TylerE

Don't see why it's so hard. If you're unwilling to play with randoms, don't use "help me find a game".

Why aren't we bidding 3♦? Having limited our values via 1♠-1N-[2di], 3♦ now has to be extra shape, not extra values. Seems to resemble the hand I'm holding.

These responses just sum up why 1♠ is clearly better. On so many of these sequences the spades just get buried.

Have their been any further "standard" revisions since WJ05, or has Jassem decided WJ05 is the definitive version?

1♠. then diamonds and diamonds and diamonds and diamonds.

I don't think I'm restricted, but that's assuming partner was awake enough to X 5♣ if he really wanted the ♣ lead.

I wonder when BBO will introduce the format where the game automatically makes any legal play at random.

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&myhand=M-60205023-1419899761 http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&myhand=M-60205076-1419899761

So in the first three boards I've played with the new GIB it's managed to cuebid an ace it doesn't have (while bypassing one it does), and forced to game with an uninteresting 10 opposite a non-fitting minimum opening.

Neither. What I have seen it used most for is justification after going for -300 or more.

My experience has been quite the opposite. I've seen (personally) a grand total of one ZT penalty handed out, ever. That was at a sectional. Never ever ever in a club game.

Why am I not bidding 4♥ on my rebid?

Also means responder can bid 2N with a weak both minors hand and have a decent shot at finding the better fit.

Can I get anyone else to agree that a direct 6♣ has merit? I can't abide playing 5♣ at matchpoints, and if we're going to be in 6 I'd rather do it without mapping the opening lead for the opponents.

Can I get anyone else to agree that a direct 6♣ has merit? I can't abide playing 5♣ at matchpoints, and if we're going to be in 6 I'd rather do it without mapping the opening lead for the opponents.

ACBL. The only exceptions are that 1♦ can be something interesting, and you CAN play transfers IF AND ONLY IF either 1♣ is strong and forcing, or the transfer itself establishes a GF.

FWIW: I posted opener's hand (only) over on BW. Currently, 1♣ is leading over 1♦ 49-0.

Red @ IMPs? Why haven't I bid 3N yet? Unless partner is opening a lot of really bad hands (which he shouldn't in 2nd) we should be making at least the 32% of the time or so we need to to show an IMP gain in the long term.

Uh, we have more clubs than diamonds, and a super strong hand, but not quite a 2♣ opening. How is 1♣ not obvious. This is a 1♣ playing SAYC, 2/1, ACOL, Precision, Moscito, or Polish Club.

Maybe it would help to run two tourneys, half as long? 20ish boards unclocked is a fairly substantial time commitment. Maybe run 2x10 instead, with like a 10-15 minute break inbetween?

The only problem is that the robots use lots of conventions that a novice won't know, like lebensohl, inverted raises, etc.

If you want decent partners find some that are agreeable and run far far away from the sludge pit of "help me find a game".

Not forcing, and should be passed. The #1 rule on this type of auction is *no rescuing before we are doubled*.

I've given up hope with GIB, honestly. Maybe BBO will see the light and license Jack one of these days, which is FAR FAR better, and which I would rather partner than most humans.

A diamond continuation isn't disastrous - the defense still has 5 tricks available.