sfbp

Nice to be damned by faint praise. I guess noone makes money out of anything to do with bridge.... But I actually don't see anything ranting or offensive in your other post (I went and looked at it, and it seems perfectly reasonable - and reasoned). I don't think I will ever make money on the scale the pro's do. Fred warned me this many years ago. So far I am 7 years, over $6,000 cash out of pocket, and many many hours of completely unpaid programming. Call it persistence. We had a few nibbles from pro teams, any one of which might have made me rich(or at least repay my investment). But they all so far have preconceived ideas just like yours, that only studying high quality bridge by high quality players will ever yield anything in this endeavour. Good players (especially pros) have to play against a lot of bad players, and make a lot of "bad" bids in the process, too, as I am sure you would admit. Without all the bad players there would be no tournaments, right? But I do take offence that you attempt to rubbish (in this thread) something that was offered for free that you chose not to investigate. I cannot speak for Ben, but I feel sure he posted those auctions because they raise interesting questions which normally are quite hard to capture. Sure, the ability to produce these are a great advertisement for BRBR.... if they weren't, I guess you might have said so using factual reasoning? As I know you are very good at doing. Maybe we should meet at a sectional or regional one of these days - you might be surprised how nice I am face to face. At least that's what someone told me a few years ago after a flame war where the person concerned thought I was some sort of monster. Cheers Stephen

I don't really see this as an ad for BRBR. Perhaps you are being a little over sensitive? (I know, I have been there, done that). People spout a lot of nonsense about what the best bid is which frequently removed from reality, witness the 3H-5H debate i watched some weeks ago. If you dislike having your preconceptions disturbed by the facts...... Cheers Stephen

Hi Adam, One thing to remember is that any incomplete search, if done by index, will return biased (distorted) results - you are excluding all the hands that you never got to. I'm not sure how you did your search but I am guessing by Bidding sequence. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought you mentioned that you terminated the search. Did you get the warning about stopping an (indexed) bidding or shape search prematurely? i think (depends on what you did): a. the pass is excluded b. you are looking at a different set of hands - Ben probably only looking at dealer opener, whereas you include the hands opened after 1, 2 and 3 passes. We could do dealer pass, second hand opener, but by the time you get to 3rd seat, it's pretty wiry out there.... I mean, noone believes they have to follow any discipline at all. So a bit hard to tie down. Sorry you found it slow - so did we, until we figured out all these weird ways to index things. It's really hard to put such data in a "regular" database because by the time you have put them in a form that can be indexed, and then done the indexing, the data is about 10 times as large, with all the attendant consequences from searching lots of data, not to mention the disk space. 600GB instead of 60. Stephen

Well, the good news is, I ran the search without doing it via the net. Ie I took a real dataset on a real machine and let it go full tilt! What a difference! Now it takes 5-10 minutes. Sorry I didn't watch but I had other fires to fight, notably the clock change. The downside (of course) is that it takes about 1/2 of the CPU. Here it is: http://www.homebaseclub.com/images/5422.jpg I'm sure someone will want to give detailed commentary on this (hint hint) but I will content myself by saying this: the SD (actually SEM) is available but not shown in this graphic. The SEM for low frequency actions is large. The SEM for high frequencies is pretty small.... ergo, don't rely on the number you see for 2C but DO rely on 1NT. I wish I could anticipate all the things that people might do, and create easier ways to access the data. The (perpetual) problem is that to be really interesting, people feel they have to look at the data in some way noone did before. After all if the answer is known, why bother? So if you are serious about the 5422 thing, the only real solution is to put you and about a gig of data in the same room. It's bad enough being over the net, and in England at that (whereas I am only about 50ms from the server and awm is even closer, about 20ms!!!). This is the way we did searches at the beginning, I may add, until I came up with all these weird ways to index data. Originally I thought "maybe this will never be useful remotely". But you can get a lot of information (drilling down, they call it nowadays) on very specific things, like specific players who bid X holding Y or Z. Saving an intermediate file is definitely possible but it would take way too much CPU and disk on a shared server. As you've seen many ideas take a scan of almost the entire data set, and no one else gets a look in. Ben will have the answers to these and many other questions over the coming months. Stephen

Hi Jack, Been a crazy day here, quite apart from keeping one eye (sic) on the server. Some follow-up information: 1. I did your search the easy way; even then it was still a very very long one, and I'm not sure how valuable the information was. I got 51,000+ hand records with the criteria you specified. 2. I'm not sure what it proves, but seems to be that 1NT is a clear winner (to the tune of 0.4 of an IMP or 1.8% at MP). However, as Ben pointed out, there are so many contributing factors, that would help people decide whether to make this bid that I don't think such a broad search really is all that useful. What might be more interesting is to grab the hands which have 5 in a minor and 4 in another suit. The comparison between 5M and 1NT has been made many times. (I don't have to hand but by me, Ben, and others. We actually wrote an article rubbishing Zeke Jabbour in the nicest possible way, which the ACBL decided not to publish, despite support from Larry C). For many people 5-4 in the minors especially 4D+5C is a systemic problem which 1NT solves in the right pt range.... and on and on. 3. The BRidgeBRowser help screens are fairly detailed (although I admit I wrote them a long time ago) and the program takes pains to point out each time you start it, that you can get context-sensitive help by pressing <F1>, the standard "help" key. This might have enabled you to learn what different types of search are, without cracking so much as a book open. 4. All versions of BRBR come up into so-called wizard mode, which projects you into your first search, as an answer to the folks who stared at the screen and said "wow! but so what?". This can be repeated as often as you wish after the first time by simply selecting Wizard from the Help menu just above "about", right where every Windows program tends to have a help screen. 5. Some of the tutorials on the HB website are oriented towards that first duel with so much data. For example http://www.homebaseclub.com/forums/index.php?showforum=28 and also here: http://www.microtopia.net/bridge/day1.html So it seems maybe the best idea might be to practise with the free hbrbr and get familiar with some of the ideas, in time for the next free day for the "real" product. I'm sorry it didn't work out; I should be glad to have you as a customer. But I would still probably be trying to nudge you in the "right" direction; that's just my nature. Cheers Stephen Pickett Author of BRidgeBRowser

Is this Vista? Not sure of the security options there. Microsoft made their own mess and it's not clear whether they fixed it or made it worse (I stopped using Vista over a year ago, postponing to the day they literally forced me there). You can easily add http:// sites into your trusted list by unchecking the box in the screen you refer to. I am a firefox user but I don't disable IE for the purpose of logging onto BBO. Just make sure you don't add anything http:// (as opposed to https) to the trusted zone. Clear?

Fred, I have to be honest, I gave up on FD when I saw that I would have to write my own program to generate the sequences for it (let's not debate that conclusion for now, we discussed what I think is the critical thing I would need to restart efforts) This is an attempt to be constructive: most people still don't use FD and many find that the FD cards that are there are irritating - either because they are filled out wrong, or ignored. What about a self-learning switch for FD? This would mean that you could describe your auction as you play, and the default would be for FD to remember the meanings of your bids. Of course you might have to take the step of selecting "your system" so that the bids you make in precision wouldn't start to overwrite the ones when you play 2/1. But that's not a big deal for most people who play only one system. Establishing a bid usage history of sorts might have other advantages too ;) I suggest that there might be available to the player a simple way to alter the description of a bid that pops up from previous sessions. The default would be that explanations and alerts would be copied in AT LEAST when card was blank in those spots, and an option when card wasnt blank. This also means that the common sequences will get covered, and the system freaks will now have enough time to spend on the uncommon sequences. Sound like a plan? Stephen

I normally play that the meaning of their interventions doesn't make a difference to the meaning of my bid except in one case: where the overcaller promises one specific suit and it isn't the one he names. This is a philosophy from precision, where people just like to make rubbish bids. Having said that, I play leb over 2♦ and up. Trying to recapture my ability to describe the hand. After X, with a weak (actually 12-15) NT I play that runouts are on, which is not the same as systems on. With a strong nt (15-17), systems are on, 2C may be desperation stayman. After 2C, regardless of meaning, I play systems on in either case. Why? Because about half the time opps make the wrong bid, and I don't want to get a bad score because they misbid. It's impossible to have firm agreements about your bids' meanings when opponents may get theirs wrong and are bidding destructively (the basis of all interference). In addition I've lost nothing relative to no interference. 2♣ gives me the chance to double or bid 3♣ for stayman, and to transfer as usual. Much better in my experience to have bidding agreements that do not change with different flavours of opponents' conventional overcalls. Granted, if they bid 2♦ showing ♥ then it's worth having some ammo ready, but in the absence of discussion double is "natural" (neg or penalty depending on partnership) in all other cases of 2♦ thru 2♠. What about X of 2♣ as a transfer to 2♦? Anyone ever tried that? Seems to me it ought to work as you still have 3♣ as stayman albeit a bigger (or wilder) hand. Stephen

Maybe you mean black like this? http://1.forumer.com/uploads/homebaseclub/post-25-1163659060.jpg

I like 4♥. What more can they do to us? I'm happy to outbid them in spades or diams leaving a question mark only about clubs, since this 4H ought to show a void.

There are other ways ;) Much as I like 2♦ as a preempt (and use it in standard), in precision we open such light hands that it's better devoted to something structural IMO. We open 2D on all hands 11-15 with both 4-card majors. a. 1NT never contains 2 4-card majors, so can be one point wider (12-15). This simplifies a lot of stayman auctions. We also play some other very simple stuff that makes the 12-15 range bearable. b. We almost never opening prepared ♦, so 1♦ is 4 (and except with 4441 hands with a singleton major) usually 5. The frequency of 2♦ is much higher and of course the majority of the hands are 4432 (as opposed to 4441 and 5440). However most of the good stuff from the classic 2D opener is still there. It's quite preemptive, and GCC-legal - describe it as "mini-flannery" and opponents won't have a procedural objection, and they will have a defence, more or less. This is described in my book on Purple Precision, if I ever get it published. In response to the comment that it can be used for minor 2-suiters, this version is highly aggressive and its still perfectly possible to bid minor 2 suiters with 2NT (we don't, in fact) Stephen

Is there (or could there be) a canned file with all the old colours in it? I could not get back the old friends colour for example. Thanks Stephen

Any 2-2 spade break OR any singleton honour, surely? And if hearts break you don't even need the KH unless opps manage to break both minors.

Your comment suddenly reminds me of a marvellous example in Design for Bidding (SJ Simon) that I read so many years ago. He constructed a pair of hands about like this and started out general bidding discussion by saying something along the lines of "you'll never be able to construct a bidding system that finds the best contract on these hands". Anyone got a copy? That was, for many years when I never played bridge, one of my significant memories of things brilliant written about this game. Thanks for cheering me up. I was South, and didn't accept. I must confess if anyone could have saved it, holding something like North's cards I have been known to make a Texas transfer and pray, especially at teams. Often works though. Playing our system the chance of holding THREE spades when I open a NT is a bit higher because we exclude a bunch of shapes, but really that's a small consideration. The ♥J is massive, too! PS (added later) I just found the results - the traveller was incomplete when I looked, we got about 30% on this board, not zero. But still the majority were in game

I fixed the bidding, the notrump bidder's partner invited with 3♠ I was slightly mystified myself by the traveller. Some even made 5 with the K♥ onside.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat8642hj52d73ca6&s=sq93haqt3da642c73]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] Bidding 1N - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♠ - AP Notrump is 12-15 so this hand is technically at the bottom of the range. The rest of the field bid as follows 1♦ - 1♠ - 1N - 3♠ - 4♠ AP A cold zero.

No time to play this morning. Lets for now assume the clicking is from the scrollbar. I tried a number of things but what seems left (couldn't find it) a. round change b. chat not full c. scrollbar is painted though it's not needed Looks like in Justin's case it was painted in the wrong place too. So perhaps something like there are two ways to paint scroll bar and one is being done over top of another, and sometimes when no scroll needed at all. Hope this helps.... just my random thoughts

Is an ad being displayed when scrollbar flickers? Has anyone else seen this? What's the story with clicking cards twice? Does this always happen? Has anyone else seen this? Do both of these problems happen on all of your PCs or only the ones with old versions of Windows? I was running narrow. So i don't remember if that (narrow, maximised) gives room for ads. Sounds like jilly confirms the card clicks not taking. I haven't tried newer windows - sounds like she has.

There is a widely held opinion that 1x-1y-1♠ is forcing. I ran into this a couple of months ago when my normally sane precision partner and my partner's partner (we were playing 5 man swiss so everyone changed and changed about) perpetrated a nice sequence ending in slam that started this way. And I said "how can you bid 1♠ here?" And he said "of course, playing with you, I wouldn't". Nevertheless both he and P's p agreed 100% that the 1S was forcing. They even agreed to play XYZ, and the next bid was 2♦ by responder. Once again, we run into the fact that 2S shows such a monster that we overload the 1S bid. This is another example of "standard" bidding that makes it soooo hard for beginners. Yes, mikeh, a difficult journey when we are handicapped by such illogical logic.

Is it possible you're missing something, Mike? <grin> I figured out why my (polish-born) real live partner passed a six count one day, claiming that he needed 7 to bid. He's not a particularly timid bidder; far from it. The answer lies in the fact that he sometimes plays Polish club. In fact he frequently plays at the Polish Club here, where all the players are, well.... Polish. In WJ, openers have a way to bid a strong hand, so they know that bids of 1S are limited to 17 points or so. It's the same with Precision. I will pass your quoted 8 pointer in a flash, because I don't have to allow for 21 point openers. I have done some mentoring recently (I won't dignify it by calling it teaching) and one thing I came up with was to explain to my mentees WHY they are supposed to respond 1 over 1 on a FIVE count. And several times I thrust it down their poor throats that the reason is FEAR - fear that partner may have one of these whoppers, and miss game (21+5=26). What the same players do when they have 5 points and you open a spade, noone knows, but that's just "standard" bidding, lol. In other words making one bid is conditioned not really by whether we like the hand or not, but by the minimum size of partner's "strong" opening. This point is rarely familiar to beginning players, I think. The difficult journey you refer to is made doubly difficult by almost unlimited openers.

mebbe related; the scroll bar goes "noisy" during tourney. Forever flickering, when vertically maximised, even though chat region is not full. Minimise it and it stops. Could this even be related to having to click cards twice?

Seems to have all its arms and legs under W95. Noticed that the logo on the login main screen (there was a more brightly coloured one on that machine until I did the upgrade, once of the very first with the new layout) didnt render very nicely. I have 256 colours on that display, probably the reason. Stephen

Not sure if this is new. But I think it's somewhere in the new version. I will try 4.9.4 and see if it goes away. But what i notice many times today when i played was that clicking a card did not have the expected action of playing it. 4.9.3. windows 98 Stephen

may not show up as bridge more likely as ntvdm or wowexec

I admit I never tried it kibbing, I just loaded a file with some hands in and looked at the results in the normal way. I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that live bridge might be different. Does it do the same when you take a hand from your archive on disk ken? If you ask me what I think could be wrong Fred, there are a bunch of preferences in Vista that stop things from running, for security reasons. I wouldnt be surprised if the setup in pigpenz' version somehow stops applications from spawning DOS ("console") applications, which I am sure bridge.exe is. Stephen