Xgasman

Maybe they're neither English or modern, but better players than I in the Acol Club will open a 4 card minor rather than a 4 card major on hands too strong for a weak notrump. Though why they wish to defer partner's gratification at discovering the "Holy Grail of Bridge" until the third round of bidding after their notrump rebid and Checkback is unclear to me.

It may be more reliable on a desktop/laptop but I have used the Jitsi iPad app to set up a meeting (with all 4 players included!) and then set up a table in the BBO app to play: you can still talk to each other. Presume Zoom's similar, if more expensive after an hour. Can't see participants' faces, but that's probably a good thing. Switching off the camera in Jitsi may improve your internet connection.

A voice option is available on teaching and bidding tables as well as Vugraph. I suspect it would non-trivial to add it to ordinary tables: automatically enabled after bidding and play, and disabled when the he host clicks on "Next Deal". And enabled when a new player arrives. But if it was possible, would BBO members feel it was a priority?

Reasonable auction by East after a "Benji" 2♢ : probably worried about missing 7! Albert Benjamin used to joke that he invented his convention so that opponents could play it against him. Maybe had this in mind!

This lowly, at best intermediate, new forum member seems alone in wondering if the answer to Tramticket's first question, might be "no". Applying an ancient Scottish international's 3 criteria for adopting a convention… Is it really effective on the hands for which it was designed? No idea! But there seem to be a few versions: in my former profession a plethora of treatments for a disease suggested lack of efficacy. Does it fully compensate for the the loss of the natural bid it replaces? Probably. A minor suit slam try over a weak NT is uncommon. Does it have a reasonable frequency of occurrence? Any shiny new club in a golf bag produces a temptation to overuse. Experts will presumably resist. All irrelevant to me, as Xgasgirl tells me we're not adopting it :)

The partnership's bidding may give little away. However the convention provides a second bid (as well as 2 clubs) you might make that LHO can double for the lead. Even a failure to make one is an inference for the likely opening leader. Just another factor to put in the balance if you're adopting the convention or contemplating the bid.

5-3-3-2s are commoner than 4-3-3-3s and less common than 4-4-3-2s If we restrict NT opening distributions to these, intuitiion suggests partner will have a 5 card suit roughly a third of the time. It will be a major a sixth of the time. Kelsey & Glauert suggest, if I understand the statistics, a more accurate a priori (6 cards in ♢s may affect this) 16.2990…% And partner may have the clubs and his other major stopped. Or a wide open suit may not be lead. Or break or be blocked. So… wouldn’t use (waste?) 3♣ on 5 card Stayman would use discretion if I did and would always bid 3NT on the example hand at Pairs. 5 card majors in a weak NT opener seem a good idea to me. Though I seem to miss 5-4 major fits when as responder I forego Stayman on 4-3-3-3 far more often than statisticians might suggest… :(

If N/S have an agreement that a non-preemptive raise is shown by other means (3♢s?) then 3♠ is surely alertable. BBO asks that N should pre-alert himself. I've recently been persuaded (see thread in "Suggestions for the software") that this is reasonable and even desirable. And W cannot then convey UI by asking out of turn!

My original (doubtless naive) query: “Is it time for a change” was answered succinctly in the first paragraph of Mycroft’s first response. And Helene_T convinces me Mycroft was right. As to the subsequent (off topic?) suggestions of what should be (pre-) alerted, time constraints (for a slow typist) render most of them impractical for me. A software suggestion I would NOT make, would be an “improved” Full Disclosure feature with automatic translation to the opponents’ chosen language(s): a BBO/Google hybrid version of Douglas Adams’ Babel fish. Remember… “Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars …” Thanks to the contributors to this thread: it’s been interesting.

Thanks, Helene_T. I'm beginning to see the light! However you say "often you will have some kind of partnership understanding, for example because you have agreed to play something vague like "Acol" or "SA", or because you have some experience or agreements that apply in vaguely similar situations, or because you fly the same flags so are likely to share some broader culture". In the Acol Club where I usually play such understandings are available to opponents as well as to me and my pickup partner. I suggest (at risk of angering Mycroft) this renders a "No Agreement" response to interrogation appropriate. And I am reluctant to start self-alerting my bids thus. I suspect it would cause confusion!

Thanks for your comments, Mycroft, many of which I find almost convincing. I had actually browsed the forums for several hours before posting, but it seemed there was no consensus, and little recent comment on, the matter. Hence the question mark in “Time for a change?” You have convinced me not hold my breath in the hope that BBO will feel it’s “time for a change”. I’ll try to translate “No Agreement” into Polish, Mandarin, and other languages for the Chat Manager, if I ever stray from the Acol Club :). Where you'd be most welcome to parachute in if you like playing in your mornings!

My first post: apologies for any improprieties. Self-alerting my bids is alien to a normally face-to-face (f2f) player like me. Was it adopted by BBO because of software coding problems? In the Windows version? I can see that for experienced regular partnerships this will make little difference, but with a pick-up partner you often have to guess what your partner will guess your bid means. That’s Bridge! If I alerted such bids it would be as “No Agreement”. And recently I was admonished (relatively politely) by an experienced regular partner opponent for giving such an explanation. There was an expectation that I should give a description of my hand to opponents that would not be available to my (still guessing) partner. Well, to misquote Dickens, “if that’s the (BBO) Law, then the Law’s an ass”! A DIY solution to allow “normal” alerting by partner (works on HTML5 version on Mac/Safari)… • Use Chat Manager to set up an “Alert!” message (and maybe “Stayman”, “Hearts”, “Spades” announcements) • Keep the Chat Manager window open (OK, a problem on an iPhone…) • At the start of the auction select “Opponents” in the Chat window Two mouse clicks when partner bids and you’re done! And better than f2f as bidder doesn’t get unauthorised information. Couldn’t BBO incorporate something like this?