Trinidad

In a way it is different here. In face to face bridge, every alert gives information to partner. This is an unwanted effect of the alert procedure. That is an important reason for regulators to limit the alertability of agreements. At Bridgebase, your partner will not see your alerts and explanations. The unwanted side effect does not exist. Active ethics and discloure are important. It is actively ethical to simply type in "<4♥" or "denies (MAX + 4♥)". And it is not hard to do. Rik

Hallo Ruudy, Welkom op dit forum. Walsh is een conventie die gaat over het antwoord op een 1♣ opening. Daarbij wordt in een hoge kleur (♥/♠) geantwoord als die er is. Een ruitenkleur wordt overgeslagen, ook als die langer is, behalve als de antwoordende hand sterk is (zelf minstens een opening). Mijn advies is om gewoon "van onder af" te antwoorden. Pas als je een gevorderde bridger bent, kun je de voor- en nadelen van een conventie als Walsh begrijpen en kun je er over denken de conventie te gaan spelen. Een nadeel van het forum van Bridgebase is dat Engels de voertaal is. Ik heb in het Nederlands geantwoord, omdat ik dat toevallig kan. Je zult echte het meeste uit Bridgebase halen door Engels als voertaal te gebruiken. De hele wereld ligt aan je voeten en die wereld is bereid om je te helpen bij je vragen. Maar dan moeten ze die natuurlijk wel kunnen lezen. Veel plezier op deze site! Rik --------- Hi Ruudy, Welcome to this forum. Walsh is a convention dealing with the response to a 1♣ opening. In this convention, responder will bid a major (♥/♠) if he has one. A diamond suit is skipped, even if it is longer, except in those cases where responder is strong (at least an opening himself). I would advise you to simply respond "up the line". Only when you are an advanced player you will be able to understand the pro's and cons of a convention such as Walsh and could you think about starting to play the convention. The Bridgebase forums have the drawback that the English language is used. I have replied in Dutch, since I happen to be able to do that. However, you will get most out of Bridgebase by using English. You have the world at your feet and that world is willing to help you with your questions. But then they do need to be able to read them. Have fun on this site! Rik

The standard meaning for the repeated double is "more takeout". It means the following: West had a takeout double shape. He does not have a hand that was too strong to overcall. Then he would have bid a new suit now. West doesnot have 4 spades. In that case, he would have simply bid 2♠ (or 3♠ or 4♠, ...) West does have extra values. The fact that East bid spades, the suit that West likes the least, is bad news for West. He needs to be somewhat careful when he is bidding, since there may not be a fit. The same goes for the fact that East only bid 1♠: East won't have more than 7-8 points. West will have to come up with something extra to justify continuing the fight. An example hand for West would be: ♠ A85 ♥ 8 ♦ AQT3 ♣KQJ43 Rik

The line that separates heroics from stupidity is very thin. Of course, it is all fine that Mr Beck dies if he wishes to do so, but unfortunately, he will kill a few anonimous others with his actions too. Difficult choice... Save lives, or get my grandkids an iPhone. Rik

I understand your motives, but you missed two things: First, responder didn't bid anything. The points must be about even, and possibly better for us. You can simply compete, or do you think opener has a 27 point hand? Second, partner's hand and opener's hand could have been exchanged. (Ok, move a club to the hearts to make it a 4432, rather than a 4333 distribution). Or did you think that partner was going to bid something with a 3263 hand with 15 points? Opener would be in deep trouble after your double. The best he can achieve is to play in 1♠X down many. Rik

I don't agree that the scientists were unprepared. The scientists were prepared to deal with an outbreak of a virus: The knowledge is there to identify the virus, the knowledge is there to track it, the knowledge is there to develop a test, the knowledge is there to study the outbreak and model it. The knowledge is there to find a cure and a vaccine. The scientists were ready. In fact, they were very well prepared. Of course, the scientists were not prepared for an outbreak of Covid-19. How could they be? Before November 2019 there was no such thing as Covid-19, (hence the "19"). It is hard to study something that doesn't exist. In this short time that this virus has been going around, and, therefore, has been available to scientists: Scientists have isolated and identified the virus. They have recorded the DNA fingerprint. They are recording the family tree of the virus (No, Mr. Trump, the American outbreak did not come from Europe.) They developed test methods. Data are gathered on the spread of the virus through the population. They are interpreted and modeled, despite the fact that the data is hard to interpret (the infection in South Korea contains a heavy bias, since the infection started around a religious group). Predictions are made based on these models. An antibody has already been identified that is able to block the virus (i.e. not a perspective for a vaccine, but for a cure). Of course, it takes time to develop ways to produce it, formulate a dosage form, and have it properly tested (and it may not get approved). Progress is made on the development of a vaccine. All this has been done, using methods that were ready to use as soon as the outbreak started. The scientists were prepared. Keep in mind that only 4(!) months have passed since the first person in Wuhan was infected. Don't forget that scientist are humans, not wizzards or witches who could stop this by casting a simple spell. Science is hard work. And the scientists have been working hard and continue to do so. Who, then, was not prepared? The population was not prepared. The population was not prepared to accept the inevitable: Lots of people are going to die, many will live but not recover completely, and even more will have been seriously ill. This potentially includes you or me (for all options mentioned). Is it bad that the population is not prepared? No, that is good. In fact, it is excellent!! (Just not now.) We are all a lot happier if we do not have to worry each day that a lot of people might die. It would not want to live in a world whose population "is prepared" as soon as someone sneezes in Wuhan. I understand the frustrations. It is human to look for someone to blame for this mess (and, yes, we are in a mess): The Chinese, the government, the scientists, the weather man (?!?!). But the blame should be put where it belongs: sh-t simply happens. Western society has not had a lot of sh-t in the past years (decades) and, as a result, "we, the people" are ill-prepared. We should be grateful for the great time we have had... and that we will get again once this is over. Meanwhile... keep your properly washed fingers crossed... and let's take care of each other. Rik

I do not think it is particularly fair to accuse governments to be ill prepared. You summed up reality in your last sentence: Let's backtrack a little, summarize what has happened so far and how my government reacted. End of 2019, a new virus appears in China. After a while, the WHO comments and states that it hopes that the virus can be contained. The goverment follows what is going on. The virus spreads. It is clear that there is a shortage of ICU facilities at the places where the virus has spread. My government reacted by stating that the question is not whether the virus will hit us, but when it will. They start to expand the amount of ICU facilities, the population is made aware that something big is coming: People will die. Meanwhile: wash your hands, etc... The virus is here and spreads. People are killed. The prime minister is on national TV. He starts by giving his condolences to those who have lost family or a friend. He wishes the best for those who have the disease right now and then he explains clearly what the strategy is: Flatten the curve, control the outbreak, let it run as slowly as possible through the population in a controlled manner. Measures include shutting down bars, restaurants and schools, as well as announcing support for the sectors of the economy that are taking the hit. He also explains why this is the strategy: It is based on facts and science. The scientific community supports this. The only part where there was discussion amongst experts related to the closing of schools. On all other areas, there is vast (unanimous, anyone?) support for the government among the experts. I am sorry, but given the fact that we have this virus, what should my government have done differently? I think that they are keeping their heads cool, make solid decisions, based on the best evidence available. They seem as well prepared as they can be and they are taking preparations for the future: This includes evaluating more drastic measures for the near future, but also measures about how to continue when the virus has past. I am sure that in a little while everybody will see what they obviously did wrong. Hindsight will be 20-20, as usual. But I do not see any signs of my government being ill prepared. On the contrary, I think that they are doing exactly what they should do. Rik

The German response was: "There is a limit to capitalism." Rik

The government of the Netherlands has announced more strict measures: Closing of schools, restaurants, bars, ... This has caused long lines in front of the so called "Coffee shops", where one cannot buy coffee (or toilet paper), but can buy soft drugs, such as marihuana (Link). Rik

I will tickle your imagination: Why do you think MP scores for a typical bridge club evening are reported with 4 significant figures? Your 1% precision will be good for 24 boards at 3 tables (96 top). Bigger events will need better precision. I can easily imagine that in a big XIMP tournament one pair beats another with 99000 over 98999... (or the equivalent accuracy when the scores are normalized). Rik

You are right. Somehow I got the heart lengths mixed in my brain. Rik

Fun board. Rik

And how would you write a number that is between 98999.5 and 99000.5? 99000 has 5 significant figures. Round numbers do occur, from time to time. If you want to write a number with 2 significant figures that lies between 98500 and 99500, you write "99 k" or "99.103". Rik

The same holds for the Netherlands. Universities and colleges are (pretty much) closed. Elementary schools and highschools are open, with the same arguments. The prime minister went as far as to state that the school's primary task is no longer education, but child care. This was heavily debated in parliament, last night (March 12th). A motion to close the schools didn't pass. However, a motion to suspend penalizing parents whose kids skip school did pass. Normally, the Dutch mandatory school presence is pretty strictly reinforced, in sharp contrast to most laws ;). So, the fact that parliament passed this motion can have significant impact. I think that the effect might be that a portion of the kids will stay at home, thus lowering the pressure on the schools. Rik

:) This was actually board 17, the second board of our first round. With 3 boards a round, we started at 16. And after the third board, partner and I had plenty of time to gloat after the opponents had left the room in disgust... :) Rik

I usually hold the card in my hand, rather than place it on the table. After all, often, I will have to turn it about a second later. Why would I first pick it up, then put it down, and then pick it up again to quit it? If it turns out that a player goes into a tank, I either put the card on top of the quitted tricks or I put it between the cards that have not been played yet and the board. This simply depends on what the table looks like: where is room available? and where can players see my card? In addition, I will put the card horizontally. This saves space and contrasts clearly with the rest of the dummy. Rik

I think that a five loser hand is good enough for a splinter, rather than a mundaine raise. Rik

Doubling a weak 1NT opener with a similar point count as opener is indeed asking for trouble... if the double is in direct seat. I typically play that in direct seat, a bid shows about an opening hand and double shows a strong 1NT opening (15-17) or something really strong. However, in the balancing seat things change a little bit and the requirements for a double are somewhat loser. We need to protect what we could be making (when partner in second seat has something). There are still risks involved in getting in, since the opponents could have the majority of the points, but at least you know that they will not have the rest of the deck (responder wouldn't have passed), whereas your partner might have that rest of the deck. Just last week, we had the following deal: [hv=pc=n&s=s97hk92d9432ct983&w=skt83haq6dt75ca42&n=sj65hj875dak6cq76&e=saq42ht43dqj8ckj5&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n(9-12)ppdppr(SOS)p2cdppr(SOS)p2ddpprp2hdppr(%3F%3F!%3F)ppp]399|300[/hv] Note that East, in direct seat, passed, whereas West in the balancing seat doubled with essentially the same kind of hand as East had. This deal led to a disaster for NS, since they didn't really master their runout system, so the result was -1600 (at cross-IMP scoring: 15.2 XIMPs). :) But EW are always entitled to 800. If the opponents wouldn't open a weak 1NT, we are entitled to make a game in spades, scoring 420, or NT (400 or 430). That is what happened at the other tables, except for one. We should try to get that result also when they open 1NT. If we simply pass it out with 11-14 points, we would have scored something like 200 or at best 250. That is not enough. If we double in 4th seat with about 12-14 then it is possible to arrest the opponents (to get 800) or find our own contract (on somewhat more distributional hands). If we end up playing at the two level, we will usually be OK (but, admittedly, sometimes not). So, what happened at the last table? North opened 1NT and EW ended up playing 2NT... when EW weren't sure what point range they had. This illustrates that it is important to have good agreements about this. The funny thing is that there EW were experienced players who have been playing together, at this club, for about 20 years. But they are simply not that interested in discussing the bidding. At the table where NS went for 1600, I was East playing with an experienced player whom I had played with only once. We had a 10 minute discussion about system. Against weak 1NT, we agreed to play: "All natural. Double in direct seat is a 1NT opening (or any stronger hand)". It seems like we both implicitly understood that this meant that we could be somewhat weaker in the balancing seat. Rik

No pran, we are talking here about mathematical terms and the correct term is significant figures, not digits. Have you ever corrected someone to say that Double is a call and not a bid? Same thing. Go figure. ;) Rik

The reason why you preempt is to make life hard on the opponents. You turn the auction into a guessing competition, rather than something scientific. It is important to make sure that the opponents make the last guess. Whatever action they take after your initial action will be a guess. Nobody can say anything sensible about whether they guessed right: Game may go down or slam may be cold. Do not give them a chance to improve their guess. So, chose your preemptive action, whether it is 2♥ or 5♥, or anything in between, and after that stay out of the mess you have created. Just hope that they guessed wrong and accept that they will guess right some of the time. Rik

Which gets us back on topic again: If you use a poll of 4 people whether 1 in 6 (or 1 in 5) players would chose an action, the result will have 0 (zero) significant figures. Rik

That would be entirely reasonable, but this is not possible. Law 12A1 only allows the TD to assign an AS when the laws empower him to do. Unfortunately, Law 13C doesnot merely not empower a TD to award an AS. It specifically forbids him to award one: The lawmakers have been sleeping here. Rik

That is not how I read law 13C: This means that the ♠J is considered the first card to the trick. There is no rectification and certainly not an option for the OS. I would suggest to the lawmakers that the 2007 Law 13A returns for discoveries when a trick is in play: We try to continue as normal as possible. If the NOS has been damaged, due to the irregularity in this trick, the TD may assign an AS. This means that we do not adjust scores that are caused by the misevaluation of the 14 card hand in the auction or similar things. In this case, it probably doesn't matter. Whether declarer plays the jack under his ace or under the opponent's ace... But it is easy to construct cases where it does matter and a completely innocent player ets a bad result due to this rule: Suppose that South is in 3NT. East has overcalled in hearts. In a deck with 13 hearts, West should be out of hearts after a few tricks if East's overcall was based on a five card suit. And if it was based on four, the defense doesn't have enough hearts to cash to set the contract. Declarer finesses into the safe West hand to develop his 9th trick... and West produces the ♥2: It is the 14th heart (from another deck). Declarer will think: "OK. East has overcalled on a 4 card suit... No problem." Declarer plays from dummy and now East says: "Hey! I also have the ♥2!". With the current writeup of the Laws, this would mean that West has not played the ♥2 (since he never was supposed to have it), but that dummy now is forced to lead the heart that he played to the trick, giving the contract to the defenders. There is no redress for declarer with the current laws. I am fairly sure that this was not the lawmakers' intention. Rik

Let's backtrack a little. I do not advocate that sims are taking over humans. Humans will rule whether an action was an LA or not. The term simulation came into the discussion because jhenrikj insisted that you can only get an answer to the question what LAs there are, by simulating the position that a player is in. The problem there is that your sample size is simply too small. But if you continue on the theme of simulations and sample size, you will see quickly that computer sims do not have problems with sample size. That's how the computer sim came into the discussion. In most cases, a computer sim will be utterly useless. I have said that I can envision situations where a sim may be useful to assist the TD. If a player's judgement is correct than only players with the same judgement can be considered his peers. I a player's judgement was wrong, this helps to dismiss the case. Rik

Many good bridge players run simulations to check their bidding judgement, typically on hands that they have played. I am absolutely not the greatest fan of sims, since often, the underlying assumptions (double dummy play) are questionnable. But sims certainly have a function in testing your judgement after the fact. If sims have a function in testing your own judgement, they can also have a function in testing someone else's judgement. So, if an expert makes a statement (e.g. "4♠ will make in 75% of the cases.") that a sim could test with a reasonable reliability, then I do not see a problem in using a sim, despite my apprehension in general. Rik