skaftij

Interesting!

My version of SAYC, that is true indeed. It did not occur to me that THE SAYC defined 3 hearts as gameforce. The point I was trying to make was that 3 spades was a better bid playing a system where 1 spade opening has a wide range in strength as opposed to a strong club system. Bidding 4 spades might be slightly better than bidding 3 spades playing a strong club system. Could not miss the opportunity to express that opinion when Justin just declared 3s period.

Playing SAYC or similar, a clear cut 3♠ Partner will know that we might be stretching, after all we could have bid 3♥ showing a sound raise+. 3♠ might well be the par contact facing say 14-17 (semi)-balanced. On the other hand, playing a strong club system, opps will more often than not make game with the majority of strength. Partner being limited. they will have a probable 9+ card fit, maybe even double-fit. The final guess is over 4♠ not 3♠

Yes of course, please disregard. I was mixing up BSS and BML.

Yes, reverse engineering would be nice, making a BML file from FD. It would be nice not to lose comments. That happens now when you convert to FD and publish using downagain's upload. http://bridge.downagain.be/FD/public.php Let's do that! Let's assume that the ressources are available, to enhance the parts of BBO that deal with Bidding systems development and training. Requirements: Capture explanations at the table. When playing or practising bidding online, capture explanations at the table and store in systemfile. The explanations are to be accepted/modified (see below). History. When playing or practising bidding, make a cross-reference between the resulting lin file and the system. Reviewing at later stage can help remembering system. This feature can also be the fundament for statistics. Make it possible to save comments related to each deal/auction. Review. Incorporate a review feature, similar to Windows Word that allows accept/reject of PD's suggestions. When changes are accepted, audit trail should be made so that changes can be tracked. The idea is to support commitment to changes. Quiz. Run a bidding tool in a "quiz mode", exercising those auctions that tend to me hard to remember. Selecting auctions could be based on the auction being marked as tricky, or it could be based on historical data, that is, let the tool present bids that have not occured during online training or play. Challenge the Champs. Prepare lin files with hands bid (and played) by great players for bidding pratice or play. Save result as described above. Thanks Kungsgeten! I like BML.

NF OK, 5♣is ugly, but here the gain was 14 imps and the risk was 4 imps. The outcome will be different next time.

UI or not, I'd bid 6♣. Prefer immediate 4NT.

Declarer may ditch a ♣ on dummy's ♥. Partner did not double 2 ♥ after all. It is not unlikely that declarer has a two-suiter with singleton ♣ and a singleton ♥ King or Ace.

North is marked with some length in spades. Possibly, he might have made a preference to 4♥ with a doubleton honour. He will have a singleton heart more often than a singleton club, making a lead-directing double of clubs more likely to establish a trick.. On the other hand, South could have proposed 4♥ with a fair six-card suit. His failure to do so is an argument in favour of a ♥ lead. Is this reasoning too speculative, something you invent when you hold East' hand? The full hand [hv=pc=n&s=saq8hq7djt9654cq7&w=st2h962dk732cj962&n=skhkjt84daq8cat43&e=sj976543ha53dck85]399|300[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&w=st2h962dk732cj962&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1dp1h3spp4cp4dp5ddppp]133|200[/hv] Expert level, no agreements about such doubles.

Obviously, a singleton fits well with A10863 and Qx(x) is useful against KJ1083. Would you open the hand with 1NT with that Diamond holding? [hv=pc=n&s=sa6hjt63dkjt85ckq]133|100[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa6hjt63dat853ckq&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1dp1sp2dp3s(Gameforce%2C%20good%20suit)p4c(Cuebid%2C%20agreeing%20%21s)p4h(Cuebid)p]133|200[/hv]

Having bid 3 suits, we play jump in 4th suit as splinter in openers 1st suit. This is more frequent than splinter in openers suit. Admittedly, we give up showing a 2 suiter.

I finesse both red suit and if one of them fails, several good things need to happen

Pardon, it is not. Some people just like to bid 2♣ naturally, especially if 1♣ only promises 2 cards and let 2♦ show majors

After 1♣ - (2♦), it would be nice to distinguish between a sound raise to 3♣ and a competitive raise. On the other hand, we are stuck with our decent 5 card heart suit if we double or pass and LHO bids 3 or 4 spades.

North had ♦ Queen

Definitely agree.

I value Fred'´s opinion highly. We use FD for training exercises and to document system but recognise that it does not have such a wide appeal. I have several ideas about how FD could catch on. How about one player proposing changes in system and the other player reviewing and accepting or making counter proposals? Or defining system interactively? This would only entail changes in Bidedit to start with and thus not drain BBO for resources meant for other work. Taking the vast number of programmers playing bridge into account, surely, development of Bidedit could be some sort of an open source project.

Where can I find description of Heeman?

Ugh, I thought it had been 1S - P - P - ? I would pass with this hand without doubt

Partner usually has some spades. He also has at least a few points so we should fight the partscore battle. Admittedly, it looks ugly, but the easiest way to get to what may well be our best denomination is simply to bid 1NT. Should opps cash in 5 spades and 2 aces, then 2 spades probably makes. And we will still reach our heart contract when partner has 5+. Even if we should get to 3 notrumps without a sound stopper, spades may block.

Double! My regular partner knows his system, the auction is fairly frequent, he does not psyche, we stand to gain tons of imps. I really don't care which opponent has gone bananas. One thing is sure, I have consistently faith in my partners bids and I am confident that it is winning tactics in the long run. Only if partners bids are obviously inconsistent will I have to look to the opponents bidding to guess what went wrong. If you really don't have faith in partner you can speculate if he did mistakenly place 1NT on the table rather than 2NT. Or did he somehow think it was I and not LHO who bid 1NT?

How do you upload FD card to the webutil.bridgebase.com ?

A club might tap dummy if partner does have a slow diamond stopper after all but I lead a passive trump since a club may present the 13th trick, e.g if only six diamonds in dummy