[pilowsky]

Ok, since I realised that in a best hand tournament against robots I always have the best hand - obviously. I thought I would try a new bidding system - Standard Australian.
All 1 level openings 11-14
All 2 level openings except 2♣ usual weak 2's
1NT 15-18 any shape at all
2NT 19-22 any shape at all
3NT 23+ any shape at all
So what to do with 2♣? Well, if the wind is blowing in the right direction and I have a middling hand with some diamonds I might try 2♣. Otherwise - Not used.
Today I get this hand. going 3NT-1 for 61.1% at the moment.
Here's the link
Here's the double dummy
I was tempted briefly by 4♥ but with what looked like 4 losers and the notoriously unreliable North robot as a partner I decided against it. The West robot is a much more advanced player and led the ♥2, which his junior colleague sitting East was very satisfied with. Of course the rest of the tournament looks like the usual car crash.

---

In case you're wondering, the explanation for "3NT" is 2-5♠, 2-5♦, 2-4♥, 2-4♣ and 10-15 HCP!

[aawk]

Creating a specific system for just one opponent being a bbo robot can be fun but in real bridge not winning in the long run.

[pilowsky]

that is, of course, a testable hypothesis.

[nudnikbp]

Looking at only the South hand, it appears to be much more oriented toward suit play, not notrump.

[bluenikki]

nudnikbp, on 2020-May-15, 05:25, said:

Looking at only the South hand, it appears to be much more oriented toward suit play, not notrump.

Indeed, but that is not the point.

Whenever you show a good hand with a long suit, there is a tangible risk that the robot opposite will go bonkers. Apparently, they were never instructed to avoid blackwood with 32 in an unbid suit.

[msjennifer]

Sir,
I, personally, feel you will not be allowed to play this novel system in any ((except perhaps private clubs) tournament where one has to fill in ones system card before the tournament starts.
The main fault in your new system is it is built around only the HCP and nothing else.You do not clarify if you play 5 card majors or for that matter minors((something new.)) in a 11/14 hand.Your NT openings do not consider the suit lengths and distribution at all.All said and done it is a very complicated system where neither you nor your partner (if you ,at all, are lucky enough to find a partner who will be willing to play this system) can even imagine the hand pattern when the openings are 1,2,or 3NT. Good Luck,

[bluenikki]

msjennifer, on 2020-May-15, 07:41, said:

Sir,
I, personally, feel you will not be allowed to play this novel system in any ((except perhaps private clubs) tournament where one has to fill in ones system card before the tournament starts.
The main fault in your new system is it is built around only the HCP and nothing else.You do not clarify if you play 5 card majors or for that matter minors((something new.)) in a 11/14 hand.Your NT openings do not consider the suit lengths and distribution at all.All said and done it is a very complicated system where neither you nor your partner (if you ,at all, are lucky enough to find a partner who will be willing to play this system) can even imagine the hand pattern when the openings are 1,2,or 3NT. Good Luck,

As I understand it, the purpose is to *conceal* the nature of your hand from your mine-field partner.

[dsLawsd]

I see so many cases where the top score is insane or not permitted in real life, that it takes some of the joy away.

I use BBO to improve my play until I can form a solid real partnership. I have improved some of my goals especially using some great tools and reads. Life is good!

[smerriman]

bluenikki, on 2020-May-15, 09:06, said:

As I understand it, the purpose is to *conceal* the nature of your hand from your mine-field partner.

The purpose is to make terrible bids, get bad results 90% of the time, then post the successes as if you did something worth sharing.

[pilowsky]

Your insight is misguided Stephen, and I do not believe that it has any bearing on the OP. Instead it seems to be a rather weak ad hominem attack. I really do not understand why you bother it rolls as they say off my back like a duck.
The purpose is not to make 'terrible bids' and then post the 'successes'. I happily pointed out that the system was a car crash. This is obvious from the start because I was playing one system but the robot was playing another system. Clearly, if I am speaking German and the robot is speaking Maori then very little communication is going to take place. Do you follow?
In fact, the true purpose of the experiment was to test a different method of bidding to see whether or not it could be adapted to real-life use. At the same time, I had a bit of fun. Is this going to continue for much longer?

[smerriman]

pilowsky, on 2020-May-15, 23:58, said:

In fact, the true purpose of the experiment was to test a different method of bidding to see whether or not it could be adapted to real-life use. At the same time, I had a bit of fun. Is this going to continue for much longer?

I didn't realise it was new. You've posted multiple other threads on opening bizarre 1NTs and the success you have had every time - from semibalanced 11 counts to 5521 and 6511 shapes, all of which lead to identical discussions (about whether it's allowed in real life, about how bad the robots are, etc).

Just seems pointless to go through the same discussion for a 4th time, but of course you're free to do whatever you want.

I like the use of 'ad hominem attack' though, it's not a phrase you often hear in these forums.

[pilowsky]

No Stephen. We are not free to do 'whatever we want'. We should think carefully before we do or say stuff. Jack Lang the former Premier of NSW once remarked "Never write a letter and never throw one away" think about that next time you consider making a post.