Sigi_BC84

If you are really serious about country affiliation this would be an option. The user would then have to double check after sign-up because the country couldn't be changed later. I don't think one needs to be that strict about it -- what's the big deal about changing the flag if you feel like it? BTW Claus I'm not bored of Bridge. --Sigi

I'm changing my flag almost daily at the moment and I don't think that it's anybody's business why I might like to do that and which flag I choose. Cross checking the flag by using GeoIP or something similar is not really workable (I might be traveling abroad and still wanting to use my home country's flag). Apart from that I think it would be totally inappropriate for BBO to police their users regarding which flag they are allowed to display. I would be willing to accept flag checking if BBO manages to implement something similar for the self-ratings (e.g. if an Expert botches the spade slam because of a miscount of trumps he/she gets degraded to Intermediate automatically). (Now you don't take that last sentence seriously, do you?) --Sigi

Ken, I think your reasoning is perfectly valid, and my experiment must have been flawed. I have now made my conditions pretty water-tight: diamond_condition = ( diw >= 4 and diw >= clw and not ( diw == 4 and clw == 4 ) ) open_one_club = ( open_one_suit and not open_one_heart and not open_one_spade and not diamond_condition ) ('diw' and 'clw' are the number of diamonds and clubs in openers hand, respectively) Also I have found that my results for the 15-17 NT range are not stable, probably because there are not enough valid hands being found among the 1 million I'm usually generating, so I have increased the sample size to 10 million and repeated the experiment a few times. The main culprit seemed to have been the small sample size and not the flawed condition for the club opener. I now get 6.8/8.8/9% (for 12-14/14-16/15-17). I have also changed my opening condition from rule-of-20 to 12-21 HCP (probably more realistic, since minimum 4333s are not opened using rule-of-20 and strong NT) and then I get 7.4/8.4/8.5%. --Sigi

Hi, I'd love to have the flag of the Pitcairn Islands in BBO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_Island --Sigi

I am not happy with my one_diamond condition (not to say that I think it's plain wrong :-), before you go to lengths to point that out. I guess I have to think it over. --Sigi

The local maximum for 14-16 surprises me as well. I am not claiming that my results are correct, but I've checked my conditions quite carefully. If you want to do your own experiments, you can work with the scripts I've posted here. The changes that were needed for this problem: open_one_diamond = ( open_one_suit and shape{west, 4-4-4+x:d>c + 5+M6+d(xx):d>s,d>h} ) open_one_club = ( open_one_suit and not open_one_heart and not open_one_spade and not open_one_diamond ) club_response = ( open_one_club and clubs(east) == 5 ) condition club_response I'd certainly be interested to hear if you find glitches in my setup (since I'm using this as a foundation to run all my experiments). --Sig

Does that mean you didn't wear anything at all or just your underpants? --Sigi

I get the following: Rule of 20 opener, 1♣ has been opened according to original post, responder holds exactly 5♣, probability for opener holding only 2♣ (i.e. we have no fit): with a 15-17 NT: 8.7% with a 14-16 NT: 8.9% with a 12-14 NT: 6.5% Conclusions: weak NT stabilizes (no surprise), fit very likely (Ken, why don't you like opening 1♣ on two?) --Sigi

We have actually specified this in our system, similar to Ken's method: 1♦-2♠ is a weak jump (5-8), so your sequence from above shows 9-11 (i.e. invitational) and a jump to 3♠ would show a game-force. --Sigi

UAAAAARRRGGHHHHHHHHH That drives me crazy, I know again why I am only secretary for and no mathematician myself.... For the small cards: why do they matter since I cover them all? The point Arend was making is the following: If you enumerate holdings and write, for example, AJxx x, then actually you have just specified more than one specific holding. It becomes clearer if you pick real spot cards for the 'x'es or pick distinct variable names, as in: "AJab c" -- now a, b and c are three different cards (for example "AJ73 5", but this looks as if the values of the spots did matter). Now consider just the three small cards: they can be distributed as "ab c", "ac b" and "bc a". So when writing "AJxx x" you have to count 3 hands, not one... This fact is hidden when writing "x" for any spot card, because that looks at first sight as if all the xes are equal, in which case ordering would not matter. --Sigi

I haven't calculated it myself, but if we can trust Suitplay not to emit wrong figures (which would mean that its programmer has made serious mistakes) then I would say: go with Suitplay. Fred being of the same opinion should only reconfirm you in that decision. There should be no reason to be confused in my eyes. --Sigi

I think you should assume Walsh and treat the sequences in the FD file correspondingly. I very much agree. Stick with something simple where it can be assumed that many people know it instead of imposing something artificial that has been chosen arbitrarily onto the users. Actually I'm playing an XYZ scheme that is quite nice but I would not expect others to follow it because it appears in somebody elses system description. If the treatment you have chosen is used by BWS, that's even better. BTW Arend I admire you for being willing to put up with the SICK full disclosure editor to enter such a complex system in a detailed manner. --Sigi

After wondering for a few days why you would want to use for_each() in this case, I can only say that I find no reason to do so. It would only make the code less readable and maintainable. See also: http://www.awprofessional.com/articles/art...345948&seqNum=3 --Sigi

This excellent article by Fred explains it very well: http://www.imp-bridge.nl/articles/2over1b.htm --Sigi

You would not penalty double instead? --Sigi

Sigi is having sour times... My favourite song, actually :-). --Sigi

Portishead

Well, I've read that she is sick of all the fuss that is associated with being famous. Apparently she has made up her mind but I guess she won't be pursuing her Hollywood career any further. Anyways I'd be happy to see her in some more films. --Sigi

Male: Philipp Seymour Hoffman, Edward Norton, Val Kilmer, Jack Nicholson, Chris Cooper, William H. Macy Female: Kate Winslet, Scarlett Johannson, Catherine Keener, Julia Roberts, Franka Potente (German and probably out of business unfortunately...) --Sigi

Marty Bergen, when giving a free online lecture recently, was asked which variant he prefers. He only said that it doesn't matter much if you play reverse or normal. I think normal Bergen has more merit (for the "game before slam" reasons stated above). In my eyes the ability to make another game-try is more important than blocking the opponents. --Sigi

Double. nickf sydney Redouble

Well it's not a TV show, but here's my two cents: You can't put the entire novel (talking about the first one only) into a 2 hour movie, not even a 4 hour one. No wonder it's incomprehensible if you don't know the novel. I guess that's why it got panned by the critics. The atmosphere of the movie is awesome, as is the sound track. That alone makes it a great movie for me, and the cast is excellent too. I'm really sorry that they didn't shell out the budget to make something like the Lord of the Rings series when adapting Dune. --Sigi

Roger Murdock: Flight 2-0-9'er, you are cleared for take-off. Captain Oveur: Roger! Roger Murdock: Huh? Tower voice: L.A. departure frequency, 123 point 9'er. Captain Oveur: Roger! Roger Murdock: Huh? Victor Basta: Request vector, over. Captain Oveur: What? Tower voice: Flight 2-0-9'er cleared for vector 324. Roger Murdock: We have clearance, Clarence. Captain Oveur: Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor? Tower voice: Tower's radio clearance, over! Captain Oveur: That's Clarence Oveur. Over. Tower voice: Over. Captain Oveur: Roger. Roger Murdock: Huh? Tower voice: Roger, over! Roger Murdock: What? Captain Oveur: Huh? Victor Basta: Who?

http://www.geocities.com/gerben47/bridge/twalsh.html

The bridge.exe included with BBO is the full version of GIB, with all its abilities but not including a graphic user interface. There is documentation to be found on the net on how to interface with bridge.exe. You can do all sorts of analysis that way (double dummy analysis, suggesting a lead, help solve play problems etc.). I don't think the bridge.exe that comes with BBO differs in any way from the commercial version (I think there has been a minor update, but that's all). --Sigi