semeai

Good enough for a double, especially with the tenaces. Having four hearts is nice too, but I'd still double with, say, the roundeds swapped.

Pass. I don't want to compete; our hand is pretty defense oriented. I don't see a need to double either, though: I don't think we're doubling them with partner's min and my not-a-limit-raise, especially at imps.

Okay. Did partner agree to your system over Michaels under duress? :P I still wouldn't understand 3♥ being diamonds if partner agreed to 2♥ weak or GF unless your partner really hates it.

I'll pass. It's likely enough to work, and the alternatives are not great. I don't think partner needs a 17 count, though. Partner's balancing, we're playing matchpoints, we're white.

Splinter raise of clubs makes sense. I wouldn't understand it being a splinter with long diamonds. Over 3♥, I'll bid 4♣ (based on my understanding of 3♥ being a splinter for clubs; if it's diamonds somehow, I'm lost). A bid of 3♠ sounds too encouraging. Partner's not going to bid 3NT, so I wouldn't think 3♠ is just a concentration here. It's hard to believe 4NT would be exclusion for diamonds, though it's technically possible: LHO is 5-6-2-0, partner is 4-1-0-8, RHO is 1-3-7-2. Why do you suggest 3♥ can be a splinter with diamonds? Is it just because of the 4NT bid? Assuming it is just because of the 4NT bid and not due to some systemic precedent I don't know about: If partner is fairly literal, I'll just respond to exclusion for diamonds. If partner likes creative/torture bids, maybe I can be convinced (s)he decided I'd figure out that it should be exclusion for hearts, with diamonds trump.

The fact that it's illegal to have an agreement about them doesn't mean they don't have at least a meaning, or at the very least an intended meaning. This "illegal to have an agreement" rule is presumably to forbid agreeing with your partner that when you make an insufficient bid, it shows, say, a worse hand than the corresponding sufficient bid. Otherwise I suppose it may be legal to have the auction 1S P 1H, agreed as "natural but not enough to force game," then legally corrected under 27B1a to 1S P 2H (which is otherwise game forcing in your methods, say). Unfortunately, laws don't always succumb to the strict application of logic to their strict readings. Some sense of the intention of the law may be necessary in interpreting it. As an apparent supporter of 27B1b, I think it just needs to use "intended meaning" in place of "meaning" and some language that if the director can't determine the likely intended meaning (at least sufficiently well to decide whether the corrected bid has the same or a more precise meaning), then the director is free to disallow rectification under 27B1b. Or my more radical change suggested in the other thread: allow any correction, and let the UI laws sort it out. (Possibly with frequent PP's for the insufficient bid as the deterrent, if you think it needs one and the UI restriction isn't sufficient.) [Retroactive apology to blackshoe (and everyone else), who correctly points out below this is not the place for such discussion.] *** As to the actual thread, it does seem silly to alert insufficient bids.

From a bridge logic standpoint, this is backwards. North is much happier hearing about heart shortness than club shortness. I suppose the discrepancy is just because the random seeds were different because of the different bids by South and not enough DD samples are used.

Are these the advanced bots or the basic bots (or a mix)?

Isn't this a discussion forum? All I did was honestly describe my position to you (plus the "Did you even read what I wrote?" line, which I apologize for, but it really seemed to me that your comment had nothing to do with what I wrote). All you did was give snide remarks back, and then finally one sentence of argument, which I responded to, as one does in a discussion. There's no need to roll over and agree with what I have to say, but what are we doing here if we're not discussing things?

Good point. I felt like including the number 8 (or "good 8") in my little story would make it less likely to convince. Indeed, I missed that thread.

Great. This seems a topic for another thread, but to continue with it: why aren't very many given out then? Also, I'm just trying to give honest proposals here. If they're hopeless, because you don't think they're practical, or because nobody cares, let me know and so be it.

You'll either miss some games on the 9-10 range or do worse on the rest of the hands in the simple raise by getting too high sometimes (or, more realistically, a bit of both) compared to what I suggest. Drury affords you extra precision; use it! Sure, if you were unpassed, you wouldn't get that precision, but that's not a reason to throw it away. It's nearly free in terms of the rest of the hands in Drury, as well. Give me a hand you'd bid P-1S;2C-2D;2S on. Most real limit raises will just want to be in game opposite 2D. The information argument is not meaningless, but it seems a poor tradeoff to, say, get too high occasionally on the lesser simple raises and miss a few games on max constructive hands in exchange for the opponents not knowing a bit more about opener's strength when you stop in 2♠ opposite a max constructive raise.

Strangely I can't find in the laws any comment that one should, shall, or must make sufficient bids and bids in turn. Law 17 just states that the players make bids in succession, with the dealer making the first call (no use of these words there). Law 18 describes what proper form is for bids and describes what sufficient and insufficient mean (again no use, and not even a comment that players do make sufficient bids or some such). Law 27 describes what you must do when an insufficient call is made. Similarly for Law 31 and bids out of turn. No comment on the making of it, actually, as far as I can see. In any case, I'll revise my suggestion: Revise laws 27 and 31 so that any action may be taken without barring partner. That partner, however, is constrained by the UI laws. Include language in Law 18 that one must make sufficient bids, and language in Law 17 that one must call in rotation. (Alternatively, use shall.) Then, potentially, have a second campaign to make it standard to give a PP when the law says "must." Perhaps add a note to each law with the word "must" in it to remind one of this, in addition. I think it would be easier to have automatic PP's feel okay if the OS is not otherwise randomly penalized or not by the rule itself. Also, as long as you leave doubt about the PP, it's not going to be given out except in extreme cases because people don't like feeling mean.

Did you even read what I wrote? When you're a passed hand, you can make more precise raises that stay low because you get extra bids for them. The proper place for a max constructive raise ("9-10") is in Drury. I'm not "being aggressive," I'm describing how Drury works, or at least how I think it should.

Certainly this is a 2♠ bid when unpassed. Your lower limit for Drury, though, should be lower than your lower limit for a limit raise when unpassed. You don't force partner to the 3-level. Not only that, you don't force partner to the 3-level when partner has a full opener: P-1S;2C-2D;2S shows a max constructive raise (9-10 say) and with a real limit raise (11-12 say) you bid something else/more over 2D. Not only that, this hand may hear 2H from partner. I'm still bidding 2C even if clubs and hearts were swapped, but it's a little extra bonus. There is the chance partner has 4 spades as a 3rd seat opener, but there's not much difference between bidding 2C and 2S for those hands. In both cases we'll likely end up in 2S, which should be fine. Rarely, even, partner will be 4-4 in the majors with much better spade texture. Then you get to play hearts if you bid Drury. [auctions are for reverse Drury, which is what we all play presumably, though I still am just saying Drury in my post for brevity]

I'm happy to leave this out, have it be optional, strongly recommended, almost mandatory, whatever. Your co-moderator was not happy with letting violators of these rules get away scot free lest they then end up doing it more frequently; this is intended as a concession. Really, though, why must a PP never be automatic? If you have the view that these (insufficient bids, bids out of turn, revokes) procedural errors themselves harm the game and that penalizing them will decrease their prevalence, having a standard PP seems an eminently fair way to go about things. If you instead make the offenders make some random guess much of the time, you'll often be penalizing them, but also often not. Sometimes their random guesses will even be a boon for them.

Drury

How about this for a bolder, and hopefully easier to implement, suggestion: Revise laws 27 and 31 so that any action may be taken without barring partner. That partner, however, is constrained by the UI laws. Also, slap on some standard PP.

Fair enough, you know better about how this plays out in practice. I do want to reiterate that the problem with law 27 of the "meaning of an insufficient bid" being unclear is not there for law 31, so if that's where the headache is coming from, it wouldn't be there for bids out of turn.

We disagree on this point as a factual matter. I'd worry on behalf of everyone, and when the reasonable interests of the NOS and the OS are in conflict, of course rule with the NOS. I see no need to give the NOS a windfall when the OS make a procedural error that is easily correctable. This harms all: fewer hands of real bridge are played, the field is impacted, etc. *** I'm willing to be wrong on the factual matter mentioned above, but if I am, why not just give out procedural penalties and continue to play bridge as normal (when possible) instead of warping the auction into a random guessing game?

They also like to play bridge. The benefit of not being punitive in these situations when possible is that you allow the table to keep playing bridge on the hand. Situation 1: The offender has no possible bids that don't bar partner. The offender makes some random guess. The non-offending side get the pleasure of having punished someone, but lack the pleasure of actually getting to have something reasonable happen at the table. Also, if you believe it matters, there's the effect on the field. Situation 2: The offender has some bids that don't bar partner (since they convey no extra information as per the proposed rule) and makes one. The auction proceeds as normal, with no UI or possibly very little, as outlined a few posts above by barmar. The table gets to play bridge this hand. Which is better? I say if you really want to impose a penalty on a pair for such an infraction, then impose some set procedural penalty. Then let them continue to play bridge on the hand when possible.

Not many names end in s, so perhaps you just don't come across them that often. If you look to publications such as Time Magazine and The Telegraph, you find the preferred spelling.

In my suggestion, pass and 2♦ are allowed without barring partner, so this is less of an issue. There will be cases like this, though, just as there are with the current bid out of turn law. I think you just treat them as UI.

I gave a suggestion for this above: If the bid out of turn is corrected to a call with the same or a more specific meaning. [if this isn't clear, what this means is that every hand that can make corrected call can also make the original bid out of turn.] This is the same criterion as in 27B1b. As I noted above, it has fewer problems for bids out of turn than it does for insufficient calls because the meaning of a bid out of turn is clearer. An example: 1N P 2C --; 2D out of turn Corrected to: 1N P 2C X; ? Now P and 2D presumably deny a 4-card major but differ as to minor suit length. If the 1N opener corrects his 2D bid out of turn to pass or 2D, I'd argue there's been no harm to the doubler's side. He got his double in, and even got to know that the opener had no major before he doubled. No extraneous information is present because any hand that can pass or bid 2D could also have bid 2D originally. What if it's corrected to XX? Some may play that you can have a 4-card major for this if you have good enough clubs. So this doesn't fit the criterion (unless you have the specific agreement that XX denies a 4-card major here), because not every hand that can XX here can also bid 2D in the original auction. So my suggestion is that if opener XX's here, his partner is barred. There may be some judgement in more complicated situations. As barmar said, that's what directors are for. As a second note, I'd suggest that if the situation is complicated enough, the director should be free, after a reasonable attempt to compare meanings, to just side with the NOS.

I rather suspect it was "led the ♣A" instead, not that this is necessarily an error.