Ant590

Do you want us to report scores on here per stanza, or after the entire match is complete? I'll be curious how other matches are going, but I don't want to make lots of work for those who are kind enough to run these things.

Do you think we could have it as a new thread please?

Ant590 / Prasanna (4.5-5.5) http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:b16900f9.e10f.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1485136819

I now have a ``green'' orb next to my latest challenge - thanks for whatever you did to get prasanna to play :)

My challenge vs. prasanna was expiring without acceptance, so I have cancelled and re-issued (now the 4th request). Just logging this here as I don't want to get a 0VP or something if he doesn't play.

Mkgnao / Ant590 (4-6) http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:7e5f9540.de3b.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484825778

I am waiting for mkgnao to play their challenge against me (I have played the boards). I had a message saying "In case you're worried it will expire, no need to worry because I'll play it. If I forget, I'll forfeit.". I have challenged prasanna several times, but he has not accepted. Many days left, so hopefully this will happen - for people who have played against him, did you have to chase?

Gwnn / Ant590 (5-5) http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:2320c42d.da9f.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484428770&u=ant590#a Stephen Tu / Ant590 (5-5) http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:84a5b84e.daea.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484461146&u=ant590#a Ant590 / Pio_magic (6-4) http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:5c8db737.dad6.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484452489&u=ant590#a

Ant590 / Barmar (4-6) http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:75513ed1.da3b.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484385958&u=ant590#a Ant590 / Hrothgar (6-4) http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:7d223052.da3b.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484385971&u=ant590#a

Ant590 / Jordanova (6.5 - 3.5) [this time played with advanced robots] http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:e1787277.daa3.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484430807&u=ant590#a Nige1 / Ant590 (4 - 6) http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:2a04f5e4.dab3.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484437372&u=ant590#a

I think this one counts? Ant590 vs Icycookie (3.5-6.5) http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:3fdaef07.da3b.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484385869&u=ant590#a

Gwnn - we completed our match before the advanced robots, huts to say this, but we should probably scrap the result and do it again? Ditto, and I right in thinking the following shouldn't stand as well? Jordanova vs Ant590 (3 - 7) http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:350b8364.da3b.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484385850&u=ant590#a --- cancelled due to wrong bot

Yes, we need some options as table host with this setting. In particular, if playing with friends I might prefer to have the option to turn this off completely.

I quite like 1-level natural and 2♣-2NT whatever defense you play over a weak NT.

Please, please have a return to your blog "for one night only" and write this into an article. My partner seems to like things that are on your blog, but is indifferent to things that are posted on BBF (even by you)!

Title says it all really. When I select the "Kibitz North" (etc) option, it's because I want to give myself the same decisions as the person I'm kibitzing. Currently we can see the other table contract and result (if already played) on the main pane at the bottom left. Great for when you're kibitzing all four players, but annoying when you're only kibitzing one player, there's a marginal slam decision to ponder, and 6♦N= pops up from the other room. Other potential sources of "spoilers" can be hidden easily: I can manually hide the text pane, and also the scorecard. No issues there. I'm indifferent to the running score in the main pane, but this should probably go too in the "Kibitz North" mode. Thanks, Ant.

I understand, no worries.

Hi all, I've returned to England for a while after being away, and I was wondering if there is any more clarity on a situation that caused issues the last time I played. When a 1♣ opening could be various balanced hands, as well as normal club hands, what is the preferred announcement? This opening also may have any 5-card suit in a 5332 pattern. "May be 2" seems the letter of the law, but after several opponents were upset about lead implications of a undisclosed 5-card major, we began to alert, then after opps presumed it was a strong opening, we moved to a alert/announce hybrid. Now more time has passed, I wondered if any pairs with similar methods have found a way to deal with such an opening? Of course, I appreciate that a pre-alert is the best way forward here. Thanks, Ant.

As, eventually, the personnel of the AC will be published by the EBU (eg http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/appeals/ebu-appeals-2011.pdf), would it be within BBO's rules for the OP to say who was on the committee? If so... who was on the appeals committee?

Barmar, I presume you have also seen http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2014/11/adobe-air-and-android-5-0.html ?

As far as I can work out, 2PM EDT is 7PM CET on Sat 1st?

Hi all, I've been playing with a player whose style differs from my own. For instance, he doesn't like opening 1NT with a 5-card major, whereas I do routinely. Our latest divergence is that he recently said that he prefers not to open 1NT with a small doubleton major. As well as explaining the implications this had in terms of messing up the a rebid structure, I thought I'd make a small simulation to bring home the rarity of it being a problem. Scenario: We open 15-17NT with a small doubleton spade. Partner does not bring a spade stop, and the opponents can cash the first five tricks in spades. I approximated this in code as this as partner's spades are at most Q/J high (but not both), and at least one opponent has 5 spades. Results: No restriction on responder's HCP: the opponents can cash five spades 25% of the time (Responder is 10+: the opponents can cash five spades 9% of the time) BUT: I then thought to drive home the point, I would compare for when opener has Jx or Qx No restriction on responder's HCP: the opponents can cash five spades 27% of the time (Responder is 10+: the opponents can cash five spades 4% of the time) So, if I don't constrain responder's HCP, the opponents are *more* likely to be able to cash the first five in a suit that we hold Jx/Qx, compared to xx. This *must* be an error in my code, right? I've run a few times with the same result, so I don't think it is a sampling error... My code (deal 3.18): sdev nbalanced sdev stopper sdev oppsrun main { reject unless {[hcp north]>=15 && [hcp north]<=17} reject unless {[balanced north]} #1 reject unless {[hcp north spades]>0 && [hcp north spades]<=2 && [spades north]==2} #2 reject unless {[hcp north spades]==0 && [spades north]==2} nbalanced add [spades south] reject unless {[hcp south spades]<=2} stopper add [spades south] reject unless {[spades east]>=5 || [spades west]>=5} oppsrun add [spades south] accept } deal_finished { puts "With small doubleton spade=[nbalanced count])" puts "With no stopper=[stopper count]" puts "opps can cash first 5=[oppsrun count]" }

A pair at my old club played fruit machine swiss (http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/FruitMachineSwiss.html). It actually came up once, but they got the bids the wrong way around. They mentioned that it last came up about 13 years ago, and they got it wrong then too. http://justinlall.com/2011/08/30/a-good-convention/ anyone?

Thanks for all the replies, and I agree Roger's answer is very nice. In the style of the late, great Marshall Miles, could anyone help me construct a worst and best hand that would bid the direct 4♠ (c.f. Bridge World May 2013 Editorial). I'll attempt to offer a suggestion, but the fact that I am asking the question means that I am really unsure: Worst -> average -> best AKJxxx x xxx xxx --> AQTxxxx xx xx xx --> AKJxxxx Q Kx xxx

Hi all, In a sequence such as 1♣ - (3♥) -, what is a typical hand that bids 4♠? Is it a hand that expects to usually make opposite a weak NT (with stronger hands starting with a 3♠ bid), or do such hands 3♠ leaving 4♠ for the stronger hands (say those that have slam interest opposite 18/19 counts)? Is in fact a hand that thinks it's making opposite a weak NT automatically have slam interest opposite 18/19 anyway? Do either contain weaker hands that want try and play in spades without ever issuing a slam try? Ta