psyck

Thanks for the update and sorry for the trouble.

The NS score for this deal has been assigned to EW instead. 4SN+1 The TD confirms that no adjustments were made by them and they believe it to be a BBU bug.

A Bridge article by Phillip Alder: Deccan Chronicle ePaper

It is quite common in other forums to see who is following you, get notifications when someone follows you etc. I can see it being useful here too, quite often I may miss adding someone to my friends list, but if I can a list of people who are following me, I may want to follow some of them back so that they get into my friends list.

Semi-Forcing is the term commonly employed for a non forcing NT response, both are the same - meaning opener is not forced to response on min balanced hands.

We can play with this kind of stuff ourselves here: http://rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/

Large strides were made in Chess due to the presence of open source projects to which people from all over the world could contribute coding ideas, testing H/W, etc. The existence of some reverse engineered commercial S/W also helped ;) It is quite possible that initiating an open source Bridge project could result in Bridge programs that can play stronger than humans.

My comment was on the general strategy to be employed in such situations, of course my comment was not meant to be taken seriously in the first place.

Double if sitting EW and pass if sitting NS?

Just send them all to India, they are used to taking in millions of refugees, from Bangladesh etc.

Horde

These four only work in the web version - ; ) : $ : P : D

The "Upcoming Broadcasts" in the windows client is another link that has stopped working, there are probably several others too.

No it doesn't. All tables with one or more friends show up in those lists only when they are full tables. As I mentioned, if one or more seats in the table are empty, then that table does not show up.

If a table has 1/2/3/ users marked as Friends and one or more empty seats, then I would like it to show up in one or both of these views: Help me find a game -> List interesting tables List all tables -> Main Bridge Club -> Friends

If adding additional Sound options is not an option, at the very least removing the sound for cards played would be HUGH improvement.

Another was of approaching this would be... The number of ways of selecting one Ace = 4 The number of ways of selecting one Ace and one King = 4*4 The number of ways of selecting one Ace, one King, and one Queen = 4*4*4 The number of ways of selecting one of each denomination = 4^13 The number of ways of selecting 13 cards = 52C13 = 52!/13!(52-13)! The possibility of being dealt one of each denomination = 4^13/52C13 = 67,108,864/635,013,559,600 Which is approximately a 1 in 9462 chance, or roughly 0.0106 probability that Barmar derived. Similarly... the chance of being dealt a 9 high hand (Yarborough) is 32C13/52C13 or 1 in 1828 the chance of being dealt a 8 high hand is 28C13/52C13 or 1 in 16960 the chance of being dealt a 7 high hand is 24C13/52C13 or 1 in 254397 ... the chance of being dealt a 5432 (any) 432 432 432 hand is 158,753,389,900 to 1

Earlier on clicking on GIB it used to show the number of DD over/undertricks; now it doesn't.

I was the one who committed what user 'wank' calls a capital offense of opening Multi with that hand. When my partner (abccba) bid 2♥; my first thoughts were that I had committed a cardinal sin too, as usually partner would have cards in the other major when he makes a pass or correct bid & it looked like our ♠'s were lost for good. However, I began revising my initial thoughts about the hand when North (Kushari, a veteran grandmaster of Indian Bridge) overcalled 3♦, South (laltu) bid 3NT, and my partner doubled. Partner must have something good in hand to double 3NT when he does not know, or care, what my major is. Partner, who is on lead against 3NT, is likely to have a solid suit or a semi-solid suit with a ♦ card that he plans to set up on the lead. The double of 5♦ only confirmed my thoughts that, since I could trust partner to not double 3NT if he did not have a defense to other game contracts, he must have a semi-solid suit with a ♦ card. As I mentioned earlier, he is likely to have very little in ♥ & since opps should have some ♠ to bid 3N & I've good ♠'s myself, that leaves only ♣ to be partners suit. Happy with my analysis (user 'wank' came closest to the "correct" reasoning among those who commented), I led a ♣ to discover this hand, where any lead but a ♣ would have sold the contract: [hv=pc=n&s=sj73hkj3djt76cqt4&w=s842h64dkqcak9652&n=saq6ha8da985432c7&e=skt95hqt9752dcj83&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=2d(Multi%2C%20Weak%20Major)p2h(Pass%20or%20Correct)3dp3nd5dppdppp]399|300[/hv] Oh well, that was a nice fairy tale, the truth alas was that I led a ♠ without much thought. In addition, I have to confess that I switched a couple of cards in the hand - partner had ♦A8 and the ♦KQ were with Kushari ji - who correctly judged at the table that 3NT would play horribly but a ♦ game may have chances. Hence, either a passive ♥ or ♣ lead could have worked on the actual hand & only my aggressive ♠ lead sold the contract. [hv=pc=n&s=sj73hkj3djt76cqt4&w=s842h64da8cak9652&n=saq6ha8dkq95432c7&e=skt95hqt9752dcj83&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=2d(Multi%2C%20Weak%20Major)p2h(Pass%20or%20Correct)3dp3nd5dppdppp]399|300[/hv]

I will post the actual hand shortly; please vote & post your final comments soon.

The general system agreements are that doubles mean do not lead my/our suit; though I think that is far from applicable in this case. Partner must have a ♦ card and enough source of tricks on the side for his doubles. Partners ♠'s will be at least as good/long or better than ♥'s for his 2♥ bid, though it is not clear if he can have too much in ♠ on this sequence. Of course, if partner had them beat regardless, this wouldn't be much of a problem. As the table, a specific lead was required to beat it. I have since convinced myself that the lead can be logically worked out, but as I may be biased, I thought I would pose it as a problem & get your opinions.

Yes, the opening bid was just a gamble with that ♠ side suit - likely done due to the vulnerability. Partners 2♥ could be from a fairly wide range of hands, mostly with less than game invitational values & certainly with very little in ♥ (as partner has 2♠ to invite in ♥ or 2NT to find out more about your hand). His later doubles suggest sufficient sources of defensive tricks outside of ♥. We now need to decide if an active or passive lead is called for & which cards are active/passive.

[hv=pc=n&e=skt95hqt9752dcj83&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=2dp2h3dp3nd5dppdppp]133|200[/hv] 2♦ - Multi, Weak Major only. 2♥ - Pass or correct.

It was a team match on BBO, & as Spyder pointed, the suggested line is reasonable single dummy; unless someone can come up with something better...

Correct WellSpyder. Cyberyeti, I specified the 9 possible tricks after each critical point - ♠ through South, ♥ though North, and after both those win - so I hope is clear enough now...