sieong

sieong - jeffford76 3.5 : 6.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:1c9c0050.dd41.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484718240&u=sieong

sieong - xbabarx 6.0 : 4.0 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:5bea5423.dc80.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484635453&u=sieong Remaining challenges to jeffford76, samboone, zenoo have been issued and waiting to be accepted.

sieong - nekthen 7.0 : 3.0 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:3e911387.db66.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484514286&u=sieong sieong - toast1 6.0 : 4.0 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:11f6a66e.dbac.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484544276&u=sieong sieong - dadim 4.5 : 5.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:20e445e1.dbfb.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484578231&u=sieong

sieong - ye17 6.5 : 3.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:a0a1bf24.da75.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484410942&u=sieong sieong - zzmiy 3.5 : 6.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:886cd4a6.da9b.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484427222&u=sieong sieong - phil 6.0 : 4.0 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:e85a35fb.db47.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484501256&u=sieong

Thanks for the heads up. Are the 55% MP games advanced bots?

Thanks for putting together this service. I tried it and liked it a lot! (For those of us that like to review hands while we go, is it possible to allow us to toggle the behavior of whether to skip_finished or not?)

Thanks a lot for the pointer, Ben!

I understand that within a lin file, that one can |pg|| to pause before the next action. I was wondering if it would be possible to create an option within the handviewer so that the action will be paused before each action. This will be very convenient in reviewing vugraph hands, especially when viewing the proceeding from a particular player's perspective, without having to edit the underlying lin file. Is such an option already available? Thanks.

The full hand was [hv=pc=n&s=sq7632hk7dat53c98&w=sjhj85dj97ckqj642&n=st95ha6432d862cat&e=sak84hqt9dkq4c753]399|300[/hv] To beat the contract, we need to establish ♥ before ♣A is knocked out. A ♠ lead (which I made at the table) is an instant lost cause. A ♦A lead may work out, but one needs to work out to shift to a ♥ rather than a ♠ after the lead, which I am not sure if I will be able to work out at the table (any suggestions on signals?). That the ♠ lead works out so badly seems unlucky to me, but I wonder if in other people's experience, is Hxxxx a good or a bad holding to lead against 3X - 3NT auctions?

Thanks for your reply and analysis. So here is where the game theoretic aspects got me confused. I followed a very similar line of reasoning at the table, andI drew the conclusion that the percentage play is to hook the club (I was assuming that East would return a club most of the time, like 80%, since the position of breaking up combined chances seems standard). But then if East knows that I know the percentages, and that he believes I will follow the percentage play, then would he not lose the cases when spades are not coming in and his partner has the CJ? Or perhaps I am over-thinking this? I think Kit Woolsey once wrote something about follow only the percentage play and ignore the game-theoretic aspects (or may be I am mis-attributing something wrote by someone else to him). Is that a universal principle?

Yadlin Doron

[hv=pc=n&s=sq7632hk7dat53c98&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=3cp3nppp]133|200[/hv] What would you lead? Is Anthias and Bird's advice of banging down aces against NT the right move here, or taking the double dummy analysis too far?

aj64[hv=pc=n&s=skhjt987dj86caj64&n=saj865hakq52d5cqt&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1c(strong)p1n(5-11%2C%205+%21h)p2c(relay)p2h(5+%21h%20+%204%21c)p2s(relay)p2n(short%20%21s)p3c(relay)p3d(1%3D5%3D4%3D3)dp(relay)p3s(5RP%20%5BA%3D3%2C%20K%3D2%2C%20Q%3D1%5D)p6hppp]266|200[/hv] *♦K - ♦5 - ♦A - ♦6 ? - ? - *♣8 - ? Do you play E for the ♣K or not?

[hv=pc=n&s=s72hkqj932d87ca98&n=sk95h65dkq653ckj2&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d(11-15%20could%20be%20short)1s2d(5+%21h)2spp3h(inv%2C%206+%21h)ppp]266|200[/hv] *♠J - ♠5 - ♠6 - ♠7 *♠4 - ♠9 - ♠Q - ♠2 ♠3 - ♠K - *♠A - ♥2 What's the plan? A second question below once you have decided.

Thanks for letting us play. Good luck to the next team.

Yeap, confirmed for 10/19. Thanks!

I saw the following play problem from a JEC match this weekend. You are declarer in 6♦. [hv=pc=n&s=sj4haq84dakj6ca42&n=sa5hjd98542ckq963]133|200[/hv] The lead was ♠T. If ♦ are 2-2 or ♦Q is singleton and clubs breaks no worse than 4-1, the contract is cold. Assuming ♦ break 3-1, is it better to 1. Hook a heart (♠A, ♦A, ♦K, ♣K, heart to the Q); or 2. Play for ♥K coming down in three rounds, or person with long diamonds have 3-4 clubs (♠A, ♦A, ♥A, ruff a heart, ♦K, ruff a heart, then if ♥K is still outstanding, play on ♣?) In general, is there good way to determine the odds at the table (♥K coming down in 3 rounds is about 22%, but how to determine the conditional distribution of the person with long diamonds having long clubs? And how to factor in that hearts are breaking no worse than 5-3?)? Thanks.

3♥ - 4♣ (QP? - 8QP) There seems to be very few hands where slam is good (I think Adam's construction is missing DJ - Jxx K AKxxx Qxxx is only 11 tricks unless HJ falls, which is 36% of the time, with DJ it becomes 68%), or Axx K KQJTx xxxx (pretty much cold as long as D comes in), or Axx J AKJxx xxxx (D finesse or CQ doubleton) - I won't find the latter since I could not differentiate between this and Axx K Axxxx xxxx. Makes me wonder whether I should have used a different method. On the actual hand: 4♦ - 4NT (control parity - odd, odd KQJ in ♦, even in ♠) Pass I will be worse placed than regular PCB if responder has Axx K Axxxx xxxx, since I will have to play 5NT.

(PCB with control parity) Same as Adam's, since at 8QP that's all we need to know.

3♥ - 4♣ (QP? - 8QP) 4♦ - 5♣ (control parity - odd, odd KQJ in ♠, odd KQJ in ♦, even in ♣) At this point, responder possible hands are: AJxxx j AKxx xxx, AJxxx K AJxx xxx. The first hand with HJ plays better in 6NT. The second one plays better in 6NT except on D lead, in which case it makes when HJ falls in 3 rounds (36%) or C finesse (50%) with multiple squeeze chances after a diamond lead is ducked. I rate it to make about 73% on best lead (68% + 5% squeeze chances). I think 6S is slightly better (makes on 4-3, 5-2 the right direction, and 6-1, but some of the 4-3 / 5-2 requires guessing whether to ruff high), probably around 80%. Since I won't be able to distinguish between AJxxx J AKxx xxx and AJxxx K AJxx xxx, I will go with 6NT when that happens. 5♦ - 5♠ (PCB - odd in ♥, no ♠T?) 6NT

(PCB with control parity) 3♥ - 4♦ (QP? - 9QP) 4♥ - 4N (control parity? - odd, even KQJ in ♠) At this point, responder possible hands are: Axxxx j AKQj xxx, Axxxx j AKjx Qxx, Axxxx K AQjx xxx, Axxxx K Ajxx Qxx. All hands are safe for small slam, with the first hand holding DJ has some minor chances for 7 (I would go for it needing a swing, I rate it at about 60% (68% for 3-2 break + HK coming down in three rounds or C finesse or H-C squeeze (I estimate this to be about 85%); higher with SJ, which has already been denied). 5♣ - 5♦ (D parity? - even KQJ in ♦) 6♠ This hand reveals a flaw in the method, that it cannot differentiate between Axxxx J AKQx xxx vs Axxxx K AQJx xxx. Did not matter here but there will certainly be hands where it would. Maybe instead of PCB, one should use DCB with TOSR rules over KQJ instead of KQJ parity.

(PCB with control parity) 3♥ - 4♣ (QP? - 8) 4♦ - 4♠ (control parity - odd + even KQJ in ♠) At this point, responder possible hands are Axxxx x AKj xxxx (lower case honor means possible to have) or Axxxx K Ajx xxxx. Both of which has good play for 6♠, but nothing higher, so we sign off in 6♠.

By the way, does anyone know of the JVCB method (see http://dipbridge.wordpress.com/2008/12/ for a variation - I do not know of the original method). I have heard from some Swedish players (Peter Bertheau and Frederic Wrang; try talking to them at the nationals, they are usually very friendly) that this method is superior to anything else they have used. My small sample (< 10, inconclusive) suggests that it is worse than PCB in terms of average resolution of AKQ locations; PCB is on average 2-3 steps cheaper than JVCB described on the webpage above. The goal of DCB/PCB/RKCB is obviously not only to resolve the honor locations, but also to stop low when they are wrong, so just measuring the average resolution level is inadequate, but I do wonder if I am missing something here. Does anyone know more about JVCB? I wonder if Ulf (ulven@) is watching this thread and would like to comment about it? Btw, PCB is not really designed for positive responses to 1C (although it does a pretty good job so far, I think). If I were to make a tweak, I probably would add a parity step in terms of controls when QP is guaranteed to be 19+. This can usually completely resolve the honor structure (but not location). Given that I would certainly relay with some 11QP hands (I presume with a weaker hand, there are options to break relays earlier), this would mean when responder has 8+RP. So without testing this at all and at the risk of looking very foolish, here is a variation of PCB for positive responses to 1C that probably won't work well out of the box but maybe some tweaks of which will: If <8RP, regular PCB (I will not post on these hands since the auction will be identical to Adam's). If >=8RP, stop if even # controls, skip if odd # controls, proceed to PCB but shift honors down by one (so parity over KQJ).

That's pretty much what Adam and I play, except when we have all even parity we don't clarify the honors in the first suit. The most extensive analysis I have come across is JVCB from the Swedish folks. There is some attempt to improve its efficiency further, e.g., here: http://dipbridge.wordpress.com/2008/12/. It is on my list of to-dos to figure out which one is more effective. From experience, we on average resolve the honor structure somewhere about 5H and 5S, leaving about 1 level of space for exploring grands.

I will be happy to help, but generally I reply quite slowly. But feel free to include me in the discussion if it helps.