sdebois

Playing SAYC, isn't it possible for opener to have some 5-4 hands that can't reverse? Case in point: Jxx AQxx x KQxxx 1D - 1S - 2D - 2H* - ?

Let me get this straight: Since I have TD-privileges on BBO, whenever I chat-to-lobby, everybody receives, even those who ticked "Ignore Chat from Lobby"?

You are south, playing "SAYC full" with a pickup pd: 9 5 A Q 6 2 Q T K J 9 7 4 Bidding goes (E opens, N-S vul) : p - 1C - 1D - DBL 3D - ? 1) Does 3H show "extras"? 2) What would you bid and why?

The idea was not to get away from restrictions, but rather to have as many pairs as possible play scientific systems. One usually do not meet even one pair playing a scientific system playing a tournament on BBO (not counting PC), so I thought it might be interesting, both from a playing and kibitzing point of view, to collect as many scientific pairs as possible in *one* tournament. P.S. I hope you all understand what I mean by "scientific". I couldn't come up with a better word.

Hi all, I thought it would be interesting to host a tournament in which as many pairs as possible play scientific systems in one form or other (strong/variable club, strong/variable pass etc. - anything but SA or 2/1, really). Would anyone be interested in playing in such a tournament, and if so, when, what scoring, how many boards, etc.?

Playing SA, I recently sat south at a matchpoint tournament: [tt] W/N-S K Q 4 T 9 7 4 2 T 8 5 4 J 2 p - 1NT - p - 2D* p - 2H* - p - p 2S - p - p - DBL a.p. * Transfer [/tt] Comment on my final double, please (intended and understood as penalty).

Hi all, Quick suggestion: It would be neat if one could register a "default greeting" for tournaments. So, for instance, with my regular pd I could set it to "Hi opps, sa-like system, udca, open 1!h on four". This way, a) I wouldn't have to do it manually and B) I wouldn't forget it in some round. Come to think of it, this might be useful for non-tournaments too.

Hi There, Here are two suit combinations from Kelsey's "Matchpoint Bridge" (p. 48-49): [tt] 1) A Q T 4 2) A J T 4 7 6 7 6 [/tt] Assume that in both cases, we begin the suit by finessing the ten, losing to the J/Q respectively. Kelsey now makes 3 claims: At the outset, the odds of making more than one trick is 76 percent for both combinations, After loosing the first finesse in combination 1), the second has a 52 percent chance, After lossing the first finesse in combination 2), the second has a 68 percent chance. This is the explanation provided: "Since the overall chances of making more than one trick by taking two finesses are the same (76 per cent) for each combination, it seems strange that the second finesse should have so much better a chance on [combination 2] rather than [combination 1]. The basic reason is that with [combination 1] you used up a larger slice of your chances on the first round. The losing finesse of the ten used up 50 of the overall 76 per cent, leaving 26 out of the remaining 50, i.e., 52 per cent, for the second Finesse. With [combination 2] only 24 of the overall 76 per cent were used on the first round (the chance of West having both honours). That leaves 52 out of the remaining 76, i.e., 68.4 per cent, for the second finesse." This is impenetrable to me. It seems to me that when I count the placement of outstanding honors, in both cases I find that from the outset, I win 2+ tricks whenever east do not have both honors (3 in 4 cases), and that after loosing to easts honor, only one of the 3 winning cases are left (exactly one of the two "splitted honors" cases). If someone would care to clarify Kelseys argument and demonstrate the error of mine, I'd be most grateful. Also, why are Kelseys numbers 52, 76 etc. rather than 50, 75 etc.? I believe the context for the problem is immaterial, but here it is anyway: [tt] E-W/S J 7 6 4 3 K 6 5 A Q T 4 (A J T 4) J A K T 8 5 2 A 7 2 7 6 8 5 1s - p - 4s - a.p. Lead: CK CK J 7 5 HJ K 9 2 x S3 x A x T J D7 4 A 5 H3 ? [/tt]

A system description for German Moscito (Peter Buchen et. al. 1993) available in English here: http://www.diku.dk/hjemmesider/studerende/...man-moscito.pdf The relay structure and openings are identical to Luis' above, however, this document uses various asking bids rather than denial cuebidding and includes a modification with transfer openings and 1nt = majors. For the impatient, Honeymoon Moscito (Peter Buchen 1991) has "natural relays" and is very easy to learn: http://www.diku.dk/hjemmesider/studerende/...oon-moscito.pdf The above system is very fun if you've never played a strong club and want to try it - you can play it literally after 15 minutes. Honeymoon is rather lacking in definition, of course, so one quickly acquires the ambition to try something more well-defined (and complex), like Luis' variant of German Moscito. Luis, if you want to do a neat-looking write-up of your version of German Moscito, I have the LaTeX sources for the German Moscito PDF-file above. (I got all this off the internet. I have had no part in the creation of any moscito-variants.)

Hi there, When trying to access http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands, I am redirected to http://bbo.bridgebase.com:81/perl/history.pl, I get an error message "Access Denied" (complete text below). Thanks in advance, -- debois. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERROR The requested URL could not be retrieved While trying to retrieve the URL: http://bbo.bridgebase.com:81/perl/history.pl The following error was encountered: Access Denied. Access control configuration prevents your request from being allowed at this time. Please contact your service provider if you feel this is incorrect. Your cache administrator is staff@diku.dk. Generated Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:33:54 GMT by proxy.diku.dk (Squid/2.4.STABLE6)