sfbp

Exactly as I said the posted hand would go 4H p p X p 4S What I say three times is true! Want me to say it again?

Nope. i mean it started 3S P P X (x by the strong hand) with the 4H opener it might go 4H P P X P 4S of course with 4S opener it's more complicated

Ben means I own a copy of DmPro ;)

Well that begs the question, doesn't it? Would you raise 3♥ to 4 on [hv=s=s952h42dat96cat76]133|100|[/hv] After playing the original hand my vote was to open 1♥ (but see below) but what do I know? I prefer my 3-level preempts in majors to be really weak, and 4 level preempts to be really pure. Now all the answers are in, I can reveal that the majors were reversed (noone bit on Ben's question!!!!) because people here are very smart. The funny thing is that one pair got to 5♥X (the other way of course) and this hand led out its 2 aces for -850. In the hand I posed this means that the 4♥ preempt would lead to a contract of 4♠X and even with the club ruff it would get made. So think about that folks, does a 4-level opening actually push them too easily into making games? Turns out it doesn't make nearly as much difference as one might think because, the decision being so close, both 3♠+1 and 4♠= are reasonably middle-ish scores. What I found interesting was that at the table NOONE opened 4♠ but more than half of the 3♠ openers raised to 4. It seems like the panel may not represent real life, therefore. Maybe the panel's argument is that 4♥ (on the hand given) is a winning bid. By definition, a winning bid has to be something that does better than the field. Certainly the field is not bidding 4♥ (actually 4♠ but no matter). The 1 and 2 ♠ openers never made it to game. Top score was the lucky dudes who opened 3 ♠ and played there doubled.

Strange - when I first checked the results there were 3 replies saying 4 hearts and 3 votes for 3 hearts.... Go figure!

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=s76hkqj9853dqj2c2]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] What is your call? Is there game if partner has 2 aces and a couple of 10's? (sorry Misiry call should be 3D, no way to edit poll)

Zars (I am sure someone, eg Ben, will tell us what the Zar count of that hand is) would definitely tell us it's an opener. The rule of 20 does, too. Didn't I read a discussion on the application of the rule of 18 recently, in connection with the newest Orange Book? Heresy here: 2D non-game-forcing response (probably the one I'd make playing precision) makes the auction much more natural and even easier to reach 4H. Not very often StdAm beats 2/1 to the punch, but seems like an example. 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 4♥ - There is a small problem in 2/1 - a lot of people who thought that their opening bid was a bit "daring" (OP didn't open!!!) might bid 2♠ rather than 2♥ in response to 1NT forcing. Yeah, I've seen it. Probably a good one to look up with the unmentionable tool. But you are probably right not to bid 2♦ in 2/1 - to h**l that way lieth.

Ah - but when you try and apply ONE specific hand the simulator biases things by exactly how much you specify. Hard to explain this.. but the reality seems to be that BridgeBrowser allows you to see patterns in data that you didnt realise you asked for. Whenever *you* overspecify a hand for a simulation, you have thrown out a whole bunch of hands that actually show the same underlying point that a more general approach would have done. The advantage of looking at these in BRBR is that you get some feel for frequency. A treatment that only fits one hand in a million is great if you simulate it, but no use in practice - why? because you usually end up stealing some other (natural?) meaning more commonly assigned. When someone (too lazy? to find it themselves) asks me a question, I generally end up answering some *other* question, heheh. Sometimes the question is too general (eg something about the first 2 bids at the level of 1), sometimes too specific (all the people who overcalled 5C after an opening of 3H and a response of 4S). In the first case you can be sure that most actions are roughly neutral - interestingly any trends at all can be taken as quite significant since the sample is so huge; in the second case you might find one or two hands in the database. Simulation doesn't give any weight to these numbers. BRBR does by showing the number of samples and the standard error of the mean of the matchpoint results.

Nope, you can't make 6H in fact it is two off But doubling (the action chosen at the table) is -1540. Partner has Jxxx J109xxxx x x LHO is 2263, RHO 1056 Sigh, I added up the points around the table and figured partner might have something (wrong) and the RHO a lot of clubs(sorta) and a void (correct). But RHO had all the points too. Do not pass go... do not collect +200...... Those partners who overcall a strong NT on 1 point, said Walter the Walrus. I presume they are getting to 6♣ no matter whether we bid or not?

Double. I don't care about how much I get from doubling vs how much I make from 6H, I just know I am likely to lose to ♥K on my left, and it's almost inconceivable partner can cover the minors. Go ahead, tell me partner has a void in clubs and ♦A.

How exactly are you going to ruff *two* diamonds? Stephen He is going to ruff dummies 2 diamonds. He is going to set up dummy (hence why he is taking 4 trump tricks, not 5). ok, I see now the missing element, loser-on-loser in hearts/diams. And this can only happen because diamonds were not led. On a diamond lead I think you have to follow Roland's idea of ruffing the third club (?high). 5 trumps + ruff, 2H and 2 aces. Stephen

How exactly are you going to ruff *two* diamonds? Stephen

3♠ There's lots of points left round the table, and 4♠ may easily be too much. If partner is bad we still may push them into something unmakeable. If he is good, then he may have enough to bid game.

I'll sign up for 4NT. It's the only bid that clearly defines my hand. If my partner has nothing it may keep them out of a makeable something, if he has something, he now at least can choose a suit for us. I dislike 4♥ because it gives us only one chance to be in the right place. As usual with crazy hands, any plus is good. I like 4NT precisely because it doesn't give them the chance to be in 4♠ at my expense. Looks like that at the table this wasn't an issue. I would rather push them into one too many as a way of getting my plus. What do I know? Ask the oracle, perhaps if I had time. Over to you, Adam. Stephen

I just tried it here. No problems, I tried every combo I could see, given that I entered a bad password. I decline to bore everyone with the details, for obvious reasons. The first choice you had was a Yes/No. If you click N(o, the program exits immediately. If you click Y(es you get another opportunity to enter a username and password. Granted, if you start the program without using the shortcut (by double clicking it) you will get lots of funny errors, but that goes for most software on the market. There's a built-in assumption that you know what you are doing, and have a local BRBR installation. This can be useful when the net is down, but that mode was not designed for someone who is locked out. As Ben says, installing hbrbr instead (de-install xbrbr, first) would achieve your current objectives. Something else you might consider is simply to open the windows help file BRBR.HLP, this time by double-clicking it. That would give you lots of reading :)

Go try it.

Obviously you're joking :D In any event BRBR is not a beta-test product, and I apologise to anyone who received that impression. I doubt that it will make it to version 3 unless I win the lottery.

"Thinking about IMPS", John Boederer. His simulations indicate that 4333 opposite 4333 need 34, while 4333 opp 4432 need 33 and 4432 opp 4432 can get along with 32. He's got the right idea but the data appear to say different. Simply one point less than the numbers he gives, in each case.

I have already taken serious offence at your attacks on me. Certainly you won't ever be invited to try BRBR for free again, and if I had you coming to me begging to be a customer, I would turn you down. 'Nuff said.

I am denying his version of it. Absolutely. I think Justin's self-serving account speaks for itself, if you divorce the rhetoric from the facts.

Not so. I measured this a long time ago. Here is the quotation: I don't know where you get 34 from. Goren used to think that 33 points were needed because you could not then be off 2 aces, and that seems conservative. The data appear to say that you are right, if and only if partner turns out to have 4333 15-count. I'm not talking "make the contract" but about "the action that gets the best matchpoint score in the long run". Any idea what percentage of openers are 4333 15-count?

Your side to the story justifying your disgustingly rude behaviour that even Barry Crane might have been ashamed of (and he had an atrocious reputation for rudeness and unpleasantness) in no way vitiates your obvious disregard for your opponents, even by reading your own description. I had the temerity to stick up for my rights. You clearly believe that your rights are to ride roughshod over others and your own account clearly indicates that. As for your comments that I have not contributed much (except BRBR) I would ask you how much you contributed to the game of bridge with the following hand: http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...ayed=1201402467 Not to mention the week I turned you in for bidding 7NT maliciously. Have a nice day.

I asked you (in another post here) which post *I* made advertising BRBR, Instead you answer about Ben who you respect, and fail to answer my question instead substituting an ad hominem attack. What bad post(s) did I make? Or is this merely your impression bolstered by an unpleasant experience at NABC where you behaved like a p*g and I called you on it? What advertisement did I make about BRBR? (AFAIK the posting I did here was purely followup to feedback from people who tried BRBR on Saturday). What justifies your sarcasm "a heartwarming story"? I told you facts. You appear to imply (dangerous ground here) that I am in some way embroidering. I am not. Don't think you can win this one, Justin. Apologize.

For instance? When was the last time (before this weekend) I posted anything about BRBR? Ah, I've got it - you wrote PostBrowser and can give me detailed statistics.... Cmon Justin, your last post begs an apology - by you.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=23302