pilowsky

I've used G3NT a few times with Argine and only once did it respond 4♣p/c I'm still not certain what criteria it uses to decide. With a human partner would you still pass with the South hand?

Why is 20,000 the maximum for the free daylongs. "Free Daylong (MP) 2023-03-21 - in. - running - 20,000 - Free" ===> "Could not register - maximum number of registrants reached.

3♦ for me.

Yours for a mere $35.00.

Wee bit optimistic opening 1♠ perhaps?

Probably 2NT forcing for me. Also since this is a GIB discussion - and on the question of "what would the robots do?" - it would be interesting to include a four robot table result for each hand in the daylongs and challenges.

Sorry for the dysclarity (?!). The previous thread was about the value of transfers after a 1NT opening. AFAIK transfers came about long before DDS's When pescetom and others ran some basic sims it appeared that the advantage to using transfers was minimal at best. I suspect that for most people the advantage would be lost in the noise. If the advantage is really small it raises the question: If we don't use transfers would the alternatives be more useful ('useful' being a whole different problem to define). To the novice player, one disadvantage of the transfer/Stayman system is that responder can't use 2♣/♦ to mean a weak hand with 5 ♣/♦. If nothing else, your approach might help to put a factual base under the "well this is what everyone does around here" arguments. The law problem is really interesting also. The rule (guideline) of 17 - which I assume is law-based - helps to set contracts after a preempt, but your approach could help at the margins to locate sets of hands where the law tends to crumble so these can be identified and managed. Current attempts to deal with this using Ogust and feature-asking may be helpful but don't seem to have a solid statistical underpinning.

A while ago the ACBL gave out free membership on BBO. I don't know how many non-residents of USA or Canada took it up but the impossibility of accessing the full suite of ACBL activities didn't encourage renewal. Also, many US and Canadian residents don't have the physical wherewithal to abseil down El Capitan with a canoe on their back in their spare time. So being able to play Bridge from home would be a big plus for this large and growing group of players.

[hv=pc=n&e=s62hj9742dt97c872&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p2cp2np3sp4n(Quantitative%20invite%20to%20slam)p6ndppp]133|200| What lead does the double suggest? And btw, how does North investigate a slam in spades using ArgAcol?[/hv]

And I thought autotune killed music.

No, never heard of it but

There are so many interesting questions that could be addressed with this approach. I would be interested in seeing answers to 'real-world' questions. For example: There was a recent discussion about the value of 'right-siding' in 1NT contracts. Received wisdom from pre-computer days is that there is a huge advantage to using transfers. Is this true? Concerning 1NT vs 5CM Suppose opener has 15-17 and a 5CM, will the DD optimal contract be reached more often after opening 1M or 1NT? Suppose opener is in 3rd or 4th seat: is the answer still the same? Does it matter if opener uses 14-17 (or anything else)? Does the vulnerability matter? On the question of opening points. HCP+spades=15 is commonly used as a guideline in 4th seat. Assuming that the goal is to reach a makeable contract DD, should this be a lower or higher. For that matter, is opening with 10, 11 or 12, and in which seat, and at which vulnerability, most likely to lead to winning DD contract.

Are there any other aspects of a woman's health that you want the courts/government to have sovereignty over?

It's like doing laps in a swimming pool or reciting Latin verbs (I'm reliably informed). Good practice and a bit soothing. I play a close approximation of GIB 2/1 IRL and find practicing with robots (with the non-best hand mode to reduce the psyching advantage in daylongs) handy for improving my card memory.

A surprisingly large number of games that aren't Bridge fly under the radar. You'll all be delighted to know that this year is (drum roll) Luke.With a score of 1-0 in 5 rounds. His surname is shrouded in mystery.

Define "modern-day curricula".

The behaviour of the most skilled practitioner in any field is imitated by all players that aspire to improve their game. There's no heuristic value in claiming that the top players can play blindfold with one hand in a bucket of hot water if the impact of that claim is that improving players then insist that West has an unfair advantage because they are acting in a manner that is different to that set out in the rules. This is a particular problem with Bridge. In Bridge there are so many ambiguous rules that situations that occur in almost every tournament still arise as questions in this forum. Mike states "While the Laws may say that declarer has to follow the card placement rule, I can't imagine anyone taking exception to a declarer playing with played tricks..." Or to put it another way, "yes, I know it says no stopping your honour, but there was no-one else there so what does it matter". There are 'rules' that can be broken: cover an honour with an honour, the rule of 17, never lead away from an Ace. But it's dispiriting to new players when there are rules that are written in the evanescent laws that have no impact on the game, no consequences when broken and are a constant source of uncertainty amongst the people meant to enforce them. While it may be true that 'top players' remember every card played since dinosaurs roamed the earth, most players struggle to remember what they had for breakfast. Unclear rules that cause frequent Director calls are intimidating and distracting to many non-top players that are still struggling to remember if East still has the top spade.

At the bottom of the video it states: but the link doesn't work.

I tried it out on another tricky concept - "Dad jokes" Me: Here's a joke, what's the punchline - Two birds are sitting on a perch, one says to the other - "does something seem a bit fishy to you" ChatGPT: The other bird responds, "Funny you should say that, I just got a haddock!" Well, I did laugh, so I guess that's a win.

Unless you're in one of the regions (eg Australia, UK) you won't be able to see it. But if you aren't in one of these places you might be able to login using a VPN with the browser country set to one of the countries where it is available then you can see it.

You're kidding right?

It thinks anything is 'possible' - if you ask it "Does god exist?" I'm pretty sure you'll get an anodyne answer.

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=ZZ%7C%7Cpn%7Cpilowsky%2CRobot%2CRobot%2CRobot%7Cst%7C%7Cmd%7C3SAQJHKQDAJCK98652%2CS763HA9632DQ5C743%2CSK85H75DK9743CAQJ%2CST942HJT84DT862CT%7Csv%7C0%7Cah%7CBoard%201%7Cmb%7C1N%7Can%7C2%2B%21C%3B%202%2B%21D%3B%202%2B%21H%3B%202%2B%21S%3B%20HCP%2012-14%3B%20balanced%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C2S%21%7Can%7C5%2B%21C%3B%20HCP%20No%20indication%3B%20Transfer%20to%20%21C.%20-%20Forcing%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C3C%21%7Can%7C2%2B%21C%3B%202%2B%21D%3B%202%2B%21H%3B%202%2B%21S%3B%20HCP%2012-14%3B%20forced%20-%20Non%20forcing%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C4N%21%7Can%7C5%21C%3B%202-4%21D%3B%201-3%21H%3B%201-3%21S%3B%20HCP%2018-19%3B%20quantitative%20invitation%20to%20slam%20-%20Non%20forcing%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C6D%7Can%7C2%2B%21C%3B%203%2B%21D%3B%202%2B%21H%3B%202%2B%21S%3B%20HCP%2013-14%3B%20fit%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C6N%7Can%7C5%21C%3B%202-4%21D%3B%201-3%21H%3B%201-3%21S%3B%20HCP%2018-19%3B%20to%20play%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cmc%7C12%7C]400|300| After I bid 4NT - which apparently means "quantitative invitation to slam - Non forcing". Argine responds by telling me "6♦ blah blah blah - fit". But a fit in what? [/hv]

It doesn't have access to the internet and no information after 2021.

No doubt about it. The fun is in finding situations where it fails. As a basic regurgitating search engine it seems to operate as you describe. What interests me is the extent to which a trainable "neural" network can be a useful adjunct to the human approach to problem-solving.