thepossum

Sorry I dont have the hand because I refused to play it All I am saying is, 1S, game force 2D (5 diamonds), 2S, 3H (4 of them), 4H (3 of them) I dont play with useless partners or systems if I can help it

Suppose you have a 7-2-2-2 hand vs a 4-3-3-3 hand Surely the distribution of the remaining cards is such to shift the chance of others having a long suit - who knows how much by - I doubt you could assume much about others having similar distributions, but come on it seems obviousl, albeit hard to calculate. It was always a bit depressing when a night seemed to become defined by a boring pack of cards - time to try another one sometimes But then again I imagine boring distributions are the bulk of the bridge deal space with occasional bright interesting patches - much like life, the universe and everything really :) In fact come to think of it, when I watched a video of John Conway discussing surreal numbers he seemed to have a similar philosophy towards infinity, that only a relatively small part of it was interesting - sorry for the paraphrase - apologies, it was more along the lines of levels or types of interestingness of different parts so he concentrated on the most interesting bit There may be something useful in this page by Pavileck on Freakness I heard once that if you had a 13-0-0-0 hand it was likely someone else had a void somewhere Has anyone written anything interesting on shuffling theory :) Maybe an idea (not serious) for bridge software would be to have different shuffling algorithms to make it more interesting (has it been done)

Unless you know what you are doing. Looking at their share price over the years it looks an excellent candidate for trading :) And I believe there are professional traders who spend much of their time trading and being expert in some individual stocks What I am finding interesting (having forgotten my original reading of the trial protocol and design) is whether a mistake has been dressed up as a treatment regimen - but at least if it was a mistake they knew enough about the mistake for it still to be useful :)

I have no idea how I would bid it but a certain bridge program had no problem reaching 6 diamonds with both pairs playing 2/1 1S 2C 2D 2H 2S 3H! 3NT 4D 4S! 4NT 5H 5NT 6D Pass I don't know what all the bids mean and the second round Blackwood etc :)

I did say it was up for review and it was only one regimen, and its only interim results, and I only put it up for interest, and I'm sick of all the media beatups and BS. This is serious stuff reduced to a stupid PR marketing game with politcs and all sorts thrown in for the last 10 months. I actuallyput up a serious article for once You have shares in Moderna and Pfizer or something Cherdano? :) What I am actually interested in, is the very small number of cases from such large trials - all of them - and the nature of the analysis and trust in the results. Will be interesting to read all the final studies. And I was also interested that give or take the issues you mention they are all in similar ballparks :) But bearing in mind the point you raise about different groups (and the small numbers) is it reasonable for me to ask a question what it would/could mean in relation to the two regimens and the overall combined result. I appreciate it may not be appropriate to disucss at that level at this stage

:lol:

Interesting that the interm (still being reviewed) highest effectiveness reegimen of the Oxford/Astra-Zeneka ChadOx01 trial is also of the order of 90%. The other regimen was 62%, combined so far around 70.4% Oxford Astra Zeneca Interim Announcement

Thx Richard I was particularly interested in the area you mention with relation to bidding strategies, especially in different competition types etc One observation, as I browse and try to find what has been done, is that it is, at least to me, rather too skewed towards the engineering/physics side of mathematics. Other aspects of maths are lost, as are all the other relevant disciplines such as psychology. I do think something with as many dimensions as Bridge deserves a more exciting and diverse research focus and literature, but maybe as you say all those who would be interested or capable of writing such literature are more interested in playing. I also didn't realise they were actually prevented from doing it too. Thx for the ref to NUKK-AI. From what I can see they are looking at explanation of AI as part of their stuff. Thats an area I actually have a little experience in from the start of my career (too long ago to mention). Its good to see a slightly different focus. I find the attention of so many methods in certain types of simulation and algorithms actual loses a large part of a problem/application area. I think that is the case is so many areas of analytics. I have, elsewhere, expressed concerns about the way certain technical disciplines have taken control of so many areas of life, or are restricting thought, and discussion. I have a few more thoughts or questions. Still editing if you wonder where my comments went. There are many things I would like to say on this and so many other areas but I am finding I need extra caution everywhere these days :)

Thx everyone. I realise it was something of an unusual hand but I felt there seemed a good chance of something and was actually (possibly) headed to No trumps with the right responses

Sorry if its not relevant but I saw cue bid and thought it may be an appropriate place to mention a wonderful 4th level cue bid over a weak 3-level overcall that forced me to 5-level game in a very weak major opening suit. What can you do?

It's strange how certain interests/tendencies in the world have flipped the meaning of so many political concepts over recent years And, as is very common with some of them, they are so used (in their circles) to asserting everything as facts unchallenged they keep doing it :) All I know is that the values I have had from being a child right up to now have not changed substantially, but my poliitcal leaning has supposedly completely moved The definition of conservative in that link sounds very close to what many left and progressive people used to believe etc And the label authoritarian is being used by the most authoritarian tendei to attack those who believe in people's rights, freedoms and liberty. I wonder if it's tied to having to grovel to, pander to, or have become excessively dependent on a different powerful State in the world I for one find it a bit alarming especially when those changing definitions have tended to rely on authority in the past But whatever happened to smashing the state Many so called progressive tendencies in their attack on those who value freedoms and rights have actually deserted the UN Declaration on Human Rights for starters. Although having read it recently to remind myself that it still said what I thought it did, it only seems to apply to men :) but I always took it in the spirit I thought intended that it means everyone (sorry just found an updated version)

Just a different philosophy when looking for a partner - or assessing myself to put myself forward as one :)

Hi all I think I am entitled to feel somewhat peeved with this, despite only having 1 diamond [hv="https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|thepossum,~~M996vif9,~~M1413tmc,~~M2022t8x|md|2SAQ9HA54D3CAKQ875,ST732HKT32DCJT432,SKJ6H98DAKJ9875C9,S854HQJ76DQT642C6|sv|b|rh||ah|Board%204|mb|P|mb|1D|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20!D;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|2C|an|Forcing%20two%20over%20one%20--%20biddable%20!C;%2014+%20total%20points;%20forcing%20to%203N|mb|P|mb|2D|an|Opener%20rebids%20suit%20--%205+%20!D;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points;%20forcing%20to%203N%20|mb|P|mb|4N|an|Blackwood%20(D)%20--%203+%20!D;%20biddable%20!C;%2020+%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|5S|an|Two%20or%20five%20key%20cards;%20queen%20--%205+%20!D;%2011-21%20HCP;%20!DQ;%2012-22%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|5N|an|Query%20kings.%20Have%20all%20keycards.%20Does%20not%20promise%20extras%20--%203+%20!D;%20bid|mb|P|mb|6D|an|No%20king%20(below%20D)%20--%205+%20!D;%2011-21%20HCP;%20!DQ;%2012-22%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|C6|pc|CA|pc|C2|pc|C9|pc|D3|pc|H3|pc|D7|pc|DT|pc|S5|pc|S9|pc|ST|pc|SJ|pc|DJ|pc|D4|pc|C7|pc|S2|pc|D8|pc|DQ|pc|C8|pc|C3|pc|H6|pc|HA|pc|H2|pc|H8|pc|C5|pc|CT|pc|DK|pc|H7|pc|DA|pc|D2|pc|H4|pc|S3|pc|D9|pc|D6|pc|H5|pc|S7|pc|S6|pc|S4|pc|SQ|pc|CJ|pc|CK|pc|C4|pc|H9|pc|S8|pc|CQ|pc|HT|pc|D5|pc|HJ|pc|SK|pc|HQ|pc|SA|pc|HK|]400|300[/hv] I considered going to 6NT but people struggled in NT, some missed out on 6 clubs (I dont like to compete with partner) and as far as I can see if my partner had the promised Queen and the break had been 4-1 (not5-0) it would have made 6D regards P PS Before anyone tells me - but you were commiting to 6D with my 4NT, the title of my post relates to RKCB. However it was the lie about the Queen that upset me - I had other options in my mind too. Come to think of it are then any documented escapes from Blackwood or RKCB or has all the space for escaping been used up?

I hate to say it but a title like that won't get many good offers :)

Thx Richard. I'm starting to get a greater understanding on how they work with the simulations etc Regarding the Game Theory stuff, I referred indirectly to your name being someone interested in that area. Has much been written yet :) I know you may not want to talk about your own research interests but if you can point me toward anything I would be interested What crossed my mind in relation to analysing behaviour in tournaments is how hard it would be to incorporate that level of behavioural change into any algorithm for simluating real tournament play and/or detecting changes Sorry for keeping on editing and adding extra stuff, but I think about things after I've posted. In any tournament the real set of possible scores is essentially what happens with that group of people is it not?

I did mention I was aware partly of Nic's work and how its being used but do not know enough to discuss it any further. What I am curious about is how that could be done (if its not CIC etc). Is this case is it if play is too similar to DD rather than how a player would genuinely play Excuse my ignorance of that specific issue but it was the nature of my thread in that DD has both teams knowing all their cards whereas when we play normally we would have say standard leads, based on bidding and contract, signals, working out the lay of the cards as we go etc. But to be honest I don't know enough about how DD is implemented. It just crossed my mind that the best comparator rather than us all looking at DD scores would be (if feasible - which I know its not) a hypothetical play (bidding and card play) between two expert pairs. I know that was mentioned above in the thread :) Note, another thing I remember reading (as I said Ive been very tired recently) a few years ago when I first started getting back to Bridge and understanding computer bridge was how DD had actually impacted on the theory of how the game is played, and even the way cards tend to be played now. I cant remember which paper apologies (may have been one of the original Ginsberg GiB papers :)) Something I find a bit frustrating, maybe just the nature of where papers are published and the majority of people working in the space, is that they are extremely technical (in terms of detail of the maths and algorithms/techniques used), and very little is written at a more accessible level. My brain isnt really up to that level of maths these days (if it ever was) I'm actually very interested in any literature about the whole philosophy of, approach to computerised Bridge - if anyone has good refs Just as an example, because of the way the computerisation is simplified (by necessity) into full information simulations, that is problamtic in intself in analysing how human's actually play the game when it is about communication, building up a picture through the game, simple initial assumptions etc. Apologies for not having delved into the code or methods to know how they are actually implemented, and for trying to think out loud. But there seems something of a philosophical disconnect between the real game and sophisitcated hi-powered analytics and simulations I'm also trying to read stuff related to the different types of Bridge and how those more game-theoretic type factors could come into play. As I said, all well beyond my brain but interesting in finding dummies' guides :) Whenever I search for things like Bridge and Game Theory a certain person's name keeps popping up, and I'm very nervous showing my ignorance in present company :)

They are often used as a comparator in terms of how people have played. For example, I read an article a while ago (by Matthew Kidd) relating to analysis of slams bid and made and he used DD potential slams as comparison. And its highly educational the percentages of slams (from potential DD slams) made by different level players I believe DD is the most widely used comparator when I read analyses Oh, nearly forgot. I also often like to play with different hands that people have posted (especially leads or sometimes bidding) and see how different packages simulate (I presume most of them are variants on DD simulations) and how leads differ/compare to expert leads and plays etc ATM I have bddeal/bcalc/blead (Beling), but also have looked at WBridge, QPlus, and afew other champion computer bridge packages. I was actually very interested in all the theory and tried to find papers, but havent looked for a few years :) When my brain was working better I was starting to think about how they could be made better, different approaches. Also was interested in game theory etc etc. And most recently, and most topical have been following discussion on Nic Hammond's work I had a long life/career/interest in all things mathematical/computational/modeling/AI/statistical/predictive/anything (in very many application areas), and Bridge was a recreation I learned many years ago (and came back to more recently via BBO) so maybe call it quasi-professional, post-professional, semi-retired professional, exhausted professional hobby research and interest :) I certainly have no energy to try and do much (in case anyone was worried). I had been considering trying to write articles on anything and everything under the sun but never find time or energy. So prefer just to chat about it instead. And, also in case anyone wonders or is cocnerned, I spent most of my time out in (I could say the real world) rather than academe so you wont find my name on many things ( a few obscure/specialist papers here and there and buried in some old source code repositories perhaps) :) But, I have always seen myself as a team/partnership player so hopefully nobody is at all concerned about my interest and contributions, However I will go so far as to say I also regard myself as a seriously cocnerned citizen about many things so may occasionally come across as something of a skeptic or devil's advocate on many issues. But Bridge and games are just a hobby If anyone wants to contact me (who doesn't know my name) with any concerns about me or my interests they are welcome to do so, but since I hav no Interest at all in Bridge/Bridge software and methods I prefer not to have my name on any posts. That goes for all my non-professional contributions everywhere. They are just conversation. But my identity is hardly a secret and as I said, anyone (who has a trusted name) can contact me if they have any cocnerns about me at all. But my concerns about this world and the power of many intersecting interests. Those concerns are both very personal and also professional/professionally informed. So I hope everyone will understand and respect me keeping my identity to private communication. There is a saying that knowledge is power. Well these days there seems to be power that trumps knowledge

I use Bridgesolver to analyse most of my hands (and sometimes others') to see where I (or often Gib) went wrong :) Or maybe more correctly with GiB to see where a simulation differs from DD I also download into Double Dummy Solver

I wouldn't claim to be a statistics expert either and my peers have not recognised me at that level. However I thik due caution is still due irrespective of all the above. I also have serious concerns (without suggesting impropriety) about a certain wild west approach to biotech during 2020. I also find such small numbers worthy of due suspicion/challenge/question/diligence/whatever And yeah things may be Bayesian but we started off knowing absolutely nothing only a few months ago

I apologise if I ever accidentally dropped in. I only recently realised that the "Take me to first seat available" option drops you into all manner of difficult situations - people waiting for people, people ending their session, or as in your case a temporary "free" seat. It can be a bit embarassing for the person dropping in too :) Some people have asked me to leave nicely, sometimes its a bit embarassing, seometimes people even played a hand they clearly didnt want to, but it can be awkward

I was randomly browsing and found a Spotify list of David Gilmour's favourite guitarists. But I ended up listening to a list of David Gilmour's top solos instead. Currently my mood is Dogs from Animals. In fact the whole of Animals. Takes me back to another dark time when it came out

Thx. As I said, I just found the Nature article and was checking on the numbers related to above discussions Relating to Ebola though, we are not talking about vaccinating a whole planet in quick time, so I imagine it has proved practical to have the mobile refrigerated units (or however it is done) for relatively small outbreaks of a very different virus type

EDIT Still being edited. Apologies. Too many things happening at once I haven't had chance to read any studies recently, I'm rather tired and a bit rusty and any comment I make would be a personal view and nothing else. But I'm seriously concerned about the way this is being played out in the media. And without even thinking or analysing anything comparing 90/15000 with 5/15000 wouldn't fill me with any excitement. Thats of course just thinking about the those low figures crudely and without any further information which could make them look more significant. Who knows about the details of the sample and the cases etc. It would take much more reading and understanding of the study. The fact insiders have been selling shares on early market excitement is interesting too Another point of personal cocnern I have (in terms of practicality and justice) is any vaccine requiring -80(??) degree refigeration. Maybe in certain specialised environments but from a global response perspective it concerns me a bit EDIT Apologies getting two trials mixed up in the chat so hope the following two articles clarify. Here is a recent article about Moderna in Nature Moderna Nature Article Note, just reading an article in Nature saying the Pfizer trial needs to get to 164 cases overall for results to start to be more exciting (my words)

I understand for some, knowing loads of (to me) unnecessary bidding gizmos is interesting and cool. I find GiB overloaded with them. A simple 3C club bid would have sufficed, and mysteriously other bidding systems seem to find that dibd without any trouble at all :) And another system got to, I believe a quite makeable 2NT etc - althought it didnt make that :) They are all just part scores give or take a trick so who cares For me, the game is about something else other than having my head filled with over-technical systems and gizmos. We are all different :) Apologies - the whole world has gone that way, seemingly every discipline has gone that way. I'm just a bit old fashioned and feel excessive technicality and/or technology ruins so many things

The option I needed wasnt there. That is. I don't have a clue what is is, and why GiB occasionally bids it. I have read extensively and am none the wiser. So I called it a useless gadget Note. I think what annoys me most is the stupidity and meaninglessness of the name of the gadget What actually is impossible? What is it telling me is impossible? A spade contract? A no trump contract? Anything else impossible? As far as I can see in the only article that comes close to explaianing anything it means. "I've bid spades but because I previously bid 1NT you think its impossible. Well its not actually. I have a few and just bid them" Couldn't a preferred name be the Unlikely spade. The Improbable Spade, along those lines