Jinksy

Not sure exactly what you mean. Do you mean something that would accumulate statistics over time? If so, to what end? Most of what I can think of that these could tell you would mathematically demonstrable outcomes that wouldn't benefit much from data. Yeah, I'm only just starting to learn, and the course progresses at a rapid rate, so I'm even less able to predict anything about scope atm. That said, the advantage of trying to create functionality that doesn't already exist is I'll be much more interested in carrying on with the task at the end of the two weeks. The course is one of the development 'bootcamps' that have sprung up in the last few years and doesn't grade or offer qualifications in any meaningful way, which has the upside that, while I might want some sort of feeling of accomplishment at the end of the last two weeks, I don't necessarily need to strive to artificially 'finish' the final project.

I'm doing a programming course for which the final two weeks will be a project of my choice. It had occurred to me when I was putting together my own takes on Fantunes (details) that I often wanted 'or' dealing functionality - that is, a dealing program that could give eg 'a hand with either 12-14 points and no shortage or any 18+'. So far as I've seen, no online dealing programs offer that, so I'm thinking about writing something along those lines if it seems like a realistic option. So this raises a couple of questions: a) Are there any dealing programs I've missed which offer such an option? b) Are there any other parameter-combinations missing from dealing programs that you'd like the option to specify?

Zel, I'm not planning to pursue any vendetta against hog, nor am I a scared little teen, but I'm getting tired with him a) singling out my posts from a number that have reached the same conclusion to abuse me personally, and b) refusing to advance any argument for his position/against mine. If he stops doing either, fine - end of story. If he keeps both up, then I hope the moderators will take action to stop it, so that I can enjoy this forum without a nagging feeling that I'm going to be attacked by a one-man lynch mob.

A comment that various other people in the thread echoed, none of whom you've chosen to harass here. As for knowing nothing about Acol, I live in the UK and play 'it' more than any other system. But 'Acol' in theory is a specific set of agreements memorialised on some document in the Acol club, which even the oldest players would consider too archaic to follow consistently (even if anyone knew exactly what it consisted of, which I'm willing to bet you don't). 'Acol' in practice is is wide array of partnership agreements starting with '4 card majors and weak NT' and having little more necessarily in common with each other than that, which is what I play - and it certainly does not have a baked-in meaning for the sequence above. You might disagree with my reasoning as to why 2N is plausibly NF (perhaps one day you'll explain why if you have the wit), but you now need to acknowledge that I know something about Acol. So your comment was either prejudiced and based on your own ignorance, or abuse - hence cyberstalking. Which is it?

This is starting to feel like cyberstalking. If you have no argument to make and nothing friendly to say, kindly stop singling out my posts for your lazy abuse.

Btw, I don't agree with the people claiming 2N here should be 15-19 bal just because you're playing a weak NT. Here's my reasoning: The main reason for having it as that in a constructive auction is to allow slam hunting with 18-19 point hands. Here, when LHO is strong enough for a 2-level overcall, you don't have good enough support to raise P, and, for a 2N bid, you need some values in their suit, which are unlikely to be pulling their weight in a slam. If you do have some sort of stellar 19 count with crisp values, 4N would surely show it. Opener's 3m would probably be GF. If 2♠ is forcing and 2N is strong, that leaves your only NF bids as 3♥ and 3♠ - neither of which is particularly appealing if you've opened on such as x QTxxx AJ9 KQxx You could prob play 3m as forcing to 3M which would make strong 2N playable, but that's got its own problems. So without discussion, 3♥ seems like a relatively benign alternative if I'm worried P might get too excited by 2N.

Why, would you have passed his X?

This is not the auction from the OP. I'm a 4♣ bidder at MPs, 5♣ at IMPs. Looking at my hand I don't think it's a foregone conclusion they're making 4M, so why rush into a potential phantom sac? On the actual hand, P might be able to judge to compete to 5C, and it might be hard for the opps to compete.

If P has the hand Rainer posted and sees us raise to 5S, he should figure out what we're up to. If he thinks we've gone nuts with a bunch of soft red suit values we'll be off in 5 anyway, so he might as well play us for sanity.

Can you give an actual argument, just in case I don't have the access to divine revelation you enjoy?

I'm not normally credited with the Unusual 2N, but thanks. I'm sure some of them do. I don't believe for a second it's universal, and neither do you. So let's focus on the interesting case when we're not playing it. I'm going to lead a D, then look at the table, the state of the match, and make a decision. Yes, if it gets that far I'll have done badly in expectation. I still do not believe the chances of the X being passed out are much higher than 10%.* Let’s look at the actual hand, which I believe you advocate doing whenever it helps your cause: responder has at least 6Cs and at most 6 points, so he’ll pull. I now have a suit to cue, so I can keep doing so until advancer admits to having a D side suit, after which I can bid 7. If by some miracle he doesn't pull, P will, which makes life harder, but no more so than it was before I Xed. * Actually, I’m struggling to think of any lie of cards where an X is odds-on to be passed out. Someone at the table has 5Cs. If responder has them that should be an auto-pull, if P has them I’d expect him to pull unless he has decent values (in which case, as responder, even with a 4333, given a 0-2 count I’d expect him to wriggle out of desperation), if opener has them and receives a non-forcing pass (if his P had a natural XX available), he’s likely to bid them unless they’re particularly weak – in which case chances are P will be getting in with them to return a S. Much the same goes for the H suit unless it's exactly 444 in the other hands.

I'll try my luck with 5♥. It's a long shot to find 7, but P's surely got more than a misfitting aceless 12-count for a jump to game, so I can't imagine 6 going off. Conceivably he's got got two aces and a void in my suit - something like AJx KJT9x A9xxx - feels just about consistent with his bidding so far.

Because it communicates something honest about my hand, unlike any other call. As Zel said, we have to do something, and other than inventing a convention mid-auction to have 2N show minors or any possible two-suiter, I'm not sure what my better alternative is. I discussed this in my last comment. If no-one runs (very unlikely, even before accounting for the possibility that they're playing a forcing pass by responder), I have IMO slightly worse expectation than from a direct 5N bid. If they do run, I have a much better chance of finding (the right) grand.

I'm one of them. If either of them has a 5-card ♣ suit it's likely they'll pull. Meanwhile P is allowed to have a ♣ honour (esp given that, if they don't pull, I expect him to have 5+ of them) or the K♠, or even the T♦. With the latter two, we can at least theoretically make 1700, assuming the grand is on. If the K♠ is in dummy, we still have a chance of taking them for 1400 instead of 980, if P has the A♣, or 800 if he has the KJ or KT and declarer the J. If declarer has it (and I can't place P with a ♦ entry), 800 is odds-on to be 1100 on the same ♣ holding. Meanwhile, it's all very well wanting to be in the appropriate slam, and maybe your methods are good enough to get there without Xing, but mine will struggle. A direct 5N is almost certain to get a round-suit response from P, which leaves you guessing about whether to punt 7 (and wrongsides for a possible 1st-round ruff even if you do get there). Most other suit bids are either preemptive or undiscussed - the only other obviously forcing bids I have without Xing are 2N for the minors (probably NF since I didn't double, though it's hard to imagine P passing), and 4N. Maybe I could do that and keep bidding ♠s, but it's asking a lot from P to expect him to envisage the hand I have. 4N could be some kind of A ask, or 6-6 in the minors - even if I knew and knew my P knew, I cant imagine wanting to bid it.

The same thing we do over every weak NT question, Pinky. Double and take over the world. Assuming they retreat to ♣s or ♥s (which is no certainty) and P is silent, for me forcing bids are 2N (♠s and another) and a cue of their suit (lowest two suits else stop ask). So I'll bid 2N then their suit at the four level, then punt 7♠ if P ever bids them, else prob 6♠ unless P can persuade me he has a few ♦. Most awkward scenario is prob that P pulls directly to 2♣ or ♥ and takes away my option to cue. Then I'll prob bid 5N, hoping P takes it as pick a slam, and go to 7 if he bids either of my suits, else play in 6♠.

Ok, I didn't think it was obviously an EKCB bid of any kind, just a conceivable one. Can you give me a clear example of a hand which would do worse in the 'normal' EKCB approach though?

Ah, oops.

I can't come up with a non-contrived hand* where your approach seems to go horribly wrong, but I can't easily come up with one where it gains over the standard approach (ie 1M P 5m as EKCB) either. Assuming you play EKCB 30 41, as seems most sensible, do you envisage responder bidding 5D with only 1KC? Or is your concern with the trump queen on that system? Or are you more worried about space for finding grands? * Here's a contrived one: x QJTxx Axx KQJx opposite KQJx Kxxxx - Axxx, which IMO on your system might go 1H 4D / 4N 5N / P??? and on a standard EKCB auction might go 1H 5D / 5H P

This. Also, comments like 'you can't/shouldn't be playing x without an understanding of y' seem like the Godwin of this forum. Unlike some bridge players, I was born without a comprehensive understanding of all possible continuations of every convention, and have had to learn them, one after another, not always in one go and often through experience.

Doesn't that risk an immediate 4N response to the splinter from P forcing you to leap even higher to show your void? (this must be especially likely in Fantunes, where if opener has a positive after a splinter, he probably won't have any open suits) Against that, how many hands justify an EKCB bid of any kind with 3 missing keycards?

But 4♠ EKCB works fine. Are you really stopping short of 5 on any slower bidding sequence?

The third jack? ;)

He can. It seems unlikely that he will. Whether he has enough defence is moot anyway, since if I start by bidding 4♥ I'll compete to 5 over anything except a 5♦ bid anyway. 1♥ P 4♠ or 5m would be EKCB.

I agree it's more dangerous, but so far no-one's argued that it should have a wholly different meaning in different bidding systems. I've had plenty of auctions where the opps owned the hand after a Fantunes 1♣♦♥ bid (admittedly it's quite rare after a 1♠), and looking at the offence:defence ratio of my hand this looked highly likely to be one of them.

Nope, P took it as some kind of slam try and raised to 7 missing a cashing ace.