Flagging a play-seating question that surfaced while spot-checking a new responder-seat bidding lesson, in case BC's coaching-play flow has the same behavior. (I observed it in the sibling AI-Bridge-Play-Trainer — the two apps handle play independently, but both serve these lessons, so the design question applies to BC too.)
The lesson class
Preemptive_Major_Raise (new, in Practice-Bidding-Scenarios/coaching-non-rotated/): South = the responder makes a preemptive major raise (1♥–4♥ / 1♠–4♠). Partner — the opener — is the one who declares the 4M contract.
What I saw
With Play as: Declarer, the app seated the student in the declarer's ( = partner's) hand and displayed that (strong) hand, while the coaching text describes the responder's hand. The tip read "you hold a weak hand with five trumps and a singleton" but the shown hand was the opener's ♠AKJ943 — so the coaching ("weak hand") and the displayed hand (strong) disagree.
It surfaced via the deal-number + Replay path; a normal Next-deal keeps hands face-down during bidding, which is fine. So it's an edge, not an every-board break — but the underlying seating question is real.
Design question for BC
For a bidding lesson where the student's bidding seat is the responder but their partner declares, how should BC seat them for play?
- Seat the student in their bidding seat (responder), regardless of who declares? or
- Make the coaching↔hand association seat-aware, so the tip and the shown hand always match?
Right now "Play as: Declarer" can put the student in the wrong seat relative to the coaching.
Repro
Preemptive_Major_Raise, any board where the opener declares 4M (most of them).
No urgency — filing so it's on your radar for the coaching-play seating logic.
Flagging a play-seating question that surfaced while spot-checking a new responder-seat bidding lesson, in case BC's coaching-play flow has the same behavior. (I observed it in the sibling AI-Bridge-Play-Trainer — the two apps handle play independently, but both serve these lessons, so the design question applies to BC too.)
The lesson class
Preemptive_Major_Raise(new, inPractice-Bidding-Scenarios/coaching-non-rotated/): South = the responder makes a preemptive major raise (1♥–4♥ / 1♠–4♠). Partner — the opener — is the one who declares the 4M contract.What I saw
With Play as: Declarer, the app seated the student in the declarer's ( = partner's) hand and displayed that (strong) hand, while the coaching text describes the responder's hand. The tip read "you hold a weak hand with five trumps and a singleton" but the shown hand was the opener's ♠AKJ943 — so the coaching ("weak hand") and the displayed hand (strong) disagree.
It surfaced via the deal-number + Replay path; a normal Next-deal keeps hands face-down during bidding, which is fine. So it's an edge, not an every-board break — but the underlying seating question is real.
Design question for BC
For a bidding lesson where the student's bidding seat is the responder but their partner declares, how should BC seat them for play?
Right now "Play as: Declarer" can put the student in the wrong seat relative to the coaching.
Repro
Preemptive_Major_Raise, any board where the opener declares 4M (most of them).No urgency — filing so it's on your radar for the coaching-play seating logic.