Gerardo

[hv=n=sakq&w=s87&e=s65&s=sxx]399|300|OK. Basics were already done, so not much work :) [/hv]

Dusan: OK, didn't get your point. Can you prove this (guess so, should be there by design)? Can you provide a few examples (didn't find much)? Few I saw, it had the same principle of N following N-1 (1 following the highest odd), so this properties depends on choosing the (a) right first round. Is this right? If so, is there a way to find it? Maybe we should have first round hardcoded? It is a strong condition, it limits the number of players (in a section), as it simply does not scale. Also, it is impossible to meet in swiss pairs in proper time, and probably not at all. Richard: I'm interested, of course. However, we should be able to specify what we look in a movement, even if that movement comes from <whoever>. what conditions should a movement meet?

Thanks Ben and Wayne. It works as you say if you have a PBN file with complete play, like e.g. USAFRANCE.PBN in BBO Hands directory. I want to use a file from card generator (BIGDEAL 1.1) only with cards ([board], [Dealer], [Vulnerable], and [Deal] sections present). The behaviour is as I wrote - only last hand is converted. Dusan BridgeVu.exe can read .DUP files. Use the .DUP output option of BigDeal. That will generate a vugraph.lin file in your BBO directory suitable for vugraph (hands duplicated in open and closed rooms). Then open that file in the lobby, and save it, to get rid of the 2nd set. Upload the resulting .LIN file to tourney

Dan, how do you see the post Ben quoted? (Look for it, I think it is in the New Forum Software thread) (this one won't work, it seems quoting sets font).

Very nice description of Rainbow in The Rainbow Movement for Individual Duplicate Games There is a caveat: sections have to have a prime number of tables. (This is needed to guarantee you'll never meet a player twice, as partner or opp) Inside a section (in a given round), R round, T table, N size of section: N[R,T] = T W[R,T] = (T+(R-1)*2) mod N + N S[R,T] = (T+(R+1)) mod N + N*2 E[R,T] = (T+(R+1)*2) mod N + N*3 Individuals could not be 1 board per round, because then you would never have a change of direction for the players. If 2 boards/round, flip South and East. If 3 boards/round, East goes West then South, West goes South then East, South goes East then West. Nice movement!

(Long post deleted on alternate algorithm, found equivalent to McBruce's, only different arranging. [taking from chess, where alternating colors (directions) is important.] His math is simpler.) Taking a look at McBruce's example, where N is the number of rounds, R the round and T the table: NS[R,T] = N+R-T+1 mod N if T => 2 NS[R,T] = N+1 if T=1 EW[R,T] = R+T-1 mod N (maybe) flip NS and EW if R even [use N instead of 0 in this context, i.e. add N when result is 0] But, this does not scale, and is highly dependent of the number of rounds. You need to have sections of number of rounds (+1 to make if even if necessary) pairs (half it for number of tables). Posleda: take a closer look. I think in McBruce's example, all (but 14, which you can flip to get that), play 7 rounds in one direction, and 6 in another, being the direction facing 14 the difference.

Problem is, then people would start to sub partners on bridge related issues :P

What I mean is: should that be changed?

I did it that way because simplified things for me :D

Free said he couldn't put "x" in hands, so I changed it. You can't have more than 9 "x" in any suit. He realized it, but now I'm documenting it, sorry for the delay. Also, you can use "10" instead of "T". Currently, both LEFTDUMMY and RIGHTDUMMY assume South is declarer. Should that change? That brought a compass problem in a thread (I don't remember which one, maybe Ben can help here), where Ben suggested modified the hand after generated to have a partial hand represented as a full one. I added a checkbox to allow suspension of "all hands have same number of cards" check, assuming poster knows what s/he is doing :D Requests/comments/suggestions/bug reports welcome

Mike, you are right, with the caveat Ben mentioned ("it affected my bidding", even if it didn't modified the actual calls) But the explanations should be corrected in a proper way (As Richard mentioned, that was done in an extent he considers satisfactory). One party at fault doesn't mean the other is not. I read a little about WJ, so I know 1♣:2M:2♦ is a relay, but still insist on proper explanations when I met a WJ pair, because often my partner does NOT know, and him/her doesn't have to know WJ, but s/he is still entitled to meanings of the bids (and meanings of alternative bids, if s/he asks specifically). And after requesting of proper explanations before the bidding starts, I found all sorts of incomplete explanations, being "12+" the most irritating for me (so much, I consider to make it a CC amend/declaration when heard, and penalize them on unauthorized info when they subsequent open with any other bid having 12+. Harsh? Yeah! I think it is deserved, though. But I don't direct much these days). But then, rebids are NEVER properly explained (how many times did you hear 1♦ can be 7-11 without 4-card major? Or 15(or 16)+ balanced?). Nor opener's rebids, which discriminate over opener's hand. The reverse is true, I once was noted by a polish pair for opening 1♦ with 4=4=3=2, rightfully in my opinion. They DON'T have to know my methods. I overlook a lot of little things when playing SA(YC) or 2/1 if not requested not to. But when I play Precision, my 1♦ explanation is "11-15 HCP, 2+♦, no 5M, no 6♣, no 5♣4M, no 13-15 bal". DISCLAIMER: I'm NOT against WJ players, but I found them (as a whole) the most problematic in this regard.

Well, that's why I'd put a(n human) filter (I said yellows because they (we) already receive the complains which should be put there). Oh, bogus complains should be an offense in itself, and is not unusual both parties are at fault somehow. However, being the assessing of behavior subjective, there should be a way to contest entries (BUT, this should be done with a reason. Contesting just because it is there should be STRONGLY discouraged)

I'm all for it, but think people has to be able to see their own entries, and contest them. I'd even put due dates on them, so that index can heal over time. Reincidence being a factor there. And would have a rudeness index, and a separate tourney one. Preferably writable only by yellows, would have too much spurious entries otherwise. And not answering an inquirying yellow would earn an (additional) entry. If I hear only one party, and seems plausible, I'd be inclined to believe if the other party remains silent. Maybe you can have some typical offenses tabulated, but as a guide, there may be aggravants, like reincidence, or atenuants, like other party's behaviour.

Dan Neill has a version in his systems page: WJ2000

Calculate frequencies, or return hands under given conditions? the "Dealer" program does the latter, not sure about the former DEALER, a bridge hand generator program

OK. Got it. My fault, overlooked because I don't use IE as default B)

[hv=n=saqjhk43da87cj5&s=sk65hq65dk65cq6]133|200|[/hv] [hv=w=s65h43da2ckq&e=s87h65d43caj]266|100|[/hv] [hv=n=sakhqjdt9c87&w=s32h54d76ct9]266|200|[/hv] Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown ♠ 76 ♥ 54 ♦ 32 ♣ AK ♠ T9 ♥ 87 ♦ 65 ♣ 43 Got reports about Dealer, Vul, Scoring not appearing in posts, but can't reproduce it, ?????, ???? and Unknown are the defaults. BTW, anything else should be there? Contract? What do you see when you are writing the post, after the tag? I see this: {PARTNERSNS=?????,????,Unknown,AQJ,K43,A87,J5,K65,Q65,K65,Q6][/PARTNERSNS] {PARTNERSEW=?????,????,Unknown,65,43,A2,KQ,87,65,43,AJ][/PARTNERSEW] {LEFTDUMMY=?????,????,Unknown,AK,QJ,T9,87,32,54,76,T9][/LEFTDUMMY] {RIGHTDUMMY=?????,????,Unknown,76,54,32,AK,T9,87,65,43][/RIGHTDUMMY] "[" replaced by "{" to avoid code replacing Do you miss the first three parameters?

Hidden Text Select to see. Hmmm Suits symbols won't work. Will do a set of black symbols (soon) These symbols are actually hidden :(

But it may be the right thing. Maybe let TDs choose?

I meant based on The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997. Currently on BBO A+ is 60%, A= is 50% and A- is 40%, all percentages taken from a top. So I mean A+ is the greater of 60% and your average (on played hands), then take this number from a top, and assign that to the hand where you got the A- A- and A= treated the same way. In your example, Ben: the pair who gets A+ gets max(60%, 40%(average on played hands)) = 60% the pair who gets A- gets min(40%, 70%(average on played hands)) = 40% That is, unless you could extract a result from it. Quoting Law 12C2: " When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing" Besides that, for intentional slow down to try to get a better result I would assign an extra penalty, based on Law 74 (Conduct and Etiquette) BBO scoring methods would need to be revised to allow unbalanced scores and lawful average calculations, and to allow extra penalties, called procedural in the Laws.

I think A+ is max(60%, own average), A- is min (40%, own average) and A= is exactly what it says (what Ben just said he doesn't like). Besides that, people who slow down to get A-, should get their true result plus an extra penalty

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sakqhakqdakqcakqj&w=stfhfdthyjhnfytdycgfhjcfgycyfjcgyhjcf&e=s5432hghfdgdfhthfcfjgtyhjf&s=sfyjfyjfhfyjygjnfdfyjfyjfycfgyjfcygjnf]399|300|Scoring: IMP Test ♣♦♥♠[/hv] 6 buttons added to post screens to enter hands via forms. NO error nor consistency of any kind checked for now. UPDATE: the example given here is NOT valid anymore :ph34r: Suits have to be entered from higher card to lower, 10 being entered as "T", "10" won't be accepted. UPDATE: First hand is checked for at most 13 cards, others have to have same number as the first one. UPDATE: Check that cards are not repeated. Thanks to previewers (inquiry, JRG, Free and Misho)

Maureen, I made a small modification to your profile, which shouldn't modify anything, but pls try again

You can add a poll to any discussion, if you have the right permissions. THink you have to be admin, maybe moderator, or had opened it

You can do that with NMF too! 1m : 1M 1NT: 2om 2oM = 4 card 2M = 3 card support 2NT = neither If you have both 4oM and 3M, start with 2oM, then rebid M to show support