sfbp

Wow, wd Fred... Your convention card editor is good at bridge! Huh? There is all the reason in the world for wanting to be able to lead the J from this combination, or the Q from AKQ, according to how sophisticated your carding agreements are. Presumably yours are not......

And.... GIB button is gone when reviewing offline hands. Sigh. Minor detail in CC editor, you cannot lead J from KQJx :)

Sorry about the mess, I need to be able to edit the post and I can't. Yes, completely reproducible (at least with my current CC). I couldnt make a screen shot easily, so this was my next alternative. (maybe you can fix the [ / CODE] tag to be in the right place, then it wont mess up the BBOF screen) I'm not going to update to IE7. Sorry. I actually wish that instead of invoking iexplore.exe you instead were able to use the default browser. Then I am betting this wouldn't happen at all. Cheers Stephen added: finally found the edit button it was way off screen because of the mess I have a nasty feeling I may have tried to click on some card lead that wasn't allowed. I tried to set the lead to something that showed there but it didn't highlight (green frame) after I clicked it. Maybe that is the problem.

Javascript debugger after the following error: "Cannot focus an invisible window" IE6 (last version) What more you need? Stephen

Tourneys where players can talk to the whole room are becoming annoying. Alright, so maybe don't play in them. But if there was another option in chat to suppress anything except TD's and the players at your table, that would be a nice improvement. adTHANKSvance

I've liked the following structure for a long time. Note that it may work better in the context of limited (precision) openers. There are other flavours such as making the first bid after 1♥-2♥ different from that after 1♠-2♠ but it seems like they just place a burden on partnership wanting to adopt - you can always refine. I learned it originally in Acol , so it works fine with 4-card majors (ie 4+4 raise) as well. NS = New Suit. == 1M - 2M - 7-10 points, always some ruffing value (small doubleton or singleton) and can be alerted as "will accept at least one game try". == 1M - 2M - NS - 3M - No thanks (usually means that the shortness is opposite now-wasted high cards) == 1M - 2M - NS - 4M - Done! == 1M - 2M - NS1 - NS2 - I don't know, what do you think (pass the buck) == 1M - 2M - 2N - I don't have useful shortness but still interested if you can bid shortness now (assuming you cannot bid game) == 1M - 2M - 3M - Usually a 6th card in the major == There's more, such as defining carefully what hands to go via Forcing NT to 2M, and via FNT to 3M; but I assume most using these methods already have that sorted out already. The minimum biddable game (admittedly very lucky) I ever saw was 11 opener opposite 7 responder. And the biggest responding hand (that doesn't qualify for FNT and jump to 3M) is 10 points and a doubleton, and that hand gets "upgraded" if the doubleton is small. In the context of standard a game try can be a concealed slam try, but rather unlikely with limited openers. I did manufacture an example once. Some of the biggest advantages to the whole scheme seem to be where opener is at the top or bottom of the range. In the former case he blasts 4, in the latter he passes (and, xyz-like, you're not in 3 going down 1), and opponents don't have much information.

Well that wasn't clear (to me). I thought you held the 2D opener, and your RHO bid something over the X. So my vote is meaningless.

4♠ This presupposes he is playing or thinking that 3♣ as a takeout promising some major suit hand. I further suppose it didn't get alerted.

Is this just a technicality in that you charge for the data, but not the software? No. You are welcome (and it is possible) to play around with the software with various small, free datasets. Presumably you could figure out how to make your own, but the software is not designed to support that endeavour.

look, if you charge for software, you should have to pay for the advertising. inserting little snippets plugging your work in a "matter of fact way" should not be acceptable. Interesting point. I've never charged for the software. So if we are discussing software that's free, I guess I don't violate your "shameless" rule.

That's OK. your shameless self promotion isn't welcome either. Classic. When you run out of arguments, make the attack personal.

I will restate using as close to the given wording as possible. The concept of my software is that given "It is virtually impossible to say anything about the merits of a double by running a simulation." it is however possible to measure outcomes of a given action. Your sarcasm is not welcome. You're right in one way: the software doesn't make conclusions. It allows the user to draw them. If you're not motivated to do that, nothing will help.

Isn't that the concept at the heart of my software? your software runs simulations? More irony? Where a comparison can be made between double dummy/ simulation and real results, it's been shown that there is a very good correlation. There are many situations where simulation doesn't work, or cannot be done. That's exactly why determining the outcome of different actions in a given situation can be quite helpful to choosing an action. Measuring and comparing real outcomes is what the software does. Some people (here) apparently prefer to measure/experiment by playing one hand at a time, and wholly reject the concept of developing rules. They would rather spend 20 years becoming pro's than looking at the results of other people's actions, I think. I wonder whether, given your allegiances, you needed me to tell you this.....

Isn't that the concept at the heart of my software?

huh?

I would sure like to see why NOT taking the first ♥ with the Ace gets that contract down 1.

Ah,,, finally a new type to rite on my Konvention Kard - "Perverted Doubles"

I did some checking (Ben doesn't believe me, yet) and it looks like double is a winning call in this position. Also well ahead in simple frequency of any call except pass. If you load it into GIB, the error is not the ♣4 but taking the first round of ♥ with the Ace. I will admit, I can't exactly see why but that's for someone else to explain. Thanks for the kind words, Nige. Until you posted I was afraid to raise my head after everyone yelled at my double :) Edit: BTW I didn't criticise 2♥. Of course he's not promising values.

Delete all and insert (sorry I read it as 3 passes to me). 3NT gambling

If Uday were to add a "no-movement" movement, you could run it as a pairs game with one round per board? Or am I missing something...... Sounds a lot like the real live swiss matches where three teams play - essentially you have a mitchell movement. The only problem might be scoring each team against the "field" as opposed to against only the opponents they faced on that board. That relatively small change might be all Uday or Fred has to do to fix it.

Absolutely agree, and good to have your take on this issue too, Fred. I'm not claiming (nor has BRBR ever claimed) to know what the right opening is. All it (and I) can do is point out "what works and what doesn't" (from the description on my old, lame, website, which I plan to replace when I get time). The original reason for the posting was that I was trying to figure out whether opener or responder should be making the bid that allowed game. The traveller on that hand was unequivocal: most people (by far) opened 3♠ and most people with my hand raised to 4♠, which I found really surprising. The main conclusion I have at the moment is that the preempter's side playing 3M or 4M (assuming 4M makes) doesn't matter that much, both 3M+1 and 4M= are in the middle of the pack. The question of 4-level openings by a majority of poster was surprising to me. On this hand 4-level makes. But is the gain from getting there by a speculative raise on xx xxx A109x Axxx better than opening 4 in the first place and maybe pushing opps? (sorry, this isn't expressed well) Even with all 3♠ openers there was a pair that got pushed to 5♥X and made it (rotten defence by someone in my seat). I would be surprised if you are in that small a minority after all.

So far there is no evidence whatsoever that the world opens this at the 4 level. In fact there is evidence to the contrary. Furthermore there is evidence that the very few (less than 5%) who opened such a hand 4♥ did very poorly. As this is a subject on which it's clear the established panelists here don't want to hear about, I shall refrain from further details. Interested parties are welcome to pursue it by contacting me privately.

Lol, lost on me. Thx.

I said nothing about Texas. You might be implying something about Namyats, but this pard and I, and probably the majority, don't play it, and there were no 4m openers or lack thereof to cloud the issue since noone opened higher than 3 I agree; that wasn't my motive for switching, I simply wanted to avoid post hoc propter hoc analysis. However one pair of opponents did get to 5♥ so it seemed reasonable that one or more might get to 4♠ if I held the hand that 2/3 of the voters said I should open 4♥ (very very far from unanimous despite certain people self-proclaiming unanimity). In fact 1/3 of the votes (the mostly less vocal minority, and I suspect in reality the silent MAJority) said that even with a heart hand they would open 3♥ not 4♥.

I apologise Mike. I see what you mean, finally. If the other side can get to 5HX (in real life after 3S opener) its not unreasonable that the side with spades (after HEART opener) could get to 4S. What you are saying is they might not manage to X 4S whereas Xing 5H (on the real hand) was easy. Sure.