pilowsky

In which case, you would be CAT scanning?

I think we went through this discussion about a year ago when this all started. I note that opinions are substantially the same. An important side benefit of the current pandemic is that (anecdotally - from speaking to my local Doctor) the number of all infections in the community has declined dramatically. When COVID first emerged, I developed a bit of a cold and was tested. It turned out to be a rhinovirus - I've been polishing my horns ever since - and so I quarantined myself so as not to communicate it in Bridge clubs. As bad as COVID is (really bad), any RTI (respiratory tract infection) is potentially lethal to Bridge players. Apart from the occasional callow youth, almost all the people that play Bridge are textbook cases of co-morbidity. Including emphysema, heart transplant, cancer, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and that's just the healthy people. All good reasons for playing "behind screens". Just to repeat myself all over again.

Thanks - very helpful.

That is certainly what is taught but without any mechanistic explanation of why it is so. One good reason for using them is that the good players do, and they will mercilessly mock if you don't. I am not saying transfers are wrong; In fact, as I become used to it, it seems to allow me to make sense of most bidding systems. For me, though, the interesting part of your response is "...more efficient than pure natural bidding from a theoretical point of view." My question is: Why is it more efficient, and how much more efficient is it? What is this theory you speak of? Amongst the arguments for transfer systems are that "the lead comes around to the strong hand" and that the "strong hand remains hidden" as two of the most important reasons. Both of these arguments may be reasonable, but has it been tested? If so, how valuable is it? 1%, 5%, 10%, more, less? When I try (in a very primitive way) to see whether or not a contract is makeable from the "weak" or "strong" side, there appears to be no significant difference. My understanding is that transfers became part of Bridge lore before computer simulation could test them as worthwhile or not. Has computer simulation validated their utility?

Some sort of survey required?

This seems to be a common structure in Bridge - Don't say what you want, bid the strain at the level EXACTLY one level below where you want it to be played and make your partner suffer the consequences of your decision.

"Democracy flourishes when the system works for everyone." Good grief - who writes trite drivel like this. Why is so much political commentary just anodyne drivel?

To be fair, they didn't ask what you thought before they implemented it either. Why would they care now?

I receive dozens of marketing requests every week. The "survey" from BBO is of the poorest quality. Most interactions between organisations (businesses of any kind) and individuals (typically but not always consumers) are of the form - "What can we do to make you happier?" - so that we can entice you to give us more money. Why does it want to make you happy? So that it can acquire advertisers with its large subscriber base. This is marketing 101 - watch twitch.TV, youtube, and this new thing that I'm still trying to see the value of - the "social influencer". BBO is slightly different. I suspect that one reason for this is that BBO has two conflicting roles. First of all, it wants to supply goods and services for a price BUT, on the other hand, Bridge is a social (as in people are involved) game that needs to be regulated. And boy, what a set of regulations. When applied to people, bridge laws and rulings represent a hybrid of Gormenghast, Kafka and Edwardian English whimsy. Still, people seem to enjoy it. It is said that Australians are such devoted gamblers that they will bet on two flies walking up a wall. The English and the Americans are probably the same. Still, in America and England, it is necessary to devise a set of rules and handicaps so arcane and strenuous that the two flies would have to be held in separate rooms and drug tested before the race started. They would also need to be advised of their rights before the start and told that it would be illegal (in some jurisdictions - but not others) to put the right front leg forward first. Unruly behaviour towards the other fly or acceptance of food or beverage from any other insect during the race would be strictly forbidden. If their opponent gives them a "spray", there is no right of appeal. This puts BBO in a tough spot. The same people that BBO makes money from must also be ruled over with an "iron fist". Enter the robots. Robot bridge does not need authoritarianism. You can scream and shout. Muse and congratulate. Do whatever you want. Nobody cares. Worse, since you are playing against robots, there is nobody to gloat with when you have a success. Nobody cares if you make a great play or if you "outwit" the robots. This is a bit sad because, as a video game robot Bridge is quite good fun. BIC fails (in my opinion) because it conflates two platforms (different computers) with a different group of players on two platforms. I get the argument that everyone is competing with the same conditions when applied to Daylongs (even there, it is only true if there are lots of competitors so that the central limit theorem applies). But in the BIC, there are so few competitors that the results tend to be somewhat stochastic. And the BIC is relatively expensive. Most people don't play Bridge for masterpoints. The Zenith Daylong became wildly popular immediately because it is possible to get your money back. With the BIC, you get nothing back - and you lose a lot of time. With no monetary reward and no opportunity to chat about the game with friends, an unauthorised competition against unknown opponents that charges a lot of money stands little chance of success. The real problem with BBO is its total lack of interest in communicating with its customer base. This is true of Bridge in general. Instead, there is scolding. "You should do this", "We are too busy to answer your questions", "I'll pass on your comments to the 'tech' people", etc. etc. So, no, I didn't bother with the BIC. Unlike the biro, it costs too much; it isn't fun, it takes too long, it isn't clear what the competition is, and it has no point.

I've been watching the Floyd murder trial, and a key pillar of the defence appears to be something along the lines of: "Yes, there was a knee on his neck, but if he didn't have an underlying condition (in this case, drugs in his system), then he would have survived. I'm not a lawyer (caveat) but, I thought that (certainly in Australia) it is NOT a defence in a murder trial to assert that the victim was to blame. I thought there was a legal principle that said (something along the lines of) "you take your victim as you find them". I can see where they might argue that he was a police officer who is entitled to use force to restrain a person, but isn't it still the case that the policeman needs to apply only the amount of force needed to achieve the purpose of restraint. Even in wartime, the ROE do not permit the killing of restrained combatants - or anyone else that is restrained adequately. Any lawyers out there?

Well, if you think a skyscraper in the Suez is a problem, Think what went through this guys head when he saw 1202 and 1201. Here's a one hour video about it. What is this thing for? What is this woman doing? Here's the game - it took a few moments to load, but it worked. Don't worry about inserting coins - it works when you click on "play now".

This presentation shows how it works. Once you add your partner's name to a card (spelled correctly and case-sensitive, and Save Changes, it will appear when you play together. It is available when you click on the three white lines at the top left of the table - but only when you are both playing. http://bit.ly/ConvCardBBO For some reason, it is not available when the opposition is a robot - or you are playing with a robot. Since the robots use a default Card, I think it would be a good idea if the default card appeared. This might have the added benefit of encouraging people to post cards.

Here is a little presentation that shows you how to make a convention card on BBO. http://bit.ly/ConvCardBBO

Specsavers' problem is you get cheap and cheerful frames that are either not attractive or not sturdy and may not be exactly what you need. Your question is, "why did the software make the decision it made?" When forced to make a decision, I understand the software gives the benefit of the doubt to any possibility of the Declarer NOT making the contract. This means that if you are slow players, it is in your interests to: Play fasterClaim where possible AND indicate your line of play.As you point out, if your line of play requires correctly guessing something and you have "run the clock", then yes, you should lose. If you run out of time and the opponents have "run the clock", they lose. BBO is unsophisticated in its use of timing to help Directors determine results. Some people are known to have a problem with time. Other platforms (that I'm not allowed to name for some reason) know which players have been taking the most time to the millisecond. The computer makes the decisions. Nobody complains (very much). Life goes on; people are as happy as - well - Bridge players. This situation is exactly why "claim when possible" and Bridge clocks are a good idea. Let me give you an example conversation that happened to me in a club I don't play in regularly. This club disclaims at the start of each tournament that records are kept for disciplinary reason. I keep records when people say something a little out of the ordinary. In the end I had a terrible result because I thought "weakish" was a weaker than it was, but since I had bid on - and provided an explanation myself that in the end was sort of close to the truth, I didn't say anything. I just stopped playing there.

Say it isn't so! Who can forget the YMCA? "You can get yourself clean, you can have a good meal You can do what ever you feel Young man, are you listening to me? I said, young man, what do you want to be? I said, young man, you can make real your dreams But you got to know this one thing No man does it all by himself I said, young man, put your pride on the shelf And just go there, to the YMCA I'm sure they can help you today" http://bit.ly/MAGAmix And, that's exactly what they did. They put their pride on the shelf. And their reason, and their sense of shame and everything else that makes a human a mensch.

Might be a good time to explain how the claim button works. Sometimes, when bad things happen to people, it is their fault.

Some data is now emerging about the extent of excess mortality as a result of the pandemic. This paper was published in July 2020 in JAMA - a very trustworthy source. They conclude - inter alia - that:

Is there a version where I don't have to learn how to spell Niemeijer? FWIW I quite like the GIB system where after 1NT 2NT= weak with 6+♣ 3♣ = weak with 6+ ♦ and 2♠ = ~8+HCP and both minors - i.e. "Minor Stayman". After 2NT, GIB uses 3♠ as minor Stayman as well. This approach has the advantage of being easy to remember and fitting in well with the "System-on" approach and Lebensohl that GIB uses so that after 1NT-2♥/♠, 2NT (requiring 3♣) can mean: 6+♣ 6+♦ 5+ of the other major or game-going hand.

Johns Hopkins has provided an excellent Dashboard to track COVID19. It now has a vaccine tracker as well. http://bit.ly/JHVacTrac

Seriously? You need an excuse to leave Yorkshire. With the frozen milk pushing the caps of the milk bottles in the Arctic cold? Chip butties? Take me home to Sheffield http://bit.ly/TakeMeSheffield Take me home - Oakbrook Road Life is cold there, Whiteley Woods. Sheffield Wednesday, take me home. The place nobody belongs.

I forgot to mention that my (pick-up) partner insisted on playing Gerber - FWIW.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakhakq92daqt85cj&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=3h3nppp]133|200| This hand just came up in today's (7-table) Club game. The title is the friendly advice dropped in chat by North after the hand was played. What does East have? What does North have? What is the best bid for South? [/hv] Here's the full deal

One of the reasons that Putin - and other enemies - are so easily able to destroy the system of government is that in the USA all "Speech is free". Below is a piece I just found in Newsweek. Everything about it is alarming, but the part that concerns me the most is the comment by the Police that this is a "Free speech 'demonstration'" and therefore is OK by them. What sort of civilised country allows people to threaten the lives of others and promote the superiority of one group of people over another based on skin pigmentation?

Another great game - are we moving in the direction of hands where it is impossible for Declarer to take any tricks at all?

You make many interesting points - all of which are the subject of frequent discussion here. As you say, everyone suffers in the same way. So-called "poor-play" by GIB is a part of the contest. Since GIB relies on information provided during the bidding and play to make its decisions, results will differ depending on how you bid - see point 2. Playing against GIB is a very different game when compared with so-called "real Bridge". Much of the expert advice you see on this Forum comes from superb players with (apparently) little experience playing against GIB (judging from their number masterpoints on BBO). In saying this, I am not disputing these people's talent - I read what they have to say carefully and take note. But, they are playing a different game. It is a bit like comparing cricket and baseball. Sure, both games are intensely boring, and both require the use of a ball and a stick. It is also likely that many skills are transferable, but the two games are obviously different. To "win" at robot Bridge it is necessary to learn a different set of skills - some of which people are kind enough to share on this Forum (thanks, e.g. nullve). One thing that the robots have taught me concerns the relative importance of signalling compared with working out how to play a hand well in defence. I don't think I have the balance right yet, but focussing on what the discards of my "partner" mean rather than worrying about specific signals has improved my F2F game as well as my defence against robots. The books by Bird and Anthias (e.g. https://amzn.to/3rSQu2z) explain the logic behind GIB leads. The system notes (https://bit.ly/GIBsystem) clearly state that this is the approach used by GIB in determining what to lead. Much of the "non-standard bidding" aims to subvert this particular process. Agree. The anti-cheating method used by BBO tends to suck the fun out of the tournaments. I can't think of any useful alternative - I wish I could. Most people make better bids than me, so this is not a wall that I have run into yet, but as I mentioned above. It is a different game, and the bidding tactics that result in success can be completely different to the approach used in "real Bridge".