hotShot

There are games and sports where it is easy to do an individual rating, but in team games / sports it gets a lot more complicated. First of all you need a scoring system that is capable of representing the playing strength. Bridge does not have such a scoring system. Lets take a look at MP-Scoring, if you pick a field of really good world class player, someone will have to loose that tourney and in an MP tourney they will get a score lower than 50%. Playing in the club of a nearby retirement home some friends of mine scored more than 80% recently. IMP scoring isn't helpful too. If 2 WC teams fight over 100 boards and one wins with 4 IMP's, they have a 0.04 IMP/board average. Bunny bashing should give you a score of (much) more than 1 IMP/board. Now how do you pinpoint a good or bad score to an individual player? Who's at fault, if you follow partners lead directing dbl or lead the suit he signaled and it costs a trick? Who's at fault if a Texas transfer or a super accept gets you to high? What score do you get when you're dummy? What if you misbid or overbid, but get to be dummy? What kind of boards to take into account? How many boards should a new partnership be allowed to play, before it affects their rating? What if a player runs before the board is finished, when the substitute player could just concede the remaining tricks. How do you get the strength of a typical BBO tourney field, if it contains WC-player and novices and each pair is only playing a very small subset of the contestants.

You have to rebid 2NT over p's 2♣ anyway so it doesn't matter. Too bad you don't have a spade stopper - balanced is balanced. The only alternative I can envision is 3♣ over p's 2♣ but I wouldn't recommend that, at least not to beginners. If you always open 1♥ with this shape, then 2NT over 1♦-2♣ denies a fourcard major so p doesn't have to check for it. Partner could answer our 1♦ opening with 1♥, 1♠ and 1NT. If he chooses to answer 2♣ he hasn't got a 4 cM or he has extra strength and 5+ ♣. So we don't need to offer a 4cM, as partner denied one already and if he happens to have 5+♣ and 4♥, he'll have to introduce them on our way to 3NT.

Bidding up-the-line has the big advantage, that the suit length is clear. ♥ followed by ♦ promises 5-4. The problem that ♦ followed by ♥ is reverse, is easier to solve playing weak NT, because you can open 1NT with the weak hands. Judgment and major-first have advantages, but you leave your partner guessing about the suit length is it 4-4, 5-4 or 4-5. One weakness of 4cM Acol is that in competitive auctions like: 1M - 2m - ? You would really want to know, whether partner has 4 or 5 cards in his major suit. Playing weak NT, 1M is more likely to be 5 cards, bidding up-the-line also adds a little bit to the probability that it shows 5 cards.

<rant>If you start putting even 5 card major suits into your NT opening, why do you call it Acol when you could describe it as Precision without a strong 1♣ opening as well? </rant> If you have 2 cards in every suit and argue you have a (semi) balanced hand (Yes that includes 7222!) and you want to open that with 1NT, it's fine with me (just don't call it Acol). Obviously given your system a (semi)balanced 1M opening will have 15+ HCP, rarely 4 more often 5 cards in that suit. If you are weaker this would be compensated with 6+ cards. I'm quite sure that the average ♥ length on a 1♥ opening of such a system is closer to 6 than to 4. So playing Acol this is definitely a 1♥ opener.

If your complaining now, what would you do if partner opened 1♠? Bid 1♥ and over partners 1♠, bid 1NT, over opps 1♠ overcall, you have an easy 2♣ bid.

It seems logical that anything that is submitted for approval is disallowed until it is approved and listed in the database.

I don't know if is published how Jack goes single dummy, but if it is done similar to GIB that uses a set of random deals using the known restrictions to search for the best play. This would mean, that 2 user at different computers might get a different behavior from from the software, because each case has its own set of random deals.

Playing strict SAYC, without a forcing game rise in a the minors. The method to go is a delayed game raise. So 2♣ followed by a game raise or using 4th suit game forcing should do the trick.

If there were a working rating system, than some 90% of the bridge player would find out, that their level is much lower than they think. Once they learn how bad they really are, they might loose the interest to play at all. All the "local heros" would loose their local admirers once they get to know that their local hero is far from good. They would want not play in an environment that exposes their true skill. Real experts would like to have some peace and quiet time on BBO, with their skill exposed they will be bombarded with invitations to team games and the like from total strangers. So how many player would really want to know their rating or would want it published. And is it good for the game or BBO? Who would play with weaker friends, use the "Help me find a game" button or leave the table open for strangers if this would lower the rating? What will be the climate among the players is someone makes a stupid mistake because his phone rang or what if opps won't allow an undo? Player are already rude to TD's to get an adjustment, what if the result would ruin their rating. Just imagine someone would get a bad score because of a psyche ....

Happy birthday!

It's sad to read that you are aging twice as fast than average mortals.

There are about 200 nations, lets say each has sent 10 teams with 6 members to events to represent them over the last 40 years. So there could be 12000 player that fit the description of WC.

I'm interested and Searching a partner.

Of cause i would pass 1NT if my hand is weak so we only have a partscore. Usually this would have to be a 5044 or 40(45) distribution. With some 50(53) especially at IMPs I would try for the minor.

What would 2♥ over 1♠ show?

West has to find a way to show his strength. West has the information that East can't have enough strength to do anything. West has 2 possible bad bids in he first round of bidding, dbl and 1NT. If 1NT has to promise stopper in both of opps suit, than dbl it is.

Just a reminder!

If he have a fit in ♥ we won't find it, if I don't bid them now. If we don't have a fit in a major, we would usually prefer to play 3NT. Bidding ♥ now should make it harder for opps to lead ♥. So I will try 2♥.

In the thread on forcing pass systems, a 2♥ opening was mentioned that shows a weak 2 in ♥ or a weak 2 in ♠. What do you think about this opening, any idea for a defense? (For a statistical view I define that as 5-10 HCP and a 6 card suit, and I'm ignoring the suit quality.) This opening has a frequency of ca. 1/25 openings. The player in 2nd seat is now placed in a 4-1-1 situation. 4/6 of the cases his shorter major is openers 6 card suit, 1/6 he has equal length and 1/6 his RHO's major is his longer major. So my first guess for a defense would be to use: dbl -> T/O of ♠ with opening strength (showing longer heats) or a stronger hand (16+ any shape). Partner may pass with long ♥. 2♠ -> T/O of ♥ 12-15 HCP (will usually have 4♠ except 3244) non forcing 2NT -> minors 5-4 12-15 HCP forcing 1 round 3m 5+m 12-15 non forcing

deleted double post

btw Walsh is not an alert in ACBL. So I strongly disagree....1d does not imply a 4 card major. :) "It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major. Don't tell me you didn't get that at once." Mike what i wrote has nothing to do with Walsh.

Let's look at a simple example. It is quite common to prefer majors and no trump contracts to playing in a minor. Imagine playing a 5cM natural system with this style. Now think for a moment what this means for the following bidding sequence (opps silent): 1♣ - 1♦ It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major. Don't tell me you didn't get that at once. Obviously opener has no 5 card major, so if responder does not have a 4 card major, he will reply 1NT (2NT or 3NT) even with ♣ fit and a 4+ length in ♦. Bidding 1♦ only makes sense if you are looking for a 4-4 major fit. The other possibility a very unbalanced hands with very long ♦ and without a 4card major and ♣ fit is rare and can be shown using other methods. So disclosing the full meaning of a bid, requires a lot of awareness even in natural bidding.

So opps bid something every single time they are dealer, of if our side fails to open in first seat. I don't have a problem with that. Defensive bidding and play is part of the game.

I'll try to be there :). And I don't have a problem with the time regulation.

1♠ - 2♥ - p - p X - p - ? What would 2NT show?