epeeist

I do not understand this at all, how can someone open this hand and alert it as multi 6more 22-24 and not be MI? Stating the convention name followed by a partial explanation is at best misleading. For some players "multi" will mean nothing, they will rely on the (partial) explanation. Comment 1: I agree completely that the 2♦ opener could have done a much better job explaining the meaning of his bid. Coment 2: When I read the explanation, I translate it as "Either a 6 card major or 22-24 balanced" Admittedly, I have a fair amount of experience with multi 2♦, however, as I ntoed earlier I think that its reasonable to expect that players competing in a worldwide venue develop basic familiarity with standard methods. Players should not expect that the TD will protect them from their own ignornace. Comment 3: Even if there is MI, the E-W bidding is so bad as to break the chain between subsequent and consequent First: in case I was unclear or overlong (in case? :) ) in previous posts, to me this misinformation suggests accident or negligence, NOT the sort of deliberate misinformation that should be reported to abuse. Indeed, the inclusion of the convention name "multi" suggests no intent to mislead. If that opinion (for whatever my opinion is worth) is helpful, great. Now, on to the rest... The obligation to explain is to explain. Not to assume that opponents "should" know what multi is. Except for private/club tournaments, most tournaments appear to be open to ALL skill levels, including novices. Indeed, as I recall (from reading of it, not at the time!) there were some famous "multi" disasters in world class play, because opponents (or sometimes even the users...) of multi were unfamiliar with it (reference: David Bird, "Famous Bridge Disasters" -- I don't have it handy or I could give a pinpoint page reference). So the assumption that ordinary players -- which may include novices -- "should" know what "multi" means is entirely unfair. Watching vugraph today there was a situation -- including a TD call -- in which a 2 club bid by Fred Gitelman (showing majors, but possible confusion because he was a passed hand) over a 1 club opening by Lauria seems to have been misunderstood by Brad Moss, who therefore accidentally misexplained it to Lauria. Now, that means that probably both Moss and Lauria (and maybe Versace)misunderstood a basic cuebid. Not a problem, unless one has your heightened standards of "knowing" what all bids mean... :P Returning to the multi, if opps know what multi is, just say "multi". Then, if opponents want/need more information, they can ask. By giving a length and point range, that makes it MORE deceptive (not necessarily deliberately) not less. Because opponents may be misled into not asking for more information, because they think all information has been given. You "read" the explanation the way you do, because you know what multi is! For someone who doesn't, a logical interpretation of the explanation is: 6 or more cards in some suit, with 22-24 points total. Or even arguably, 6 or more diamonds with 22-24 points total. If one means "or" in an explanation, one should type "or". Not simply use a comma, which is more frequently taken as "and". Or is there some secret bridge alert lingo that designates a comma as always indicative of "or"?

Um, no. Yes he does :lol: Tell me, what can he bid, if he holds a 6 card ♦? North won't have a suit to run to. Knowing that north is not going to pass means, knowing that ♦ is not the true suit of north. Well if you have an agreement about that dbl e.g. beeing lead directing, that dbl should have been alerted. So i think it is some kind of takeout/info dbl. You hold 18 HCP and partners dbl should show some hcps so it is impossible that north can hold 22-24 hcp. So this is *obviously* not possible. It would have been a good idea of west to ask for specification to that bid. Of cause it's possible west does not know multi und is a weak player, but we don't know. Not interspersed... I assume that point ranges -- except for NT -- including distributional values. So there's more than 40 points total. For instance, say north had 8 diamonds (all the missing ones) and AKQJ10 of spades, only 3 losers. East could have AK10xx in clubs, and KJxx in hearts, xxxx in spades, void in diamonds. 11 HCP and 5-4-4 distribution in unbid suits. I'd call that worth a takeout double. Would that qualify north's hand as being "worth" at least 22 points? It's certainly a hand that (with an artificial strong 2 club bid) I'd open 2 clubs (22+ points) with. East certainly has a hand worth making a t/o double with in that scenario. So sitting west, there's at least one set of hands that would explain my hand, a strong 2 diamond opening by north, and a takeout double by east, and a possible retreat by north (if I pass 2 diamonds) to 2 spades. Not to mention, in that scenario north would easily make 2 diamonds doubled. Not to mention, in that situation EW could easily have heart game... Ignoring other possibilities, e.g. north or east weaker than advertised because NV, etc. I've known (and have myself) made a very weak t/o double in circumstances when it was best way to find suit for a possible sacrifice. That was just a quick stab at the sort of hands that would explain the first round of bidding and show that you are wrong, it IS possible. Sure, unusual hands but I'm sure someone who cared could construct less unusual hands that would similarly justify the bidding. Again, I agree that by the time west bids 3NT west knows "something" is wrong. But that's irrelevant to whether west knew something was wrong EARLIER. Also, the original question was whether to report to abuse. Needing to show damage is relevant to possible adjustment. Needing to show damage is IRRELEVANT to the question of whether to report to abuse for deliberate misinformation.

Um, no. North bid 2!d. East doubled. South passed. Assume I'm west, if I pass, North gets a chance to bid. Given I have AKQ82 in diamonds, I can be reasonably sure North's not going to pass. So I might as well bid. Maybe I think that partner has only a few points but a shapely hand and did double to suggest sacrifice? Or did double of an artificial bid request diamond lead, maybe I think north has 6+ diamonds and great cards outside that suit to justify 22-24 points including distribution? That does NOT mean that I knew what North's bid meant. Indeed, if west truly knew what north's bid meant, it might be an argument to pass, looking forward to scoring a penalty in whatever contract north finally retreated to. Now, I agree that by the time west bids 3NT, west must know full well that north does not have 22-24 points and west must know the description was wrong. But maybe that knowledge is based upon north having passed 2 hearts, and partner having bid 2 spades instead of passing the 2 heart bid, i.e. based on later knowledge. I could write more, my argument is that it is quite possible for west to believe north's description of the bid, at the time when west bid 2 hearts. Which explanation was wholly inadequate. And misleading, whether deliberately or not. If one cannot explain adequately in the bid window, use private chat to opponents. All that said, to me it doesn't seem like the kind of thing to justify an "abuse" report. Sure, a misdescription, but the inclusion of the name "multi" -- even if west didn't understand, which is arguable -- suggests no intent to deceive. So just adjust the board if appropriate (that's if, the argument over whether damage shown etc. since west later knew north's bid not 22-24 is another argument).

Hmm, yet another thread in which I am accused of misquoting! :lol: It was my understanding -- and if this is wrong, please let me know -- that you had mentioned agreeing to things "on the fly" with a partner who was on another computer in the same room with you. I understood this, possibly incorrectly, as meaning, you agreed verbally (i.e. by benefit of being in the same room) to clarify something, such as whether rkcb was 0314 or 1430. If this was incorrect, please explain. In my view, if what you are stating is or should be permissible, do it in public chat at the bridge table in whatever tournament you're in. If the TD allows it, great. If not, tough. And I think it falls into the "tough" category. If what you're doing is permissible, do it publicly. If not, don't do it, even if the circumstances are such that it would be impossible to detect and hard to resist. The situation of a replacement f2f partner was akin more to a "sub" situation, than what you were originally describing. And even with subs, after the board they sub in on (when I agree they should be given additional information, even as opponent I've asked TD if permissible to tell them what cards were played before or that a suit was established etc.) no special treatment. Indeed, as I understand it -- again, looking forward to correction if I am wrong -- it is not up to players at a table to choose to waive applicable regulations; they must call the TD in case of an irregularity, such as chatting about what their bids mean whilst bidding. In an individual -- the ultimate "pick up" partner situation -- with each new partner, you can quickly agree on basics. But of course stuff will come up that's unplanned -- tough. If one is playing in a partnership game with a new partner, tough. I'm talking about "normal" tournament play. In sum, unless I've misunderstood something, I disagree with you entirely. That doesn't make you a bad person, or me a paragon of virtue (though I like to think so... :D ).

I understand. I simply disagree with you. I think if you're 100% sure it's rkcb but can't remember if it's 1430 or 0314, tough. It is my understanding -- anyone can correct me if I'm wrong -- that in face-to-face bridge, if one forgets whether one's partnership is using rkcb 0314 or 1430, or carding agreements (K from AK or A from AK, 4th or 3rd or 5th vs. NT, o/e or standard or whatever), tough. Opponents may ask you; but you may not ask your partner. When the hand is over, before the next, feel free to discuss it. Same on BBO, when the hand's over say "sp, couldn't remember which rkcb, now I know it's 0314" or whatever. Of course, one's convention card -- whether in f2f or online -- would in some cases answer the question, but if it does not, tough. Similarly, if in a tournament on BBO one is playing a 40-board tournament, and on one board you forget whether it's rkcb 0314 or 1430, I think, tough. When the hand's over, discuss it and you'll be fine for the other 39 hands. So you make a mistake on one board, no biggie. It certainly shouldn't ruin the experience of the other 39 hands. If you say it's impossible to enforce, fine. There are lots of things it is impossible or so impracticable as to be effectively impossible to enforce in online bridge. And if you want a tournament that allows table talk to clarify the meaning of bids -- for the benefit of those not using Messenger or being in the same room -- either run such a tournament, or solicit others to run such.

Whether anybody will be free to post anything here is completely up to BBO. They have decided they are not - and I think good so. But in fact not of my business. I prefer to avoid interfering with others businesses. Once posted only the author has the legal rights to modify or delete. ------------------------------------ Danish legislation has nothing to do with this topic. I have made no comparions to danish legislation. I have explained that danish law normally complies to internationally conventions regarding human rights. That's what this is about. ------------------------------------- The rest of your posting I cannot judge whether serious or not. For this below please find the quote. Unless you do so or come with an apology I intend to report you for false accusations. Here is the link for my postings: csdenmark's postings To be sure you see this message I have mailed it for you. First: NOT that my permission is needed, since I have agreed to the terms of service, but I have no problem with any of my posts being deleted if a moderator considers it appropriate to do so. I would appreciate, if such is the case, if the moderator could tell me in what way I behaved inappropriately That is merely a request for an explanation, not an expectation of same. Second: I was going to excerpt your post to quote only to a portion, but after your warning that alteration would violate legal rights, I thought it safest to quote it in its entirety. Not that I agree with your warning. Third: The statement with which you take most extreme issue, is directed at a statement which you appeared to quote approvingly (i.e. it appeared in your post), on page 2 of this thread. Fourth: I must admit that I find it ironic that you are trying to call me to task for exercising free speech. Fifth: As for your claim that deletion of a thread after posting violates legal rights, normally I would ask: - what legal rights? Danish? - are you a lawyer, or judge? - have you consulted a lawyer? - if not, what is your basis for such a claim? However, given your response to my last post, I don't think that continuing this discussion would be appropriate.

I disagree with your contention -- if I've understood you correctly -- that agreeing on RKCB answers during the bidding "harms no one". I've played in tournaments and received good results on a hand in which the opposing pair had a blackwood misunderstanding. I've had situations in which it was unclear to me whether a suit had been agreed or not (i.e. whether p was using normal or rkcb). I bid according to my best judgment and accepted the consequences. I would have considered it an ethical wrong to communicate with my partner as to what the bid meant. I have even asked an ACBL TD to confirm that there was no ethical objection to my taking advantage of a known blackwood misunderstanding (i.e., based on explanations of bids, I KNEW there was a misunderstanding, and based on what each thought the bids meant doubled for penalty). If you allow (or consider not cheating) agreeing on RKCB answers, you may as well just say how many keycards you have and bid 5, small or grand slam directly. Hey, you could even agree to use some hypercomplicated system which explicitly showed all keycards, voids and singletons, but instead of memorizing it, just tell each other what you had. The difference between explaining your RKCB answers during play, and explaining whether a double is for penalty or takeout, is no difference at all. I'm talking about tournaments. During table play, I'm fine with opponents explaining within reason (e.g. whether or not transfer bids, blackwood or rkcb type, etc.).

Your analogy is fatally flawed. When you or I post something on these forums, it gets "published" immediately. Unlike the submission of a manuscript to a publisher, there is no opportunity for review prior to "publication". The only time it is possible to review a post is after it has already been "published". Unless, of course, you want BBO to hire editors to review all posts before they are "published". We'll all have to pay for that service, of course. Are you seriously suggesting you would find that less intrusive and be willing to pay for it?! :blink: Most importantly, one agrees to the rules of this forum. Which explicitly note what may happen. Which according to you are more restrictive than what the Danish government permits you to publish in Denmark. Good! I note, after queries both by me and brandal, you still haven't answered our questions, should anyone be free to post anything, on any topic, on these boards without deletion? Anything, ranging from political speech, to insults to specific people, to advertisements? If yes, I think that is a terrible idea (and contrary to the rules). If no, what to do with a violative post after it has been "published"? If you don't like the rules, either (1) comply anyway out of politeness, or (2) seek to persuade BBO otherwise, or (3) leave. Perhaps these posts are your attempt at (2). I would suggest that accusing uday of oppression of Danes in a manner akin to that suffered during the Second World War is not terribly persuasive. Nor is it particularly polite. Indeed, I would call it rude. If you think BBO's rules somehow infringe your rights under Danish law, consult a Danish lawyer. I am not a Danish lawyer. I would be very surprised, however, if that lawyer advised you that BBO had done ANYTHING wrong under Danish law. And yes, I freely admit the irony of my replying multiple times in this thread, which has nothing to do with "General Bridge Discussion" and which it would, therefore, be appropriate to delete... :P

It's kind of uday to offer to restore the thread. Unappreciated by some, but kind. Aside from mild curiosity, I don't really care that much myself. People who do care might do uday the courtesy of giving thanks (as some have) for spending time to sift through a thread to restore all but the most offensive portions. Instead of, in effect, making insulting comparisons with totalitarian regimes. This is a BBO bridge forum. Aside from the (entirely valid) arguments that it has its own rules, etc. which are agreed to by its members, let's also consider that it is a BRIDGE forum. There are many, many things which someone could post which would be legal in pretty much any jurisdiction but would be both offensive, and unrelated to discussion of bridge. If there were no rules and/or nothing was censored, this would quickly turn into a forum filled with posts wholly unrelated to bridge, offensive or not. Politics, Iraq, the space shuttle problems, favourite breeds of dog, whatever. Personal insults -- with the possible exception of references to members of a certain Italian pair -- are unrelated to bridge. Sorry, couldn't resist that one... :lol: I will note, more seriously, that personal insults may even, in some cases, constitute defamation. A very quick "Google" search suggests that, in point of fact, Denmark actually has criminal laws regarding defamation, referring to libel either by "accusations" or "offensive words or conduct". How interesting. ;) I would suggest anyone with a greater interest in the topic consult a Danish lawyer.

I disagree with you. UNLESS opps had specifically agreed to a bidding system which uses transfers, or the tournament was specifically "SAYC only" or something like that. Since you don't so state, I assume such was not the case. I've even played with partners who were okay with me using transfers, but refused to use transfers themselves (don't ask... <_< ). So if they bid 1NT I bid a transfer, I alerted it. If I bid 1NT, they bid a non-transfer, no alert.

While I would (I think...) enjoy this also, my question was, as tooncestdc noted, whether there was such a thing (presumably face-to-face) as a duplicate tournament in which, instead of being simply "NS vul" or "EW vul" or "All NV" or "All vul" there might also be "NS vul and 60 below" or "EW not vul 40 below vs. NS vul" or whatever. Or bidding quizzes/contests in which instead of just being vul/not vul. there are partscore situations. If not, it seems to me that a huge area of bidding is being "neglected". Forcing people to deal with different situations which are possible in rubber bridge, from which duplicate bridge is derived. If both sides have 40 below and someone opens 2 spades, is that weak, or sacrifice against opponent partscore which would give game, or equivalent of an opening 4 spade bid (but because partscore only bid 2 spades), or what?

I don't think the BBO software allows it, so are there any f2f games (esp. in North America) which has duplicate scoring in partscore situations? Instead of just, vulnerable/not vulnerable? It would, I would think, be interesting to have a situation in which partscore bidding was tested.

I think the "create tournament" button should be disabled if the host is invisible. Recently, I attempted to enter a tournament (which I had entered in the past) which apparently had some custom list/club requirement which no longer allowed me to enter. No problem, except it said "send chat to TD if you want to play". Since the named host was was not visible, it was not possible to send chat. This was a couple of minutes before tournament start, and even after it started, the host was not visible in the lobby. No problem if someone doesn't want me playing in their tournament. But inquiries were invited, and even for those who were playing, to be unable to send a message to the director before tournament start is not good.

Since you asked, I'll take a stab at explaining MY reasons... Often, there are several tournaments all starting around the same time. Whether pay or free. My preference is almost always to play in a tournament (including e.g. total points) with a "friend". So waiting for friends to return (from "will be right back") or finish tournaments they're already in, possibly login (since many others only login close to when a tournament may start) etc. means sometimes registration is last minute. My second preference is usually to sub in a tournament -- because it's a help, and usually then both partner and I are relaxed, if we do well great, if not, okay. Many of my "friends" were "met" while subbing. Of course, subbing is inapplicable to your question of registration. For free tournaments, I'm a bit less picky, but for pay tournaments I don't generally like to pay to play unless it's with a friend, OR it's an individual (and I'm in the mood to play in an individual, not too many "enemies" already registered, etc.). In any event, checking between all the possibilities, such as playing in an individual, or playing with a "pick-up" partner in a free tournament all take a few minutes to check between. And, especially since my preference is to play with a friend, I will tend to wait until the last minute to see if a friend who "will be right back" returns, or finishes the tournament they're in that's on the last board, or (etc.).

As I noted in another thread a few days ago on this very subject :) when you are invited by someone else, their profile appears, but NOT: - friend/enemy status; nor - your own profile notes Since I don't have a perfect memory for what login IDs are "enemies" nor profile notes, it would be very helpful to see them. Some of my enemy status and/or profile notes alert me that e.g. someone is in my opinion rude, or nasty to others, or much worse than their profile skill indicates, or any one of many other reasons why I wouldn't want to play with them as a partner. But I don't remember all that stuff, and can't see it from the invitation -- only their profile shows up.

Playing in an sayc-only individual, west opened 1♠; north overcalled 1NT; east passed, I (south) bid 2♦, natural. Was I right, or wrong, to assume that if not discussed, transfers did not apply over a 1NT overcall?

Interesting discussion. I have three questions (well, more, but I'm only asking three) and one comment. First, in respect of the discussions regarding data, what of people (like me) who tend to play with a wide variety of partners, whether in pairs or individuals, using different systems and conventions? Second, what about "evolution" of partnership bidding agreements? E.g. maybe a pair starts out using SAYC, then 2/1, then tries precision, then...(etc.). Or even adding/changing conventions would have an effect. Third, what about data on carding? As for the comment, a previous poster noted the problem of people not knowing the conventions they claim to use. I think the problem was not with not knowing the conventions, but with not alerting/explaining properly. If one makes e.g. a Michaels cuebid, the correct explanation is NOT "Michaels" but what one's partner will understand it as meaning in that situation (e.g. if nonvulnerable over a minor suit, IF this is what partners have agreed, "5-11 HCP, at least 5-4 in majors" or whatever). If partners don't know how to use a convention, BUT explain what they think it is properly, then opponents get alerted to the partnership understanding of what that bid means -- even if it has no name known to bridgedom. :rolleyes:

I agree with everything the prior posts have said. Perhaps it should go in suggestions for software, that TD can set either: (1) substitutes must meet same conditions as registrants (skill, custom list, exclusions, club member, whatever); or (2) substitutes do not need to meet same conditions? As I understand it, substitutes currently need not meet the entry requirements (club membership, skill level, whatever). My own practice is, I do not knowingly register as a substitute for any tournament which would not have accepted me as a normal registrant (with some exceptions, e.g. if I ever become "advanced" I'd still be willing to sub in BIL tournaments), as a matter of principle (and spite... :lol: ). But if there's a custom list or exclusions, as jw_nl notes, one is not necessarily aware one is on that list, unlike other conditions that one can see in the description when choosing to join the sub list.

As to what I do differently, let's say I know I have one of these partners (because of notes) and bidding goes 1♣ by me, 1♠ by partner. I have 18-20 points and a balanced hand, only a doubleton spade. So I know we probably have game, possibly more. The proper bid is a jump to 2NT, showing 18-20 points and a balanced hand. The bid I actually make is a jump to 3NT, because I figure if partner has a weak hand he or she will wrongly pass 2NT even if we probably have game. As well as the simpler examples, I may avoid t/o doubles, Michaels or unusual NT, jump to game in a major in response to NT opening instead of using transfers, etc. As for your second question, perhaps let a pro (unlike me!) answer it. I note, however, that you're assuming a situation in which you know the skill level of your partner -- quite unlike the situation on BBO, where I've seen (real) experts put novice in their profile and (bad intermediates) put expert or world class... :lol: That said, I'd go with whatever the tournament director said to do -- I'd ask before the tournament started. All else failing (i.e. if for some reason I can't ask TD in advance what to do), I'd probably say something like (checking with p first) "this is a new partnership and my p's a novice, so take that into account when judging what our bids and carding means".

You may be correct about the complainer's motivation, but I think many people -- it took me a while myself <_< -- have problems reconciling themselves to the idea that even if someone gives a wrong explanation of a bid, there's no remedy unless damage can be shown. It seems like the bad explainer is "getting away" with something. In a sense, they are -- they got lucky that their misexplanation did not cause damage and lead to adjustment. So if the complaining person doesn't understand that damage must be shown, your questions about what they would have done differently may seem to them irrelevant ("Why is he asking what I'd do differently, south is the one at fault!"). If you have enough patience to engage in a lengthy discussion with someone, as it sounds like you did in this case, is emphasizing that point -- damage must be shown -- more helpful than asking what would have been done differently? Or is it appropriate to in public chat to the whole table, say something like "Explanation was incorrect, south, be more careful in future. You are lucky that no damage can be shown which means that opponents do not get an adjustment". That tells south he did something wrong, and tells the complainer why no adjustment.

Is the concept of a "biddable suit" (headed at least by an honour, i.e. not the 9) still in vogue? :rolleyes: If so, 1♥ seems best (assuming one wishes to bid). With a 4-card ♠ suit partner will show it at the one level, and if not, the suit's probably not all that great.

The concern about fairness is why I started this thread... :rolleyes: For your numbered points, (1) even with a prescribed bidding system (sayc only or whatever) player notes would still influence my bidding, as I gave some examples of (accepting/not accepting game invitations, overcalling vs. cuebidding, etc.); (2) seems fair; (3) aside from the privacy issue, my comments about some players should not be shared (e.g. "Rude Moron!!") if only due to concerns about defamation, and I assume others have a few comments like this... :D (4) my concern is not about damage, but ethics -- my point being that if I know because of my player notes from past behaviour that partner X is an over or underbidder, that influences my bidding in a way that opponents probably won't and can't know unless I tell them.

This may have been mentioned before, but it would be much appreciated if when an invitation to enter a tournament is received, it displays whether the inviter is an enemy, and/or shows the player notes one has made about that person. I was on the partnership list for a pay tournament, and about a minute before received an invitation. The stuff from the person's profile (bidding etc.) was all there and was fine. I accepted, but then when I went to find the person's name to discuss bidding saw that it was someone I had marked as an "enemy" and for whom I had player notes indicating the reason was rudeness. I immediately cancelled our registration, barely in time. If it was a free tournament I probably would have lived with it, but no matter how small the amount I had zero desire to pay to be partnered with a person I considered rude (and I'm reasonably tolerant, so it would have to have been extreme rudeness for me to make that note). Obviously, I wouldn't invite an "enemy", but this was a situation in which someone invited me without knowing, obviously, my opinion of them. And there was nothing in the invitation to alert me that I had set them as an enemy. I suppose some might argue that I should remember all my enemies... :angry: but that seems a bit unhealthy to me... :lol:

To give three examples, which actually happened to me. If I recall correctly, my "partners" in both instances had profiles which said intermediate, and either sayc or 2/1 had been agreed upon, and all appeared (by nationality) to be English speakers so no likely miscommunication. (1) I opened 2♣, partner passed, so I played in 2♣. (2) I cuebid in a suit in which the opponents had opened, and partner passed, I ended up playing in something like 4♥ (the cuebid, opponents smart enough not to double or make any other bid which would give me a chance to bid again). (3) I opened 1st or second seat with 1♠, partner had 4 spades headed by the queen and seven or eight points total (not counting distribution) and passed. There was nothing (after the hand was over of course) "sorry misclick" or anything like that. So it's possible they were not bad players, simply rude or uncommunicative. Now, based on these single instances of atrocious bidding (in my view -- I saw their hands afterwards, of course), I reached highly unfavourable conclusions about the bidding skill of these people. Whether justified or not, that is my honest opinion. And I put notes in their profile accordingly. I don't think it was unreasonable for me to do so. And if I am ever unlucky enough to be partnered with either of these people again, I will certainly bear their prior bidding history -- even if it's only these single instances I noted in their profiles -- in my bidding. For instance, maybe instead of making a Michaels cuebid or unusual NT call or takeout double of an opponent bid, I'll consider it safer to overcall one of my preferred suits. Maybe if the player in example (3) above raises my 1NT opening to 2NT, I'll suspect that such a conservative bidder probably has a better than "normal" hand for 2NT and I'll bid 3NT even if I have only 15 points. Stuff like that.

Interesting feature with GIB in 4.35. I was wondering, if the software permits, it would be interesting -- I'd certainly be willing to pay for the experience -- if BBO could offer a "true" individual in which e.g. every entrant sat south -- all other seats played by GIB. So every entrant would have the experience of playing with, and against, effectively identically skilled players... Could also do the same with pairs, but unusual partnership bidding methods would probably cause problems, so a "true" individual seems more feasible.