TimG

Overall, I like the look of the web version cards better than the windows version. To me, the new version is less cluttered -- I guess I like the white space, it makes things look less crammed. (My resolution is set to 1600x1200 on a 21 inch monitor which may influence my opinions -- I generally make the playing area smaller than BBO default.) My preference would be for all cards to be outlined in black, but I think this is just a matter of getting used to the new way. The inconsistency with whether a portion of the suit symbol (or honor picture) is visible or completely covered by the adjacent card ought to be fixed, but I find it less distracting than the always partially hidden '10' in the windows version. I think I'd like to see a four-color deck always arranged with spades on the left followed by hearts, diamonds and clubs (not to be re-arranged with trumps on the left). But, I'm sure that if this option were offered I would be slow to change because it would take time to get used to, there's an incredible inertia associated with what we are used to.

Mouseover works, though it is not always immediate; I suspect operator error. Thanks.

Making responder declarer in my sample made little difference: Frequency Tricks at notrump (responder): Low 2 5 2 6 28 7 132 8 195 9 118 10 23 11 0 12 0 13 0 Average tricks at NT (responder): 7.924 Frequency Tricks in Spades (6-11) v Tricks in NT (4-10): Low 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 High Sum Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 1 2 3 3 0 0 10 7 0 1 1 14 26 23 8 1 0 74 8 0 0 1 13 78 78 21 1 0 192 9 0 0 0 0 25 83 55 10 0 173 10 0 0 0 0 1 8 31 8 0 48 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sum 0 2 2 28 132 195 118 23 0 500

Frequency Tricks at notrump: Low 1 5 3 6 28 7 133 8 202 9 112 10 21 11 0 12 0 13 0 Frequency Tricks at spades: 5 0 6 10 7 74 8 192 9 173 10 48 11 3 12 0 13 0 Frequency Tricks at hearts: 5 1 6 10 7 78 8 184 9 176 10 48 11 3 12 0 13 0 Average tricks at NT: 7.904 Average tricks at spades: 8.368 Average tricks at hearts: 8.36 Generated 66691533 hands Produced 500 hands Initial random seed 1254176028 Time needed 880.00 sec _____________________________________________________ # south 5=4=2=2 12-13 HCP # north 2=3=4=4 10-11 HCP # Compare tricks in NT, Spades and Hearts # South (opener) s_shape = shape(south, 5422) s_hcp = hcp(south)==12 || hcp(south)==13 s_ok = s_shape && s_hcp # North (repsonder) n_shape = shape(north, 2344) n_hcp = hcp(north)==10 || hcp(north)==11 n_ok = n_shape && n_hcp # double dummy results th=tricks(south,hearts) ts=tricks(south,spades) tn=tricks(south,notrump) # Condition match = s_ok && n_ok condition match generate 100000000 produce 500 # Output action frequency "Tricks at notrump"(tn, 5, 13), frequency "Tricks at spades"(ts, 5, 13), frequency "Tricks at hearts"(th, 5, 13), average "Average tricks at NT"(tn), average "Average tricks at spades"(ts), average "Average tricks at hearts"(th),

I played a robot race last night and was unable to get a description for any of GIB's bids. I tried mouse over, right clicking and left clicking, none seemed to work.

In the 1988 team trials, Meckstroth and Martel both chose to respond one notrump forcing (to partner's one heart opening) holding ♠JT864 ♥964 ♦973 ♣63. Opener rebid two hearts and played there--down at fifty per trick. (I just happened to have read this last night.) I thought it was common to bypass a four- or five-card spade suit to bid a forcing notrump with a minimum or sub-minimum and heart support. I'm reasonably confident I have seen this approach recommended with a six-card spade suit, though that may have been out of the Eastern Scientific context. I think there is a school of thought that one heart - one spade - two clubs - two hearts is a stronger sequence than one heart - one notrump - two clubs - two hearts. Perhaps that is an old-fashioned notion, but I expect it has something to do with the choice made by Meckstroth and Martel.

When I play a session using BBO-WIN, a file of the hands is automatically generated on my computer. I can open that file through BBO-WIN's "Open Bridge Movie from your computer" option. After it has been opened, I can use the printer icon to generate a text file of the session. This text file is very convenient for later review and discussion via e-mail. I can also use the generated Bridge File in an application like Double Dummy Solver to review the hands from a session. What I am asking is if there is a way to generate the Bridge File which contains all the hands from a session when playing via BBO-WEB. I can view individual hand records a couple of different ways, but what I am looking for is a file with all hands from a session or tournament.

I apologize if this has been answered in the past. I recently played a couple of session using the web version. This morning I went to review one of those sessions. The hand records were not in the usual folder: .../bridge base online/hands/timg. I guessed that I had not turned on a logging option in Web-BBO, but upon looking I see no such option. Using "My BBO" then "Hands and results" then "Recent hand" I can find the hand records, but only one hand at a time, not the old "scoreboard" way of browsing through the scores and selecting hands to be viewed. I like that "scoreboard" version because the session could easily be exported to a text file (for convenient e-mail discussion). Is there a way to generate bridge movie files from Web-BBO sessions? Thanks, Tim

Didn't you already know this from the bidding plus first two rounds of clubs?

It counts as a medical bankruptcy in the study cited earlier in this thread.

WJ2005 (A modern version of Polish Club) is available here. This is translation of Krzystof Jassem's book in its entirety.

cherdanno: thanks. I had not noticed, but it does work for me too.

DenisO: my segment column shows "BBO1", "BBO2", "BBO3", "BBO4", "BBOV", "BBO1", etc. I see now that if I resize the pane, the segment column does indeed show the event. Perhaps a different screen resolution on my part would also make a difference (but I have a pretty big screen and the resolution set pretty high, so I'm guessing the event is also hidden to other without the resizing). Fred: yes, this was meant as a suggestion for the vugraph team, not the BBO team.

I should have clarified. I did not mean the data point of 700,000 was widely known, only that the general information that health care bills were a leading cause cited by those filing for bankruptcy was widely known. If you look at the data that Richard linked, you will see that in only 27% of bankruptcies were there "uncovered medical bills exceeding $1000 in 2 years before filing". The data does not give any indication what percentage of the debtor's unpaid bills were uncovered medical bills, nor whether bankruptcy could have been avoided were it not for these uncovered medical bills. The Washington Post article said "we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills". I took that to mean 700,000 bankruptcy filings when I should have understood it to be 700,000 bankruptcy filers plus dependents. On the basis that "uncovered medical bills exceeding $1000 in 2 years before filing" equates to "forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills" and that the numbers include bankruptcy filers and dependents, the 700,000 figure becomes easy to understand.

All the vugraph tables from Sao Paulo are titles "Sao Paulo 2009". I think it would be useful to also put the event (BB, VC, SR) in the table name.

When checking out the results at the other table during a vugraph match, there seems to be no indication of the names of the players at the other table. The best way to find out that I have found is to go to "BBO now" to open the vugraph window and scroll through to find the other table with the names of the players listed. When I am looking through my friends list and right click on a player's name, there is no "join player's table" option unless I have previously opened his profile.

Do you mean: is there a number I could agree upon as fact? Or, do you mean: is it acceptable for there to be medical bankruptcies in an advanced society? If the former, probably not. I don't imagine most bankruptcies have a single cause, but rather many contributing factors. One of the criteria for inclusion as a medical bankruptcy was at least $1000 in unpaid medical bills in the last two years. At that sort of low threshold, many bankruptcies would qualify as a "credit card bankruptcy" a "housing bankruptcy" a "tax bankruptcy" and probably a whole host of other type bankruptcies. If the latter, I think my answer is "yes, it's acceptable". Note that I believe this is very much different from saying anyone should be denied medical treatment because they cannot afford to pay for it.

I find that data unconvincing. It looks to me like any time an injury or illness was a contributing factor the bankruptcy would qualify as "medical".

Is this really true: That seems very high to me even if it were possible to link a bankruptcy to a single cause.

Surely he will know that 3♣ is forcing even if it is not conventional.

I don't like B because if I look at the CC and see a 13-17 range with no special note, I don't want to have to ask the opponents if that range is their true range. To those people who don't like the pro opening 13-14 HCP hands 1NT when the range is stated as 15-17: would you mind if the situation were reversed and the pro stuck to the 15-17 point range while the client took liberties?

I have a note from Butch Campbell at ACBL which says that this approach (one partner systemically opens 1D, the other 1C, when holding 4=4=3=2) constitutes two different methods and would not be allowed in ACBL. Tim

It happened a while ago and then he stopped posting, at least I haven't noticed a 10,001st post.

I don't think the rule about not seeing the last trick after it has been turned is about a memory aid, but rather about transmitting information to partner. A defender, for instance, might be more likely to ask to see the last trick again when he signaled honestly and he thinks his signal is important. Given that, I don't see any reason why online players shouldn't be able to look at the last trick. I do find it odd that the auction remains visible during online play of the hand. While a well timed ftf request for a review might pass information, I think of this rule as more of a memory aid rule.

I agree. You could use an artificial 1♥ response if the 1♦ opening was strong (15+ HCP) and forcing, but not after an 11+ HCP 1♦ even though it is forcing.