 1♠ instead of 2♣, expecting to be redealt a hand that the system can handle better; b) open 2♣ but conveniently assign a new meaning to the bid when explaining it, e.g. "11-13 hcp and precisely 1435 shape". Of course, I could either c) use my private judgement(?) and pass; d) lie a little (= a deviation as opposed to a psyche?) by opening 1♣, 1♦ or 1♥; or e) psyche(?) a 15-17 NT. But I agree with hrothgar that deviant actions like these could be explained in terms of a mixed strategy in most cases. Then there would be little left to deviate from except the mixed strategy itself and, with it, the principle of full disclosure.

2♦

A form of two-player* bridge I'm sure many have tried, is played just like regular bridge except that the two players control both hands in one (NS or EW) direction each while trying to forget (the UI) about "partner's" hand. What I guess ruins the game for most who have tried it, and prevents it from ever becoming a serious game, is that it's virtually impossible to determine whether a player is (consciously or subconsciously) acting on the UI he (always) has. So here's an idea I have for a form of UI free two-player bridge: Auction phase: Suppose the two players, call them A and B, control the NS and EW hands, respectively, and suppose "North" (or A, controlling the North hand) is "dealer" (although the dealing can be assumed to done automatically, as on BBO). Then the auction phase will cycle through the following events, The cards are redealt face down consistent with the vulnerability** and auction so far. A, looking only at the North hand, makes a call and explains*** it. B, looking only at the East hand, makes a call and explains it. The cards are redealt face down consistent with the vulnerability and auction so far. A, looking only at the (new) South hand, makes a call and explains it. B, looking only at the (new) West hand, makes a call and explains it. until the auction ends the way it does in four-player bridge, i.e. with a call being followed by three consecutive passes. Play phase: Suppose "West" (or B, controlling the West hand) becomes "declarer". (The other cases where the hand isn't passed out are similar.) Then the following will take place: The cards are redealt face down consistent with the vulnerability and auction so far. A, looking only at the (new) North hand, plays a card from the North hand. (This corresponds to the (blind) opening lead in regular bridge.) The North and South hands are made permanently visible to A and permanently invisible to B. The East and West hands are made permanently visible to B and permanently invisible to A. (The East hand would be visible to all (i.e. be Dummy) in regular bridge.) The play then proceeds as in regular bridge, except with A and B controlling two hands each. Some observations: Playing the game with a real deck of cards would be very cumbersome, so let's assume it is played in an electronic environment (on bizarro-BBO, perhaps). Every bidding or opening lead problem has an exact counterpart in regular (four-player) bridge. Unlike in regular bridge, there is no dummy visible to all (both) players. But if we imagine the two players occupying what corresponds to declarer's and opening leader's seats in regular bridge, then the opposite hand from each, which is permanent only after the opening lead has been made, may be thought of as a pseudo-dummy visible only to that player (the "declarer" or "defender"). "Declaring" will be just like declaring in regular bridge except that deception will sometimes work differently. For example, leading a low card early from "hand" towards KJ in "dummy" may not have the same effect on "LHO" who now sees "partner's hand" (his own pseudo-dummy) instead of "dummy" ("declarer's" pseudo-dummy). "Defending" will be just like "declaring" except on the first move (the opening lead) where only one hand is visible to the "defender". The duplicate format is not very suitable for this game, because even if game starts the same way at two tables, the players will soon almost certainly be bidding and playing very different deals. Instead the table result could be compared against par and each player e.g. awarded 0,1 or 1/2 points according to whether they lost, won or tied the (two-player, one-board) match, like in chess (or BAM). Since this is a two-player game in every sense of the word, it might be easier to implement an ELO-type rating system for individual players than in regular bridge. It seems hard to cheat at this game, at least by collusion or self-kibitzing. So maybe this is what the world of bridge needs right now? :) * Here I mean 'player' in the common sense of the word, not in the game-theoretic sense where arguably each partnership is a player (and regular bridge already a two-player game). ** The meaning of a call may depend on the vulnerability. *** The explanation might be translatable to code that can be be used as input for the (re)dealing software.

https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76017-skip-turbo-method-reverse-train/ https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76008-skip-turbo-method/ https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/75935-denial-vs-show/ It's a very nice idea.

I'd expect 3♣ to not only be GF but set up forcing pass at all levels. But then the double of 3♥ would be penalty unless playing some kind of P/X inversion. Yes, but also that someone has done something unusual in the auction since a partner who knows about LoTT would hardly ever let opps play 3♥X on a known 10-card fit. I like the agreement that partner is the one to be trusted in situations like that, so my reaction as East on seeing dummy would be to imagine a layout such as [hv=pc=n&s=skthjt975dkq84cq4&w=sq3hk42d32cakt952&n=s8762haq83d965c87&e=saj954h6dajt7cj63&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1s2h3c3hdppp]399|300[/hv] where South's overcall is vomit-worthy but not entirely unrealistic. It is also likely that partner would shift to a diamond instead of a spade on this layout. Seeing declarer's Q drop under the ♦A would be quite a shock, though. But, again assuming partner knows about LoTT, and using the principle that partner is the one to be trusted, I'd assume the ♦Q was some kind mechanical error (misclick? senior's moment?) by South rather than partner being 0256 or having chosen a diamond shift with 1345 (or already impossible 1246) shape. On this layout it doesn't matter double dummy whether East returns a spade or a diamond, but imagine what might happen if East returns the ♦T (concealing the jack) and declarer starts wondering where East's points are...

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|nullve,~~M114393k,nullve,~~M70962jb|md|1SJ942HT54D9843CJ7,SAKQ5HAQJ6DAJ62CQ,S87H98DT5CKT86542,ST63HK732DKQ7CA93|sv|e|rh||ah|Board%2035|mb|P|mb|2C|an|Strong%20two%20club%20--%2019+%20HCP;%2023+%20total%20points;%20forcing%20to%202N%20|mb|4C|mb|P|mb|P|mb|5C|an|5+%20!C;%2019+%20HCP;%2023+%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|H9|pc|H7|mc|0|]400|300[/hv]

From tonight on BBO: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|opponent,partner,opponent,nullve|md|4SK8762H9862DT3CJ7,ST9HKQDA982CAQT96,SQJ54H4DKQJ765C52,SA3HAJT753D4CK843|sv|e|rh||ah|Board%206|mb|1H|mb|P|mb|2C|mb|2D|mb|2H|mb|P|mb|4H|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|DT|pc|DA|mc|13|]400|300[/hv] I can think of better auctions, but...

Agreed! Corrected now.

I believe you can free up the 2♠ opening by playing 2♦ somewhat like I suggested in https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/80347-avoiding-5-1-s-fit-after-multi-2d/, but with 5+S5+H hands included (like in Wilkosz) and 5S3-OH4m hands excluded (unlike in some versions Garbage Multi). For example, 2♦ = Weak 2M or Wilkosz ...2♥ = to play only opposite 6H3-S ......P = 6H3-S ......2♠ = 6S3-H or [as dworkin points out in the next post:] 5S5+O ......2N+ = 5H5+m ......E.g.: ......3m-1 = 5H5+m ...2♠ = to play only opposite 6S3-H ......P = 6S3-H ......2N+ = 5M5+m or 6 H ......E.g.: ......3m-1 = 5M5+m .........3m = to play only opposite 5 S ............P = 5S5+m ............3♥(say) = 5H5+m .........(...) ......3♦ = 5+S5+H ......3♥ = 6H3-S ...(...) ---- If the 2♦ opening works as well as I hope, then instead of maybe 2♣ = 11-13, either 5M(332) or 6C(322) [or even 6C(331), 2227 or 7C(321)?] 2♦ = WK 2M or Wilkosz 2M = 11-14, 4M5+C ?