Left2Right

At the teaching table mentioned above, feel free to use any of the constraint files from my library. http://www.charlesandgerry.com/bridge/constraints.html Read the instructions, then scroll down to the "Table of Constraints". One to use for your slam practice, try http://www.charlesandgerry.com/bridge/constraints.html#slamq

While at a teaching table, access "Export" and its options via History (tab); then click whichever previously scored hand you want to export from the list of scores; then click the tiny blue hamburger menu shown in the hand itself (lower right). "Export" pops up as the 3rd option; click it. There are six export options including a "Handviewer link" URL.

And another thing: Once a "Slow On Average" score becomes a tried and true thing, it might be eminently practical in other contexts as well. Currently, hosts can exclude players who are "new" or who have an insufficient board completion percentage. "Slow On Average" would be a great addition to this mix (in my terrifyingly humble opinion). :lol:

I agree. Slow play seems like an exaggerated nuisance since you can't see your opponent and can't smile a sweetly, clear your throat, and murmur "Did you know you're it?" like one can do in person. So I suggest the following. Don't play in a speedball event. It's pointless to pay money to continue being tortured. [This is my choice.] Do call the director rather than nagging your opponent. The director can do something substantial; you can't. Don't wait too long to summon the director. Just the director call might activate your opponent. Remember who's playing. I used to play in these timed events with partners who were slow due to age. I could tell; the opps couldn't. Finally, nag BBO! If there is one feature that could speed up these events, it would be a "slow on average" score. The computer could automatically record the length of time a declarer or defender takes versus the length of time that is fair, then compute a "slow on average" score. When a consistently slow player exceeds some fair limit for use of time over a meaningful span*, the computer could temporarily disqualify the slow player from signing up for a timed event (indicating why, of course). This prohibition could even age out over time** so that a slow player could rejoin the fray, subject to being disqualified again for more slow play. The computer has all the information it needs to accomplish this: the time it becomes your turn to bid or play; the time you do so, etc. And yes, some smart person somewhere would have to make a policy decision on how much use of time is normal and what "slow on average" looks like. * Example: ten events or three weeks, whichever comes first. ** Example: Play detail records older than 21 days could be deleted and a new "slow on average" score computed.

I vote vociferously in favor of the status quo. As Gertrude Stein might have put it "A 10 is a 10 is a 10" not a tee. Bo Derick would have gone nowhere as a Tee. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078721/ What will they gripe for next -- a roman numeral?! A K Q J X B-)

It just dawned on me that when I teach classes on Roman Keycard Blackwood, Kickback and Slam Control bidding, I might get more mileage out of it by calling it... [drum-roll] Critical Ace Theory . :rolleyes:

Educated guess: This behavior happens in the current environment more often that it did before the pandemic because of limited CPU time and greater user demand. Especially if you are constraining the hands (such as with BBO constraint code ) the computer will deal only a limited number of random hands behind the scenes in an attempt to fulfill the constraint. You get the error message when the dealer program is unable to find a qualifying hand after 100,000 attempts, or the effort exceeds the amount of CPU time currently allowed for a single task. Solution 1: When the system is very busy, you just have to come back at a later time. Solution 2: When you are constraining the hands with poorer constraint code, you need to simplify it a bit. One of the big offenders is the HASCARD parameter. Overuse of that guy makes it statistically unlikely to get a qualifying hand.

Eddie Kantar(1) reminds us that using 4NT (RKCB) is a no-no when you yourself are staring at neither the queen nor the jack of trump unless the partnership has a known 10-card or better fit. Accuracy in your slamming abilities will be MIA until you adopt two methods. knowing how many trumps one partner or the other promises. knowing how to cue bid controls to the point where both partners realize there is insufficient trump quality to proceed to a slam. * The 2/1 system (strictly observed) will accomplish the first. * Uncle Eddie's little tome cited below will provide the second. Cheers. Charles A. Lee (1) Kantar, Eddie. Roman Keycard Blackwood, The Final Word. print. Master Point Press. Toronto. 5th Ed. 2008. page 11.

Wouldn't it be nice if the BBO designers would publish a detailed list of the changes they plan to make and over what time frame? This would act as feedback to those who have informed them of design flaws and dis-improvements like the ones mentioned in this thread. But of course, as a software designer myself (retired), I know it takes great courage to reveal that sort of thing. Then too, when you have corporate customers like I did, there is no hiding from it: the customer commands the changes (as long as they are willing to pay the freight). In the public domain there is no such relationship, at least not for unpaid features.

Also check out my stash of dealer code snippets at this this link you can click. And the related YouTube video at this link you can click. It's oriented toward the Flash version of BBO, but the principal is transferrable to the HTML5 version. About the Jacoby 2NT change, you might try this link (Majors and MajorsB) And for the Multi-Landy, try the one just below the forgoing two. It's entitled "Their 1NT". Cheers.

What say we rely on the advice of two real experts: Mike Lawrence and Richard Pavlicek. In one of his books that I can't lay my hands on at the moment, Lawrence advises that we open the major rather than notrump when holding both a strong 5-card major and a bad doubleton. Pavlicek recommends upgrading your hand when holding enough "Aces and Tens." Click this. Putting these together, my auction goes 2♣ - 2♦(1) 2♥ - 4♥(2) all pass (1) 0-1 control count (2) Rule of Quick Arrival Note how clean and simple both partners make the auction for each other. A second negative is not appropriate when holding game complement. East holds the 8's complement in opener's major and three support points -- enough for game but not enough to suggest a slam opposite a presumed minimal two-club opener.

Try downloading SuitPlay from http://home.planet.nl/~narcis45/suitplay/ You'll see that even when you tell SP about the one ruffing possibility, he will tell you that the correct play is to win a top honor on the first round, then finesse the jack on the second round (72% to make 3 tricks). SuitPlay even shows you all of the choices of distributions that you are up against.

Yes, this is the one great failing of the robots: they have not yet been taught how to be snarky, critical or impatient. (No wonder they're so popular.) Perhaps with the advent of A.I. .... 8-)

Actually, you might try some of my canned code sets for many common hand types. The instructions are shown at the top of the page and the constraint files themselves are farther down the page. http://www.charlesandgerry.com/bridge/constraints.html Also, the meaning of each of the parameters in the code is definded at this URL: http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/deale r/Manual/input.html

Something no one has added, but I will because for tournament players, it's as important as any other facet of the game. When your opponent makes a remark that is tantamount to calling you a cheat or accuses you of unethical activity, he has transgressed to the point of warranting disciplinary action. If I had been you, I would not merely have called the Director, I would have asked the Director for a Conduct and Ethics Committee hearing (suppressing your own anger as much as possible, of course). If this was something other than a local club game, better committees will come down hard on those who transgress as your opponent did. I was involved in a similar situation at a Regional in the western U.S. and requested the committee hearing from Director. I was very young then and it was the first time I had ever dared such a request. To my great surprise, when she returned with the proper form to fill out, she whispered in my ear, "We all hope you'll follow through with this." Turns out, she and the other directors and the powers that be were gunning for players who were making life unpleasant for others. But only the injured party can initiate such action (not the management). The committee barred the offender from the remainder of the tournament and put her on 6 months ACBL-wide probation, which means that any further such infractions during that time anywhere in North America would be subject to much more severe penalties. * * * One more thing: even if you fingered the pass card and eventually chose some other action, the onus is on your partner, not you. If asked by the opponents, Directors should look at your partner's hand to see whether partner's action is less reasonable than any other had you not fingered the pass card. It sounds to me like you were looking at your cards instead of the bidding box when your hand passed over it. If so, that kind of mechanical error does not constitute U.I.

I asked Rhoda Walsh, a pen pal of mine, whether she and the late Paul Soloway put the Soloway Jump Shift on their convention card when the two of them were partners. She replied in the negative. That's rather telling when the inventor of a convention and a top expert partner forgo using his own invention. But let's cover first things first: The value of the hand. After all, if you don't know the true playing value of the hand, how can you be expected to find the right bid for it. Since a splinter on the first round would agree clubs (opener's suit), West's first call is 1♦. After the anointed Walsh rebid, 1NT, a vanilla jump shift into three clubs forces to game and promices 5+ diamonds and 4+ clubs. East takes the obvious preference for diamonds and promises three of them (because West need not have more than five diamond cards). This support yields two critical things: 1) West is the captain because East has limited his hand (12-14); and 2) West's ability to correctly revalue his hand for Responder Count. Rhoda call's it PSP (Partnership Support Points) but a rose by any other name. Valuing your hand in the 19-21 point range, facing a partner who has an opening hand usually yields a slam unless you are unlucky with the slam controls. And away you go toward slam.

I write only because you said you couldn't find it in a book. Try Advanced Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century. Hardy, Max. ISBN10: 1-58776-125-4. 2002. Vivisphere Publishing. Poughkeepsie, NY. The XYZ suggestion from Cyberyeti is found on page 31, "All other jumps = strong suits and suggest slam possibilities." Example hand 27(a). After that, standard slam cues will induce partner to understand that the club control is the only missing ingredient.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Ingrid Bergman (my pet pronunciation for Ingberman). It's a convention designed to handle just such a situation. Basically, South's second call of 2NT is artificial and says, "Partner dear, I have a hand that won't make game opposite your minimum reverse." North, holding a minimum reverse, completes the relay to three clubs and it gets played there. Holding a high-end reverse, all other bids are game forcing. More on Ingberman click here. And of course (as I always nag), you and partner can practice it at a BBO bidding or teaching table using one of the constraint files I authored for this convention. Click here for that.

As usual. I offer what no one else has: Whatever method you and partner decide to try, practice it at a BBO bidding or teaching table using one of my handy dandy constraint files. Click this link. After clicking the link that leads to the code, read through the comments (the lines starting with a # sign). And on the first line after that, change "theLow=" to whatever lower part of the notrump range you want the dealer to deal; and change "theHigh=" to a number that is at least three points higher than the low. Example: theLow=27 theHigh=30 If you haven't used these constraints before, review my YouTube "how-to" video at this link. Other writers were certainly correct that the Super Notrump hands are rare, but isn't it nice to know that you and your best partners will be prepared where others who have dismissed these hands are not. Cheers.

Try my constraint file for slam cues by clicking this URL.. If you are new to this sort of constrained dealing at the bidding and teaching tables, try my YouTube video on it by clicking this URL. Be sure to switch the switch in the code (theSwitch=0 or theSwitch=1) to change between hands that need slam cues versus those where RKCB is fine.

Dovetailing with most of the other comments, let's recite the rule for perspective. "Minor suits do not become second class citizens unless and until one partner or the other can give up on the possibility of a minor suit slam." This adds to the strain of patience (a la music, not muscle) 8-)

Rule: Minor suits do not become second class citizens until one partner or the other can cogently dismiss the possibility of a minor suit slam. Clearly, this can't happen during the first three calls. Violating this rule is also why many non-standard NT openings fail to reach a minor suit slam that makes but where only 10 or 11 tricks are available in notrump. With that in mind, North's full hand value and six card length is a perfectly fine jump. To forgo doing so dismisses the suit prematurely. So at my table, it goes: 1♦ - 1♥ 3♦ - 4♦ 4♥(1) - 5♦(2) 5♥(3) - 5♠(4) 6♣(5) - 7NT (1) Kickback (RKCB 1430) (2) 2KC, with ♦Q (3) Specific King ask. (4) ♠K (5) S.S.A. for clubs (See this reference)

Suggestion: Run hands like this through Deep Finesse. Reasons: 1. In addition to what you get from GIB, D.F. reveals which leads, if any, will defeat the contract. 2. D.F. allows you to modify the hand slightly to see whether some seemingly small change in the opponents cards will change the outcome. 3. By stepping through the hand trick by trick using D.F., you can sometimes see whether making (or defeating) the contract requires some miraculous play along the way or something more vanilla.

Let's do the math. The risk-reward ratio for a small slam is anything better than 50%. For a grand, it's more than 67%. Thus, the 59ish correctly worked out in the forum doesn't justify the risk of seven. The pros tell me that since it's too tough to calculate that 68% when you're sitting at the table, we must instead discover that 13th trick, in this case, the diamond queen. One method for this is "6 Ace Roman Keycard Blackwood." Try this link to read all about it. And no, GIB doesn't know it.

Hiya, Possum: You are beginning to sense the priorities designed into the 2/1 system. Let's clarify them. We want to locate, in this order, 1) Slam complement whether minor or major (backing into notrump when available) 2) Game complement in a major 3) Game in NT 4) Game in a minor 5) Bailing into a partscore. You will find many players who confuse priorities 3&4 with #1. They don't understand the rule of minors: Minors DO NOT become second class citizens unless and until one partner or the other can cogently dismiss the possibility of a minor suit slam (Priority 1 above). Also the Notrump rule: We strain to end up in notrump rather than a minor unless notrump is an obvious death wish (Priority 3/4 above). All of these priorities are driven by the score sheet.