cynac

Apologies for returning to stop debate. Locally, we always use the stop card and it is frowned upon not to. (I.e. Only the "really good players" who get away with lots of stuff do it. The idea that yiu can use when to use a stop card is so clearly open t abuse that it could never be an allowable option. JL PS don't actuall wait ten seconds, just long enough to show that you culd have been thinking.

I agree with poster who said no, not because he did not wish this measurement but for other reasons. There is almost no merit in the notion that making good claims marks out a good player. And if your algorithm really does say that if there is a winning line then that is a good claim, then that is clear nonsense. Almost every bridge-column-problem has a winning line. Would put them out of business if the answer to every problem was "claim" - and the computer will say that's right.

Agree. Opps have taken away your weak 2h reply (hugely passable in standard acol), but have given you the ability to pass. So 3d is free bid of " new suit at the three level" which in my rudimentary days was forcing for at least a round. And I am still in my rudimentary days (before you point that out.....)

I don't know if you guys recognise the name Albert Benjamin, who used to play at our club (Benjaminised Acol..... "Benji"?) Anyways, he and his crowd started off making their money at poker, only later moving to bridge because "poker has no soul". Meantime, to original poster.... .....I get the feeling you don't like playing bridge that much. The animosity towards going along to the bridge club just doesn't sit right for a real enthusiast. Is it maybe that you just want the points for your bucket-list?

I agree with the first post. That hands have become "more distributional". And I agree with the "myth" that it is because of previous imperfect shuffling. For rubber bridge it would take an enormous time shuffling to get rid if the increased linkage in suited cards, resulting in a more even distribution if they are then dealt around the table. In duplicate, there is indeed, as mentioned above, an increased sequence of tricks played in the same suit.....you pull trumps....you run suits. When did you last play suits at random? As an extra "myth", there was a suggestion, perhaps true, that finesses are more likely to fail in hand-dealt rubber bridge.... Because there is the small extra chance that the finesse has already been taken. (Basically the most likely card to be played after a jack is the queen.....and the two might not be split during the shuffle). If you ever did magic with cards, you'll have realised how easy it is NOT to change the order.

Yep. And if you really do have a huge database, all of the other factors should get balanced out.

Yep.

Last comment was re cyberyeti's suggestion. Meanwhile the "actual hand" is not a pre-emptive vulnerable hand - again classically. "Very good players" do odd things to throw opps off in situations.....doesn't make this a standard pre-empt. The more you do this, the more partner has to guess....until, as suggested above, he is essentially "fielding" and you'll have to let opps know that he/she does this.

Classic style would be 7 tricks for a vulnerable pre-empt. So should not have the hand you state.

Weird thread. If not playing "fourth suit forcing", then 2s shows four apades, and is forcing for normal reasons. Poster may be newish to game and not realise this. JL

Why not worth 1N?

Too disciplined by half, you guys....

Or, to put it another way. Forget which honour east plays. Call them both H. As we see from this post, 4000 hands will be H, 2000 will be HH. Distribution favours H being singleton. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHOICE. I believe this accepted description of the concept has caused unneccessary confusion. I agree with this post which helps you get through that confusion. Others make it worse. I sometimes wonder who invented the bizarre description in first place. JL

I have been overtooked by ennui

I agree with finanzier. 1h is the only bid. It tells the truth. Tryng to bypass that might occas work, but then p starts to wonder in future. The idea that partner will jump to game when the lower range of your bid is zero points seems weird.

It's quite fun looking at these things.....but I can't see the point of the person that's cheating.

Indeed seldom used. Thanks. Hadn 't even spotted it.

I am surpised you opted to defend your stance, as it is probably wrong at a number of levels. As has been pointed out, at worst it is essentially cheating. Partner will realise that there is a certain line of play which wins. Whilst one commenter made the reasonable point that occasionally it makes so much sense to claim, we often do wait until it will be obvious to the defenders (otherwise it can actually slow things down). Since, in BBO, you cannot outline your play, I believe you should only claim if there is no mistake to make. And defenders should only accept in that situation. The odd thing is that the example you chose to use should never prompt your suggestion to partner.....it almost as if you were indeed trying to stop his mucking it up!!!

Is the last post - that SAYC be assumed - an official line? I had always assumed that partner looks at my profile to see what my bids mean, and I look at his. Neither of us assumes that the other will adopt his/her system. Have I been wrong? Must I play SAYC ( which I do not know). I always announce my "weak no trump" though this not always noted. Others may not understand/look at "chat" as well as not looking at profile.

When i touch grey band with my handle/name on it, i am usually immediately replacedby another user. Yet very often when another player leaves, we have a long wait whilst this becomes apparent....then eventually pause/robot/maybe replacement. Are people using another technique of leaving, or simply disconnecting?

Partner should have eight tricks in spades if vulnerable. I have three aces and need one of three finesses. Odds in my favour. Has seven tricks if not vulnerable so i need two from three. Odds not in my favour. So bid 6s if vulnerable only. Partnership experience may suggest that he/she may be missing both AK spades and would suggest invite bids if so. Simplistic approach, I know........

I think this is what we used to call an "unassuming cue bid" . I was never absolutely sure who had to mot-assume. Here, don't assume that I have a heart stop....but you may wish to show yours with NT. Certainly I am quite strong, contemplating game, so tell me more about your hand.