TylerE

For those who are more familiar with the GIB algorithms: It is my understanding that it basically does the simulations, and then picks a play on strict expected value. Would it be possible to make the play look at the median value as well? I'm having a hard time putting it into works, but basically I'd like GIB, when it has two possible plays, to lean more towards the one that minimizes variance, rather than maximizes expected values. I would think that would tend to decrease how frequently it plays for unlikely occurrences. Some heuristics might be helpful too, that adjust the expected values. (e.g. when defending, a line that is 100% for -1 should beat a line that is 80% for -1, 10% for -3, and 10% =.

As far as card play, if you want to get a book knock yourself out, but the one thing that really worked for me was just to play a metric crap-ton of hands - when I was working hard on not sucking I could blow through 100+ hands a night easy, and I was doing that 4-5 nights a week.

Treat it as natural. Yes, it COULD BE short, but it usually isn't, and I'm not convinced any other treatment has any real advantage. The 1♦ bid is not the greatest opening in the system, and, much like the 2♣ opening, you shouldn't feel any special obligation to bid.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa32hakq2daqjc432&n=skq54hj76543d432c&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1ddp1h2cdp2hppp]266|200[/hv]

Not a fan. The big gain from playing an artificial club system _is the hands where you don't open 1♣_. These 1 bids are about as wide ranging as Standard American, so that's not very compelling, and you're still stuck with the rather unweildy Polish 1♣ bid. If you really want light openings, I think you're better off with a Precision-style strong (only) club, say 15+, and make the one bids 9-14. Sure, then your 1♦ opening is nebulous length-wize, but that's less of problem when you're more constrained in HCP.

Would it be possible, as an option, to have the Flash BBO that used the old sounds and card graphics? As well as having customizable colors? I'm quite tied to my BBOWin setup - standard cards, default sounds, and dark blue table background. If I could get that in the flash version I might be able to consider it...as it is, I don't like the card graphics nearly as much (in any of their iterations) and I find the sounds annoyingly thin and echoy.

Honestly, I'd rather BBO just took out the skill level field entirely. Much gnashing of teeth would be avoided...

Maybe a survivor format? Drop, say, the bottom 10% after each session so those who are well out aren't forced to stick around and be miserable?

Hate to break it to you, but - it ain't the right chimp. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/25/AR2008112500939.html

4♠. This double is takeout right? I'd need to be like 4-4 in the majors to considering passing here. Our length in non-heart suits makes our hand worse for passing, not better.

A strict read of that would seem to state that IF a directory chooses to penalize, it's a minimum of quarter board/3 imps. That said, dumb policy, should be rolled back, etc.

There's a few assumptions people are making in this thread that I have to take issue with. Who knows that we WANT the opponents to "rescue" us. With these high cards we might well wrap 7 tricks in 1♠ if it floats, and I hate our chances of making much of anything higher. TBH I want the opponents to be declaring this somewhere, don't really CARE where. Best way to make that happen to be passive initially. If partner has the kind of hand where we're making 3NT or something like that on values he should start making noise at some stage.

Pass and await furthur developments. I can't bid any number of hearts naturally initially.

Why not 3♣ over 1♠? The source of tricks is the key thing...

Perhaps. As I assume you know, that derives from the miltary acronym fubar, which dates to WWII, if not earlier.

There's a difference between "I have game in hand" and "I expect to make game a decent chunk of the time opposite partner's random 5 count".

Pard needs a LOT to bid over 4♥. So much so that it's almost a "does not exist" bid.

It means they need to tweak their PHP settings. (PS: Uday, I'd be happy to render any assistance I'm able here...I maintain a site that pushs 5M+ monthly page views on an nginx/php-fpm stack)

I would suggest that (at least) one of the following is not true. 1. You play 15-17NT 2. This is a max hand opposite a ♠ transfer.

Nope. Reverse the majors all around and I might give this a few seconds thought.

Play it like MP. Overtricks matter. Going plus is better than going minus. *magnitude* doesn't matter. You can afford to be a bit riskier since like MP, at worse you take a bottom and move on.

Look into transfer responses. Make things even easier. E.g. 1C-1S[balanced hand]-1NT relay- now can use relays as fancy as you want to determine shape, strength, honor placement etc.

It would be really nice for the play bridge link to not pop up. Just about every browser supports tabs these days, even IE.

Free: Couldn't disagree more. Would you trust a computerized set of dice that *never* rolled double 6's 10 times in a row? Sacrificing ACTUAL randomness for APPARENT randomness is one of the worse traits a RNG could have.

1♣. This hand is not as good as it's HCP would indicate.