woefuwabit

Try this: cd ~/.wine/drive_c/windows/Fonts && wget http://doc.bridgebase.com/Help/Answers/symbol.ttf

I once covered a revoke that was not spotted by any of the players on the table... I guess vugraph operators have no right to draw attention to an irregularity.

Is there a way to read lobby chat using the web client? Otherwise there doesn't seem to be a way to find and join team matches. What would be great would be a team match matchmaking service. Also, I've found that the web client likes to repaint itself a lot (which slows down everything), when temporary toolbars appear on the browser (e.g. search toolbar, download status bar, security warning / save password bar). Using firefox 3.5 on 64 bits linux.

In several of my partnerships I play fit-showing jump shifts over 1M. A jump to 3♦ would show something an 8 loser or less hand maximum 10 hcp and at least 5-4 in M + ♦ and is typically invitational. If opener rebids 3M I still have the option to raise to 4

*deleted*

Not a hand for result merchants? Hmm... let me guess, it's a tricky hand such as.... this? [hv=n=sk65h7dk9876c7543&w=sq87h9daqj1054ckj8&e=s1043hakqj5432d32c&s=saj92h1086dcaq10962]399|300|[/hv] with ♠J being the only lead to set the contract.

2♥ = invitation+ with club fit Dbl = Heart fit, penalty, decent hand Pass = minimum, no heart stop, probably balanced Rdbl = extra values (GF), asks partner to describe hand further (e.g. bid 2NT with a half-stop)

"Well done partner, you read me for ♠Jxxx from my opening bid." RHO probably has all 3 remaining aces since the standard defense against Gambling 3NT is to lead an ace if you have one. Playing the J now will limit your losses since LHO is now marked with Q987(x). Of course, who would blame you if you lose an additional trick when it was partner's idiocy that landed you in here? Play the K and you may win if LHO is a noob.

Takeout double. Can't see any other possible line of action.

Partner would have passed the double with anything more than 4 points, so you're not missing a game. Partner is possibly going to be playing a 4-2 fit, but bidding 3♦ now will be overstating your hand. I'd pass first and pull to 3♦ if doubled.

Partner has about 8-9 points (not much more since he didn't bid more than 2♠, and not much less (he did make a 2nd level negative double). Probably with 4 small hearts since he did not pass the double for penalty. With 16 points in my hand, there is just enough points for game, but from the bidding the cards are not sitting well, so forcing a game is not right. I'd bid 3♣ invitation to game and I'm confident partner will put me in 3NT with the right cards if we can make it, although I won't be surprised if it goes down.

I don't think you can play diamonds for 4 tricks with a singleton Q with east if you start with the ♦J

Good points. I reran the simulation with the 5-0 break, and without club restrictions, results as expected: Line A = 508765 Line B = 570156 However, giving west 3-4 clubs and east 5-6 clubs... Line A = 530659 Line B = 519285 Well, that's a significant change! Here's my code if you want to check it: north is "KT65 6432 AJ4 K8" south is "AJ7 AK8 KT865 J7" sdev lineA sdev lineB source format/none main { reject unless {[clubs west] > 2} reject unless {[clubs east] > 4} if { ([west has QD] && [diamonds west] < 3) || ([east has QD] && [diamonds east] < 3) || ([east has QS] && [spades east] < 4)} {lineA add 1} if { ([west has QS] && [spades west] < 3) || ([east has QS] && [spades east] < 3) || ([east has QD] && [diamonds east] > 1)} {lineB add 1} accept } deal_finished { puts "Line A = [lineA count]" puts "Line B = [lineB count]" }

when you play the 3rd round ♦4 from dummy, you will have T86 over east's 974, you can't pick up all 3 remaining tricks.

If you consider that west is leading 4th best and therefore has minimum 4 clubs and rule of 11 giving minimum 2 clubs to east, the odds will favour line B more. This is my simulation: north is "KT65 6432 AJ4 K8" south is "AJ7 AK8 KT865 J7" sdev lineA sdev lineB source format/none main { reject unless {[clubs west] > 3} reject unless {[clubs east] > 1} if { ([west has QD] && [diamonds west] < 3) || ([east has QD] && [diamonds east] < 3) || ([east has QS] && [spades east] < 4)} {lineA add 1} if { ([west has QS] && [spades west] < 3) || ([east has QS] && [spades east] < 3) || ([east has QD] && [diamonds east] < 5)} {lineB add 1} accept } deal_finished { puts "Line A = [lineA count]" puts "Line B = [lineB count]" } Results (1 million trials): Line A = 505884 Line B = 576482 Without taking the 4th best lead into consideration, figures look about right where jlall and gnasher have calculated. Line A = 508196 Line B = 554000

Results of 10000 trials: Count = 10000 Average = 7.7423 Deviation = 0.9981935428737773 Makes 7 or less = 3576 Makes 8 exactly = 4457 Makes 9 or more = 1967 Non-vulnerable, Playing in 3NT vs Playing in 2NT Average IMP per Board = (-2 x .3576) + (-5 x .4457) + (6 x .1967) = -1.7635 Vulnerable, Playing in 3NT vs Playing in 2NT Average IMP per Board = (-3 x .3576) + (-6 x .4457) + (10 x .1967) = -1.78 Of course, this assumes perfect defense and declarer play... but it does look like it is a nett loss of IMPs bidding 3NT opposite 10 hcp partner instead of inviting and stopping at 2NT.

I'm not convinced that game is likely to make opposite 10 hcp with partner. I'm testing this using simulation atm, results soon... south is "xxx AKQxx Ax xxx" deal::input smartstack north balanced hcp 10 10 sdev stats sdev make7 sdev make8 sdev make9 source format/none main { set trickswon [tricks north] stats add $trickswon if {$trickswon < 8} {make7 add 1} if {$trickswon == 8} {make8 add 1} if {$trickswon > 8} {make9 add 1} accept } deal_finished { puts "Count = [stats count]" puts "Average = [stats average]" puts "Deviation = [stats sdev]" puts "Makes 7 or less = [make7 count]" puts "Makes 8 exactly = [make8 count]" puts "Makes 9 or more = [make9 count]" }

In a suit my partner called, I usually lead count (low from odd, high from even). So, T 8 9 T 8 9 T T 4 4 T 2 2

How about a system like this for the strongest possible team with a sponsor: Split the qualifiers into 2 separate pair trials. One group for unsponsored pairs, a second group for pairs that include one player that is willing to sponsor the entire team when formed. The top two pairs from the first group and the top pair from the second group will form the team.

^

If you do a google search you will find that there's no published format description, and there's very little information about the details of the format around the net. Yet there are obviously a lot of people who understand the format because there's a range of applications that can read or write to the format, unfortunately none of them seem to come with source code, and a some of their authors are regulars on this forum... I think the simple explanation is that the format is trivial to decode just by looking at text within, that it's not worth the trouble to document. Would be nice though, to have an official 'specification' from the authors of the format, but for now we'll just have to make do.

What I meant was if E has 4 diamonds and 2 spades, you can still make the contract with A or K of ♣ onside. He will ruff the 3rd spade, so you overruff, draw trumps, and play club twice towards the QJ.

3♥ look like the normal bid. Passing may be a good idea if you need to create swings to catch up on IMPs though.

Pass? If there was something partner wanted to do, partner would have done it.

Ideally IMHO, you would want a system that will work not just on the iPhone, but on Android, BlackBerry, Symbian, WinMo, etc... I'd think Ajax would be the way to go. Multiple system support may have been low priority back when BBOWin was originally developed, hopefully this will not be the case when the mobile client development starts.