suokko

I guess problem here is that playing 9 is "automatic play" if only ♣ suit existed. I blame 9 as a lazy play which lost now possible trick. I think that rules never to lead from some combinations are very bad even tough it reduces work for partner at trick one. But ace under lead is rarely a good lead.

One good point for 4♣: Partner would know what to lead if he doesn't hold clear ♠ lead. But I wouldn't bid it. It is too likely to let opps evaluate their short ♣ correctly without much gain for our side.

If partner reopens I would bid game! Why not just double now? Doubling immediately removes some pressure from partner when passing out 3♣ is right.

Your partner has played less than one year but is good dummy player and fair enough defender. Too bad biding is just basic 5 card majors without any conventions or fancy bids. Opponents are one of the better sides (30+ years old partnership). You hold A8x♠ QT8x♥ QJ9x♦ Qx♣. all love. partner opens 1♠ first seat. Tournament is small BAM event with 8 teams round robin, 6 boards against each.

To me it looks like here is going some wrong assumptions. For me responder has as big chance as opener to have extras so auction has to stay 2-way also cue biding with (non)serious 3NT and LTTC gives the best slam biding tools to limit strength and location of honors same time. 3♣ extras 3♦ minimum 3♥ 10+ cards in M+♣ 3♠ 10+ cards in M+♦ 3NT 10+ cards in M+OM 4♣ void 4♦ void 4OM void in OM and extras 4M void in OM and minimum 3♣: 3♦ asking shortness 3♥-3NT 5+ side suit 4 level cues strong SI+ 3♣-3♦: 3♥ none, Do you have shortness? 3♠ OM 3NT ♦ 4♣ ♣ 3♦: 3♥ shortness asking 3♠+ cue biding

We use similar but 2NT is the minors and 2♠ is natural. Also all doubles later on are t/o oriented. But no agreements if one suit is known to be longer because none has played that way. It is always 4+4+ or 5+4+ either way. I guess we would change bid of longer major to show some unbal strong hands (maybe OM+m 2-suiters). If opponents play 4+4+ variant it is in IMPs quite much double them and see how much plus you collect defense.

Sorry, but in my opinion you all are dreamers. I am no insider in you CandC committee, and maybe they are worse then most others committes... But I can name you 100 committees which work exactly like this one: They make their descissions on their own and you can see the outcome. This is the very normal process in politics, economy and all other parts of life. And I am not even sure that it is wishable to have an open process. This concept is much better in theory but I doubt that it will work in practice. Does wikipedia work? Ok. Too many of bridge players are from older generation that haven't grown with computers and Internet. But at least committee should publish their meetings to members. Whole committee exists only for the members and not for anything else. Of course there might be some meetings that should stay private because they handle some personal things. In case of some private handling we still report that they handled some decision and censure private parts of minutes from public release in the Federation website.

yes. Winners were very strong team. Judging from what I have seen of Gromov's team in Tallinn. But I think you will beat them in a few years :)

2nd place for team Lall. Well done!

I can take 3 (32bit) random numbers and append them to each other to produce 96 bits of information. Better of course would be only using the most random part of that 32 bit and append more numbers to each other to produce the full 96 bits.

A few notes from Reisinger: BAM totals are NaN. That means half points are not understood by code. Playing records from open room boards 25 and 27 and closed room 27 is not available. Results are recorded but when trying to click them to show the result bbo fails to get playing record silently.

Opening both minors in 2 level as limited single-suiter or both minors will put you a lot better placed in competitive situation when you can rebid your minor to show major minor canape after 1♦ opening. Too bad relay structure after 2♦ open is hard to create. In magic diamond 2♥ is relay but there is case to play 2♥ as natural. There should be easily enough space for relays after any other opening so you can even play not so perfect relays and still have enough space for everything. Also system structure depends on if you live in country which has some limitations what you can play. But you could even play 1♦-2m both as possible inv+ start of relay sequence to make it acceptable in acbl.

depends a lot of your style and number of cards 3♥ promises in your system. If it denies 5 cards most of time then south should think some else contract. But in end biding 4♥ isn't horrible bid. I think only alternative bids for north are the double of 3♦ which would show more defense in my option. For north 3♠ is option with good 6 carder and extras. This option is specially attractive in case you don't have 5 card ♥ and values for pass over 2♦.

Because defense could have defeated you then. Shape must include at least 3 spades for east which means shortness in one of minors. So if you lead minors defense can make east to pitch too many ♠ so they will get ♠ ruff for 4th trick. Next I run 3 rounds of ♠ taking the finesse. and then lead ♦ towards dummy to get chance for cross-ruff.

Could you explain what you mean here? There are between 2^95 and 2^96 possible bridge deals, so what is wrong with using 96 bits? Because you don't need to use if your generator has long enough period to generate enough random bits for the set of deals. I don't know what sizes generator is good enough but at least pran is claiming that 32bit PRNG is enough.

Seriously, how hard is it to write a random board generating algorithm. Every programming language has a library for getting good (secure) random numbers, plug that into a Knuth shuffle and you're done... Seeding it isn't a problem either, the platform should have a way of randomly initializing the seed each time. Out of interest what's your testing procedure? Too bad secure random number generator is often hidden so I would suspect normal bridge dealer use simple rand() call. Quality of rand is platform depend but often it is optimized for speed instead of quality of bit stream. Luckily new c++ standard will provide better random number library that provides multiple random number generators with different qualities and speeds. (But none that is cryptographically) In windows secure random number api is hidden in crypto api which is probably not know to many programmers except when writing some crypto programs. You already mentioned the unix world /dev/random that would provide really independent bit stream. Problem for using non-windows platform is that wireless bridge scoring systems are only supported in windows so directors are using windows for everything.

You can use Wine on Mac OS X if you have Intel mac. All the bbo software that I have tested in Wine has worked without major problems. If you want officially supported version you can buy Crossover for Mac. Codeweavers is the company behind Wine development so you get about same product with some bells and whistles.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. transfers in competition of course. But of course without transfers you could bid with this balanced 8-10 hand the 1NT to steal the contract there. So why do you think I prefaced my comments with "Assuming standard methods over the double"? If you play transfers, of course it's a different question. Sorry, all my posts on this string were based on Transfers/1MX. For some unknown reason, I assumed wide-spread use of that ---my bad. Now I understand why my logic was rejected by several. Good for you! But I would still pass many defensive hands which don't look like enough for redouble. The 2nd round double to suggest defending but letting partner pull with unbalanced hands

I'm not sure why you are shocked by the idea that a program crash will produce uncertain results that need to be checked. Because they shouldn't! It is bug that program crashes in first place. There is 2nd bug that program doesn't handle crash correctly.

Tx-Axxx 6,46 To J and back loses this one. T will cover the 9 so unless you hold 8 ou will lose to the spot later

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. transfers in competition of course. But of course without transfers you could bid with this balanced 8-10 hand the 1NT to steal the contract there.

Odds for generating same bridge hand twice ever in once life time is so small that it should never happen. (number of different deals is 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000) But normal random number generation in computers is deterministic so if you have same seed for generation process you will get same boards. This same problem is huge in cryptographic key generation where problem is solved by providing random bits from truly random sources like user input timing, timing of hard driver seek operations etc.

Why would you bid 1NT with balanced hand? You can bid 1NT with unbalanced ♣ hand.

End of world? I agree with everything what Ken said :ph34r: But I would jut bid 3♠ in practice unless there was rule stopping me from doing it. I need partner to have either 5th trump or something good so ♦ runs in case my hand is forced with ♣. But if I have to choose between 2 and 4 I would pick the game. And in given auction I hit 5♣. Too bad if it makes but we might not even make 4♠ and I don't want to invite partner to bid 5♠

In our system this would show some not distributional hand without fit for opener and 8-10 points. So opener are free to convert or compete. This particular hand looks like no-fit hand for our side and opponents are having max 8 card (unlikely but possible) in 2♦ and no others fits for them. Opponents might be in 4-3 git instead of 5-3 if doubler has 4-1-3-5 shape.