JoshuaR

Thanks for the hard work. Some comments, perhaps just my own opinion. Screenshots in imgur gallery: https://imgur.com/a/vWnqRxC Not sure if I'm getting the mobile version on a ~13 inch ultrabook sized laptop using the latest google chrome. Tried F11 full-screening as well as ctrl+- to zoom in and out to see if layout changed. 1. Agree with a previous user stating that it is nice to have the bidding record remain in the top corner during the play of the hand. Sure it doesn't match OTB bridge, but I think of it more of a feature than a bug, and prefer it to having to make an extra click to bring up the bidding. (Didn't show properly that aspect in the two screenshots) 2. Hand history: I am always trying to see where I messed up and how I could do better... the current BBO allows me to have the results tab open at the same time, and with the choice of a simple tab I can compare all the other tables that played the same hand/s. In the html version while kibitzing a vugraph, you can see that there is still that option to click and see the "other table" results. If I am kibitzing a normal game or playing myself; however, the option to view the Other Tables disappears and is replaced with "Recent Hands." Sure, it's nice to see how I did in my most recent hands, but I'm not kibitzing a pro to look at my own old hands. Nor if I am playing do I want to look at my old hands. I want to look at my hands from the current session as well as the other tables playing the same boards. I know that I can click on a particular hand at the bottom right in the board replay pane, but it's a pain (pardon the pun) to click between my table and other tables at that screen compared to just swapping tabs. This feels more like what I have to do when I'm playing on my cell phone, and honestly it's so annoying that at this point I've given up on it in that situation. Additionally, currently the font size/table column width is funky. There's more scrolling involved, as well. 3. Close-ups: Everything feels pushed out at me and way too close up. From the wide spacing of the results pane (see above) too the giant cards in the center of the screen when played, and my hand/dummy's being spread across the width of the screen, smashing the poor names of my playing partner and opponent so much that I don't really notice when someone leaves or is replaced. I also find it more difficult to process my hand and condense the information in my head when it is so spread out across the screen. 4. Meanwhile much of the left side of the screen is wasted black space. A tiny corner is dedicated to showing the trick count and has some buttons that I can click to see some bidding/trick history, but it's much harder to keep track of what I'm doing without the visual of the tricks adding up vertical or horizontal, and there's still the wasted space that could just constantly display the bidding. Just my first thoughts. Thanks

I played recently with a new partner and made a support double. When asked, my partner said that she didn't know what it meant. The auction continued, and I became declarer in another suit. Before play commenced, the opponents then asked me to explain the double, which I did figuring I had to pay the price for using a bid I couldn't be sure my partner would know. That is, as soon as my dummy revealed that we would have had an eight card fit in that suit and the opponents could count the number of cards in their hands, they would know exactly the number of cards in that suit for each player, and I would not. That was still the correct procedure, right? I had to explain the bid?

Toss-up between 1NT-4NT-PASS vs 1NT-3NT-PASS

-- 1S 2C 2H 3D 3N 4C 4H 4N 5H 6C (SAYC, "safe" approach making sure the controls are in, with 3D being fourth suit forcing, 4C setting trump after the game bid, 4H showing heart ace and no diamond ace, 4N being 1430, 5H showing the two aces, 6C slam) ----- The alternative suggested in the first reply just figures, "Hey, I have 20 distributional pts opposite at least 12, more than likely we will make without giving my partner a chance to mess up the bid." That makes total sense and probably what I would do in reality. Just one modification: -- 1S 2C 2H 4N 5S 5N 6D 7N I only count twelve tricks prior to asking for kings, but when partner shows me the king of diamonds, I now have one spade, four hearts, two diamonds, and the six clubs.

Thanks! Actually got it right. :) Since you mention hand value counting short suit points in this example, I figure I might ask a question about when to switch my value system from long to short. My understanding is to value short suit points once you've established a suit (but only count long or short, not both). In the Learn to Play Bridge programs, though, I was most recently reviewing the Jacoby Transfers section of LtPB2. If I have partner transfer into my, say, six-suited major after 1NT, I already know we have an 8-card fit since partner will have at least two cards in my suit. Shouldn't I start counting my other cards' voids/singletons/doubletons even before I transfer him into my suit when evaluating my hand? The program examples only count long card points, and at this point in my bridge career I'm taking LtPB as gospel. e.g. 6S, 3H, 3D, 1C Partner bids 1NT to open Rather than count two extra long points for my long spades, shouldn't I count three extra points for my short clubs? Or even if my distr was 6-4-3-0?

Noob here. First hand I'd pass for reasons stated (not really enough points to get to game since some of the points I have are "weak"). Second hand I would feel the need to explore spades (2S) and partner goes back to 3H or diamonds then just "settle" on 3NT. Then again I don't know the convention mentioned (2S would indicate needing help in spades), so that would depend on whether my partner was as noob as me or misinterpreted that idea, haha.