wynsten

I am interested in starting a team match, but find the online documentation confusing and incomplete. Before I complain too much, can someone direct me to the best available documentation. Thanks - Wynsten (Doug)

Rather than (or in addition to) your weighted sum of the various components, it would be helpful if each profile contained the raw data itself (number of hands played, total IMPs scored, etc. etc whatever you use to determine compatibility) and let us decide whether that makes us "compatible". Then you won't have to work on an algorithm to determine compatibility OR skill level.

Yeah - although that was a failure of the previous version of the App too. The online implementation of "History" is superior in several ways. I can't for the life of me, understand why they don't employ the same logic.

Even splits are slightly more probable than you might expect, regardless of the number of cards involved. Suppose you are missing Kx of a suit. When the cards were originally dealt, if each of these were dealt in a different round, then the probability that one hand gets both is fifty-fifty. But in the rare case where both are dealt in the same round, the probability that one hand gets both is zero! This same reasoning works for any number of cards. Hence the rule that even splits are slightly favoured. On top of that, really lop-sided splits tend to be revealed in the bidding or early play. So when it is a close call, play for an even split.

My problem with the claim button is that it says "Claim rejected" both when the opponent(s) reject it and when the claimant retracts it (perhaps because opps were taking to long to accept it). In the latter case I would prefer if it said "Claim retracted".

I expect by "sets the contract" the poster means " establishes the contract" I.e. omits the auction, including the final three passes, and just gives the final contract (six spades by South, for example). Most of us just invent an auction when we want to post a hand and don't know the actual one (or it's an invented hand and there was no auction). Doesn't seem like a big problem.

Variation in tempo is part of the game. You are allowed to draw inference from your opponents' hesitations in bidding or play, and your opponents are ethically forbidden from acting on such information from their partner. Of course many players here do not follow those standards, occasionally because they are cheats; more often because they just don't know any better. If you think your opponents are cheating, find another table; otherwise chill - it's only a game!

Sorry Mike - by "play correctly" I didn't mean that the winning play is correct single dummy play; I meant correct double dummy play, which looks, as you say, "idiotic". But there must be method in the double dummy madness. It doesn't "just happen to work". Why does the play work, and what might it be called? Perhaps, in the future, you will face a hand where it is the winning single dummy line.

I was East defending 3NT, led the spade Q, run to North's K. We defeated the contract but it can be made if declarer plays correctly to the second trick. Use double dummy analysis if you need to, to find the right line, but what is going on? Does this play have a name? [hv=pc=n&s=s8742haq653dcakjt&w=sa653h42d975cq653&n=sk9ht8dakq43c9842&e=sqjthkj97djt862c7&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=ppp1hp2dp3cp3nppp]399|300[/hv]

Here is a reasonable layout where 6H makes: [hv=pc=n&s=sa74hk62dt2cakjt6&w=st932h94dq986cq43&n=sq6haqj87dkj543c2&e=skj85ht53da7c9875]399|300[/hv] Interchange the 5 and 6 of hearts, though, and the hand goes down. So, yes, based on the possession of the ♥6, South was justified in bidding 6♥.

It is tough to present a play problem in this format. If you describe the play up to the critical trick, and then ask "what next", then the unblock or under-ruff or whatever the point of the hand is, becomes obvious. I would play a lot better if a bell rang every time a brilliant play was required. If you just present the hand and ask "how do you play it" people (like me, see my 1st post) miss the point.

Sounds like that's the mistake the "expert" made!

OK, I'll bite: A) What IS the point of this hand and B) How did the "expert" misplay it? Oops - I see you answered both of those questions in the spoiler above.

Yes to point 1, but your math is wrong on point 2. Winning the first spade ties whenever clubs are even (35.5%) OR when they are uneven but the strip squeeze comes home (maybe another 30%) for a total of about 65%. Ducking does not tie 64.5% - it only ties when clubs are unevenly split AND the squeeze comes home reducing the 64.5% to about 40%. So winning the first spade is better here too.

The people in 7NT are irrelevant. If it makes, they beat you; If it is down, you beat them. It is the other people in 6NT whom you are trying to beat or at least tie. If there is a realistic chance that many teams are in 3NT, which ALWAYS makes, then playing as safe as possible is good strategy.

[hv=pc=n&s=s76hkq93dc&w=shjt87dcj8&n=s4ha4dcq76&e=skq3h652dc]399|300|Yes - but when East pitches a heart you must choose between your layout (and cash the hearts) and this layout (and set up a club). So ... did West lead a singleton ♠8?[/hv]

Possible layout: [hv=pc=n&s=sa762hkq93daqjtc4&w=s83hj876d542cj853&n=s94ha4dk83cakq762&e=skqjt5ht52d976ct9&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1hp3cp6nppp&p=s8s9stsadad2d3d6dtd5dkd7d8d9djd4]399|300[/hv] Win Ace of spades and play 4 rounds of diamonds pitching a club. In eight card ending, if same player guards hearts and clubs, he has been stripped of his spade winner or entry to partner's spade winner. You must "read the cards" to figure this out. Most players wait until the last discard to give up their holding. Lead of 8 of spades suggests KQJ10 all with East (as does play of 10). Etc So, especially at MP, win the first round and try for 13 with strip squeeze as extra chance if clubs uneven. The clue that a squeeze without the count is possible is the fact that you don't need a squeeze to develop a fourth club trick - you just need the squeeze to strip away a spade trick.

Not sure if this is less obvious, but it is another layout where over-ruffing costs a trick. Spades were trump. North led a heart and East (declarer) ruffed with the six. South, a well-known "student" of the game over-ruffed! [hv=pc=n&s=s74hdc2&w=s5h2dc3&n=sh543dc&e=s632hdc]399|300[/hv]

No worse than random, I guess. But (except for "friends") it assumes I would prefer to play with people like myself (same skill, same master points, same country, etc). Personally, I'd be happy if you just went with "friends" (and by all means include both directions, just protect privacy by not telling me why I ended up with the partner I did). And document it, either implicitly (by changing the term "friend" to "preferred partner") or explicitly (in the documentation that most of us don't bother to read). Also, I'd be interested to see some stats on how often "friends" end up being partners.

Oh - I didn't know that. I thought marking someone as a friend just put him in your friends list. I don't think you need more lists. You already have too many lists (see Friends vs Followers controversy). I think you need more check-boxes accompanying friend/neutral/enemy.

There you go again, making unwarranted inferences. They don't necessarily want to play with me. They just want me in the list of people that you have decided to label "friends".

Gee - I'd rather you gave preference to people I just "follow" - I'd love to play with any of them. Actually it is not much of a feature. I'd rather you gave me more options that I can set (Chat: yes/no; Email: yes/no; Notification of log-on: yes/no; Preference when finding a game: positive/neutral/negative etc) rather than making assumptions about my preferences based on somebody else's selection.

So don't you think that might indicate there really is a problem? Anyway, it's a small annoyance with an easy work-around, clearly a bug that will shortly be fixed.

Yeah - that feature is pretty useless too - since we have no idea on what it is based. Give me access to the raw data and let me decide for myself how "compatible" it makes us.

The "sound" option continues to re-assert itself across logoff-login while other options (like "pictures of cards") retain their most recent setting. I have just one real "friend" in my "friends" list (someone I frequently partner with); the others are all "stars" that I follow. This would be true whether they had friended me back or not! And I know which are which, so this new feechur, which seems to offend many, is for me - at best - useless.