Joe_Old

Problem with Just Defend is that you still have the same erratic Bots opposite you. To obtain optimum defense, your center opponent would have to be specifically programmed for each hand, otherwise there would be no guarantee that it would cooperate with your brilliancy. Further, while Just Declare is playable, it is subject to gifts from the opponents and therefore not a perfect barometer of your efforts. The Bots don't declare any better, so with Just Defend expect less than optimal declarer play further sabotaging your efforts.

You may also want to go to "Featured Areas". Click on the "Virtual Clubs" tab, then scroll to the bottom of the list and click on "All Clubs"

lol - as if I'm smart enough to "make up" these conventions. Apollo asked if a certain BW convention exists. It does. You don't like it? Don't use it. The reason I mentioned it is that Apollo's query, in context, seemed to include any special BW conventions for 4 level pre empts, and this is the only one I've ever heard of suggested for use at that level. If it was the best convention ever invented, all the top players would use it. I don't know of any pro who uses it, mostly because (as you point out) 4C is cheaper that 4NT, and there are standard ways to locate features after a weak 2. As for "needing a side void", no, 3 side Aces and sufficient side suit tricks also apply. The player to showed this convention to me liked it because it can be used over a weak 2, stay below game, and keep 3NT in play. It can also be used over a 3 or 4 level pre empt with no ambiguity. I play it with him to see how it works, and so far it hasn't come up after roughly 300 hands (which says a lot about how necessary special BW for pre empts is). So go ahead Mike, now you can be rude again. Get your kicks.

What a bizarre comment. The point I was making is that TWO kinds of Ace asking bids are available. If all Responder needs to know is the quality of Opener's suit, use the trump suit specific BW. Responder still has the regular RKC bid to find out if Opener has an outside Ace.

I have played a BW where only the AKQ of Opener's suit is described, ignoring any outside cards: first step: no A or K second step: one A or K third step: A and K without Q fourth step: A and K with Q It is used only where Responder has the side suits covered and is trying to judge slam in Opener's suit. It is initiated by Responder bidding Clubs at the cheapest level, (except Diamonds after a Club pre empt), leaving room for Responder to investigate interest in a Major suit.

Another way to get up to date results is to use the blue "refresh" button.

This misses the point. If stalling results in an Average, that could be a significantly better result than a player would have received from completing the hand or declaring a line of play. For example, the field bids 6Hearts making, but through a bidding misunderstanding one pair lands in 6SX, which would be down 3, 4 or 5 depending on the play, all terrible results. By stalling they receive an Average, because the system can't pinpoint a definite result. Obviously, this is a highly unethical ploy (read: ch****ng). In a properly run tournament, directed by competent humans, this issue can be addressed with an assigned result, and the offender disciplined. In an automated tournament the only recourse is to hit the "report abuse" button. What does BBO do then?

I vote to leave autoplay singletons off, mostly because I like to think a little extra at trick one. 45 years ago Barry Crane mentioned at the table that players can be hard to read, but kibitzers' expressions give everything away. Around that time I was playing against a teenager, now a world champion, being taught the game by his mother who was ethically challenged. The apple rarely falls far from the tree for he had become a "leaner" who therefore picked up more than his share of 2 way finesses. Knowing this I buried a Queen behind another card and at the appropriate time "forgot" to hold my hand back so he could peek at the suit. His reaction to losing that finesse was priceless. I've never sorted my cards since. It has the added benefit of deterring kibitzers.

So IMP and Matchpoint tournaments are uninteresting as well, and for the same reason. You can't possibly be excited about the robots' bidding skills.

If you are defending two thirds of the hands, it almost certainly means that you are not bidding enough. Defending that often is just about a guarantee that you will get a bad score.

I wonder about that. There was a dedicated group of BBO players before the pandemic who will no doubt continue on BBO after f2f resumes. There is almost certainly another group who "discovered" BBO over the last few months and will continue to play, thus permanently raising BBO's number of daily users (over pre-pandemic numbers) for the foreseeable future. It should be BBO's corporate plan to maximize that second group. Thus, it is in BBO's best interests to enhance it's platform to keep new players interested. I don't know what BBO has done to analyze it's client base, but I'd be surprised if it isn't projecting post pandemic scenarios in terms of contest format, robot play, graphics and everything else to try to maximize it's income. So, yeah, bringing back Bingo and improving GIB will make it more likely that I will stay a customer.

How about altering the descriptions to something like: INT - Familiar with a basic bidding system; learning splinters, RKC and other more complex conventions. Can count number of trump played, but fuzzy about the other suits. Learning to watch partner's discards on defense. ADV - Familiar with a tournament level bidding system. Learning to count out a hand. As declarer makes most routine contracts. As defender learning to construct other hands from the bidding and play. EXP - Counts out all hands and routinely constructs the hidden hands. As declarer makes all makeable, routine hands and at least 98% of difficult ones (requiring squeezes, throw ins, etc.). Observes and remembers bidding and play, and draws appropriate inferences as declarer and on defense. Has developed instincts and techniques necessary to judge next move in a competitive auction, particularly high level ones. The above is unrelated to the number of gadgets on the convention card, but rather based on a deep understanding of the way conventions interrelate. WC - Everything the expert does, with flair, better and more accurately.

Which should include a 2NT rebid by opener after a strong 2C (2C. P. 2D P ..... 2NT). I have also seen Gerber used in this auction: 2C. P. 2NT P. 4C, where 2NT was positive (8 to 11). In that particular auction the number of kings were critical to reach the lay down 7NT. I voted "Other".

That's what beta testing is about. Whether or not I should have been playing, I've been offered, and played, four rounds. I assume that these were advanced robots, because they played fairly well. Let us know when the next round of testing starts, I'll be happy to help.

Given the number of players I've mentored, and am currently mentoring: yeah, I have a legitimate point of view based on experience. The worst thing you can do to an advancing player is to throw bad advice at him. You seem incapable of understanding the difference between unrelated events and data. Start with the concept of "garbage in, garbage out". Matchpointing an IMP event does not produce data, it produces garbage. For observations, conclusions, measurements, etc. to form a reliable data set they must be founded upon a justifiable inference that each datum is related. Otherwise you have two or more independent sets. It's a pity that you never took (or passed) a course in Statistics or Logic, where this concept is foundational. You want results posted both ways? Fine. Just stop pretending that it has even the faintest value. And accept the fact that misleading information is damaging.

I'm with you. Robots don't get tired and don't miscount. Bidding can't ever be perfect (a 50% game will always fail 50% of the time), and declarer play will always be limited by necessary percentage plays, but if the robots ever learn to signal on defense....

No. 1NT - "I have HCPs and a suit, but I don't like them much. Give me some direction partner." 2♥ - ♥ and a minor. X - transfer to ♠. Alternatively might be, "I have other 2 suits" because West infers that South's minor is ♦. In any case, value showing. In light of West's next bid, probably not a game force (yet). 2♠ - "I know you don't have ♠ partner. I'm hoping that my hand is useful, and this may be the last chance I have to find out." 3♣ - "I have 5+ ♣." 3♦ - "This is my minor." Cooperative. Probably also infers nothing useful in ♣. 3♠ - 100% forcing to game with good ♣ support. ♠ stopper, if East wants to play 3NT, but expresses doubt about the red suits. No worry about right siding the contract, since East already bid ♣ and 1NT. 5♦ - "Maybe partner can cross ruff to glory. In any case a good sacrifice." Pass - Forcing Pass. Partner must X or bid. West has already made a game forcing bid and East does not have a clear action, particularly since West has taken 6♣ out of the picture by expressing doubt about the red suits. Pass - "I respect partner's action and have nothing to add." X - "I don't have a strong enough suit to bid 5♠ (suppose West had AQJTxx instead), 5NT is too speculative, and I don't have a red suit void to justify a 6♣ bid."

You're focused on the wrong point. The scoring difference between an IMP tournament and Match Point tournament is irrelevant, because IMPs is real bridge and match points is a bastardized version. As the (modern) version of bridge was conceived, the point was to reach the best contract and make it. A 95% 5♦ contract is the correct place to be, as opposed to 3NT off the first five ♠ tricks, even though the NT contract might score +660 for a top if the opponents fail to find the right lead Match points was created as a way of making duplicate possible, as total points (I don't believe IMPs had yet been created) was simply too unwieldy to score up across a large field before the age of computers. Everybody quickly learned that the transition was not smooth, because match points created "angles" to be exploited that simply did not exist in real bridge, and once that was acknowledged nobody ever tried to compare the two games. Just because a computer can easily make the comparison doesn't mean that there is any sane reason to do so. The comparison would not be enlightening to new players; it will just give them more bad information.

Forgive me for my rudeness. No offense taken. I am, however, interested in the format. Will there be multiple brackets or some other means of reducing the field to one? Or do you just plan to play 3 or 4 rounds to fine tune your coding?

I may be suffering from dementia, but I'm not stupid. I know what an Arena Challenge is. Just how do you plan to reduce 38 players (currently) to one in a head to head KO format in 4 rounds?

I voted "yes", but not knowing anything about their methods and being IMPs it's very close. What makes me want to bid again is that free bid of 2♠, which can't logically be a unilateral statement that ♠ are trump or some sort of rescue, since the X is not penalty. As Miamijd notes, the opponents have 8 or 9 ♣, meaning Advancer must have ♦ tolerance. You are also not likely to be doubled at this level, since this is obviously a distributional deal. I wouldn't be surprised to find opener with a 3316 hand. This is a much easier decision at match points, where -100 can score significantly better than -110 or -130, although it is also easier for the opponents to X 3♦. All of the above is said without knowledge of the player's methods. Personally, I would play 2♠ as a cue bid, given that Opener could well have a 5 card ♠ suit at that stage of the auction, and there is ample reason to suspect Overcaller to be short. The cue bid would be intentionally ambiguous, since Overcaller has defined his hand, Advancer is now in control of the auction and will eventually decide the strain. Advancer may be looking at 6 or 7 red cards and be hoping to find a ♣ stop. Or 6043, or 6133. In this scenario Overcaller is required to bid 3♦ in cooperation. X would show a ♣ stop (first or second round control) and ♦ suit.

If you are planning a simple KO over 4 days the most you can accommodate is 16 players, unless you run several simultaneous brackets. Or do you plan to take one winner from a group of three for the first two days (36 players), or one winner from a group of four for the first two days (64 players)? The last two days in each case being head to head. Just kidding, since I assume that you will run several brackets. But, since you're coding this from scratch, do you plan to group players in a bracket by skill (and if so, how do you plan to determine each player's level), or will players be grouped randomly? Personally, I'd prefer to see even an imperfect attempt at a ranking system. If this idea becomes a regular feature on BBO, perhaps a player's results in these Challenges can be recorded and used for seeding in future events.

One of Barry Crane's mantras.

Michaels is another of those very useful, but routinely abused conventions (see: Blackwood). As noted by the other posters, knowing when not to cue bid is murky, at best, since everyone seems to have their own take on what is "standard". How many partnerships can answer the following questions about when to bid Michaels: A - any HCP range, or less than 10/more than 13 (you're free to tweak the range); B - what does 1♥ followed by the cheapest ♠ rebid mean; C - what does 1♠ followed by the cheapest ♥ rebid mean; D - what does 1♥ followed by a ♠ jump shift mean; E - what does 1♠ followed by a ♥ jump shift mean; F - what does a cue bid followed a the cheapest major suit rebid mean; G - what does a cue bid followed by a jump shift into a major suit mean; H - what does a cue bid followed by a second cue bid mean? I understand that an individual is just a crapshoot, and who knows how anyone (or, if robots, anything) else will interpret any bid at the table. That's why it's impossible to take anything that happens in an individual seriously. It's so much more comfortable to know that partner has some idea what I'm bidding.

There's no substitute for hard work if you want to improve your game. Reading is essential, and BBO offers another opportunity: Vugraph. The players are almost always excellent, if not world class. While their bidding may be more complex than you want, you can always learn from the declarer play and defense. The secret to getting the most out of Vugraph is to kibitz only one player. Don't be lazy and "see what she/he does". Count the hands and plan the play yourself, then see what the expert does. Then analyze why the play did or didn't work (while the commentary is usually excellent, don't look until the hand is over - the point is for you to think about the hand).