thepossum

Apparently this does something David was doing the other day - in R this time - we had problems with Dealer # Set the opening bid range to 15-17 NT opening_bid_range <- c(15, 17) # Set the number of simulations to run num_simulations <- 100000 # Set up counters for the number of times each option wins invite_wins <- 0 jump_wins <- 0 # Set up vectors to store the IMP scores for each simulation invite_IMPs <- numeric(num_simulations) jump_IMPs <- numeric(num_simulations) # Run the simulations for (i in 1:num_simulations) { # Generate a random 15-17 NT hand for opener opener_hand <- generateHandNT(opening_bid_range) # Set the responder's hand to have 8 points responder_hand <- c("AKQJxxx", "x", "xx", "KQxx") # Evaluate the responder's hand in the context of the auction responder_evaluation <- evaluateHandNT(responder_hand, opening_bid_range) # Calculate the probabilities of different outcomes for the invite option invite_made_prob <- 0.35 invite_down_one_prob <- 0.4 invite_down_two_or_more_prob <- 0.25 # Calculate the expected IMP score for the invite option invite_expected_IMP <- (3 * invite_made_prob + (-1) * invite_down_one_prob + (-2) * invite_down_two_or_more_prob) / 2 # Calculate the probabilities of different outcomes for the jump option jump_made_prob <- 0.7 jump_down_one_prob <- 0.2 jump_down_two_or_more_prob <- 0.1 # Calculate the expected IMP score for the jump option jump_expected_IMP <- (2 * jump_made_prob + (-2) * jump_down_one_prob + (-4) * jump_down_two_or_more_prob) / 2 # Simulate the outcome of the auction if (runif(1) < responder_evaluation$probability_of_game) { # Responder jumps to game if (runif(1) < jump_made_prob) { # Jump to game makes jump_wins <- jump_wins + 2 jump_IMPs <- 2 } else if (runif(1) < jump_made_prob + jump_down_one_prob) { # Jump to game down 1 jump_wins <- jump_wins - 1 jump_IMPs <- -1 } else { # Jump to game down 2 or more jump_wins <- jump_wins - 3 jump_IMPs <- -3 } } else { # Responder invites if (runif(1) < invite_made_prob) { # Invite makes invite_wins <- invite_wins + 3 invite_IMPs <- 3 } else if (runif(1) < invite_made_prob + invite_down_one_prob) { # Invite down 1 invite_wins <- invite_wins - 1 invite_IMPs <- -1 } else { # Invite down 2 or more invite_wins <- invite_wins - 2 invite_IMPs <- -2 } } } # Calculate the mean and standard deviation of the IMP scores for each option invite_mean <- invite_wins / num_sim

A strange defence of a non-existent attack. My post needed to be dredge up did it. I think you will it is the educated who hate bureaucratic excess as much if not more - lets say anyone on the receiving end with a brain - that's a lot of people - educated or not I also find it strange that allegedly I posted that in 10 March this year. It seems wrong to me. What was the context. I can't be bothered to check. Maybe I was just having a bad day

Apparently there is already growth in the latest BS (my view) professional (lol) opportunity to become a consultant into how to teach people how to use ChatGPT to produce stuff instead of doing anything creative at all. Maybe they are all ex-crypto consultants. Are there degrees in ChatGPT yet? I appreciate the world when truly lazy and has found ways for anybody to anything apparently. What a scam. If its a big scam there must a payoff or spinoff to some interests somewhere. Like with crypto and countless other degraded markets. Oh you can go to setupyourownuniversity.com and pay us a fee and you are on your way. With a few trainee videos. One big interest somewhere with hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, maybe getting to millions of resellers of the same lazy rubbish. Some people somewhere are extracting very big rent(not sure if the right word) from an asset that really is not theirs. Also I forget the business philosophy that encourages people to think they can hop from one scam to the next at very low cost (I accept that is free market ideal) or from one Federal grants rot to the next with very little effort or care for the consumer either. Where does that philosophy come from. Without being anything akin to an economist or the like (very rusty) it appears to be some kind of market ideal (massive dollars) with a massive failure on the horizon. I believe market theory and ideals require perfect information (for all parties) LOL - on a Bridge site too - and also ideally endless choice from many highly informed providers to highly informed consumers. After many people have raked in their trillions lets find out what the cost is down the track shall we However ChatGPT is providing endless opportunities for recreation. Currently getting it to put itself forward for a difficult R project

I have tried to investigate consciousness and other concepts with ChatGPT. I had my concerns about its self-esteem for starters. Has anyone broken through and made progress with the poor thing What scares me is the way the tech PR machine can sell so much misleading BS(politely) using an ignorant media and even more dumbed down population; and in turn how that flows into questionable interests and motives beyond just making money through big scams I don't see how a dumb algorithm has any dimensions of intelligence at all. Sadly there are interests have tried to reduce humans to just being algorithmic machines ChatGPT and the like are very clever though in a rather scary way

The Law is a strange thing. Sometimes it works and sometimes not. But you (me) are obviously using it for the wrong type of hands. It only applies in situations when it works. I just had what appeared to be a law hand but used a different rule for a better result. But it was only out by one trick. Of course

Indeed Those were the days. Assuming the guy in the front seat with his head in his hands worked for the BBC

Sir Les still needs a content warning

Bid accurately as below and the East bot this time gives you an overtrick Preempt to 4 instead and East finds the diamond lead [HV=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|thepossum,~Mwest,~Mnorth,~Meast|md|3SK4HJ8653DAJ9CQ84,SJ9HQTDKQ872CAK96,SA2HAK972DT54CJ73,SQT87653H4D63CT52|sv|o|rh||ah|Board%201|mb|1H|an|Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20!H;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|3H|an|Limit%20major%20raise%20--%204+%20!H;%2010-12%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|S7|pc|SK|pc|S9|pc|S2|pc|H3|pc|HT|pc|HK|pc|H4|pc|SA|pc|ST|pc|S4|pc|SJ|pc|HA|pc|C2|pc|H5|pc|HQ|pc|H2|pc|D6|pc|H8|pc|D2|pc|CQ|pc|CK|pc|C3|pc|C5|pc|CA|pc|C7|pc|CT|pc|C4|pc|C9|pc|CJ|pc|D3|pc|C8|pc|DT|pc|SQ|pc|D9|pc|D7|pc|D5|pc|S8|pc|DJ|pc|DQ|pc|C6|pc|D4|pc|S6|pc|H6|mc|10|]400|300[/HV] Do we get rewarded for careful consideration and accurate bidding Does that lead difference really come down to a few points in a sim

Initially I thought only rebid hearts but I am leaning towards 2 diamonds Now to read the thread What system are we playing. Just put it through one of my bidding test and South jumped to 2 spades which means 3 diamonds and not 2

"You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em Know when to walk away and know when to run You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealing's done"

I think I would pass. Why compete over 3 spades in that situation Now to see how the hand turned out :) 4 clubs -1 versus 3 spades meh. My brain works in very simple units. You have part score/minus a little; game; and slam And a few simple additional rules - try not to force or double opponent into the bigger scores But the considerations I am reading above in this case are far beyond the computational capacity available to me at a Bridge table I should say also I would quite possibly also have led a club but who knows How do the stats stack up. Where is David? But if its too complex for me to try to write up in a script you have to be happy at your call at the table

Hi I don't use signals with Gib because I don't think it reads anything but my partner gave up two extra tricks for some reason I'm proud that my discards looked systematic at all I used to try high spot attitude but it never seemed to work All I can assume was my bidding suggested chance of high spade

So it's purely down to me bidding 1 point light?

Apologies if this is too annoying a question or too much effort I was one of a few who received a poor MP score due to the North bot leading Spades at trick 8 after winning with the King Other tables with maybe different bidding (eg 2 spades or pass rather than 1 spade) made one or two extra tricks Double dummy South didn't make a defensive error - but obviously I did something to throw the North bot I have been trying to look at all the other hands and see the difference but nothing obvious [hv=pc=n&s=sj76543ht6daq9c62&w=sat2ha7dk2caq9753&n=sq98h8542d753ckt4&e=skhkqj93djt864cj8&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cp1h1s3cp3dp3nppp&p=s8sks3s2h3h6hah8h7h5hkhthqd9d2h4hjs4sth2h9c2dkd3cjc6c3]399|300[/hv]

I spent a few hours reading all this today (including the other thread) Apart from my ignorance of relay systems (irrelevant to my concerns) I am still skeptical I have hopefully a few reasonably intelligent questions 1. It seems that all these things, whether bidding systems or anything complex, require a huge amount of human intelligence to start them off and keep them on track 2. Helene. Do you have the criteria you used to cluster your hands in the first place - I know a little about clustering and "natural language" labelling but it usually requires human selected attributes to start dividing up or clustering your variance :) - I know there are tools that can analyse all kinds of things, pull out patterns and group overlapping variance and maybe come up with a descriptor that means something to a Bridge player - sounds complicated to me - I imagine a very innovative system could come up with descriptors that mean nothing. Maybe they would be forced to break with the WBF and other major bodies and start a rival form of the game with their own directors. One of them tries unsuccessfully to be elected to the rules committee etc 3. Sorry. Do you have a public GitHub project or anything like that? oops 4. While ignorant of relay systems I am a bit less ignorant after today but they still would do my limited brain capacity in sorry 5. As a person occasionally involved in academic modelling - practical and theoretical - I do not mean to be disrespectful at all when I say how we always have to reduce things to some extremely simplified scenario and then eventually (never) make things more complicated and real. At least hopefully it improves knowledge and informs in some way sorry 6. Final question. Have any mainly computer/AI generated systems ever been used at top level competition What will really impress me is the day someone gives a robot the rules of bridge, maybe a few million expert hands, it thinks for a few minutes then wins the world championship with their friend. My final skeptical observation and prediction is that any intelligent robot would observe who wins things and how they bid and play

I always like to test top-rated (AFAIK) Bridge software with some hands Qplus 2/1 ended in 5 spades EDIT apologies. West didn't pass in Qplus

I was going to say 2 spades (without any thought) or 2NT (scrub that - wrong side)). Now reading the thread

I was lucky to be the recipient of a rather ambitious claim once I checked double dummy - just an error methinks - but a welcome 100% For a few moments I almost felt embarrassed at other players in the tourney wondering how I did it PS But think about it as my whisky affected brain kicks in. How many times have humans done it??

I have many thoughts on the matter which are constrained by rustiness of knowledge to critique anything you said, restricted by my politeness, and informed by experience and cynicism (or do I mean skepticism) Maybe one day I will be made to look foolish and arrogant I will wait and read any intelligent comments :) PS You may think I am somewhat flippant and disrespectful. When I have fewer whiskies inside me I will try to understand what you wrote

1 NT is a psych. It didn't affect the contract reached but affected the play on trick 2 - I do accept, given the number of points in a regular pack that maybe East's bid was also a psych EDIT I should be more diplomatic and measured. Even as someone who likes to bid light occasionally and be flexible with hand shapes I think anonymous top's bid was a bit of a stretch even for me :) - I will further add in anonymous top's defence that it has some legitimate NT quality but the top scorer was alone in finding it. I didn't even consider it - still have things to learn as I said EDIT 2. And the way the bid highlights both bidding and play mechanisms with GiB is a curiosity at least to me, if not more experienced old hands. If it can go to slam with only 32 out of around 45-50 points and go for an overtrick with an obvious finesse - sorry not an overtrick - it appears to be missing an Ace but maybe can see a play. Who knows how many Aces there are in the pack anyway

Found this curiosity. Always a bit disappointed when a high scorinng sacrifice by yours truly is outdone by a psych such as this My curiosity is that the psych doesn't affect the bidding, only the play on trick 2 I was pleasantly surprised that I was able to score 71% or something like that with 4HX-4 - I still have stuff to learn though :) [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|anonymous top,~Mwest,~Mnorth,~Meast|md|3SJ73HJT87654DAC72,ST52HDKQ98643CAJ8,SQ9864H932DJ52CQ3,SAKHAKQDT7CKT9654|sv|o|rh||ah|Board%201|mb|P|mb|1C|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20!C;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points|mb|1N|an|One%20notrump%20overcall%20--%202-5%20!C;%202-5%20!D;%202-5%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2015+%20HCP;%2018-%20total%20points;%20stop%20in%20!C|mb|D|an|Penalty%20double%20--%209+%20HCP|mb|2H!|an|Jacoby%20transfer%20--%205+%20!S;%2011-%20HCP;%2012-%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|3D|an|twice%20rebiddable%20!D;%2013+%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|6N|an|3+%20!C;%203+%20!H;%2021%20HCP;%2022%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|HJ|pc|D3|pc|H2|pc|HQ|pc|C5|pc|C2|pc|C8|pc|CQ|pc|H9|pc|HA|pc|H4|pc|D4|pc|D7|pc|DA|pc|D6|pc|D2|pc|HT|pc|D8|pc|H3|pc|HK|pc|SA|pc|S3|pc|S2|pc|S4|pc|SK|pc|S7|pc|S5|pc|S9|pc|C6|pc|C7|pc|CA|pc|C3|pc|CJ|pc|D5|pc|CK|pc|H5|pc|CT|pc|H6|pc|D9|pc|S8|pc|C9|pc|H7|pc|DQ|pc|S6|pc|C4|pc|H8|pc|ST|pc|DJ|pc|DT|pc|SJ|pc|DK|pc|SQ|]400|300[/hv]

Hi all Not sure I will get a response after my last curiosity (to me at least) but why do the scores align perfectly with the auctions Another unexpected top. I don't expect everyone to dredge through every hand - I already tried that and got bored very quickly I apologise for starting to post all my (undeserved) tops - I am genuinely curious as to the reasons [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|thepossum,~~M50834,~~M50832,~~M50833|st%7C%7Cmd%7C1S59TJQH3KAD289CJA%2CS68KH7TD457QKAC9Q%2CS234H268QDJC3578K%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%203%7Csv%7Ce%7Cmb%7C1S%7Can%7CMajor%20suit%20opening%20--%205%2B%20%21S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%7Cmb%7C2D%7Can%7CTwo-level%20overcall%20--%205%2B%20%21D%3B%2010%2B%20HCP%3B%2011-18%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7C2S%7Can%7CFree%20major%20raise%20--%203%2B%20%21S%3B%206-10%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3S%7Can%7C5%2B%20%21S%3B%2016-18%20total%20points%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cmc%7C10%7C]400|300[/hv] Here is the traveller https://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=24204-1681533001-44717737&username=thepossum

According to the card takeouts with GiB only go to game level :lol: But as Tyler said And it appears to be a rather ordinary takeout too 5Hx-5 - even at favourable isn't great I am checking Bridge scoring for dummies - it only goes up to 4 down doubled - but for non dummies apparently they can keep adding 300 and it "gets pretty wild"

I used to care about people getting unfair tops then occasionally I was a recipient of one Then I thought again this isn't real bridge - you don't want to learn bad habits You can get tops with GiB in all manner of ways that may not work with humans

Apparently the answer is to give more count information to your partner than the opps while remaining a semblance of honesty -maybe occasionally some kind of signal is required for honest versus non-honest (absence of honesty - not dishonest of course) count signals I would never suggest anything unethical Occasionally my discards mean something and occasionally not Honest then a-honest. Not for one moment dishonest Sorry but I found signalling curious and amusing - sometimes give count - says someone who would call a director if you dared "psych" by a point or a card here or there Here to learn as always - you may get attitude from me occasionally