WesleyC

In 1st/2nd seat playing standard you've got an easy 1D opening planning to rebid 2NT over 2C. The rebid problem only exists in the context of weak 1NT.

I'm not 'worried' about the opponents bidding one of our suits, but I would prefer to stop them exploring for a profitable part-score sacrifice at a low level. A 1S opening takes away enough space that they might end up finding their fit a level higher and allow our side a profitable double. Pass.

I agree that holding 14 HCP (in 3rd seat) our side is a favourite to hold the balance of points (maybe 70%/30%) but that doesn't mean the opponents will give up and pass throughout, especially when they are favourable. By far the most likely scenario on this deal is that points are split relatively evenly and we're about to fight a part-score battle. In this context, I think system structure should take a backseat to tactics, especially when holding an already awkward hand like this. Opening 1H might help us find a heart fit that might otherwise be missed, but it might also lead to us playing a weak 4/3 heart fit and missing spades altogether. I'm a lot more confident opening 1S because of the lead directing potential and the fact that a 4/3 fit there will definitely be playable.

At MPs in 3rd seat, opening this hand anything other than 1♠ is criminal. The 1♠ bid takes away the opponents chance to bid at the 1 level and will get our side off to the winning lead whenever LHO wins the auction. Partner's 2♣ response gives us an ugly problem. Playing ACOL we've got little choice but to try 2♥ and hope for the best. FWIW, partner should bid 2♣ sparingly as a passed hand at MPs for exactly this reason.

Close decision. With the same hand and 7321 shape I'd open 3S, but I think the void and suit quality are enough to convince me to open 4S. I don't think this hand is worth wasting too much time on because in the long run the IMP expectation of 3S and 4S will be very similar.

I think most people have their analysis backwards on hands like this. South's choice to pass 3S, with a doubleton spade and a great holding in hearts is too big a risk. Although bidding will sometimes turn a positive score into a negative one (for a partscore loss), the potential upside is huge. Game could easily be making and even if it isn't, the opponents might take a phantom save. The other main point in favour of bidding is that almost everyone is too predictable with their 3S bids. You can trust them to have less than game interest and spade support. Given how strong your hearts are, you will almost always be able to escape to 4H and not get doubled.

Yogg Simulator I hadn't seen that link before, thanks! It's definitely a very cool card and all the non-targeted positive effects that you get are pretty strong. I'm still unconvinced it will turn out to be playable though - 10 mana is just too expensive. I played quite a bit of mill rogue, and although it was fun, even with heal-bot and blade-flurry I couldn't consistently survive long enough for it to be viable.

Although i'm pretty sure Yogg Saren - a 10 mana card with an incredibly random effect - isn't going to be playable, I'm more positive about the future of rogue in standard. The main thing in Rogue's favour is that it lost almost no playable cards in Nax/GvG (Tinker's Oil, Goblin Autobarber?) and getting rid of Dr Boom is a huge plus. Xaril, Shadowcaster and Shadow Strike all look solid and are likely to spawn a new rogue archetype.

My preference is that the flexible druid cards (Ancient of Lore/Keeper of the Grove) *should* be slightly weaker than a non-flexible neutral option. Admittedly 7 is on the expensive side for Ancient of Lore, but at 6 it would be too strong. I don't share your opinion about Leper Gnome either. If a neutral card is an auto-include in *every* deck of a particular style, then that feels like the perfect reason to change it. I'd much rather have a more diverse and slightly slower meta.

The only nerf that I think might go too far is Blade Flurry. Rogue is going to need some serious compensation in the new set. All of the other changes feel right on the money. I'm especially pleased to see druid lose more than just one of the combo pieces. The new 4 mana wild growth creature (mire keeper) looks like a big buff to ramp druid, especially with shredder leaving.

Definitely 3NT at IMPs. No strong opinion at MPs.

My understanding of expert consensus is: In a competitive situation where your side has bid a minor at the 3 level, a cue-bid in the opponents' suit is the only way to force without going past 3NT. As a result the cuebid becomes just an artificial catch-all showing any constructive hand that wants to explore game, but can't make another (more descriptive) bid. Advancer will usually have about (9)10+ HCP, although if they are on the minimum end of that range they should have sharp values and help in diamonds. It is typically only forcing for 1 round. On the example hand, I would respond 4C.

I don't think I explained my point very well. After the computer has simulated some large number of hands that are consistent with the auction they wouldn't just dump them in a pile. They would be completely filterable and searchable so that opponents would be able to as questions like "how many HCP is your partner showing" and receive a completely accurate answer down the to % chance of each HCP number. If you asked about the program's style for opening 1NT with a 5cM, the computer would be able to confidently assert that in this position they open 85% of balanced hands that contain a 5c Major 1NT, and then provide examples of some hands that would be included and some hands that wouldn't.

I'm find with the first pass. It's easy for the opponents to get stuck in 2C for -300/500 when we don't have a game. Now on the second round, it feels logical that double should show a penalty pass (of clubs) but with enough outside values that our side can probably make something, or defend profitably if partner has diamond values. So having conveniently defined double to show this hand, I would double ;).

Mgoetze: Your solution is exactly the same as the one given in the video, just expressed slightly differently. And unlike the video you actually *did* show proof that your result is correct. One thing that wasn't mentioned is that just taking mod of the numbers only works if you're trying to simulate a die with the same number of sides due to the symmetry. For example, taking say MOD 4 of the 3* 6-sided dice will not give you a fair 4-sided die.

Why are system restrictions imposed at all? In a practical (read: human vs human) situation, there are many good reasons to impose some system restrictions. They make disclosure easy, create a level playing field and generally facilitate an enjoyable game. But if you consider bridge in it's purest form, the rules are elegantly simple. You must make a legal bid and that bid can mean anything as long as you fully disclose the meaning to your opponents. Computers would have absolutely no issue following the disclosure aspect - they could even deal out a huge sample of hands that fit partner's bidding pattern on request and present them to the opponents as an example. However complex methods have enormous unrealized potential. Just one example (which is legal even with the current rules) is that it's possible to exchange a key (specifically possession of some subset of particular cards) which allows you to encrypt a message that only your partner can understand. A method that I've seen allows you to check for a major fit, without revealing to the opponents which major either player holds. Have a look at the final page of this system card for a full explanation. http://livebridge.net/bbo/abf/cc/476791-497746.pdf

Fair call - "go in as short priced favourites" is probably more accurate. Forcing computer bridge engines to play a standard method is the equivalent of forcing a chess engine not to deviate from standard opening lines. Given computers have no limitations on memory or complexity, they would gain a huge advantage from being allowed to devise a complex and completely optimal, (and artificial) relay bidding system that attributed a precise meaning to every possible auction and continuation.

I think passing is too big a risk at V vs NV as partner only needs a few scattered values for game to be cold. 2NT feels like the best chance. With RHO not raising spades, there's a very good chance partner will bring a spade stopper.

My strong opinion on the topic of computers in bridge is that if *serious* effort was put into building a world-class bridge program, and it was allowed to play unrestricted by ACBL/WBF system constraints (with full disclosure, obviously) then it would easily win the BB. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because a) The issues regarding disclosure (mostly towards the computer) represent a huge grey area. b) There is no demand for such a computer. Now all we need is for someone to offer a 100 million dollar bet, and i'll be able to prove myself correct! Any takers?

There isn't a right/wrong answer here - it all depends on preempt style. My preferred style is to open 4S aggressively so I'd pass this hand at any vulnerability except unfavourable (where i'd take my chances and try 4NT KC).

Holding the red suits I think a 1NT opening is clear.

Really nice visuals and an interesting system!. I've tried using (significantly less pretty) tree structure for system notes but in the end I always given up because it takes so long to setup.

Fair point. Although if declarer does have 6331 with the ♦Q and not the ♠Q, you'll never be able to *legitimately* beat the contract by 2 tricks. You can't cross to Partner's hand for a diamond through without creating a hand entry for declarer in clubs and they will eventually be able to take a spade finesse. However, switching to a small spade does make their life easier. Things get tougher if declarer has a 6340 which leaves us struggling to even take 4 tricks. In this case I think we need partner to have the ♦Q but the small spade at trick 2 should still be enough (although I think most other defenses also work).

1st hand i'd make a simple raise. The second hand I would happily invite if I could stop at the 2 level (eg some 2C* art method). Without that possibility, i'll try 1NT, planning to jump to 3S if partner can find another bid.

Really? Both look like clear 1NT opening to me, especially if you play 1M - 1NT as less than 100% forcing.