spaderaise

I'd like to play a "human-declares" game with 3 robots, using deals I upload myself. (That is, when my robot-partner becomes declarer, we swap places and I play the hand -- as in the robot tournaments.) Is it possible?

Hmm - thanks for the idea - when I try this for the only player I happen to know to have played in them (sliynk), I get an empty list and "Some tourneys not shown for security reasons".

Is it possible to get hold of hand records from old tournaments? Specifically, I'm think of past weekly free instant tournaments. Ideally, I'd like to find a way of playing these against the bots. I enjoy doing this before watching videos of people playing the tournaments (eg Peter Hollands' excellent series). Any suggestions very welcome!

I also have Bridge Baron, on my iphone, and I haven't seen the phrase "Half double stopper" in that version, but it does use the phrase "Half or double stopper", which is still fairly odd. But then its explanations of bids are often risibly bad. It seems to have a very limited language in which to explain meanings. For example, a Michaels overcall (1H) 2H will be explained merely as "5+ spades"; apparently the "5+ diamonds or 5+ clubs" information is simply too complicated to convey.

If my calculations are right, then jefford's numbers correspond to (as a gain for the side bidding 1N): non-vul: .059*3 + .17*5 + .393*5 - .378*6 = 0.724 IMPs / board vul: .059*5 + .17*7 + .393*6 - .378*10 = 0.063 IMPs / board i.e. rather better in 1N than 3N when non-vul, and very close when vul.

OK, I'll have a go. South is not in possession of unauthorised information (let's assume - the answer might be different if for example North had reacted visibly when South didn't alert 2C). Since North appears to show clubs and spades with longer clubs, some people holding the south cards might consider removing 3S or 3SX to 4C, but failure to do so is hardly enough to "provide evidence of an unauthorised understanding", so I wouldn't rule fielded misbid. North, presumably, is in possession of unauthorised information, because he has seen the lack of alert of 2C. Let's work on the basis that he believed that 2C was showing 5-5 in the majors. (If he believed something different, this could change the answer). His logical alternatives over 3D, believing that he's shown 5-5 in the majors, seem to be Pass and 3S. Is one of them demonstrably suggested by the UI? If anything, I think Pass is suggested over 3S by the UI. Bidding 3S will (in fact) show clubs and spades with longer clubs, and from the north cards it looks very likely that partner will have more clubs than spades, and may correct back to clubs. This looks highly dangerous for NS, while a pass is reasonably safe. So the UI doesn't suggest 3S over Pass at North's second call. I don't see that he has any logical alternative to Pass at his third call. So North's actions look OK. So I'll rule no adjustment.

Diamonds are not 0-7 because both opponents played a diamond to the first trick.

I think you missed that West led a diamond - so he definitely has more than zero. Ruffing the small diamond after the first or second round of trumps is safe.

(birthday problem) Here you can find it on a Cambridge University maths exam paper from 2009: http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~rrw1/prob/ProbabilityTriposQuestions.pdf And here you can find it on the first problem sheet for the current first-year probability course for maths undergraduates in Oxford: http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/courses/course/19623/material You'll find it in university courses and textbooks the world over. And why not?! It's an important and surprising example and plenty of undergraduates won't have seen it before. And even for who have already seen it, there's plenty of depth to the question if you want to generalise it. The fact that a bright 13-year old might understand it doesn't mean that it's not worth a bright 19-year old thinking about it too.

It sounds like you (and aguahombre) disagree with his logic, but what's the problem? Is it particularly worse to put strong 5-5 hands through 1C-..-2D rather than through 1D-..-3C? Of course, the 1C-..-2D sequence becomes less well defined, but in compensation the 1D-..-3C sequence becomes better defined. Arguably this is better since it keeps the auction lower on more hands, and increases the definition of the auction that has reached the 3-level at the cost of reducing the definition of the one that has reached only the 2-level. Am I missing something obvious?

I am looking at Blackshoe's diagram, and still hearts are not South's longest suit. Also, there is no indication that South was in receipt of UI before bidding 4H. I guess that iviehoff meant that North's 5C bid was the "unauthorised panic".

Indeed. Of course. I am not arguing that the two need to be interpreted the same way. The bridge regulation is ambiguous - there are two sensible ways to interpret it. I already said this above, and many others had already said it. I posted in response to David, who said that he was unable even to imagine how somebody could interpret it as applying to a double of a no-trump bid. I really didn't expect it to be contentious!

A double is alertable if it asks for a suit other than the suit doubled. A gift is taxable if it is made to a person other than the spouse of the giver. <Statement A> holds if <C, specific object of type B> is an <object of type B> "other than" <description D> where "description D" specifies precisely 1 or 0 (according to circumstance) objects of type B. <Statement A>: Alert is required <type B>: suit <C>: suit requested <description D>: "the suit doubled" <Statement A>: Tax is payable <type B>: person <C>: person to whom gift is made <description D>: "the spouse of the giver" The question is: does the regulation apply if the number of objects described by D is zero rather than one? Campboy's reply to you is on the money. Asking "what if the gift is made to a dog" is asking "what if C is not of type B", hence "what if the thing requested is not a suit". OK?

Probably more posts devoted to this by now than it deserves! - but for what it's worth, the analogy is between the phrase "person other than <description of non-existent person>" and the phrase "suit other than <description of non-existent suit>".

Well, thanks, but you're reading more into it than intended. All it was serving to demonstrate is that a regulation that says "other than the spouse of the giver" can apply perfectly well when there is no spouse of the giver. In the same way, a regulation saying "other than the suit doubled" could perfectly well apply when there is no suit doubled. I don't think that one interpretation is right, and the other wrong, in the case of the bridge regulation. It's ambiguous, as you quite rightly say. I was just mystified that David was (by his own account) unable even to imagine the other reading.