olegru

Seems like a big change to accommodate one or two slow players when everybody else are happy with speed. (We already give more time per board compare to regular clubs). Unfortunately not. It is not club for profit and our entry fee is ridiculously low. (We are providing hospitality, very small prizes, but no masterpoints).

>> It's not really clear to me what "qualified" means in this case. Sorry, it remind me very old Soviet joke. I hope my translation make sense. International Art exhibition for specialists only. Picasso forgot his ID. Security person asks him to prove he is "qualified" as an art specialist. Picasso took the pencil and drawn the bird. Security person let him in. USSR Minister of Culture forgot her ID too. The same security person asks her to prove she is "qualified" as an art specialist. “I am the Minister of Culture for 14 years,” saying she. “Could you please prove it," saying security. “Picasso just had the same problem and he drawn the bird…” “Who is that Picasso guy and why did he draw bird?” interrupted she. “Welcome, Minister.”

It was my thought, did not worked out that time. In less in a minute issue escalated to serious conflict and club management had no choice but ban 70yo woman from the club. The purpose of the question was to understand how much it was my fault for not acting fast. (There is no complains from club management or members, I am trying to understand for myself if experienced director would act differently.) Some people have scheduled transportation home. We are trying to be as flexible as possible, but there is always conflict of interests. Yes it was a reason for conflict. 70yo was already stressed out by slow play of her own partner but kept the stress inside; recognizing that her partner is older person and better player. The existence of second slow player at the table drove her up the wall and his status (relatively young, weak player and polite person) made it easy for her to express unhappiness. In different circumstances the conflict would die there, but this time novice had a partner with strong personality who felt obligated to defend him. That was the last moment I probably could stop the conflict: her next reply was outrageous, his next reply was personal insult and after it she used strong words and left the club.

Imagine you are by far the youngest player of the very small club and you are a playing director. At the table next to yours, 86 year’s old, good but somehow demanding player, playing with ~55 years old beginner partner. Beginner visually stressed out to play with good partner and takes longer than necessary for each play. You already had to give them “late play” board on one of the first rounds. Next to the last round, they play against two women. One of them ~70yo experienced, but not good; second, closer to 80yo, much better player, but became a little slow. Couple of weeks ago they were penalized for slow play by the different director. You hear that younger women screams at the beginner opponent: “play the damn card already!” and older opponent says something like “let my partner think.” Nobody bother to ask for director. Would you intervene by your own or will ignore it for some time? (To make it worse you are in a middle of a slam action and don't want to disturb your 95 year old partner.) If you decided to act, what would you do?

Are any bridge clubs in Beirut Lebanon open for visitors dec,14-dec,18?

2 lamford: After especially unlucky run of the cards, room might need to be evacuated. :)

I am playing against not very seasoned pair in a small F2F club. LHO is complete novice, RHO is novice with more than 10 years of experience. After bidding all over the places they stopped in 5♦ from LHO side. I hold ♦AKQ but did not bother to double (it clear will be the top anyway and I did not want to add an insult). Declarer took couple of aces; made couple of ruffs with long trumps; then gave me trick. I took it, collect all trumps and we took our suits for down a lot. "Partner," said RHO very sermonize kind of voice. "As a declarer you should learn to collect your trumps first and do not let defenders to collect their trumps. You see what could happened otherwise."

Looks like this is recently introduced bug. On all other tables in the same instant tournament humans bid exactly the same, but Gib passed after 2♠.

Sorry, I guess I should choose the different diagram for that scenario, there we can see GIB's understanding of the bidding in the box. Here it is: Yes, I was wrong: 3NT according the GIB ==16 high cards point, not up to 15 I wrote :) It has the perfect sense: Top strength of the hand with no reverse limited by the range of revers :) [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|baby crow,~~M18724,~~M18722,~~M18723|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4S8KAHKD23JQC3678Q%2CS34569HTJDTKC9TJA%2CSQH679QAD4789C25K%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1D%7Can%7CMinor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%2B%20%21D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1H%7Can%7COne%20over%20one%20--%204%2B%20%21H%3B%206%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2C%7Can%7COpener%20two%20rebid%20--%204%2B%20%21C%3B%204%2B%20%21D%3B%203-%20%21H%3B%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3D%7Can%7CInvitational%20with%20support%20--%203%2B%20%21D%3B%204%2B%20%21H%3B%2010-12%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3N%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21C%3B%204%2B%20%21D%3B%203-%20%21H%3B%203-%20%21S%3B%2016%20HCP%3B%2017-1%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C6D%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21D%3B%204%2B%20%21H%3B%2012%2B%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS5%7C]399|300[/hv]

OK, people who open 1♣ were able to avoid troubles. Now lets have more fun. 12 human decided to open 1 ♦. Six of them bid 1NT over 1♥ response from the bot. Theoretically, this bidding should not cause the different contract from 1♣ – 1♥ – 1NT. It did: [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|rub1932,~~M18664,~~M18662,~~M18663|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4S8KAHKD23JQC3678Q%2CS34569HTJDTKC9TJA%2CSQH679QAD4789C25K%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1D%7Can%7CMinor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%2B%20%21D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1H%7Can%7COne%20over%20one%20--%204%2B%20%21H%3B%206%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1N%7Can%7C2-5%20%21C%3B%204-5%20%21D%3B%202-3%20%21H%3B%202-3%20%21S%3B%2012-14%20HCP%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2C%21%7Can%7CNew%20minor%20forcing%20--%204%2B%20%21H%3B%2012%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3N%7Can%7CNo%20support%20nor%20new%20major%20--%202-5%20%21C%3B%204-5%20%21D%3B%202-3%20%21H%3B%202-3%20%21S%3B%2014%20HCP%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4H%7Can%7C6%2B%20%21H%3B%2012-16%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CSJ%7C]400|300[/hv] Gib again started from NMF, but now it does not want to accept partner’s decision and converts NT to ♥. What is the difference between these two biddings is not clear for me. Also funny to see that bot never mentioned its 4 cards support in partner’s first bid suit, but instead lied about number of cards in his own suit. Six other 1♦ openers bid 2 ♣ on the second round: I found that bidding the funnies. (Not during the actual game, of course) [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|olegru,~~M18652,~~M18650,~~M18651|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4S8KAHKD23JQC3678Q%2CS34569HTJDTKC9TJA%2CSQH679QAD4789C25K%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1D%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1H%7Can%7COne%20over%20one%20--%204%2B%20%21H%3B%206%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2C%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3D%7Can%7CInvitational%20with%20support%20--%203%2B%20%21D%3B%204%2B%20%21H%3B%2010-12%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3N%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C6D%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21D%3B%204%2B%20%21H%3B%2012%2B%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CCA%7C]400|300[/hv] At first Gib finds the perfect invitational bid, but after partner scratches to game, bot leaps to slam. WTF? Gib willing to play either partial or slam, but not game? It is funny to compare this auction with auction after opening 1♣ and reverse. After 1♦ opening and 2♣ rebid Gib knows that South’s hand is at most 15 points, after 1♣ opening and 2 ♦ revers it “knew” it is at least 17 points. After 1♦ opening and 2♣ rebid Gib already describe it’s hand as 10-12 points, after 1♣ opening and 2 ♦ revers it holds some un-promised points, only 8+ was shown so far. Nevertheless, GIB passes after revers and jumps to slam after the current auction. *** Three more humans open 1NT. Gib transfers to ♥, bids ♦ as a second suit and then accepts 3NT if partner choose it. Person who trusted Gib’s second suit bid was not in luck. [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|corndogusa,~~M18628,~~M18626,~~M18627|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4S8KAHKD23JQC3678Q%2CS34569HTJDTKC9TJA%2CSQH679QAD4789C25K%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1N%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2D%21%7Can%7CJacoby%20transfer%20--%205%2B%20%21H%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2H%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3D%7Can%7CNew%20suit%20--%204%2B%20%21D%3B%205%2B%20%21H%3B%2010%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4D%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4H%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21D%3B%20twice%20rebiddable%20%21H%3B%2010%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C5D%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C5H%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21D%3B%2011%2B%20HCP%3B%20twice%20rebiddable%20%21H%3B%2011-%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C6D%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C6H%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21D%3B%2011%2B%20HCP%3B%20twice%20rebiddable%20%21H%3B%2011-%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CCT%7C]400|300[/hv] Just curious, what is the point in bidding ♦ if bot never going to accept this suit as a place to play on any level? *** Finally, “1 man out” open this hand with 2 ♣! [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|scottc56,~~M18739,~~M18737,~~M18738|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4S8KAHKD23JQC3678Q%2CS34569HTJDTKC9TJA%2CSQH679QAD4789C25K%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2C%7Can%7CStrong%20two%20club%20--%2019%2B%20HCP%3B%2023%2B%20total%20po%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2H%7Can%7CPositive%20--%205%2B%20%21H%3B%20%21HKQ%3B%208%2B%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%20to%202N%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2N%7Can%7CNo%20support%20--%202-4%20%21C%3B%202-4%20%21D%3B%201-2%20%21H%3B%202-%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3D%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21D%3B%205%2B%20%21H%3B%20%21HKQ%3B%208%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cmc%7C9%7C]400|300[/hv] No comments on this.

This board from ACBL Robot duplicate been played on 51 tables. I found it curious to compare the different choices made by Gib in different situations. [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|rickdey55,~~M18634,~~M18632,~~M18633|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4S8KAHKD23JQC3678Q%2CS34569HTJDTKC9TJA%2CSQH679QAD4789C25K%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1C%7Can%7CMinor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%2B%20%21C%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1H%7Can%7COne%20over%20one%20--%204%2B%20%21H%3B%206%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1N%7Can%7C3-5%20%21C%3B%202-4%20%21D%3B%202-3%20%21H%3B%202-3%20%21S%3B%2012-14%20HC%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2D%21%7Can%7CNew%20minor%20forcing%20--%204%2B%20%21H%3B%2012%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3N%7Can%7CNo%20support%20nor%20new%20major%20--%203-5%20%21C%3B%202-4%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CC8%7C]400|300[/hv] The majority of human (26) choose open South’s hand with 1♣and bid 1NT over 1♥ from Gib. This bid, according to Gib’s understanding, shows 12-14 points and 2-3 ♥. Gib overbids a little with New Minor Forcing (12+ points according the box) and passes whatever human choose to reply (2NT, 3♦ or 3NT). Reasonable actions. Nice to know that Gib can bid NMF with singleton in other major and still happy to pass any NT reply from the partner, that promises no stopper in other major, of course. [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|puanani11,~~M18667,~~M18665,~~M18666|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4S8KAHKD23JQC3678Q%2CS34569HTJDTKC9TJA%2CSQH679QAD4789C25K%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1C%7Can%7CMinor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%2B%20%21C%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1H%7Can%7COne%20over%20one%20--%204%2B%20%21H%3B%206%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2C%7Can%7COpener%20rebids%20his%20C%20--%203-%20%21H%3B%203-%20%21S%3B%2011-%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2N%7Can%7CBalanced%20invite%20--%204-5%20%21H%3B%2010-12%20HCP%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3N%7Can%7C3-%20%21H%3B%203-%20%21S%3B%2015%20HCP%3B%20twice%20rebiddable%20%21%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CC8%7C]400|300[/hv] Some people who open 1♣ found alternative continuations after 1♥ rebid. Four of them decided to repeat their ♣. Note that Gib bid NT without worry about his singleton in ♠ and did not bother to show the ♣ support. [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|hugedeal,~~M18706,~~M18704,~~M18705|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4S8KAHKD23JQC3678Q%2CS34569HTJDTKC9TJA%2CSQH679QAD4789C25K%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1C%7Can%7CMinor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%2B%20%21C%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1H%7Can%7COne%20over%20one%20--%204%2B%20%21H%3B%206%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3N%7Can%7C11-21%20HCP%3B%20solid%207-card%20%21C%3B%2012-22%20total%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CC8%7C]400|300[/hv] Two other people jump to 3NT. Gib understood that bid as a solid 7 cards ♣ and passed. I am curious to know how programmers solved conflict with 2 ♣Kings in the deck? I mean if Gib expected his partner to have ♣AKQxxxx and it hold ♣K by his own, Gib can not run simulation for possible hands to choose the next action. Is it is mandatory passing in case of conflicts like that? [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|cathycard,~~M18730,~~M18728,~~M18729|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4S8KAHKD23JQC3678Q%2CS34569HTJDTKC9TJA%2CSQH679QAD4789C25K%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1C%7Can%7CMinor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%2B%20%21C%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1H%7Can%7COne%20over%20one%20--%204%2B%20%21H%3B%206%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2D%7Can%7COpener%20reverse%20--%205%2B%20%21C%3B%204%2B%20%21D%3B%203-%20%21H%3B%202%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3D%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21D%3B%204%2B%20%21H%3B%208%2B%20HCP%3B%20forcing%20to%203N%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3N%7Can%7C5%2B%20%21C%3B%204%2B%20%21D%3B%203-%20%21H%3B%204-%20%21S%3B%2017-21%20HCP%3B%201%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CH5%7C]400|300[/hv] Finally for 1♣ openers, 3 person bid revers 2♦. Gib was OK with it. It supported ♦ and passed 3NT.

an by 2030 bots will bid better than all 5 acbl members :) Just kidding. *** For me the main problem with GIB bidding is following: As a person as soon as I reasonable described my cards I trust my partner and accept his decision. Seems like bots do not understand conception of trust. Every time (except when their bid dictated by system) their run simulation and make the final decision.

This board actual was much more fun: Somebody (instead of revers bid 2♥) jump to 5♦ on the second round. According the bid description, GIB took it as "11-21 HCP, biddable ♦" (not even rebiddable) and corrected to 5 ♠ with cute description "5+ ♠ 6+ points." After player return to 6♦, GIB suddenly reevaluate hand as 14+ points and bid 7♦! Somebody else jumped on the second round all the way to 6♦. This time GIB decided that suit is rebiddable, but did not bid 7. Another person (as a number other players) started with jump to only 3♦, but after 3♠ from GIB bid 5♦ (instead of 3NT, chosen by lucky competitors). Now GIB evaluate its hand as 16+ points and bid 7 ♦. One more person started with revers 2♥, but instead of 3♦ on the second round jumped to 3NT and GIB jumped to 6NT. I thought GIB treats revers as a GF and 3NT clearly not stronger 3♦. There were even more funny board, but actions of GIB there at least have some explanation.

No, they are not according the bridge laws. But who cares... :)

My link Robot's hand: ♠ 652 ♥ AJ109 ♦ K1063 ♣ 54 Explanations of robots bids: "9HCP, biddable ♣, likely stop in ♠" I know, my opening was not systemic too, but I paid my 1$ :)

Strong, natural, Ace asking?

It could be true or it could be not true. Point is: Every single board could be explained by "luck", "table presents" and so on. Stats cannot be.

Thanks, now I feel much better :) Sorry, just to make sure. What would be adjustment in case of 3 cards ending, like that: [hv=pc=n&s=s2hdc83&w=shkqdc6&n=shd9c92&e=shadcak]399|300[/hv] Story is the same. Contract 4♥ from South West plays club, East ruff by Ace of trumps and continue the ace of clubs. West ruffs at trick 12 and take the last trick. After board is completed, dummy called for director (other player did not notice anything wrong).

Just sanity check. South declarer in 4♥. Two cards ending. [hv=pc=n&s=s2hdc8&w=shkdc6&n=shd9c9&e=shadca]399|300[/hv] West on lead. By this moment declarer took 10 tricks on crossruff and defenders took 1. West plays club, East ruff by Ace of trumps and continue the ace of clubs. (Slow absent minded play, not claim). After board is completed, dummy called for director (other player did not notice anything wrong). What should be decision?

They are talking about ACBL robot duplicates. Robots are quick. 12-15 minutes for 12 boards in those games is enough even for players not as fast as Leo.

I would prefer to add word Ace ot "top honor" after "singleton" in your question and stress that discussion is not about all hands with singletons but about hands that look balanced from the point of veiw of certan players depite of singleton honor. Nobody is arguing that "in general" opening with singletons are not permited. Question is about specific cases.

I would reword it a little. 2. You are allowed to agree to open 1N with specific singletons in a specific distribution and any subsequent agreement is allowed so you may define conventions to locate that specific cases.

Actually this is funny. Let's read this document: This article does not call itself regulation. It contradistinguish itself and regulation in the very first sentence. Why should we treat it as a regulation? Very clear. According the author of the article opening a natural NT with a singleton is not prohibited. What is prohibited? Have author ever said that opening with singleton honors is prohibited? He said exactly reverse way - opening is permitted if opener think his hand with the singleton honor is balanced. The 1NT opening with non-balanced hands are not permitted, nobody arguing against it. Later in the article he added additional requirements: These additional requirements does not based on regulation (and article made clear that it is not regulation), not based of logic (if opening is permitted why should be any limitations?) does not provide any details of proposed requirements (1% of what? boards he played? Boards he open? Boards he open 1NT? No agreements to enable means no conventional control bids to ask for singleton or no system capabilities to discover this singleton at all?) Why do we treat this bracketed part of the article is so important to overrule written regulation and logic? Look, according the author of the article even hand with void is not automated infraction, Director supposed to investigate and could accept the opening as a legal if opener will be able to proof "that the action was "good bridge".

Sorry, found it now

Do they have that article on the current acbl site?