Povratnik

Have I "exceeded the limits on active PK-challenge"? The system says I have... How I've done it and what are the consequences?

How the opener could know that the transfer bid has been self alerted?

Something weird is happening with my account and that indirectly means: Something weird is happening in GROUP B - Earlier today, I challenged Natali_ and Garant_7 - Later in the evening, I found both challenges accepted and I played both - My match with Natali_ has gone, while the match with Garant_7 still stands, with red light That suggests hypothesis A - Natali_ has played, while Garant_7 haven't played yet - I haven't got any results, so I have no official links to post That suggests hypothesis B - they both accepted my challenges, but haven't played yet - In my "Recent Hands" section, the last 32 boards seemingly represent these two matches and have results in IMPs That suggests hypothesis C - They both played Obviously, at most one of these (seemingly well grounded) hypotheses is right... Anyway, it seems that I lost the Garant_7 match by 4 IMPs and won the Natali_ match by 10 IMPs (O course, it's NOT an official report...)

It's answered here, by barmar

There are worse situations... [hv=pc=n&s=sahkj97datcaq9642&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=3sp4s]133|200[/hv] <_<

I also have no intention to complain, but I have to ask something, out of sheer curiosity... Last few weeks, I am frequently asked am I there, even if I am playing at the moment. So the server that serves my play, of course "knows" that I am playing. However, another server "sees" my inactivity and asks me if I'm there. What would be exact explanation of the issue?

I tried to answer only the second half of the poll (until I think a bit about the first question), but server didn't let me. Voted for 'best hand' because of two facts: - it is much more pleasant - with best hand, the advantage of GIB experts is not as big as in match with many defending boards However non-best hand also has it's virtues. I am really not sure which option is better for competition... And yes, of course - I'm in

Another two cents is coming... mythdoc, I have a comment on virtually each statement you wrote. Please don't get it unfriendly in any way, because it is not. I feel, in some aspects, very similarly; yet I am very strongly against shortening the format. I hope you'll understand me in a right way. Not trying to start a discussion, I am just trying to show a different perspective... (And that is of course only optional for you) I think I had to play 9x16 hands in the first round. That isn't much for the time frame usually given by smerriman. If that had been 9x12, I think I could have done so without wearing down as much. If that had been 9x12, I think I would be even more exhausted. The point is - I think the reason for your wearing down is tense, not the time spent in game. Shorter matches mean more randomness (of results) and therefore more tense... It’s a very long format event, too long, in my opinion. Only for those ones who pass to another stage. This isn’t the Bermuda Bowl. This is by far the strongest individual tournament I know about. Out of all that ordinary BBO member like me can afford, it's something closest (in seriousness) to Bermuda Bowl. Additionally, I didn’t realize until about the fourth match that I could leave the table when I pleased, lol. I had a similar experience :D. After being significantly relieved, I continued to play matches in one session, though. That's most probably wrong (perhaps for you, too). Anyway, there’s plenty of bridge to play on BBO, whatever one wants. IF you have an adequate partner(s). I don't. Many don't. I recommend you to play at least once more (in the same format). I am not promising you'll not be worn down (actually you will be). But I believe you'll not be so unsatisfied by the fact... And for the end - a question that is probably more worth than all statements so far: nige1 and Stephen Tu obviously play very, VERY easily. And pretty well, if you ask me. Maybe they have some shareable secret?

I was talking about this very hand, where it's virtually impossible for my LHO to pass

Huh, I don't know what to say... The answer to your question is pretty much in the paragraph after which you asked why; I would have to repeat some parts of the text. It might be my bad English. And yes, 1♠ is beyond obvious, if que bid and double are out of the question. But they aren't...

Why? I mean - why are you spending these useful bids on such a thing as raising partner's two cards long suit? What is the purpose of 2♣ and 3♣ bids for you? Why ? I expressed (or implied) several opinions in my post. Don't know which one is addressed by your "why". If you had in mind my post as a whole, I could try to explain, but it will be much easier (and clearer) if you ask more specific question(s). (Perhaps I can say one thing now (though I thought it's obvious) - my diamond bid means: "Bid your better major".) * * * That general structure beautifully applies on major suits. Less beautifully on diamonds. Not beautifully on clubs... Can't calculate the probabilities right now, but intuitively, I think that you'll have the right distribution in less than one time in twenty. That's too seldom. (Right distribution - six clubs with 322 or 331 in other suits) That's not the strongest reason, but it would be impractical for me to write a novel, not knowing your system and trying to cover all possibilities. Could you tell me what 2♣ and 3♣ bids mean in your system?

A splinter with TWO shortnesses? A splinter without established (or at least implied) fit? I can't say it's bad (now), since neither of the ideas has/have ever crossed my mind... 1♠ is a very plausible bid, but I'm still surprised by such overwhelming 'win' in this 'poll'. If I played with robot, or with some random 'one evening' human partner, I'd also bid 1♠. However, in any kind of real partnership, I'd bid diamond. 2♦, 3♦ or 4♦, depending on specific and overall partnership agreements.

Slightly off topic, but I'll be very short: Madam, I know nothing about Ron Klinger's treatment of 2NT openers. Are there a free resource where I can read about that?

Therefore, an advanced one is more dangerous for the partner ;)

My understanding isn't much deeper, but I FEEL much better B-)... Thanks for all answers

I consider myself a VERY fluent English reader, but the fact that it's not my native language sometimes takes it's toll... I don't fully understand section 2.1 d: By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either three cards or more, or two cards or less in a specified suit Do ALL native English speakers perfectly understand this? Can somebody explain it to the rest of us?

You should post the whole auction (and vulnerabilities, your hand etc.)... I don't see any blunder made by program. If the robot was in balancing position after opponents' 2♥, he perhaps (but only perhaps) made a mistake by passing, but nobody could call it a blunder without knowing the whole auction...

- it's not about the question whether a slam should be played - it's not about 6♣ vs 6♥ question - it's not about my opinion about the auction and comments about certain bids (though bid 5♣ is really provocative) - it's not about this hand at all (btw, I'm South, robot is North) - it's not even about the known fact that both bid tips and my understanding of them are far from perfect It's about something that looks like serious misinformation (at least to my severely imperfect self)... The phrase "no AK♥" theoretically can have two meanings: a) I don't have both cards b) I have neither The fact that North has claimed at least eleven black cards totally eliminates meaning a), so the meaning b) remains (especially after my cue bid 5♥). So the robot twice repeats "I don't have K♥". That's not stupidity nor insanity, that's a system error. What am I missing?

So your choice has nothing with strength and slam interest, it's based on distribution exclusively... It's pretty complicated, I need to think a bit. For now, I see an obvious flaw - 4♠ is frequently played by wrong hand. Don't yet see a benefit that would make up for that. An example hand would be useful... You don't separately mention distributions with 5♥3♠ and 3♥5♠. It seems 5♥3♠ is included in 3♦, but I'm not sure whether is 3♥5♠ included in 3♣ or 3♥...

Maybe it's off topic, but I am curious about your base* criteria. Tried to deduct it, but failed. * base criteria: With what kind of hand you bid 3♣ and with what kind of hand you bid 3♦ (Muppet discovers any major fit and it is always played by right hand. Obviously it's something about slam possibilities, but I failed to grasp exactly what...) Could you give some example hands?

Group C Povratnik 5.5 : 10.5 smerriman boards I've lost the match heavily, but learned a pseudo squeeze I couldn't dream about. Thank you smerriman!

As North, I'd easily pass. As South I'd bid 1♦, if I knew that we have 9 diamonds and they have 8 clubs. But in practice, I of course wouldn't know that. So I'd pass as South, hoping that partner has at least 4 clubs. I think the mathematical expectation strongly suggests pass...

Group C Povratnik 8 : 8 joe0 boards

Group C el mister 9.5 : 6.5 Povratnik boards

Group C Povratnik 8 : 8 hrothgar boards