glen

I am .5 interested in this

Time for the choice of games cuebid, you do not want to have to bid clubs naturally

The closest design I had to this was ETM BOTS 1C: 17+ any or 12-16 three suited without a five card major 1D: 10-13 balanced/semi-balanced (no major suit singleton) 1M: 12-16 five card majors (1S can be 5-5 majors 10-11) 1NT: 14-16 2C: 10-16 6+Cs 2D: 10-16 6+Ds or 5-5+ minors 13-16 2M: 7/8-11 5 or longer suits, 6 if 7/8-9 2NT: 10-12 5-5+ minors 3NT: 10-13 6-5+/5-6+ majors Another option which I had seen elsewhere was 1C was big or both minors (4-4+). Three suited with short minor, no five card major moves to 1D. Not vulnerable I would like something like: 1C: Opening values and not appropriate for any one level opening (not balanced or five card major if less than 17) 1D: 10-13 balanced/semi-balanced (no major suit singleton) 1M: 11-16 five card majors 1NT: 14-16 2X: weak two, five or longer Vulnerable is really interesting, start with core: 1D: 11-14 balanced/semi-balanced (no major suit singleton) 1M: 11-18 five card majors 1NT: 15-17 Now what do you put at the two level to make 1C more bulletproof. Fun stuff like: 1C: Clubs unbalanced 11+ or any 18+ (if clubs unbalanced can be 4-5 in minors) 1D: 11-14 balanced/semi-balanced (no major suit singleton) 1M: 11-18 five card majors 1NT: 15-17 2C: Four or longer diamonds 14-17, if just five diamonds has four card major, if four diamonds 15-17 and 4-4-4-1 exactly 2D: Five or longer diamonds 10-13, if just five diamonds has four card major (or 2D: diamonds and four card major, 10-13, 2C: as above and could be 10-13 with long diamonds, no second suit)

Playing online bridge I would like to know What will happen to the game of bridge if the requirement to disclose agreement is enforced?

This would be: 2H = 5+D GF (or 6+D invite) --- 2S = 5+S with either 4+C or 4+H ------- 2N = asks ----------- 3C = 5+S-4+C --------------- 3D = asks ------------------- 3H = 2524/3514 11-15 ------------------- 3S = 2524/3514 16+ ------------------- 3N = 5S-5C 11-15 ------------------- 4C = 5S-5C 16+ ------------------- 4D = 6S-4C 11-15 ------------------- 4H = 6S-4C 16+ ----------- 3D = 5S-3D --------------- 3H = asks ------------------- 3S = 4C 11+ ------------------- 3N = 4H 11-15 ------------------- 4C = 4H 16+ ----------- 3H = 5422/5413 11-15 ----------- 3S = 5422/5413 16+ ----------- 3N = 5S-5H 11-15 ----------- 4C = 5S-5H 16+ ----------- 4D = 6S-4H 11-15 ----------- 4H = 6S-4H 16+ ------- 3C = 6+D 9-11 (if you play can be an invite) ------- 3D = 6+D GF --- 2N = 1-suiter without 3+D ------- 3C = asks ----------- 3D = 6+S UNBAL ----------- 3H = 6+S BAL ----------- 3S = 5323 11-14 ----------- 3N = 5323 15-17 ----------- 4C/D/H = 6+S, shortness ----------- 4N = 5323 18-19 ------- 3D = 6D 9-11 (if you play invite) ------- 3H = 6+D GF --- 3C = 5S-4D 11+ --- 3D = 5S-5D or 6S-4+D --- 3H = 5S-3D-(3-2) --- 3S = 6S-3D 11-14 --- 3N = 6S-3D 15-17 --- 4C = 6S-3D 18+

My guess: "1♦ when holding (1) 12-17 HCPS hand with BOTH 4-card Majors or NO 4-card Major" (however I think you noticed no rebid for it) Edit: New guess: 2♣ is 12-17 with five or longer clubs and no four card major (this has too wide a range) There have been systems where one of the minor openings denies a four card major while the other one promises one or both, yet this approach, both or none, seems new Yesterday we played against a pair where 1♦ was natural and denied a three card major (could have a four card major). They don't alert nor pre-alert their 1♦ opening, just announce that 1♣ could be 0+

I follow the Rodwell rule: if Rodwell after a zillion hours of research thinks something is better, it is better

There was no agreement

You said "My bridge partner", so after finding who, looked up hands. Then after find the board, looked up more hands by the opponents.

You are correct

I found the hand. Opener had 2-7-4-0, hearts headed by AKJ, diamonds by KQ. The auction was 1♥-2NT(Jacoby)-3♠-4♥-6♥. The person who bid 3♠ is one of the most senior TDs in the world. If he is cheating we are in serious trouble. Fortunately, looking at their other boards I see no signs of cheating.

If the bots are bidding and playing terribly, they are functioning as normal

On the actual hand, opener took the 2♠ bid as real, ended up in 4♠ vulnerable on a 4-3 fit, and this can be doubled for a large number. This is the best way of reducing psyches you will face.

For a techie, search is filtering, for UX it is not

Imagine how cool it would be to be able to filter the list shown