[bluecalm]

While constructive bidding is easy to learn/practice as there is tons of resources + bbo bidding room it's not so easy with competitive situations. I am thinking that maybe having list of problematic situations would help (so for example players could answer separately and then compare the results).
Any ideas where I could find some suitable tests like that ?

[dake50]

Are you thinking we open eg. 1C, then opponents overcall from their set of agreed overcalls, then we must counter.
And then they "put it to us" at some high level?
..Isn't that situation/scheme already an input into the original system design?
Thus question that system's counters? That's one I have railed against:
how do you untangle this system against interference?
By guess and by golly seems their answer.
..Yes those design questions should be answered. And long ago.
Select from solved databases those in which that could have occurred.
Compare that result.

[P_Marlowe]

My partner collected a list of problematic sequences, lots of them involve
competitive bidding.
When we go over those sometimes later, we see, that some lost their meaning
due to systemic changes.

What we do is use the bots to simulate interference.
This works up to a point, but the bots will interfere in a certain manner,
standard, so you wont have non standard situations.
An option would be to let the bots play a different system.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Trinidad]

A long time ago I wrote an Access database which my wife and I used to practice with. We don't have it anymore, but it worked as follows:

It generated lots of deals (there were always something like 100 deals in play simultaneously).
There were two users (my partner and I).
From time to time one of us would get in front of the computer.
The database popped up hands from the generated deals and you would have to enter a bid. With each hand the auction up to that moment was shown.
This meant that each user would bid all four hands himself.

Whenever both users had finished bidding a hand, the hand was moved to a separate place. Statistics were kept on how often we deviated and we discussed what we thought of each other's choices.

The drawback of course is that you are always playing against the same system, namely your own.

Perhaps it would be more fun to allow "mixing the bidding". Then you don't know whether you are responding to yourself or to your partner or who you are defending against.

Rik

[Fluffy]

Something similar to what Trinidad was doing I had in mind for my webpage, but I wanted a player to bid with himself larges sets of deals, that way you would realice if you are one of those blame partner if anything goes badly one. Those sets would also be playable with partners, not neccesarily with both players online, but it is a lot of work and I haven't found enough time yet.

[FrancesHinden]

What we do in practice is to find a friendly third party who will host a bidding table and bid the opposing two hands in the most irritating way possible. This means mentally rearranging the cards in the opposing hands sometimes to make life more difficult. It also means selecting your defensive methods the fit the hand. This is very effective as a way to practise.