[uva72uva72]

My link

IMPs. ACBL robot individual

I was clearly mistaken in my understanding that THE LAW would no longer be implemented in this silly fashion - a flat hand opposite a 4th hand opener with silent opponents jumping to the 4 level. I'd be astonished if 1♥ were not the overwhelming favorite for a 4th position opening bid in any forum - particularly given that Drury is available. In BBO, though, you have to open this hand with a sub-minimum 1NT with 2 suits unstopped or the fiendishly clever 1♦ to avoid Scylla (West's take-out double) and Charybdis (North's suicide leap). Or there's the ever-popular pass-out-the-14-count-to-avoid-getting-hung-by-the-robot, which gained 1.6 IMPs over my decision to open.

[1eyedjack]

I kind of sympathise with your main point, although to open a 5 card suit 1H opener on a 4 card suit and then to complain that someone else who "psychs" a 1N or 1D opener gets a result sounds a bit sour grapey, particularly when the substance of your objection relies on the application of total tricks.

[steve2005]

1eyedjack, on 2015-February-10, 13:45, said:

I kind of sympathise with your main point, although to open a 5 card suit 1H opener on a 4 card suit and then to complain that someone else who "psychs" a 1N or 1D opener gets a result sounds a bit sour grapey, particularly when the substance of your objection relies on the application of total tricks.

I used to play 4-card majors and was happy with it but have come around to 5-card majors always. Playing 4-card majors responder can give you some leeway, but playing mostly 5-card you end up in bad spots opening a 4-card suit because partner will be assuming 5.

[uva72uva72]

Well, knowing now that the implementation of the law of total tricks has not been adjusted, I will have to factor that in in deciding whether to open a 4-card major in 4th seat.

And yes, I was irked at the results. At matchpoints, one person getting a superior result is a blip, since there are 11 other equally-important boards on which to catch up. At IMP pairs, it's the degree of difference that counts and one board can have a disproportionate impact on the result of the set. This was a relatively low-scoring set and the pointless jump to 4♥ cost more than 5.5 IMPs on this hand, which could not be recovered.

But the point of posting was to report that this issue has not been successfully addressed.

[hrothgar]

uva72uva72, on 2015-February-10, 16:26, said:

Well, knowing now that the implementation of the law of total tricks has not been adjusted, I will have to factor that in in deciding whether to open a 4-card major in 4th seat.

And yes, I was irked at the results. At matchpoints, one person getting a superior result is a blip, since there are 11 other equally-important boards on which to catch up. At IMP pairs, it's the degree of difference that counts and one board can have a disproportionate impact on the result of the set. This was a relatively low-scoring set and the pointless jump to 4♥ cost more than 5.5 IMPs on this hand, which could not be recovered.

But the point of posting was to report that this issue has not been successfully addressed.

What's the old rule?

You get to psyche if you want, but if it blows up in your face the one thing you don't get to do is bitch about partner's followup bidding...

[Stephen Tu]

I don't really have that much of a problem with the robot jumping to 4 opposite 3rd/4th seat opener with 5 trumps - just that it ought to have a singleton or void, not a 5332. 3H ought to show this type of hand when drury is in effect.

Still down 1 on best defense, but I think it's a lot to expect to be able to consistently buy the contract for 2H without the opps finding a balance.