Deanrover

The Breusch-Godfrey test is much better as it test for as many orders of auto correlation as you want. Translation into English: If this woman's complaint was true, one of the reason might be that the number of HCP you get in one hand is related to that in previous hands. This is known as auto-correlation. The Durbin-Watson test will see whether the number of HCP you get is related in any way to the number of HCP you got in the previous hand. However, if it was related to the number of HCP 2 hands ago, 3 hands ago etc. then D-W would not pick it up. B-G would.

I'm a BIG fan of Dublin. Good food and the Porter House is a kick ass microbrewery their Oyster Stout is VERY nice... Dublin, and Ireland as a whole is amazing. But it is even more expensive than London......

London is better than Vegas because it is more central geographically, considering most of BBOs users come from the U.S or Europe. Las Vegas is a long way from Europe. If you were to do it in Vegas it might be an idea to do it after the Cavendish - this way BBO users could opt to watch some World Class bridge if they choose - which I am imagine would be very exciting. If you wanted something more central, then East coast America is appealing, and in the U.K you could go to Edinburgh as it is much cheaper than London, and an amazing city. You might find a few users interested in a trip to a whisky distillery, I suspect.

Have given message to Roland.

Durbin-Watson is a pretty bad test for auto-correllation as it only test fors first order problems AFAIK.

What Richard says is good if I remember my Econometrics correctly but it won't test for some of the more strange irregularities that might occur. i.e. The T test will tell you if the results are within the expected range, but not whether the underlying process is solid. I think a more general analysis of the RNG would be useful. A few good links One Two Three Four

By the way are you just looking to measure the randomness in terms of HCP? Or in terms of distribution and other factors?

Hi Uday, I'll try and post something over the weekend but I'm tired right now. It can be done. Dean

1) Brad Moss - Fred Gitleman 2) Bobby Levin - Steve Weinstein 3) Norberto Bocchi - Giogerio Duboin 4) Eric Greco - Geoff Hampson 5) Fulvio Fantoni - Claudio Nunes 6) Bob Hamman - Zia Mahmood

For those who advocate 2 ♠ non forcing, that is indeed quite appetising, but this was a pick up partnership thus 2 ♠ should be assumed to be forcing IMO.

red v white p-1♦-2♥ to you with ♠ QJ9542 ♥ A2 ♦ ----- ♣ JT872 Which bid is best? Assume 2 ♠ is forcing.

I beg to disagree. Team Matches and Tournaments are the only events with semblance of serious play. So, please, please no private chat with players in these 2 forms of the Game. Godwin I think the default should be for no chat with players to be allowed. But the tourney creator would have the option to allow it. Most nights there are at least a couple of "Brits junior" tournaments, which are friendly affairs with only 3 or 4 tables. Lots of us are friends in real life or went to high school with each other and have fallen out of contact, we like to chat with each other and find it frustrating that we can't. No one is concerned about potential cheating, and if someone really did want to cheat they could just use the phone as we all know each other in real life.

WEll yes that, and also allow me in the lobby to chat with my friend playing a tourney.

Lots of tournaments and team games are very friendly affairs. It is thus rather frustrating when you are unable to converse with other BBO users, or other participants in the competition. Could you please provide an option for the tourney creator to allow chat with players?

Has a couple of excellent new features. Especially the alert modification.

Hate it. Dean

Doesn't seem to ignore mail messages.

Food for thought. How about a different kind of rating - a "BBO member rating (BMR)". This could factor in tournament completion ratio, leaving in the middle of a hand whilst not dummy ratio, how often the user changes the table etc. Perhaps BBO users could leave feedback on other users, so if you have a bad table manner it will be reflected in your BMR. FWIW I think this would be far more valuable than a skills based rating.

This issue has been discussed about 100 times. I'd quite like it, as from a purely selfish point of view, it would drive me to improve my game. However, others could have even bigger egos and thus turn to cheating. It would be nice to find a solution that satisfies both sides of the debate. Some sort of optional rating system. Not sure of the top of my head what it could be, and it might be that no good compromise exists, but it is worth trying to find one IMHO.

You don't need to be a genius to switch from Weak NT to Strong NT. And playing the opposite system of your (superior opponent) makes plenty of sense. Say your team has an Expected Loss (EL) of 1 IMP/board to your opponents. The Standard Deviation (SD) per board is 4 IMPs if you both play the same NT. You play a 16 board knockout match. I may return to do the calculations, but lets says changing the NT you play to the opposite increases the SD to 5, your chances of winning should go up considerably, and you would even be willing to accept a small increase in EL for this extra SD.

BBO founder and all round good guy celebrates his 21st birthday for the 20th time on Sunday. I'd like to take this opportunity to saw how damn special BBO is. As a non programmer it is easy to get frustrated with the pace of progress of BBO. Say introducing a ghoulash feature, or improving team games, how hard can that really be? What do Fred and Uday do all day? But the truth is very different: i) Look through the archives of the "suggestion for the software" forum and you will see that a scarily high percentage of the ideas have been implemented. ii) I have been playing online poker recently. Some of these sites made up to $500 million in profit last year, and rate to make at least twice that much this year. You would have thought they could afford brilliant (and numerous) programmers. And yet the truth is that BBO's software surpasses that of the online poker sites in almost every way! E.g. on the 2nd biggest site, hand histories are not written to your c:. so you have to request them, and can only get 200 at a time (which would be < 1hr for a multitabler). And even then it is in an ugly, incomprehensible .txt format, unlikely BBOs instantaneous and graphical hand histories (with free Deep Finesse analysis!). And if you need help, you can not just ask someone online. You have to email support, and they can be up to a day responding!. Compare this to BBO, where there are almost always some yellows (who are volunteers!) online to assist. Fred and/or Uday will respond to your emails promptly, you can watch some of the best players in the world, tools such as the partnership bidding room are developed and provided for you, Vugraph with great commentary. And BBO is free! It truly is amazing. Furthermore, and much more importantly, Fred is the sweetest guy you will meet. He has done a lot for me. He and Sheri organised a trip for me to work in the Cavendish in Las Vegas, and be put up in a luxury hotel room. And before that, they let me stay in their house! Oh, and one small point. They had moved into their house 1 day earlier! So congratulations on everything Fred, and have a great 40th!

If you want to play online bridge on Java, I recommend Bridge Club Live. I guarantee you will be back on BBO within 12 hours.

Hi Fred. I do not have XP on this PC, but on our other. Would you like me to try BBO on it and see what happens? No white screens on this one.

Or was this just me?

Instinct says A then low to Q. Will work out real answer today. Pls don't post solution for another 24 hours :P