Leaderboard

I beg to differ. Bidding 1♠ is clearly asking for trouble. It is true of course that partner is more likely to hold 4 cards in spades than diamonds. But this is the reason you should avoid bidding a three card major in response to a takeout double, particularly if you are broke. Of course if the bidding would likely stop in either 1♠ or 2♦, 1♠ would be a far safer choice than 2♦. 2♦ could be a disaster. What you know is the bidding will not stop in 1♠ and you know you have no spade fit and you know you will get too high if you bid 1♠ and a final penalty double is looming just round the corner. But partner does not know and partner will get much more excited, if he "knows" about a major suit fit than about a minor. It is easy to claim that partner must reckon with such a hand. The truth is that partner can not cope with all hands you might have between this one and hands just short of a 2♠ response to the takeout double. The takeout doubler will often want to raise spades particularly in competition with little extra values just to confirm he has 4 cards in spades. This may be theoretically unsound, but if he doesn't you will get stolen blind far too often. I rather bid 2♣ than 1♠. What do you do if you respond 1♠ and partner next cue-bids 2♥? 1♠ here shows a lack of foresight. After 2♦ and 2♥ by partner you can bid 2♠ and an intelligent partner should realize you are bidding a three card suit, probably out of desperation. Rainer Herrmann

It just occurred to me that there is a simple proof that this is wrong. Consider two cases: i) West receives correct information ii) West receives misinformation, then calls the director who rules on this basis. In i) (no infraction) West's expectation before choosing a lead is simply 75% of 3NT-1 and 25% of 3NT=. In ii) West's expectation before choosing a lead is 50% times (result if he leads a spade) plus 50% times (adjusted score if he leads a red card). If he leads a spade he gets 100% of 3NT-1 and if he leads a red card he gets 25% of 3NT-1, so this works out at 62.5% of 3NT-1 and 37.5% of 3NT=. If we rule in this manner, then, West expects to lose by the infraction even taking into account the adjustment, which must be wrong.

Why is this so obvious? It looks completely wrong to me, given our hand. Yes, when the auction starts 1H dbl then, a priori, partner is likely (but not MUCH MORE) to have 4 spades more often than 4 diamonds. But here it is pretty obvious that partner has a strong hand. If he has a strong hand then all bets are off on his shape. If he has a strong hand with a long suit it probably doesn't matter much what we do; if anything we should avoid bidding his long suit. If he has clubs, 1S will work better because he can jump to 3C. If he is strong balanced he's going to bid some number of NT next, in which case if he doesn't have four spades we're better off bidding 1S because we can pass 2NT; if he is strong balanced with 4D he'll still rebid in NT while with spades he'll probably raise spades, so it's a bit random which bid will work better. If he has a super strong take-out double, he's just as likely* to have 4 spades as 4 diamonds, and we're much better off bidding diamonds. *OK, not quite, because we have more diamonds than spades, but only for that reason.

If: 2♣-(3♣)-Pa shows a better hand (a King better) than: 2♣-(3♣)-X Then: 2♣-(3♣)-3♠ Shows at least 5 spades but not necessarily as good as in 2♣-(Pa)-2♠, right? What about: 2♣-(3♣)-Pa-(Pa) X 2♣-(3♣)-Pa-(Pa) 3NT 2♣-(3♣)-Pa-(Pa) X-(Pa)-3♠ 2♣-(3♣)-Pa-(Pa) 3NT-(Pa)-4♠?

简单点的: 开叫1M的5332,同伴二盖一低花后,不考虑止张情况。再叫: 2N=12-14 或 18-19(其后同伴3NT就4NT表示余力。); 3N=15-17。 原因很简单,速度表明点力牌型。 例二 一样处理。

When East plays the ♦Q it is very likely from either AQ or QJ. If it is from QJ then declarer has the ♥A and a diamond continuation is clearly fatal. If it is from AQ then North has the heart ace and an immediate heart lead will be necessary. So South should lead a heart after winning the ♦K. If declarer played ♦Q from KJx AQx Qxxx Axx then a heart lets it make, but that is unlikely and maybe partner would have switched to heart, not a diamond.

I've seen this type of auction in a book (possibly Flint and Sharp). The suggestion was that one should bid like this on a fairly balanced hand that was worth game, on the off-chance that partner would leave it in.

In 1 and 2 there is no damage as defined in 12B1. In neither case did NOS score badly "because of an infraction"; the bad score was entirely due to bad luck. In case 3 there was damage, since the bad score was partially due to the MI (and partially due to bad luck, but damage either exists or does not; we can't say it 25% exists). I would adjust to 75% of 3NT-1, since that was the expectation without the MI.

I have come to consider this a very serious possibility. I have led a fairly sheltered life, but I don't want someone digging into every stupid thing I have ever said or done. Who wants to have to constantly explain oneself? I have thought perhaps one explanation for Obama's lackluster performance at the first debate was from a feeling of "Good God, if they don't know who I am by now, what's the point?". I thought this applied to Bush I in 1992 as well. Really it seems like an awful life. Flying around in Air Force 1 might be nice for a day or two. Then I'm done.

2nd double extras but whats the minimum for it ? I would think it requires at least a decent 11 hcp since we are limited by 1 NT (or did we ? Because i am not familiar with this system) But i am assuming pd has a hand an invitation vs a weak NT, but i cant see how to refuse the invitation any safer than just bidding 3 NT. 3♥ bid tells us that ducking hearts 1 time will be enough to cut their communication most of the time, otoh he didnt preempt, he bid 1 and then 3 ♥ which means he will have entries, not his pd. So 3 NT is unlikely to make unless we have 9 fast tricks which i doubt because if we had that pd would just bid 3NT himself most of the time. This leaves us to a-pass b-4cl c-4d. Although i am an agressive passer the behaviour of 3♥ bidder is very suspicious, i think he has a very decent hand and i would prefer not to stay in defense at 3 level, that eliminates the pass for me as well. I would probably bid 4♣, i have 5 of them instead of 2 after all.

The following letter was submitted to the Editor, ACBL Bulletin, unfortunately it was not accepted for publication. It is likely that I had a very uncommon start to my bridge addiction. I first learned to play at a community night school and then played on BBO, but soon I found myself enthralled with the laws of the game. I ran some games on BBO and ultimately studied the laws and took the ACBL club director course. All of this was before I had played much club bridge at all. I dabbled with directing online for a while but then I had an opportunity to work on my game with a local mentor, stopped running games on BBO and focused on my game, although I still read the laws forums. As a new player at the club, I would not hesitate to call the director when I thought there had been an irregularity. When my opponents pointed out one of my irregularities (often hesitations in bidding), I would squirm, tell them I was “allowed to think” and that they should call the director. The typical reply would be "oh no, we wouldn't do that, this is a friendly game”. I soon learned that it was “not nice” to call the director for this type of irregularity. It appeared to be acceptable to call the director for the mechanical irregularities such as bids out of turns, leads out of turn, revokes etc. As my playing skills improved and I was playing against better players, I learned that not all of these irregularities needed a director call. Especially in the case of an exposed card or a revoke (discovered before completion of the trick), I would say that it is common practice to leave the penalty card on the table and continue play. The director may be called if the partner of the player who made the revoke ends up on lead, maybe not. Leads out of turn and bids out of turn are at times overlooked and the player making the irregularity is told to put the card back in their hand or the bidding box. I am not sure when this is deemed appropriate and when it isn't, perhaps it is judged on the apparent skill level of the opponents. Is it a problem? Absolutely YES! We have players and bullies running the games and enforcing their own version of the laws. I think the problem is two-fold. First of all we have some directors, particularly at the club level, who would benefit from more training, as well as some who have the belief that if certain laws are enforced which may cast doubt on a player's character (UI, MI, hesitations), then the players 'won't come back' if they get an unfavorable ruling. The effect of this is that players never learn that their comment, mannerism or hesitation may suggest something to their partner, is in violation of the laws or could restrict their partner's actions. Penalties and even warnings are unheard of in club games and I would say also very rare in local tournaments. I often see recommendations for procedural penalties on bridge forums, but that is so far from reality here, we may as well be using different regulations. Secondly, there are the players who should know better but who do not call for the director and rather make their own rulings. Then we have the “bullies” who have learned that they can use the laws, or lack of enforcement of the laws, to their advantage. Unfortunately, this situation hasn't developed overnight but rather over years and to change it will be pushing against the tide. There will be players who become upset and may not come back. Correcting the situation will involve reeducating all involved, players, directors, and club managers. The alternative is I think the gradual erosion of the game, with the players with the most authority or table presence ruling the game and the newcomers learning (in some cases improper actions) from these players.

Everyone finds themselves in that position at some point in their BBF lives. Alcohol may help.

Pass, way too flat and not enough spades. I'm not sure I'd balance with an X either given the lack of spades. ahydra

If after I will bid 2nt and pd rebid 4h,I must bid 5h to ask the quality of h trump so as to get a reasonable final contract in safety.

Buiding on Mike777 concerns, Kx AJxxx Kxxx xx begins to feel painful too. Here's one time when I want to bid 2♣ then 3♥ using my "Aces first, please partner" bidding card. ;) Devilish that "Italian Style" control bids might get us too high. 1♥ - 2♣ 2♥ - 3♥ hoping partner cannot cue ♠ - we want red suit values not black suit values. if 3♠ - 3N serious, now hoping for 4♦ if 4♦ then 4♥ - hopefully expressing doubt about trump suit strength. Pard can decide to commit RKB... FWIW I do not like 2N and see a splinter understating the power of my hand. Both approaches will likley induce RKB when the 5 level might be too high. FWIW2: I'd like to find a trump suit quality check below RKB - any ideas??? (Am familiar with Ken R's appriach using 2N rebid by opener to deny good trumps. However am not sure how to handle the question in the 1M-2m-2M-3M auction other than the inference above).

2♣ then 3♠ invites control bidding - and we'll learn if partner can contribute anything in ♣. 4♥ splinter at first appears more direct but I lack 2nd round control in ♣ and if partner has ♠Q ♥AK ♦Q ♣K we wouldn't mind being in slam even after a ♦ lead. Partner won't know that hand is good and will likely reply 4♠ (♥ duplication) leaving us short key information.

My partners always have wasted values on these type of hands! I'll start with clubs, and when I bid 3♠ hopefully he can show a club card and a cueing we will go. If he just bids game over 3♠ then I will pass, but with a little sigh :-)

no,necessary to set trump at first,so 5c is to play.

Nope, need to set trump first. 5♣ to play for us.

Yes, 16 cases out 500 have 5 Clubs. I wiil look at those. I don't care if anyone else uses my program, I am interested in competing with others interested in this development issue. The idea that bid decisions in the panels in the Bulletin are scored by "informed judgement" strikes me as nonsense, for want of a better means. But then I was trained as a scientist. I will try to get source code for GIB to be used only for non-comercial purposes.

Maybe some contact can gin up a version of GIB that will run from a file N hands, per any file format GIB wants, and print results to a text file. This is really probably very simple to code if they have decent function architecture. Or maybe they would realease source code.

24 is a special number in many ways.

If you square any prime number (greater than 3) and subtract 1, you get a number divisible by 24.

Thanks Stephen, I see. Tbh I'm surprised BBO are content using software that, if it is not already outdated is doomed to become so with no one (or at least very few) working on the programming. Then again I suppose having the *best* robots is not really all that important for the functioning of the robot tournaments etc. I've been interested to read about the history of the site and how they've pioneered the online bridge scene. I just wonder what direction they're heading in next. Best of luck with getting the match to work; I'll be interested to see the results.

It would be interesting though, to see how GIB would fare with the best database version BBO has to date. I seem to recall the play engine wasn't all that bad. CPU speeds are way up, RAM is cheap. If BBO could legally enter GIB, it would be good news for bridge, very interesting to follow.

Does GIB even enter the computer-bridge world championships any more? And let me get this straight, Jackbridge is run and engineered by three amateur guys and GIB has a team of coders working for the most popular and lucrative bridge site in the world, yet is not even competitive. What am I missing?

I don't expect my program to stand up well against professional products. I am an 80 year old programming hobbyist and low intermediate level bridge player. However, on large samples my program might yield similar results in total because of 2nd rate declarer play facing 2nd rate defense. Dealing with random deals on a single dummy basis is really hard programming. Nobody is ever going to write code capable of expert play because the effort that would be required can'r be justified on a cost/benefit basis. A DeepFineese approach using standard opening leads might work, however as a more accurate equivalent of expert play. My program has 280,000 lines of C++ code dealing single dummy play and that is just scratching the surface of what would be needed for advamced play/defense. I wonder if any of the commercial programs have the facility to play an input file of N hands and print summary results? If you do get the time to run your challenge match you should publish it here. If anyone has a contact with one or more of the commercial programs you should ask them to make available a version that can run from an input file of N hands and print the results. The coding to do this would be trivial. There would be no reason to incorporate such a feature in their commercial product, but they could put the version on their web site if they are not afraid of the competition. They could even do it as a console app for simplicity, with no other capability than running the file of N hands and displaying results.

Upside-Down Carding (UDCA) UDCA 是标准垫牌的反式镜像： 高—低=奇数张，低—高= 偶数张；小张是鼓励； 而对于花色的选择信号是：高—低=表示要较低级花色，低—高=表示要较高级花色。 大体上，垫较高级花色是要较低级花色，垫较低级花色是要较高级花色。 相信我，这比你想得更简单！

http://www.ny-bridge.com/allevy/computerbridge/index.htm

By ease od input I do mean as simple as possible GUI. I certainly agree my program has play problems. What is the best single dummy play program available today. I will buy it and test it against my results. It may not be much different than my results but we have to test it to see. Thanks for the instruction on formatting spaces.

I agree with bluecalm that single dummy leads would be a big step towards more realistic results. I remember seeing some stats posted by bluecalm according to which the opening lead, in world-class play, easily blows up ~0.5-1 imp on average against the defense, whereas the rest of the play is much closer to DD. Also, calculating realistic opening leads, either rule-based, or simulation-based, seems reasonably doable to me. PS: Right now redeal does not support computing DD results for deals in which some cards have been played; this is mostly because I am still looking for the right syntax to input such cases. I'd be interested in your suggestions. PPS: The GUI is fixed now... still have to work on a proper Windows installer. If you already have Python installed however (or use Linux/Mac), again, feedback is welcome :)

Using redeal (https://github.com/anntzer/redeal), linked against Bo Haglund's DDS: from redeal import * predeal = {"S": H("JT652 QJT9 7 K42")} mp = [0, 0, 0] imp = [0] def accept(deal): n = deal.north # OP plays 16-18 NT opening, so be it. I assume no 3-card raise possible. return (balanced(n) and 12 <= n.hcp <= 15 and len(n.spades) < 4 and (len(n.diamonds) > len(n.clubs) or len(n.diamonds) == 4)) def do(deal): n = deal.north score_pass = deal.score("1NN") # assumes non-vul if len(n.spades) + 1 > len(n.hearts): score_bid = deal.score("2SS") elif len(n.spades) + 1 < len(n.hearts): score_bid = deal.score("2HS") else: # assume we always end up in the worst contract between 2H and 2S if equal length score_bid = min(deal.score("2SS"), deal.score("2HS")) if score_bid == score_pass: mp[1] += 1 elif score_bid > score_pass: mp[2] += 1 else: mp[0] += 1 imp[0] += imps(score_bid, score_pass) def final(_): print(mp) print(imp) I get, for 1000 hands: [189, 100, 711] [1557] i.e. +1.6 imp per board for, or +0.5 board per board (mps) for bidding 2H instead of 1N, at worst. The difference is so huge that I don't think using single-dummy simulations will change anything qualitatively. (PS: There is some issue with the GUI version, only the console version works now. Also I still have to upload the code to make it work on Windows... Unix-systems only right now.)

As everyone agrees opening leads are hard. My logic has around 500 different leads based on the bidding and West's hand (S is decl). I got almost all of them from books on defense, Root, Kantar, etc. I would guess that is 20% of what would be required to equal the leads made by an expert. However, as noted above, double-dummy opening leads would not make sense in determining how a given hand plays out. On the other hand my 500 probably covers more than 80% of all random deals. I would love it if some experts would go through the random deals my program generates and see which opening leads they disagree with. Also, my posting of details is coming out very messy because the fromating is getting garbled. I have to learn how to maintain the formating when adding to this forum.

All the final contracts after the 2H rebid by responder are 2H's or 2S's. Obviously after pass all the contracts are 1 NT. I will post details of all the results per the cloud suggestion above. I hope to develop my program into a useful tool for analysis if I can, so contructive review will be very helpful. As far as I can tell no such tool now exists with easy user input of the bidding question to be analyzed. One big question I have is whether to just use the play and defense logic in my program, or get something like "Deep Finesse," which considers the hidden cards.

Good suggestions. I didn't know about the free cloud posting sites. I do have all the data you suggest re: distribution and tricks taken, etc. The bidding is set to that which Frank Stewart uses for his colum i.e. simple. For example 1 NT opening 16-18 HCPts. This is a work in progress so I am anxious for constructive criticism.