pilowsky

Which is the bizarre bit? "running the cruises or recommending this Keycard Blackwood."?

What you have discovered is the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern phenomenon as reported by Tom Stoppard - The Stoppard convention - as in I have a "Stoppard in all the suits". Here is a link. The odds of a coin always coming up heads or tails. Or if you are always getting the best cards (except of course in a best-hand tournament where coincidentally, you will also be South, and you will also get the worst robot as a partner) are so ludicrously small that if you did then you could reasonably conclude, as did Rosencranz and Guildenstern, that you were dead. Not to be confused with the lesser-known Rosenkranz double or redouble or the reverse Rosenkranz. Either way, you're going to be in trouble.

Today I received an email advertisement from a popular bridge writer whose style I did not like very much but whose information content has helped me. In light of this email, I will not be dealing with this person in the future. I personally consider it racist and offensive in the extreme. you be the judge. "I hope this finds you all healthy and safe. The local government is banning meetings of 50 people or more for the summer and bridge players are the most vulnerable to the Wuhan Chinese virus, so sadly I am cancelling the Trail Summer sectional for July 2020." I also find it remarkable that the writer is sad about protecting the health of the individuals from whom the writer's income depends. Oddly some of those clients are likely to be Chinese given the location of the writers Club.

I've had my suspicions about the North robot for a while now, but yesterday I really began to worry when he alerted his pass to the opponents. Here it is. And before you ask, I got 6% for 3NT making. 3NT+1 makes (Bo Haglund 86/175 players) but 70 people found +2. For some reason, North GIB decided to alert the pass in all of these auctions. A bit of passing whimsy?

Even John Atthey who started playing aged ten would be more than doubly embarrassed since he became a grandmaster at 26 - 2.6 times later. Mind you Magnus Carlsen had to wait until he was 13 to become a grandmaster - which just proves that chess is 24/13 ~1.8 times easier than Bridge. Makes sense really since there are half as many people at the table. Thanks for the correction .

Since my friend Spade7 was asking about Bridge World the other day, I thought I would reproduce this famous rejection letter on its 85th anniversary. THE BRIDGE WORLD May 24, 1935 Mr. R.E.Blackwood Room 1411 11 South Meridian St., Indianapolis, Ind. Dear Mr. Blackwood! We read your article with interest and enjoyment, but we fear that we cannot use it in the Bridge World. While the suggestion is a good one, the four-no-trump bid will remain informative rather than an interrogative bid and our subscribers are too prone to accept anything printed in the Bridge World as a recommended change in the Culbertson system, unless it is specifically part of another known system. We hope that you will at some time submit another manuscript to us for, judging by the merit of this one, we are sure that we can make use of it. Yours sincerely, The Bridge World Albert H. Morehead Editor Easley Blackwood Snr (June 1903- March 1992) was amongst many other things Executive Secretary of the ACBL. His son Easley Blackwood Jr is a noted musician. In 1949, fourteen years later, the convention had been mentioned in fifty-seven books and translated into seventeen languages. Edited in light of the eagle-eyed Brian and friends (slightly embarrassed emoticon)

From today: - my mother always said I was very trying... Partner (Private): The first few hands i need to be dummy Partner (Private): Did not think this through so I have a loaf of bread in the oven Partner (Private): It should be done in about 8-12 minutes →Table: we have to play slowly - Partner has a bun in the oven Partner→Table: it's out of the oven East→Table: Is she pregnant? →Table: excellent Partner→Table: Hardly, unless it's a miracle in many ways West→Table: Haaaaaaa Partner→Table: I am baking bread Paul is just trying to be funny

One of the first things I learned about publishing is to never make the title of your paper a question because the answer is always no. So it did not surprise me at all when I saw a post entitled "what is normal in SAYC?" that everyone has a different opinion. There is, of course, no "correct" answer. The "best" answer is surely the answer that gives the best score. Since we can only be certain what that answer is after we have seen all of the hands (double-dummy), it follows, that there cannot be an answer to the question "What is normal?". It's a bit like asking what is the best form of government to prevent a tidal wave? The question provokes heat but no light.

Thank you - that's very helpful. I have noticed that very clearly when playing a hand that results in the same contract for NS that players with a prime badge will get one type of lead whereas players without will get another. This was a little annoying until I got hold of the Bo Haglund double-dummy App for Chrome. Now at least I can find out what makeable contracts were available and what the optimal outcome was. As for total numbers, I don't think that 16 is enough to fully parameterise a normal distribution. At least 24 would be needed to avoid type I/II errors. I can understand why in Daylong tournaments we do not all play the same boards to prevent cheating, but by the same token, an individual player needs to aim for a large tournament so that each hand is played a sufficient number of times to avoid sampling error in the outcome.

Can someone verify this information, please? It seems to be true when I play hands in the prime area. It would be great if hands were confined to the same area of bbo and the same scoring approach where possible.

No Stephen. We are not free to do 'whatever we want'. We should think carefully before we do or say stuff. Jack Lang the former Premier of NSW once remarked "Never write a letter and never throw one away" think about that next time you consider making a post.

Your insight is misguided Stephen, and I do not believe that it has any bearing on the OP. Instead it seems to be a rather weak ad hominem attack. I really do not understand why you bother it rolls as they say off my back like a duck. The purpose is not to make 'terrible bids' and then post the 'successes'. I happily pointed out that the system was a car crash. This is obvious from the start because I was playing one system but the robot was playing another system. Clearly, if I am speaking German and the robot is speaking Maori then very little communication is going to take place. Do you follow? In fact, the true purpose of the experiment was to test a different method of bidding to see whether or not it could be adapted to real-life use. At the same time, I had a bit of fun. Is this going to continue for much longer?

I bet the North robot is losing

that is, of course, a testable hypothesis.

I often end the day by playing a few hands in the Prime Club to sharpen up my play or to practice some different ideas and compare them with the way that others play them. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to download the data from the 'Other Tables' as a single lin or pbn file that I can then take to other software for deeper analysis. Or am I missing something?

So when I use Chrome and see "https://www.bridgebase.com/v3/" in the browser tab. Which version am I using? BBO link on Chrome

Ok, since I realised that in a best hand tournament against robots I always have the best hand - obviously. I thought I would try a new bidding system - Standard Australian. All 1 level openings 11-14 All 2 level openings except 2♣ usual weak 2's 1NT 15-18 any shape at all 2NT 19-22 any shape at all 3NT 23+ any shape at all So what to do with 2♣? Well, if the wind is blowing in the right direction and I have a middling hand with some diamonds I might try 2♣. Otherwise - Not used. Today I get this hand. going 3NT-1 for 61.1% at the moment. Here's the link Here's the double dummy I was tempted briefly by 4♥ but with what looked like 4 losers and the notoriously unreliable North robot as a partner I decided against it. The West robot is a much more advanced player and led the ♥2, which his junior colleague sitting East was very satisfied with. Of course the rest of the tournament looks like the usual car crash. [hv=pc=n&s=saqt2hakjt73djt7c&w=s64h8542da32ca964&n=s98h9dq6ckqj87532&e=skj753hq6dk9854ct&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1np3nppp]399|300[/hv] In case you're wondering, the explanation for "3NT" is 2-5♠, 2-5♦, 2-4♥, 2-4♣ and 10-15 HCP!

Well, just fwiw while waiting for my apples to cook I pumped the options through BBO GIB here they are: 1♣ X 1NT PPP best lead for opps gives 1NT= +50 EW link 1♣ X 3♣ PPP any lead gives 3♣-1 =-50 EW link I wasn't sure what was supposed to happen after 2♣ so here is 1♣ X 2♣ 2♥ 3♣ 3NT PPP link obviously bad How about 1♣ 1NT PPP = +50 link But the best news is that now I added the bridge solver add-in to Chrome: here is the link! Thank you John Goacher and Bo Haglund

All the time - but oddly, my results are just as bad. I might start playing with a blindfold on.

So, when I followed the GIB double-dummy from the original link down the rabbit hole, I came to this position which looked rather good to me. Now EW has no way to prevent 7NT. As you say - anything is possible - afterwards.

Here's two to get you started - both real, from last week. Private to TDDavid> is there a vaccine against bridge? Private from TDDavid [TD]> and not against bridge players Private to TDDavid> Take as Director'd Private from TDDavid [TD]> lol - that has ruined me Private to Matt> is bridge a contact sport? Private from Matt> No contract.

I used the position of substitute in order to increase my TCR so that I could gain experience and learn about tournaments. Otherwise I would not be allowed into tournaments at all. "Throw" is charming language though, remind me not to be a guest at your house . As any sociologist will tell you the point of a social contract is that both parties gain something in roughly equal measure. Even substitutes.

♣I think there is a nice squeeze available if played properly at the end of this but I got nowhere near it. Be grateful for advice. Here's the link Here's the hand: from a BBO daylong - I'm south EW vul East dealer - The consensus bid for South was, I think, 2♣. with all kinds of different contracts. I went for something a bit more agricultural, but my skills were not up to it: 5.36%. Double-dummy has a nice result. [hv=pc=n&s=sajt2hakq8daj9ca5&w=s965h942dt652ct62&n=sk874hjt5dq8ckj97&e=sq3h763dk743cq843&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp]399|300[/hv]

Thanks - that was a question that has been bugging me. Sorry about Alderaan.

As a beginner playing 3+ ♣ as the opener, I would go for 3♣ as the responder. I would do this assuming that the double by North narrows my partners point range to 11-14, and we're not vulnerable, I have 7HCP and 4♣. With 18 HCP EW (at least), this makes it hard for South to make a call. Hrothgar is a much better player than me though so he's probably right. Mind you Prozac is an excellent drug: "The more amines you have the happier you are".