smerriman

[hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn%7Csmerriman%2CRobot%2CRobot%2CRobot%7Cst%7C%7Cmd%7C1SQ2HA85DKQJ85CA53%2CSJ4HK9643DATCKJ42%2CS85HQJ2D7632CQ987%2CSAKT9763HT7D94CT6%7Csv%7CN%7Cah%7CBoard%2015%7Cmb%7C1N%7Can%7Cnotrump%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-5%20%21H%3B%202-5%20%21S%3B%2015-17%20HCP%3B%2018-%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C2C%21%7Can%7CCappelletti%20-%20single%20suited%20--%2014-%20HCP%3B%2010%2B%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C2D%7Can%7C20-%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C2S%7Can%7CLongest%20suit%20--%20twice%20rebiddable%20%21S%3B%2010-13%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CD%7Can%7CTakeout%20double%20--%203-5%20%21C%3B%203-5%20%21D%3B%203-5%20%21H%3B%202%20%21S%3B%2017-%20HCP%3B%2018%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CC8%7C]400|300[/hv] I probably should have bid 2♦ over 2♣, but GIB shouldn't be passing the double nonetheless.

smerriman 26 - 23 gordontd http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:f53ff3be.9a81.11e7.8113.0cc47a39aeb4-1505526861&u=smerriman smerriman 33 - 24 derppp http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:ba5f4c40.9a5c.11e7.8113.0cc47a39aeb4-1505510871&u=smerriman smerriman 44 - 27 zupey http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:ecfee087.9a81.11e7.8113.0cc47a39aeb4-1505526847&u=smerriman smerriman 62 - 10 Natali_ http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:b19725cb.9a5c.11e7.8113.0cc47a39aeb4-1505510856&u=smerriman smerriman 78 - 2 shuba http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:bf2cf50f.9a5c.11e7.8113.0cc47a39aeb4-1505510879&u=smerriman That went well!

System = Titanic?

Whew. Despite winning 8 head to heads and losing 4, had you won by 6 IMPs more I would have been in serious danger of missing the cut. By my calculations, pio_magic needs to win the last challenge by 17 IMP to knock stoppiello out of 8th spot and make the next round.

Every so often someone's profile appears cut off to me, and I think I've discovered why. When someone has uploaded a profile picture taller than the default square, the last line of their profile gets cut off. (Apologies if any of these random people I used to test don't like their profile being here; though it is a public profile after all so don't think it'll be an issue). If their profile is 4 lines long, you just see it cut off with no scrollbar; if 5 or longer, you see the scrollbar, but scrolling down still has the bottom cut off (including the bottom of the scrollbar itself). This is in Firefox (though may happen in other browsers).

OK yep, understood that, just wondered if there was a potential for it to be the same base cause. I guess it's an unrelated bug in the code. (In fact, since most of the bugs were duplicated at both tables, timeout probably wouldn't make sense anyway. Just interesting how bugs happened such a large proportion of time).

If anyone wants to warm up for round 2 while the last few games are in progress, I'll never refuse a challenge :)

Could this type of timeout explain the bizarre results I demonstrated in my two posts here? For example, the 7.6% of times it gives the wrong signal when holding a queen, or the 3.3% of times it underleads a doubleton, both with clearcut cases where simulations can't possibly tell it otherwise.

This was from the free weekly instant tournament a few weeks back (played 26 August). [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=smerriman&s=SAKQJ642H82DKQCA5&wn=Robot&w=S3HAK96DAT2CT9742&nn=Robot&n=S7HQJT43D98654CKJ&en=Robot&e=ST985H75DJ73CQ863&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=PPP2C(Strong%20two%20club%20--%2019+%20HCP%3B%2023+%20total%20po)P2D(2D%20bid%20waiting%20--%2011-%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%20to%202N)P2S(Opener%5C%27s%20suit%20--%205+%20%21S%3B%2019+%20HCP%3B%2023+%20tot)P3H(4+%20%21H%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%205-12%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%20to%203N)P3S(19+%20HCP%3B%20twice%20rebiddable%20%21S%3B%2023+%20total)P4D(4+%20%21D%3B%204+%20%21H%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%205-12%20total%20points)P4S(19+%20HCP%3B%20twice%20rebiddable%20%21S%3B%2023+%20total)PPP&p=HKH3H5H2C2CJCQCASAS3S7S8SKCTD4S9SQH6D5S5SJH9D6STH8HAH4H7C4CKC3C5&c=11]400|300[/hv] Fastforward to trick 8. A club is guaranteed to lose all remaining tricks, since dummy is high. The ace of diamonds is guaranteed to take a trick, unless I am void in diamonds and opened 2 clubs with AKQJxxx-xx--Axxx. GIB plays a club. The same play was replicated at some other tables, so this was not a server glitch.

If it wasn't already obvious before, Barmy is now well past troll territory.

(ignore, Stephen Tu said it better anyway)

Have found that Lebensohl makes bidding far simpler and far more likely to get you to the right contract than without it. And when GIB has explanations of all bids, you have no excuse for finding it too difficult. Definitely one of the better parts of the GIB system.

Have to double. If East has 13 top tricks in spades, then this is surely one of the rare cases of the hesitation itself being illegal.

For reference, this is not a server glitch where a shaky connection somehow ends up with the wrong data about who bid coming through. This is replicable and an issue with the actual bidding database. [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=smerriman&s=SA86HAT75DT932CKT&wn=Robot&w=S73HKQJ94DAJ76C32&nn=Robot&n=S94H862DKQ8CA9875&en=Robot&e=SKQJT52H3D54CQJ64&d=e&v=n&b=18&a=2S(Weak%20two%20bid%20--%201-4%20%21C%3B%201-3%20%21D%3B%201-3%20%21H%3B%206+%20%21S%3B%2010-%20HCP%3B%207+%20total%20points)P2N(Artificial%20force%20--%2015+%20HCP)P3C(Feature%20--%201-4%20%21C%3B%201-3%20%21D%3B%201-3%20%21H%3B%206+%20%21S%3B%208-10%20HCP%3B%20%21CQ)P3S(1+%20%21S%3B%2015+%20HCP%3B%2018-%20total%20points)4S(9+%20HCP%3B%2020-%20total%20points)PPP&p=H3HAH9H2D3DAD8D4HKH6D5H5HQH8C6HTHJS9STH7SKS6S7S4SQSAS3C8CKC2C9C4CTC3CACJC7CQS8D6D2D7DKSJS5D9H4C5S2DTDJDQ]400|300[/hv] And was replicated at other tables as well.

Out of interest, why would you want to be a sub before a tournament starts, and not just join the tournament to begin with?

Note you can do this already; if you go into Running tournaments and click on Tables, the Substitutes button changes from "I am willing to be a substitute in any tournament" to "I am willing to be a substitute in this tournament".

The "final" results had 16 votes for 3NT, 14 votes for pass, and 6 votes for 3♠ - so quite a bit of difference of opinion here. Despite 3NT being my choice, I'm surprised it was voted so highly. I've seen MrAce say in the past the actual votes aren't as important as who voted for what - anyone recognise names well enough to know how any 'expert' votes were divided?

2/1 is not a bidding system in itself. It solely applies to the meaning of bids by non-passed hands responding to an opening bid. It is 100% impossible that "to make 2/1 work they had to implement Drury", nor your implication that 2/1 without Drury might not even be called 2/1. Perhaps you are talking about a complete system with another name, which includes the concept of 2/1 game-forcing bids, but I still don't see how there could possibly be a connection. Are you saying that with support for opener and invitational values, you prefer making a non-forcing 2/1 bid in another suit and making 2♣ natural? I have never seen any of these occur with GIB in a Drury sequence. Can you provide examples?

You're not making any sense. Whether or not you play Drury has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you play 2/1. The meaning of bids by a passed hand in 2/1 and non-2/1 are identical. And you still haven't said which part you disagree with. Edited - you edited in another line, seemingly disagreeing with something, but I still have no idea what.

Yep - you missed the poll where everyone voted to increase fuel prices too.

OK, yup - the criteria should be pretty straightforward in this instance, but if I have them right and it only simulates 30 hands, then there's about a 7% chance the results of its simulations will tell it the diamond is better. (That's using random sampling, though I presume GIB uses some form of importance sampling). So unlikely, but still large enough to happen regularly. (Sorry frank0, will stop taking this thread off-topic now!)

A similar thing just happened to me in a challenge. I opened 1♥, GIB responded 3nt, and suddenly all of my 4 level bids were 8 card preempts.

It was the human that jumped to slam. If this was Just Play Bridge, it's using basic robots, which if I'm not mistaken, don't simulate at all on the bidding. So it's not that it passes because it can't simulate a matching hand, just that it passes because it doesn't have a rule that tells it what to do in that sequence. Interestingly, if GIB bids with itself, it does reach the grand via 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 3nt - 7♠. Though oddly, if for some reason I happen to bid 5nt showing 19-21 in that sequence instead of 7♠, it will sign off in 6nt described as 15-16 HCP, rather than 7nt described as 17+ HCP. I guess it can't count its own points.

Ah. In that case, no idea. My calculations shows a diamond lead averages over 1 IMP better than a heart lead on both auctions.

You have different bidding sequences, which leads to different simulations.