BunnyGo

Yeah, copy and paste the wyman quote from above to below...

Thanks Fred, that's great!

A lot of B/I americans play 3D is weak and 2D is GF, they have a gap for the constructive-limit hands.

There are three actions this hand I don't like (in order of occurrence): 1) bidding 3♥ 2) Doubling 3♥ 3) not leading a ♥ Here's why: 1) You've bid your hand, you have long clubs with the A, that's nice, but you're going to have really nice defense against 2NT or 3♣, just sit back and double them if they keep bidding. 2) This is IMPs, you have no quick defensive tricks, your QJx of clubs is worthless since the opps are definitely ruffing the third round of clubs (if not the 1st or 2nd), and you've now told them how to play the trump suit. You've turned your hand from 1-2 likely tricks to 0-1 likely tricks...at best... 3) When partner doubles on an auction like this, it's VERY likely that there's trump to pull and ruffs for the enemy coming. Without a really good reason to do otherwise, lead a trump. You have all other suits partially stopped, so you aren't too worried about club tricks disappearing, and leading a singleton trump isn't bad when partner has doubled this.

Yeah...but with alcohol it can be fun to slum. I enjoy getting myself in ridiculous contracts and seeing if I can squirm out.

GIB is prone to making mistakes that a lot of humans will say, "that's SO terrible, no human would ever do that." That said, when it is not making mistakes (and it doesn't make them too often) it plays the cards better than something like 90% of the BBO members and bids according to its system (it's not too good at improvising when it needs to).

I imagine that a 7PM EST start is too late for anyone in Europe.

Yes, wyman and mikeh are right...the 4♦ bid is just wrong. It should be a 4♥ bid to make a slam try. I do agree with mikeh that it's close (note my previous comment that before I thought about it, I'd have reflexively bid 4♠)

I played this hand with Phil online against two random (but seemingly decent) players. [hv=pc=n&s=sq732h64dt32cakq8&n=sk954hdaqj964ct93&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1c4hdp4sppdpprppp]266|200[/hv] Comments on the XX, or is that reasonable? Either way, you now have to play it: Lead is the heart A: 1) HA, S4, H3, H4 2) C3, C5, CA, C2 3) D3, D7, DQ, D5 Now what?

To answer the original question, I would invite somehow, probably 4♦ (cuebid in support of spades). The reason is that there is a "perfect minimum" (22 pt hand with no extra shape) that makes 6♠ a very good slam: AK9x, AKx, Axx, Axx I will say, my first inclination was to just sign off in 4, but I've been trying to think more about what partner could have. There are other really good hands, like: AKJx, AKJ, Qxx, Axx

"Timo: You're so unamerican, you wouldn't know patriotic if it bit you in the ass! With a name like 'Timo' how could you?!" (paraphrasing mine) This all reminds me of the old joke: An American and Russian are at the WBF championships. The American says to the Russian "In my country we have freedom, I can even make fun of our president." The Russian responds "So what, in my country we can make fun of your president too."

I have an easier time concentrating online when I arrange to not have distractions around. I like being able to talk aloud about a hand. That said, when I do have distractions at home, I do not concentrate as well.

I agree with mich-b in that even though I play "systems on" over 2♣ interference, I play systems off when 2♣ is the majors. As for the original question, I too would expect it to be for the minors.

Your diagram isn't loading for some reason. I too would lead a club.

I imagine you're playing some form of Israeli Acol? Either way, I'd open 1♦ with this hand, and unless I have an explicit partnership agreement to do otherwise I don't think it's that close. Opening 1♣ puts you in a worse spot it competitive auctions (which are likely with a 12 count 3rd seat opener). What would you have done over: 1C-(1H)-X-(P) ?? I guess 2D, but I'd be very sad about it compared to: 1D-(1H)-X-(P) 2C Also, yes. Opposite a passed hand holding a minimum opener with Ax in support and no shape, there's no reason to bid on.

Great posts. Good luck with the rest of the tournament. I'm sorry I won't make it down to meet you, but at the last minute I wasn't able to travel this week. Hopefully another time. As far as judging outcomes, one thing that helped me get much better at it was after every hand I wrote one of -2,-1,0,1,2 next to the hand (depending on whether I thought it was a 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). You then add all the numbers up, and add it to 50 to get your expected percentage. This helped me in several ways: 1) Trying to judge the hand immediately helped me analyze objectively the score (thinking about whether we'd have done better competing, different line, etc.) 2) Writing down every board helped me not focus on clear tops or bottoms and aim for steady non negative numbers (especially trying to avoid -2). 3) Doing it like this helped me appreciate how every hand counts the same (I knew it of course, but had trouble keeping it in mind while playing) and how much it counts (up to 2% either way). 4) I was able to learn by comparing what I thought a board would be to what actually happened, this was also a good learning tool.

Why is this thread in A/E to begin with? I thought inquiry policed this forum. I call shenanigans on this thread.

The cash prizes are 1 human vs. 3 robots. It is not so easy to cheat as the humans all see different hands (except the 55% MP) and the scoring is generally total points over an amount of time...

Especially opposite an unpassed partner, I would never preempt a hand with opening strength values, and so I would open both of these 1♠. As wyman said, I'd consider opening them 4♠ in 3rd seat, but would then still open them 1♠ because I have the master suit. The general rule of thumb is, "don't preempt with a hand that has opening strength."

See hrothgar's comment. GIB partially works by running simulations (Monte Carlo) to try and figure out what would be best. To generate good simulations requires random number generators with a seed. When the seeds are the same, there should be the same result (if you could show this wasn't true, I'd be surprised). When the seeds are different, the two GIB programs may get slightly different simulations that cause it to choose differently between two or three close choices (it should rarely or never deviate from the top choices). DISCLAIMER: none of the people responding so far work for BBO or are directly involved in programming GIB. We all simply know a little about programming and how GIB works.

Damn it Jilly! You can't exclude me! I'll exclude you!

I've had this problem on my older computer when I was running too many programs. I think it's an error with flash. Can you copy and paste into the chat box?

Maybe he wanted the penny more than the softdrink.

It can only hurt the team that sent the 12th man out. Either the play stands, or the NOS gets free yardage. Furthermore, the game cannot end, so there is an upper limit on the amount of time the play takes.

Can we upload smack talk via video a la "The League"?