Stefan_O

Hi Ken. Just curious what user-interface/app/OS/platform you are using? When you type a hearts-sign, I see a symbol with 3 dashes: >>> http://i.imgur.com/watdp9T.png

"ostensibly NAT" = At least 3-card? "ostensibly forcing" = Almost forcing? (Unless pd is like sub-minimum?) Or what?

Just to mention, there is a very playable system for playing 5 pt range, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_1NT with the restriction that a minimum opener denies 4-card major. In the original version (played by Swedish team in top championships in the 70'ies and 80'ies) it is 13-17 (i.e. normal 15-17 opening + 13-14 balanced with no major), and it works well in any system that uses 15-17-NT (sayc, 2/1, acol, whatever). When you open 1NT (instead of 1♣/1♦) on 13-14 and no major (these are hands where you will usually start 1m-1M-1NT anyways --- saves you a bidding-round ;)) it has a preemptive effect and makes it harder/riskier for opps to get in, and also gives out less information to opps. I have also played it as 12-16, where it fits into a 14-16 1NT system. I really like this 5pt-range approach.

I thought BBO took over gibware, so the only ones doing any dev-work on Gib today are the BBO-developers? Yes, that is quite true, unfortunately (unless you love tough challenges :D). The big difference is that in Chess, ALL input you need is available right there in the chessboard+position itself. Nothing hidden/unknown at all. What you need is good position-evaluation algorithm, some smart optimization algorithms, and a lot of computer power --- the more the better. In Bridge, however, there is this whole lot of unknown/uncertain information you have to deal with. For example: - How are the cards placed in the hidden hands? - What bidding-system are opps using? - What bidding-system are we using? --- seems Gib has quite some issues here ;) - All the different types of bids and bidding-conventions you have to deal with... - How would the other players act if they held a certain hand? Is it consistent with what they already did? - What did they not do? And what does that mean? - Psychic or irregular bids. and much more, like percentages, suit-handling, elimination-plays, etc, to mention only a few...

♣ While 1♠-2♣-2♠ might promise a 6-card suit, afaik, 1♠-2♦-2♠ only promises 5, since it is also what you bid with a 5♠+4♣ minimum hand, isnt it? That's why 2♥ (pd expecting 4-card suit) to me seems like a very uncalled for risk to take here. Also, xx in ♣ speaks against 2NT rebid + pd probably has the stronger hand (I hope! ;)), so 3NT plays better from pds hand.

Yes, XYZ was an interesting outcome of this discussion. I've been playing XY-NT, but never encountered XYZ before... It still only covers the cases where opener rebids on the 1-level. So the issues remain after 2-level rebids, like 1D-1M-2C-? etc.

If you open at all, the system-bid is to rebid 2♠. It only promises 5, which is what you have --- so why bid anything else that can only put you in (deeper) trouble?

I also put up a Poll, here: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/are-you-playing-4th-suit-forcing-one-round-or-forcing-to-game/

And if pd then accepts, but also has no ♣-stopper, is he supposed to ask for ♣-stop, or will he just bid 3NT regardless? Given that you didn't bid NT yourself, he should be cautious - you wouldn't have preferred 3♦ unless you were either missing a club stop or had a very trump-oriented hand even with one. @ Jinksy: As can be seen, my comment here was referring to the case where we did bid NT, but without a stopper (as suggested by wank), namely: 1♦-1♥-1♠-2NT. Should opener here, if he accepts the invite, ask for ♣-stopper if he doesnt have one himself? (Another issue here, of course, is that you likely wrong-side the NT-contract, when jumping to 2NT without stopper.)

But the std style is that you always bid 1♦-1♥-1♠ with a 4-card ♠-suit even if you have balanced hand, right? Otherwise, it gets tricky, at least when responder is 4-4 or 4-5 in the majors with less than invitational values....

And if pd then accepts, but also has no ♣-stopper, is he supposed to ask for ♣-stop, or will he just bid 3NT regardless?

With only 3-card support? So we risk ending up in a 3♦ 4-3 fit, when pd is minimum?

OK, thats one way :) I just get the impression many good players today play 4sf forcing-to-game. Or is this not correct?

If you play 4th suit forcing to game, after 1♦-1♥ 1♠-? what do you bid with invitational hands and no ♣-stopper, like: Qxx AQxxx Kxx xx xxx AQxx KQx xxx Qxx AQxxx Kx xxx

Yes! Of course, it is!! :D :D Will only add that in this sequence, particularly, there is no need at all for a natural 2♠ bid, since opener has already denied 4-card ♠ suit. If opener had ♠ he would have bid 1♠ over 1♥, but here he did not.

5NT was showing 5 keycards? Or a void?

And so many ducked the ♠ lead with nothing in ♦? Are you sure it was IMPs? :unsure: :blink: I guess, collectively, we are not so good at declaring neither then? :)

And yes, after 30+years of this game, I will confess I still do far more mistakes in defense than as declarer -- esp. those that look really stupid when you see the full hand :D

Since you ask -- ;) -- it looks like ♦K will block the suit, if West has ♦QJx. But that could perhaps be ruled out from the auction?

Yes, I guess your second statement accounts for the first :)

Yes, clear proof of bug in the card-play engine.

I see, thanks. Maybe least disruptive solution would be, BBO forum could accept both notations. Would there be any conflicts/ambiguities from this?

Why do I see this annoying "!" in the bid denom? (Noticed the same somewhere else, too...) Is that some software-incompatibility between different browsers or what?

How many possible, different bidding-auctions are there? (We are talking abt auctions that are legal according to bridge-rules, not only the ones that are sensible...) Just discovered this calculation, and it's actually beyond staggering :) Before you check the link below, I invite you to work out with pen/paper -- or just have a guess ;) : Assume North deals, and opens 7♥. In how many different, legal ways (according to bridge-rules) can such an auction proceed before it completes? [a] 38 388 [c] 3388 [d] infinity http://tedmuller.us/Bridge/Esoterica/CountingBridgeAuctions.htm

Yes, that may be... but where do you see the actual results from these commitments? Particularly, the almost total lack of communication/response in a stated high-prio area, I just find hard to account for...