helene_t

It happens quite often that I leave the computer (or switch to another tab) while the bbo session is active. Someone who thinks I am looking at my bbo window sends me a chat message. Then I lose connection due to inactivity or for some other reason. When I log in again, the message is not there. What about, prior to log out due to inactivity, all chat received while I was inactive is send as a bbo mail?

[hv=pc=n&w=saqj982hdak98cq98&e=st543h5dt32ckt543&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=pp1s4h4sp6sppp]266|200[/hv] North starts with ♣A, then ♥A. What do you do now? What is your plan?

Thanks all. Partner had a 3424 4-count and unless you pass you are going to get 0 matchpoints. For those who bid 3nt I have a question. Why not double first? I realise that direct 3nt is more likely to prevent a diamond lead and to prevent partner from bidding 4h. But if partner has five hearts 4♥ may be better than 3nt, and dbl could find a spade fit. Is dbl then 3nt stronger than direct 3nt? Theoretically I think it shouldn't be.

Club evening, LHO is known for her reckless preempts, partner is a decent and disciplined player [hv=pc=n&w=sak54hatd932caq86&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=3dpp]133|200[/hv]

If you play Acol, the Acol club is good fr beginners, but even if you play 5-card majors you are welcome their also although you may have to bring a partner as most beginners in the Acol club don't know 5-card majors

I think you can heart-club squeeze West for a 15th trick in clubs and then a 16th trick in hearts, nice progressive squeeze :)

Yes. Welcome to the forum, by the way :) I hope you will enjoy the place :)

With shortness in spades you probably need to play in a non-spade suit so you have less bidding space below the contract you will be signing off in. When the suit is already agreed I don't think it matters. Edit: it's probably more about that with shortness in a major you are more likely to belong in 3nt.

Just put chatGPT and Bard to a test to see which one is better: - five friends want to travel to Glasgow, 3 live in Birmingham and 2 in London, they have only one car that can take a maximum of three people. chatGPT gets it almost right but appears to think a car is able to drive without a driver (yeah, robots like that idea). Bard doesn't try to solve the puzzle but just advices you to take the train instead, or to buy a second car. - Does the coefficient of variation depend on the scale? This was asked on Quora where all humans got it right but Sage got it wrong. ChatGPT got it right but Bard got it wrong. What's funny is that if you ask Sage to provide an example, it will get it right and conclude "as you can see, the CV is unaffected by the change of scale". - Volume of (specific pyramid with a trapeze base) Bard gets it right, chatGPT messes up which edges are parallel and which are not, and therefore gives a wrong result. - Can you prove that sqrt(15) is irrational? Bard and chatGPT present different formulations of the standard proof given in high-school textbooks. Bard notes how it can be generalized. - How many patients do I need for (description of a simple randomized trial)? ChatGPT gets it right, Bard messes up power and alpha and gives a wrong answer. - I have conducted a trial (description of the results, including a wildly unbalanced minimization factor), which minimization factors should I adjust for chatGPT make a dog's breakfast of it, confusing intervention with confounders. Bard at least got the basics right but misses the implication of a wildly unbalanced minimization factor. Both AIs give some general blahblah about this kind of problems without relating it to my actual trial. - Suggest a recipe for a dinner, I have (list of what I have in my fridge), and I could buy a few more ingredients ChatGPT roughly suggests the stirfry I would have come up with myself, Bard makes something weird which sound more like something I would give to my dog, but maybe I should be open-minded and try it. Bard explains the timing of the cooking process in details. Generally, I think chatGPT is ok for writing poetry in a language that is not my native language. For factual questions I would rather just use Google to find some academic sources, wikipedia, quora, reddit. I don't think that LLM adds much to that, and it is usually worse. For questions requiring reasoning, I don't think general-purpose AI is quite there.

A friend wanted to earn some easy money so she signed up with some obscure company that only communicated via WhatsApp (both for recruitment and for training). Their WhatsApp agents (at least some of them) are obviously not robots. The company's own website was listed as fraudulent and the one my friend had to use for the actual work was uk-sonypictures.com which is not linked by Sony and was only 9 days old at the time my friend started. It is also suspiciously similar to the genuine page uk.sonypictures.com. The company pay out in bitcoins only. When my friend had earned the equivalent of 83 USD, she was asked to transfer 17 USD as there was a balance requirement of 100 USD before she could proceed to the next task and earn more money, but she was told she could withdraw all the 100 USD immediately as soon as she had transfered the 17 USD. The "work" consisted of buying Sony movie tickets for an average price of -0.17 USD (i.e. negative price). There is no evidence that the movie tickets and the USD 0.17 exist anywhere other than in the imagination of the user. This is a fairly obvious scam but I wonder how they are making money. The amount of time they spend on chatting to my friend (who eventually decided not to pay the USD 17) probably costs more than USD17. If their business model is not based on the USD 17 it is bit strange that they ask for that money at all as it will discourage many victims, but maybe it works through cognitive disonance (once you have paid USD 17 you will become positively biased in favour or trusting them)?

I don't think 4♠ is a good bid - 3♠ may be explained as "rebidable spades" but if they are really good enough to play opposite a void, the robot can bid them a 3rd time. You can't pass, though, as 3♠ is forcing. As it happened, North had a very marginal 3♠ bid, but there is no reason why it couldn't have 20 points. I think I would bid 4♣. 4♦ may be better but I am not sure what it means, it might be a control bid agreeing spades. 3NT is also an option.

I think it's ok, there's a reasonably chance that 5♣ makes if you don't have a spade fit. And maybe you can systematically stop in 4♣.

https://tinyurl.com/2k2l76k6 So after one robot redoubles my double on its partner's 1NT, redoubler's partner bids 2NT explained as invitational: 1♦-x-1NT-p p-x-xx-p 2NT-p-3♦-a.p.

chatGPT can play chess and it can make sample size calculations for clinical trials. Basically, it can predict what a popular answer on Redit would be to a wide variety of questions. When chatGPT plays chess, it will occasionaly move pieces that don't exist, which confirms that the rules and objectives of the game haven't been programmed explicitly, but apparently there are enough chess discussions in its inputs to allow it to play decent chess for the most part, i.e. predicting what a redit user would answer to just about any question about what the best move would be in a given situation. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be able to play bridge also. But of course bridge is more challenging. What bid a forum user might recommend in a given situation depends on partnership agreements and the opponents' system. And maybe bridge also has less standardized input formats than chess has, or simply less data.

When comparing Bard and chatGPT, my impression is that Bard has better reasoning skills but poorer language skills. For example, Bard will get basic VAT calculations right (chatGPT doesn't). But Bard is sensible to the exact way the question is phrased and is more likely to misunderstand questions than chatGPT is. So whether you write the 10 as "10" or as "T" makes no difference to chatGPT, while Bard gives different answers. I think that it is the "10" which it interprets correctly but I am not 100% sure. It is possible that Bard would bid better if I took more care, maybe refering to the other players as N, S, and E instead of LHO, RHO and partner. Or some such. Bart can generally determine opening bids for SAYC but when I ask it to bid using Acol it confuses the notrump range. Maybe it uses a mixture of Dutch Acol and English Acol sources. When you ask Bard to tell you a joke about for example how many bridge players are needed to change a lightbulb, it will tell you a boring joke and then elaborate on why the joke is funny.