Manastorm

I had a misunderstanding. I assumed that the trick would become played when all four cards have been played. Actually both sides have to play a card to the next trick that to happen, which would require a lot more mind gymnastics to happen accidentally.

What happens if declarer ask RHO to play a designated card from dummy, however RHO first plays a card from her hand and then revokes dummy?

Where I am from there isn't anythin unusual to see a statue of a naked man in a public place. Already two such statues come to my mind and they are dead centre of a city. Do such things exist in USA at all? If they do exist how can a picture of a naked statue cause such an uproar? Surely one of the members was tiny bit educated and realized this is utterly stupid, but no. Can't even reverse the idiotic decision.

Well said. It would be interesting to hear how the school master was sacked with so much good intention?

A nine player 1$ robot reward tournament indeed has 30% rake and the price distribution is skewed towards the winner. 55% of the price pool went to the winner, it is really unfortunate. (corrected numbers)

I continue a bit. I would aim to make the tournament more luck based than skill. I suggest changes: no claims, GIB is slower while declaring for human side, maximum number of deal you can play (maybe less than 25), no penny rewards and give the fee back and some extra. You should hire streamers to promote your revenue games, it feels obvious that you have, but I don't know. Give tips how to play the game: maybe a video, which shows how good players play it. Robot reward is very exciting form of bridge, since it is a race. Try to find aspects, which promote its unique form. Maybe robot reward knocukout tournament during a special weekend. Join a small tournament and if you win it you proceed to the next round. The final could a be 30 minute race with 32 players or so.

The price pool distribution changed drastically. Now the winner takes the most and the rest get pennies. This is not good for the newcomers, they have no idea what to do now. The situation was challenging even before, since the tournament doesn't resemble bridge that much, now wrong strategy costs even more. My best streak is something like 12 top 1-2 spots (mostly wins) in a row, so I have a pretty good idea what to do, I am not even a good player. Back then I didn't even play, if the tournament didn't have 8+ players, which was already a very small field. How does one collect 5000 points in a small field or 6500 in a big. Well not playing narrow games or slams. You need ironclad contracts, which you can claim at tricks 1-4, if possible. The late phase of the tournament has become a poker sitout game. The chips need to fly, when winning is 10 times more valuable than fighting for a penny spot.

What should ChCh think about the situation. Is ChCh allowed to point out what the correct contract is. Maybe it isn't his best interest right now, since SB might be fooled also. Let's assume SB asks ChCh about their opening lead tendencies. Should ChCh try to be cheaky here. Let's say SB is fooled and starts to draw trumps successfully and finesses a suit and by doing it opens it to defence, when they win a trick. Can ChCh now use the moment for their advantage to remind the table about the right contract? Even funnier, if defence plays along and lets declarer to ruff a suit to his disadvantage, surely such a layout is possible to find.

What would happen, if the dummy duly places the hearts on the right side?

One year later the ui is much better. I can play robot reaward tournaments again.

I noticed that if you click the screen while playing the whole thing slows down. The cards almost stop mid air, if you spam clicks. The program shouldn't respond to meaningless clicks like that.

That is true, but I don't enjoy playing robot tournaments anymore. Maybe over time I forget what flash ui felt and start again, but until it happens races are over for me.

I have to say, the new software is too clunky for robot reward tournaments.

How to setup ui for robot races. I need ui to show bidding constantly and tournament situation, specifically I need to see current total points and reward standings all the time. I would prefer very much to have the old flash ui if possible.

Is it not possible to twist words and give a tax reduction for those who take ACA.

There is a thread on Bridgewinners about alerts and disclosure, which gained many posts very quickly. An unusual system, not much space to disclose it, what to alert and so on. One of the participants describes 1♣ opening as 11+, 2+♣ and forcing, alternatively it was described as 11-13bal or other hand types. What I gather is that the first one is very economical and opaque. I think it is unacceptable, unless a simulation proves that the main bulk of respective hands are actually opened with 1♣, because if not, it is not what it says. I don't actually know, if the system as a whole was described in such was that 1♣ is a trash bin opening, when some slack should be allowed. The second basicly is ok as long as 11-13bal is predominant, I doubt that is the case, however I am ok with it anyways, since who wouldn't ask details and get the full answer. I find it very odd that the pair can't explain a simple 1♣ opening coherently. What comes to the actual discussion on BW, my sympathy is fully on the side I harshly reprimanded. I don't think it is necessary to be include forcing nature of the opening explicitly, since other hand types probably contain the message. Admittedly I don't like to find excuses for not disclosing it openly, but the lack of space and time exists. The transfer response was fine, acceptance was as good as it gets and pass seemed like the most obvious want to play you ever see.

GIB was the 2nd hand. I had 84, KQ642, KQJ2 and J6. Bidding went p - p - p - 1♥ p - 1NT - p - 2♦ p - 3NT all pass What to do over 3NT, anything plus here is great, but nowhere to land. 2♠ response over 2♦ should show a good raise, didn't even do that.

Yeah. I haven't seen GIB thinking along the same lines with 12-14bal. I would expect it not to open occasionally, when its simulation spots a problem.

I am very familiar with eccentricities of GIB, so I know that things happen. I want share this gem with you and let me know, if you have played with GIB more than I. GIB did not open: KJ5, 8, AT98, AT732.

If the magic software existed: giving suitable samples, collecting it and giving as detailed summary as one wished, then it could be fun. I don't think giving the data itself would be a problem as long as it is playing bridge so to speak, any extra work is a major annoyance. I don't think this would have much relevance outside top level bridge, I could see long term partners using the magic software. I would certainly use it, since a longtime partner is not needed. What comes to bidding so randomly that someone would digress from the straight and narrow, I don't see why the current "rules" should allow it either. Anyway I find it cumbersome to defend the magic software. I don't wish to answer how this and that could be done since I don't have a clue. This was just wishful thinking.

I have no idea how to do this. I do not expect that the current bridge software could collect and save such data in a useful way. I do not expect anything like that to happen in near future to say the least. However if the data collection is as easy as it is to play in BBO, I would like to test my ranges.

It is about what the common 1NT-range consists. Some disclose 15-17bal, but actually upgrade many 17s to the higher NT-range, never downgrade 18s and upgrade 25% of 14balanced from the 1st position. When taken into account vulnerabilities, positions and sometimes match situation the range spreads even more. I would like to know what opponents actually play, when they claim to have an agreement. I don't think it is wrong to expect evidence for the claim, instead the other way around. How can it even be proved reasonably that the 1NT-range isn't what is claimed. Tactical bids and psyches are artificial names for bids which are wildly out of expected range, maybe they are in the range after all. If you can see the range from data, what more could you want, why would you want to give less.

I suggest that a sample of NT ish hands is given to a pair and see how they actually bid. During a competition as long as the pair stays within the range subject to a statistical test, they are clean. If they deviate too much from the test sample, they have given misinformation and are breaking the rules. I would really like that to see that all agreements would be pretested by a test sample and only then allowed to be used. If you want to use stayman, you better test how you actually use it and follow it. How to actually do all this, no idea. I have a feeling this can't be too difficult to achieve with all the computer techonolgy we have.

In principle I don't have a problem with 737 max. Automatic trim control, which was more or less the reason of the two accidents, can be switched off by one button. The result is manual trim control by the pilots. Even if the manual control of the trim fails the plane should be flyable using the yoke, although it can become very heavy. However if the pilots are unaware how mcas works and how to deal with its fail, then the plane should stay grounded.

My view of full disclosure is give the list of all the possible hands, which match the bidding so far. From this point of view the possible suits are revealed automatically. I do not think that a player can withhold this information, when it is available to himself according to the their coarser agreements. On the otherhand I disagree with the view that a player must reveal so called what if scenarios. However it is sometimes easier to describe what you couldn't have to illuminate what you could have. If you actually have the list of possible hands, what more could you possibly want. Maybe you wish for complete a list of botched cold contracts to weigh whether should you bid or let it go.