TylerE

When your argument is "I would have bid if they were playing SAYC", when you had no way from the auction to know that they weren't playing SAYC, and then calling after dummy hits, is the definition of a double shot. Sorry if you don't like it.

When your're making the argument that the alert, or lack thereof, affected your bidding, you greatly damage your case by not asking before passing. Make your bid as if there were no alerts. If it turns out there was a missed alert, and you suffered damage, this is much easier to argue when you *actually make the bid*, instead of going for what reeks, frankly, of a double shot (not to mention the UI to partner) by declaring what you would have bid....after seeing dummy.

That's not how GIB works. It doesn't understand ranges. It just thinks 4NT shows 19 pts or whatever, and simulates from there.

That's not how GIB works. It doesn't understand ranges. It just thinks 4NT shows 19 pts or whatever, and simulates from there.

How do you get more heart oriented than AKQ-7th and a stiff, with no side 4 card suit or source of tricks? This is the definition of a picture bid hand. That bid is 3H.

What bid are you proposing as a psych?

When you agree to play WJS by an UPH you give up on being able to show this hand.

In my regular partnership this would be DSIP. Yes, this occasionally leads to silly numbers when they have a 12 or 13 card fit and don't really bid like it, but the good outnumber the bad at least 3:1. That said, we play Precision and would never dream of not opening something on the N hand, so we don't need to strain to make 4th seat takeouts on crappy balanced 10s, because there's nothing to protect.

Repeat after me. GIB does not make penalty doubles. GIB does not understand penalty doubles. GIB doubles are takeout through (and including) 7NT. You violate this maxim at your peril.

WASM, I would assume. Same tech lichess uses to run Stockfish in the browser - which is surprisingly performant by the way... runs at about 80% of native speed.

If only there was a systemic bid to show a balanced 20 count.

Yeah, just start passing forcing bids willy-nilly, that's the way to success.

There is a huge gulf between "MAY respond on a zero count" and "MUST respond on a zero count". Describing the former as "forcing" is most misleading. Would you describe a natural 1NT as forcing for a pair playing a scrambling-style garbage stayman? After all, 2c could be zero count.

Perfectly routine 3D. It's a perfect hand for it. 2N is gross.

You'll win a lot more matchpoints (and events) by not missing obvious 3NT contracts than by finding some ultra thin minor suit slam that may or may not make once a month. Soliciting a weak 2 bid for cues is not that useful, and your structure over 2M should have some low level way to start an inquiry (like some sort of 2N ask).

Because the software is crap, and they obviously don't care. They're just milking the cow until it dies (when the ACBL contract expires in a few years)

I find it a bit funny to see someone arguing for constructive raises (my personal pick for worst convention ever... support with suppport!) to be so incredibly arrogant.

I suspect your definition of "fun" is our "that's 5 minutes of my life I'm never getting back".

Maybe the real giga-brain way to try for a top is show your H, and hope that 4H scores better than 3N.

"The play of the cards gives 2 different simulations, but the bot knows the same about the hands in the 2 situations". If the auctions were not identical that is an invalid assertion.

If the auctions were the same, how do you play it at one table and the bot at the other?

How about this. Add three new small cards to the bidding box. They should be blank on white side, with a thick blank border on the other, with say, a checkmark on one, an x on another, and a question mark on the 3rd. TD instructs the players to take the that matches their preference from the box and place it on the table face down simultaneously. TD flips the cards. ? = No preference, defer to partner. If both defer, that's a no.

They want people playing (and paying) in multiple sections. BBO is all about $$$$$ ever since the new owners.

It's really the colors that kill it. Red vs White you're really trying to thread the needle. -100 (e.g. NV x-1) may well be a great score if par is -110 or -140 or whatever. It's really really hard for -200 to do well at MP, unless it's 2M+3m, because you're not beating any score that's likely to occur at another table.

If I'm bidding (and I'm not) I'm bidding 4D, not 4C, because if we're bidding at all we're bidding 5m over 4♠, right? Can't correct ♦ to ♣, and the suit quality difference while there isn't vast. If the suits were Qxxxx AKQJx this would be a different conversation. Really at these colors though, just...no. We could easily beat 3S 2 or 3 tricks while not being able to make squat. On a good day, partner leads their stiff club or doubleton club and we're taking like 8 tricks off the top with a few ruffs. If I was going to take a stab at anything (and again, I'm not), well, it's a lot easier to take 9 tricks than 11, and parter is allowed to hold ♠Jxx or stiff K or whatever. It's probably not making, and if it's not making it's probably REALLY not making (like their 3S, actually...) but it's MP. -200 and -800 could easily score the same number of matchpoints. -100 might even.