dumm0

1H P 2S An opponent requests an explanation. Ah! We haven't agreed anything. Traditionally the jump shift is 16+ HCP, forcing to game at least, but this treatment is no longer universal. I have opened a can of worms and then jumped into it. I vote for "no agreement". At least that is the truth. (This did not happen.) 1H P 2H P 2S An opponent requests an explanation. We haven't agreed anything here, but the response should be the same. The opponent demands to know what the 2S bidder means by the bid, irrespective of whether or not we have an agreement. BBO rules are crystal clear. You are not obliged to explain what you intend any particular bid to mean. You do have to explain your agreements. (This did happen.) In the main, BBO members use the rules sensibly. For example a 4NT bid with a parallel chat "3041" or a 4C bid accompanied by a "splinter". Nobody objects to that. However disclosure rules do not seem to be understood, even by advanced and experts.

Until you get used to them, new versions of any system are frustrating. No doubt the niggles will fade over time. However there are just too many silly problems with the new BBO program, not all of them mentioned by previous posters. I can identify one major benefit of having tried the new program - I appreciate just how good the old version is! Please give us the option of sticking with it, at least until a majority of users give you the green light. Finally, a big thank you to all the contributors to the BBO community (and I do include the software writers). Much appreciated.