Antrax

It might be cool to have the software automatically calculate this figure. You finish a tournament (or query for a range of hands) and the software tells you what percentage of your side's finesses were on. Probably not worth the investment though.

I think he's talking about the user rating, where he has 1 star (out of five).

:(

Cool problems, Fluffy, though your site probably won't support the recommended solution (lead the ♦J and glare meaningfully at partner while thinking "don't you dare ruff")

Playing UDCA, don't you lead low from a doubleton?

a) I assume you meant the ♠T. b) It didn't matter. c) Your bidding told E you have all the high cards it doesn't have, so from its perspective you don't need to ruff a club since you have the K.

Think of it this way: dozens of people have looked at the clump they define, and everything was okay, so they never posted here. Thus, seeing one guy complain and drawing conclusions is like throwing a million-sided die and then being impressed by a one in the million chance occurring.

I think some introductions might be in order. Barmar is one of the "programmers who will look at things". uday is another. They both work for BBO and they'd know if the code changed since your complained about it, as they're the ones who'd have changed it. Hrothgar is one of two posters I know of in BBF which line of work was doing the sort of analysis you're trying to do here. To address your point, as someone who has considerably less background than people here, it seems they're saying that if you look at all the hands BBO has dealt to best hand tounaments, and consider splitting them into subsets based on the user who declared. That's like looking at clumps in (hopefully) random data, and what they're saying with the coins and all that is that you shouldn't expect each clump to be uniform. In other words, at some point in time for some user, more finesses would succeed or fail than would seem likely a-priori. You apparently were that user before, but there's no reason for you to expect it to continue, as you see now.

I declare very fast and people sometimes accuse me of doing it to pressure them. You just can't win.

"Whisk" is an awesome name for a card game that would go a long way towards popularizing the game with a younger crowd.

You can use Google Docs, they have a decent spreadsheet.

This is sort of Bridge content but too frivolous for GBD I think. So, I get the name throw-in, but people a lot more commonly use "endplay" - even when it's to say something like "looks like he's endplayed on opening lead" meaning each opening lead will be away from an honor, so it clearly has nothing to do with being near the end of the hand.

Admins can still downvote, so my guess is someone's finger slipped without them noticing.

Playing Unusual vs. Unusual, i.e. when the opponents show a two-suited hand, cue-bidding the lower suit shows something in the lower remaining suit and cue-bidding the higher shows the higher: Partner opens 1♣ (3+), RHO bids 2NT (in this case, reds). You hold a limit raise in clubs, so the system bid is 3♦. It's not very efficient as partner has a minimum and no stoppers to show, so we end up in 4♣ which is too high. I'm guessing there's some standard interchange here? How do you handle defense vs. two-suited overcalls when their lower known suit is higher than your known suit?

[*]jlall Justin Lall aka JLOGIC, now PhantomSac; US international [*]Gerben47 Gerben Dirksen German junior international [*]awm Adam Meyerson [*]Elianna Elianna Meyerson [*]MickyB Mike Bell [*]gwnn Csaba Daday [*]pclayton Phil Clayton now Phil [*]hrothgar Richard Willey [*]CSGibson Chris Gibson [*]PassedOut Lynn Torkelson [*]Free Frederick Staelens [*]Winstonm Winston Munn [*]kfay Kevin Fay [*]olegru Oleg Rubinchik [*]jvage John Våge Norwegian Premier League [*]skjaeran Harald Skjæran Norwegian junior international; Norwegian 1st Division (= Premier League?) [*]easy Fred Wills [*]jjsb Brethes Sylvain [*]mishovnbg Mihail Nedyalkov [*]JRG John Goold [*]lukeg Luke Gillespie [*]flytoox Hongjun Zhong [*]DrTodd13 Todd A. Anderson [*]TheoKole Theophilos Spyros Kolettis [*]toothbrush Willem De Visschere [*]Vilgan Eric Sieg [*]jocdelevat Florin Diamandi [*]markleon Mark Leonard [*]nick_s Nick Southwell [*]GeeGee Geoff Gray [*]jdaming Jason Daming [*]larryberle Larry Berle [*]Xiaolongnu Kane Tan = Wen Yuan On most forums, it's sufficient to use a fixed-width font, such as Courier New. It didn't work, so I used the workaround,

I apologize in advance if you have sufficient background and I misunderstood your question. Basically what you do with a seed number is calculate some value from it, and derive the next seed. In BBO's case, that means the seed magically grows into a simulated hand, and the next seed in line, iteratively. So, your proposal would just have no effect. In tournaments each bot is seeded with the same seed (my guess is per hand, since the number of simulated hands might depend on the auction), so they stay synchronized, so to speak. In MBC, bots play different amounts of hands, and advanced and basic bots use a different amount of simulations. So, it would not MBC bots to be more consistent. In fact, it's quite possible this is already the case, since for non-cryptographic applications you can just seed using the current time.

[hv=bbo=y&lin=pn|jmunday,~~M31243,~~M31241,~~M31242|st||md|3STH49KD58QKC89TQA%2CS6KAH2367QD236C6J%2CS257JQH8AD49TJC3K%2C|rh||ah|Board%201|sv|o|mb|p|mb|p|mb|1N|an|notrump%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20!C|mb|p|mb|2H!|an|Jacoby%20transfer%20--%205%2B%20!S%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points%20|mb|p|mb|2S|an|Transfer%20completed%20to%20S%20--%202-5%20!C%3B%202-5%20!|mb|p|mb|3S|an|Invitational%20to%204S%20--%206%2B%20!S%3B%209%20total%20points%20|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pc|D2|pc|D4|pc|DA|pc|D5|pc|D7|pc|DK|pc|D6|pc|D9|pc|ST|pc|SK|pc|S2|pc|S9|pc|H6|pc|HA|pc|H5|pc|H4|pc|SQ|pc|S4|pc|C9|pc|SA|pc|D3|pc|DJ|pc|S3|pc|D8|pc|HJ|pc|HK|pc|H7|pc|H8|pc|H9|pc|H2|pc|S5|pc|HT|pc|SJ|pc|S8|pc|C8|pc|S6|mc|9|]400|300[/hv] Introducing new bugs due to unintended interaction with old code is very common in software, but I must admit this is a "book" sequence that seems like it shouldn't have been affected.

Hello nivri and welcome to the forums. Please note that posting people's nicknames on the forum to report their behaviour is in violation of the terms of service. Instead, please contact abuse@bridgebase.com with all relevant details (including the nickname, chat logs, screen shots, exact times and behaviour) and censor your post above.

This is deliberate. The standalone client is deprecated, so new accounts can't use it. Note that from a networking perspective, the newer client actually takes less bandwidth.

Interesting. I'd assumed GIB can't confuse itself regardless of the seat.

the hog is as polite as ever, but he has a point. 3NT shows 16+ HCP, so both robots placed you on a different hand, each giving you some of their partner's HCP. So GIB W saw you're going to make anyway and played randomly to trick 3.

Not sure if you were serious - GIB N declared the hand.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa53h2dkt97542ca6&w=st842hkt7d63ck954&n=sqj6hq5daqj8cqj72&e=sk97haj98643dct83&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n2c(Capp%2C%20single%20suited)3c(!D%20transfer)p3dp3h(Splinter.%20GF%2C%201-!H)p3n(Yeah%20Qx%20is%20great%20opposite%20that)ppp]399|300[/hv] Basic GIBs. N decides to eschew playing 5♦ with his ♥Qx opposite a shortness, "knowing" that hearts are bound not to break as E advertised length in something. The play is also a thing of beauty. E leads the ♣3, which GIB ducks to the K, because why cash your nine winners, amirite? W switches to the ♥7, N plays the Q and E wins the A and continues clubs. Don't know if this is worse than regular basic GIB, it seemed pretty bad to me.

Or the W hand and the W hand with a ♦J singleton or ♣AJ8x etc.

You were probably sarcastic, but I really think it's remarkable. Computers are very good at some things and very bad at others. Let's go over your suggestions:1. Take a simple preference. This is a change to GIB's system, which they can easily do. 2. Introducing short suits at high levels. I'm pretty sure they can fix that too. Note the result might be that GIB would pass more forcing bids. 3. Not pass cue bids. This goes against #2 - it means GIB would make more nonsensical bids. Sometimes GIB will get "confused", until all possible bidding sequences by all four players have been gone over and cleared of bugs. 4. Sample hand has a lot of playing strength. That's easy to teach, but it won't mesh well with the rest of GIB's system. You'll have all sorts of two-way bids, "either a lot of playing strength or a lot of HCP" which would cause more holes in the bidding database, or require making the system more complex. We all know how GIB chokes when you double-then-bid holding a one-suited monster, anything to fix hands like the above would worsen this issue.