pilun

Atul, I guess you know what we would do. Just checking how majors are handled. 1♥ opening can't have 5+ spades. Right? If so, 1♥ is easy. Just use our structure with major hands bidding 2♣ to replace removed balanced hands. 1♥ - 1♠ 1N ... ♦, unbalanced, then 2♦ Roman 2♣ ... 4♠, then 2♥ = Roman, 2♠ + are down 1, since 5-5 majors open 1♠. 2♦ ... ♥ >= ♣ 1♠ - 1N 2♣ ... ♦ 2♦ ... ♠ >= ♥ 2♥ ... ♠ >= ♣ 2♠ ... ♣ > ♠ 2N+ ... 6+ ♠ These all +1, except both majors (square)

While it may be good to know that it's okay to open 2♥ as "five hearts + five of a black suit", it should be noted that such bids fit the definition of Artificial Calls in the Laws of Bridge, no matter what the ACBL chooses to call them. I'm just suggesting that it's not a good look to describe bids that are clearly Artificial (according to definitions in the Laws) as "natural". Semantics ....

Sorry not clear by me. My bad I meant people playing with robots. Today there were four people-robot pairs, all North-Soouth.

As a director, I looked at our recent clocked Mitchell events that allowed robots. In every case there were more robot pairs seated NS than EW. It one 8-table game, all four robot pairs were NS, which irritated the EW players. Is this something to do with the order of entry? Or the perceived strength of the robot pairs?

Luckily for the ACBL, the Laws don't define natural, just Artificial. So the natural is available to mean whatever the ACBL defines it to mean, following the precedent set by Humpty Dumpty. Thus 2♠ as spades and a minor can be both natural and artificial. It's all good, though maybe natural-ish might have been a better term. Presumably a DONT bid of 2♦ over 1NT is also N/A, though maybe not if the shape can be 4-4 or 4-5. As the queen said "Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

I'm surprised as that. The Laws define Artificial and 2♠ = spades & a 4+ minor is clearly artificial. Whether such bids are allowable or alertable is a separate issue. "conveys information ... in addition to a willingness to play in the denomination named ..."

I think that would not be legal. 4-3-1-5 is not quasi-natural. The idea is that 1♦ showing "11-15 balanced with four or five spades" makes the bid quasi-natural, rather than artificial. Basically, the Regs say that an artificial 1-level opening cannot show length in another specific suit. There doesn't appear to be such a restriction on quasi-naturals.

A good option is to move the 2♦ hands in with 1♦. Plenty of space.

At Open level, 1♥ & 1♠ need to be natural, due to this: Disallowed In segments of fewer than 6 boards, an Artificial 1-level opening bid showing length only in a known suit other than the one opened, unless that bid is also Strong and Forcing. However, 1♦ can be "quasi-natural" as defined: A minor suit bid that is either Natural or shows a pattern that meets the definition of a Natural NT opening. Where natural includes: A NT opening bid or overcall that contains no voids, no more than one singleton, which must be an ace, king, or queen, and that does not contain 10 or more cards in two suits combined. That allows this (Scamp-based) opening structure: 2♦ = 5+♦, unbalanced, no 4cM [up 1] 2♣ = 5+♣, unbalanced, no 4cM 1N = 12-15 balanced-ish, no 4cM 1♠ = 4+♠, unbalanced 1♥ = 4+♥, not 4♠ 1♦ = 4-5♠ semi-balanced That makes the 1♦ opening quasi-natural. Is that legal? I'm not suggesting this opening structure is particularly good, just that it is legal and reasonably sound. With 1♠ being unbalanced, it's attractive to relay with 1NT. The symmetric structure is [up 1] 1♠ - 1N 2♣ = & 4+♥ or Roman (then 2♥ = Roman) 2♦ = & 4+♦ 2♥ = ♠ >= ♣ 2♠ = ♣ > ♠ 2N+ = 6+♠ 1♥ opening as before (1N = ♦, 2♣ = bal, etc) Over 1♦, can have 1♥ as a range probe, 1♠ as a shape-ask. 1♦ can optionally include the 5422s, maybe others if you are keen. The structure below is simple, though asymmetric and crude 1♦ - 1♠ 1N = 5♠ (then 2♦ = 5332s, 2♥+ = 5422s) 2♣ = 4-5♥ 2♦ = 4-5♦ 2♥ = 4-2-3-4 2♠ = 4-3-2-4 2N = 4-2-2-5

Okay. I will post there. Problem of course is that different countries have different advice on UNDOs, perhaps varying according to the grade of the event. And of course, BBO is not a country. I have never been happy with "UNDOs only for mis-clicks in the AUCTION". That could lead to players choosing [Confirm] for cards but not for bids. As Mycroft points out below, double-clicking to play a card quickly becomes a cerebellum activity, particular if you have to do it 26 times as declarer. some card mis-clicks are "genuine" but many are problematic, from failing to comprehend who played what. Like a player sitting over A-Q with KJ - expecting a finesse - then "mis-clicking" by dropping the king under dummy's ace. Would be good to have guidelines.

Okay, declarer is in 7♥ and has to lose to the ♠A When he leads towards dummy's ♠KQ, East - sitting over dummy with ♠AJ9 is about to take the setting trick. Declarer calls for a spade honour. Case 1. East drops the ♠9 on the table. Case 2. East drops the ♠J on the table. Say this is on BBO with [uNDOs] allowed for "genuine mis-clicks" in this particular event. Case 1a. East mis-clicks the ♠9. Case 1b. East mis-clicks the ♠J.

2NT as a 3-card raise always seemed strange to me, playing Acol. OK when opener has five, unless 3NT happens to be a better spot. The problem comes when opener has 15-17 balanced with 4♥s. Now you have wrong-sided 3NT. Might be better to swap 2NT & 3♦.

This is what we do: We always have two ways to raise to the 3-level after their 2x overcall - shapely and invitational. Usually there is a cue raise, so 1♥ - (2♦) - 3♥ = shapely, 3♦ = inv+, both 4-card support. Invitational hands with three trumps start with double, then usually convert to hearts. Normal stuff. It's different when there is no cue raise to the 3-level: 1♥ - (2♠) - 3♥ = shapely, 2NT = limit+, 4-card support. After a negative double, the main issue is resolving opener's 5-4, 4-5 and 4-4 shapes. If they overcall 2M and partner doubles, we play opener's 2NT as SCRAMBLING. The classic case is 4333. This is not to say that 3♣/♦ would show five. After all, responder has suggested minors. It would be churlish not to bid one, though maybe not with four small. There is also the option to convert doubler's 3♣ to 3♦, suggesting 5-4. In our style, opener's 1♥ denies four spades, which gives more options to both partners. After 1♥ - (2♦) responder doesn't need double to check for the non-existent 4-4 spade fit. Thus double is often FIVE spades OR a 3-cd limit raise. Likewise, opener can bid 2♠ happily over partner's double, rather than nervously, as would be the case if 1♥ did not deny spades. Here is the current link to the book https://ebooksbridge.com/index.php?main_page=ebb_product_book_info&products_id=776

We are talking about (2♥/♠) - no - (no) - 2NT In direct seat, it is normally 15-18, some suggest 16-19. Is it less in the pass-out seat? While you don't want to pass it out when you both have balanced 13-counts, how much can you afford to stretch? 13-16 ? 14-17? Is there a standard? It is worth noting that Lebensohl makes this awkward. If you are too strong for 2NT, you have to bid 3NT since double might receive a Lebensohl 2N from partner, exposing your KJx.

So Mycroft. If you found yourself as West in the hand above, would you say anything more than "I have shown five hearts and five clubs"?

Deciding on an ethical approach to the game is a complex issue. If I get Blackwood wrong and show two aces when I have one, does anyone expect me to own up? Probably not. Against my 6♥, West leads a club to his partner's ace. East fails to return a diamond to his partner's ace, "knowing" I have that card. I sheepishly chalk up +980. Few would call me unethical, certainly not Adam Gilchrist. Or West doubles my 7♥ and leads the ♥A. East pitches something, then finds a trump when West leads a second trump. +2470 this time. "I don't want to win that way" but the Law is the Law. Online bridge has the advantage here! (As an aside, why should online software prevent me from carelessly revoking?) One Law that borders on unethical is 72B2. "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one's own side." If I revoke, it's quite in order for me to choose the most opportune legal time to divest myself of the offending piece of cardboard, then sit on my hands till they make a call on the next board. This has always seemed strange to me.

Perhaps BBO can add a Danish option for people like you. A Swiss is a Swiss. I quite like a Danish last round, provided it's just for 3rd vs 4th place, etc. What you want to avoid is the top two replaying a hard fought draw, only to see the third placed team cruise past them with a big win against a weak team coming off a lucky win. Those two teams should be battling for 3rd & 4th only. Shooting fish in a barrel is part of the game. Often, that is what decides who qualifies in world championships, where you have a round-robin to knockouts. Round robins are the ultimate Swiss events. Take the trivial example of four teams, three good ones and one to make up the numbers. I see no reason why the event should not be decided by which team beats up team D by the most. Much better than having some team play team D twice. Really, deep-diving in the last round is a reward for having done the hard yards against the other tough teams early on. Agree that some events are over-swissed. The issue of number of rounds is a thorny one, not solved by resorting to a Danish.

Thanks for that, Diana. I will give it a go

I'm not a programmer. I'm surprised that BBO code hasn't been written to run a proper Swiss Pairs or Teams. Must be hard to check for repeats before doing the draw. Today I ran a 12 table "Swiss" Pairs (6 x 8 bds) on BBO with pre-entry. One pair didn't make it, so I filled in with robots. (Better than human subs for a 6 hour event) Anyway, the pair who played the bots in round 1, played them again in round 5. They didn't much like that. Many find the instantaneous play off-putting. That was one of four repeats in the event. The bot-replaying pair had a midfield draw in round 5 and - lo and behold - had to play them again in round 6! Fed up, they were about to leave. Luckily I was able to scrounge some human players. Every scoring program can handle a Swiss. Can somebody explain why it is so hard for BBO?

I'm keen to have a go at the new Swiss Teams, which apparently works like this: https://news.bridgebase.com/2020/11/17/swiss-teams-tournaments/ Restrictions seem to be: - Odd number of teams means a long sit-out - A bit awkward to enter a team (I invite my partner, you invite yours, then I invite you two) - Never at the same table as your teammates - Standings only at the end - It's Danish, not Swiss Quite clunky compared to RealBridge (which also can't handle odd numbers) but it's a start. To counter, BBO has self-alerts, (BBOALert) an interface less prone to mis-clicks, plus robot fill-ins, which are useful. Would be good to avoid the fatal sit-out issue via a robot team. Is that the way it works? Say I have 9 pairs. (Let's ignore single players) Some have pre-arranged teammies, some match up as they enter, some are swept in with random teammates. Maybe one pair misses out entirely (??), which is okay. Who? Does the system randomly drop one of the last three wallflowers? Say I have 11 pairs and the game starts. Now I have 5.5 teams. Or do I? I'm hoping I can simply slot in a robot pair to make up to 6 full teams. Is that right? Say I have 10 pairs. Starts with team 5 (say) sitting out for ages. Again, I am hoping I can slot in 4 robots as a TEAM. Is that right? Back to 9 pairs. Can I slot in 6 robots to make it a 6-team game?

There is a BBO user who follows me most times I play. No details in his/her profile. Does not respond to messages from anyone. It's a bad look for me, might appear that I am self-kibitzing. Is there anything I can do to stop him/her from joining me and following me through a session? I was hoping [ignore] would help. It would make me harder to find but he/she knows when I play and in which sessions. Those sessions allow kibitzers.

Apologies. 4-5-4-0 Take 3♥ - 3♠ - ? Looks like a common treatment is to rebid 3NT on any hand with 0-1 ♠s. Okay, though wrong-siding is a concern. Another issue is vulnerability. I might open 3♥ on a 6-carder. If I happen to have my bid for once, say 1-7-3-2 and a good suit, partner may not know whether to remove 3NT.

Today I had this problem: Aggressive partner opened 3♣ in first seat, nil vul, matchpoints. I had: ♠AK85 ♥ AQT765 ♦KQJ8 ♣-- I bid 3NT for one off when 4♥ would have made. I chose 3NT because I wanted to avoid the likely: 3♣ - 3♥ - 4♣. This is the question: If I bid 3♥, is partner ALLOWED to bid 4♣? If not, does 3♠ show something in spades, or just most hands with a stiff heart? Is that a common "expert" treatment? If that is the case, what would 3NT by opener show? TIA

I sometimes set up a teaching table or bidding table with constraints. Typically N/S deal, have most of the points. I might have robots at East-West When we look at the boards in History, the auctions are often incomplete. Can't seem to find a pattern. This seems to be a bug. Note that History works fine for actual play. TIA Nick

Well, swap the clubs and diamonds then we play 2♥ while the field languishes in 1NT. It's all good.