TylerE

South's bidding was ok. Definatly on the strong end for 4♥, but what else? Why isn't N putting the spurs tot he X of 4♥? Closer to a 6♥ bid than pass there imo....

In a live game....no. In a game where the stated goal is to determine the relative skills of *1* player at each table... sure, why not?

I wonder...if the GIBs are running server-side would it not be possible to set the random number generator to the same seed in all gibs? If the generator was reseeded to a known value for each bid in the auction, and for each card in the play, this would effectively make GIB derterminate, since each gib would generate the same set of random hands. Wouldn't *improve* things, but would make it hurt a bit less if you knew all the other gibs would be making the exact same mistake.

First X - Utterly normal Second X - Utterly insane. West has already told his story, this is just off the charts. Dbls of 1NT should show TRICKS not points, and West has little in that department (and the points aren't anything special either...no way I'm treating this as a 16 count.) Lead: Doesn't really matter at this point, does it? Have some preference for a small spade here...the king is highly likely to be on my left here, partner is allowed to hold the J or T. Unlikely to blow a trick that isn't already blown through telling declarer where all the high cards on the hand are sitting.

So, if I'm reading this right you're banning the standard american 1♣?

This is totally not encrypted carding. That said, I think this is illegal for a totally DIFFERENT reason...the UI provided to partner. Maybe illegal isn't the right word, since giving UI technically isn't, but...

Pass, feeling pretty good about it. Would help to know system. (E.g. is partner expected to open above average 10 counts...or are we playing Roth-Stone... makes a difference here). Doubling feels likely to turn a plus into a minus, which is like...the worst...at mp. Would double if 4441.

Gut instinct is score stands, possibly a PP to south if I have a feeling he's trying to be sharpish - That said... only UI on the hand is to North, who imo does the ethical thing by passing 4♠.

Standard around here is that none of these are takeout. Typically 4N is the takeout over 4♠.

ACBL Robodupe #8860, hand 6 ♠ 972 ♥ Q82 ♦ QT43 ♣ 865 2♣ - 2♦ 3♦ - 3♥!?!?!??!

We're getting Flash sometimes soon...no reason why the current flash client wouldn't be useable. How playable it is on a 4" screen remains to be seen.

jandrew: It's not at all that simple. He actually needs a video card capable of running two displays, which many integrated cards cannot. Age doesn't really factor in to it.

Honestly. playing SAYC (e.g. no RKC), I'd probably just blackwood over 1♥ and then bid the obvious # of ♠. King asking will become involved if parter shows 3.

Ok, just sanity checking..all is well (Except on this board where partner holding 4=4=0=5 passed, playing me for a pen X, which made (8-4 ♦ fit, stiff in all 3 suits between the hands), with our side cold for 7♥, or 6♠

(3♦) - X - (4♦) - X?

In reality, you're much more likely to get it right if you assume: Systems on always (even at the 3 level) X is stolen bid.

♠ QJxx ♥ AQJ9xx ♦ - ♣ AKx You deal, RvW, Swiss Teams 1♥ - (2N)[1] - 4N[2] - (5♣) 6♥[3]) - (p) - p - (7♣) ? [1] - Minors [2] - 3014 for ♥ [3] - Neither dealing with interference or showing voids over RKC discussed

Codo: I disagree whole-heartly. 4♣ on your auction IMO has to be 5... with a minimumhand a nothing of a value to show you PASS. Partner hasn't promised the world's fair here, so you need some real reason to suspect 4♣ is making. With (x)(x)54 you just pass 3♠ and see what partner can do...

100% to south. Open 1♦ and don't double.

Sounds normal to me?

3-unt.

Dislike hard HCP rule How about something like "X HCP or Y clear cut tricks or Rule of Z". While that my be a bit more complicated, it does offer more flexibility for judegment, and is less nebulous than the ACBL "What the bidder thinks it means" guidelines. Or perhaps we should tackle this the other way around and say an opening of 1♣ forcing is ok if responder is required to explore game with N hcp and force to game with N+X HCP (With, say, N=7, and X=3).

As opposed to feeling GOOD when it goes 1!S-2♣-2♠-3N???

I wonder if it would make sense to have a 'mirror' rule. Basically, over an opening whre opponents are allowed to play anything (Basically, NT options, forcing clubs, a preempts), any conventional defense should be allowed. Perhaps bar purely destructive defenses.

What't the old saying? If you open 1N on 14 you should probably accept an invite...