hotShot

There are settings (bbo.ini) that force the Windows client to use an alternative server over port 80. But I don't want to search the forum to find them.....

There are almost 9400 members, but about 20% of the total posts are made by the Top 10 active poster.We have 6 posters with more than 10000 posts. If you order the members by total posts, you can see at the end of page 5, that the forum member at position 100 by total posts has written 1,156 posts. The poster at position 50 has 2,482 posts on his account. I would guess that about 80% of the posts are made by about 100 people. (In fact some have more than 1 ID in the top 100...) So I guess it would also be the same 100 persons up and down voting posts. I guess they will often give the same preferences and dislikes again and again.

What would 3♣ promise?

With this hand I would seriously consider to pass. It's not only that I would downgrade ♥QJ to worthless and that the ♦K might be in front of the ace. If opps have a ♦ fit, partner has a single or void in that suit but there are 11 ♥ and 10♠ cards that you don't have, opener is unlikely to have 5 in either suit, so partner and RHO share 7+♥ and 6+♠. If partner had a 5 card major and decent 8+ HCP he would have overcalled. If RHO had a 4 card major he would usually have bid it with 6+HCP. This has a smell of "opener is not minimum", "both sides have no fit", "no running suit" ....

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL045777.shtml The numbers indicate that 2008 the suns radiation was 0.34% lower than it has been 1990. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/a-better-yardstick-for-solar-cycles/ This means that we reached these temperature records with less radiation from the sun. This suggests that the atmosphere has absorbed the radiation more effectively, that it is a better heat trap than the assumed.

I consider 3NT and 4♦, but 3NT seems the better choice since 4♦ should have more distribution.. Partners 4♥ should be strong, I have 3 key cards and the trump Q so I'll bid 6♥ right away, because it's unclear that partner would not take 4♠ or 4NT as to play.

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2d(artificial,F1, 5-4 loser)p2s(8-11%20HCP%2C%20undef.%20single%20or%20void)p2n(asking%20relay)p3s(short%20spades)p5dppp]166|100[/hv]

It won't be canceled after 9 episodes, the first season has only 7 ...... And it is a cooperation with BBC2 so if the British people like it, there might be more.

Cinema productions deal with a lot of money and the producers and directors have the responsibility. As a result most of them don't like to make experiments. So they pick cast and crew in a way that they can (and have to) almost repeat something they did successfully before. The bad guys stay bad, the funny stay funny and the good guys stay good. (If you are unsure, look at their computer, usually the good guys use Apple the bad guys use Windows....) As a result the actors play the same roles over and over and the musicians write the same sort of music. If the audience have had enough of them, they get sacked.

Did your old computer have Windows XP and does your new computer have Windows 7/Vista? In that case your would have trouble, because you don't have the proper permissions to access "C:\Bridge Base Online".

If West had 5+♥ and 4+♠ would he not have doubled? This suggests that East has longer ♠ than West and if East is not strong enough to introduce a new suit at the 2 level (which is likely the case), they won't find their ♠ fit, if North makes a move like 2♣ or 1NT. This also suggests that East could run to 1♠ if he is scared to play 1♥X and if East is to weak to run, we might have missed game.

Look at at the last set of boards played in long matches at the final rounds of the Bermuda Bowl and learn that even WC player make stupid errors. I see the merits of a B/I forum and an A/E forum, but unless every post is evaluated by an independent council, this will not work. Take an example where a game could be made finessing the right side, this is most likely a question of counting typical for a B/I problem, but an expert could discover that a subtle double squeese is the better solution which would make the whole problem A/E.

Let us assume a board where the declaring side playing 4M (nonvul) is missing 3 aces and there is no way they can avoid to lose these 3 tricks. At one table the contract is doubled making. Score method 1: Both sides at tables where 4M= was played receive 0 IMPs. The pair declaring 4MX= wins 5 IMPs over 4M=. The pair losing 4MX= loses 5 IMPs againt 4M=. No result is lost. Score method 2: Assuming that the board was played n-times. Every declarer making 4M= gets -5/(n-1) IMPs. Every defender gets +5/(n-1) IMPs. The pair declaring 4MX= wins 5 IMPs over 4M=. The pair losing 4MX= loses 5 IMPs againt 4M=. The question is, do we want that the pairs playing 4M=, where both declarer and defender made only right choices, separate in their score by 2*5/(n-1) IMPs? Obviously for large n, the methods produce equal results. Playing in the MBC the "Highscore" could be 7MXX-3 producing a even larger distortion.

No blame. I might have bid 2♣ over 1♠, but usually not at these colors. Holding 5♠, I'm quite sure that opps don't have a ♠ fit, and that means there is a chance that neither side has a fit. So I have sympathy for passing 2♥, because we will play that undoubled, otherwise I can still run to ♣ or maybe LHO runs to 2♠.

[hv=pc=n&n=sjt76532hjt9dca97&s=sa9hakdqj43ct8642]133|200[/hv] Would you still preempt 3♠ and do you still want partner to bid 4♠? I don't think that preempt is a sin, but once you decide to preempt, you give up close games.

It's my impression that if GIB does not know the meaning of a bid, it takes the meaning of the last bid/sequence it understood.

A player is allowed to bid as he likes, as long as a proper disclosure of agreements and partnership experience is guaranteed. So I don't see how this definition of a psych can be abused. Psyches are a legal part of the game. The problem with them is that if a partnership uses the same psyche to often, if becomes a implicit partnership agreement. People are often not aware of those implicit agreements and don't disclose it properly. That way it changes to a concealed partnership agreement which is a violation of the laws. Weak player often misdescribe their hands, sometimes even in a "gross" way. But if it is unintended it is not a psyche. If you don't have an agreement, you can't deviate from it, so the resulting bid cannot be called a psyche. (Online) TD's ban psyches, because it causes them trouble and work. They need to keep a list of psyches and partnerships, to find if they repeat a specific psyche to often. And even more troublesome, they need to find out, what the actual agreements of a partnership are. If you e.g. agreed to play SAYC, you have implicitly agreed to play Stayman, transfer, Jacoby 2NT etc. without being aware of it. So the TD needs to know the wording you used for your agreements, needs to check your CCs system descriptions or profiles. Online TD's can hardly do that within the timeframe of a short tourney, and of youse if you psyche and get away with it, your opp might feel cheated.

Do you mean that one? http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20123615,00.html

I would prefer a structure that is more content orientated. Bidding problems SAYC your Topic 2/1 Acol SEF/Forum D/Forum D+ Precision Hand evaluation Conventions Playing problems Leads Signaling How would you play this hand Tournament related problems scoring movement ... This would avoid problems related with experience levels.

It would be nice that, if you get the "par" result, both sides at your table get 0 IMPs. Unfortunately there is often some lunatic result that shifts both sides IMP scores apart. There is no solution to this, because there are boards that don't have a "par" score, but the problem gets smaller if more scores a taken into consideration. Unfortunately the Windows client can only handle 16 scores playing in the MBC. This restriction is a heritage from the time when the number of players logged to BBO had only 2 digits and not 5 as it is now. So unless the windows client is dropped or updated(there is no plan to do that), it will not get more.

Since there is an "interesting bridge hands" forum, does that mean that hands posted to B/I or A/E are not interesting? How should a beginner know that a problem is advanced and not just beyond his abilities? Should a beginner playing SAYC post to he beginner forum or to the SAYC forum, what about a precision beginner? There are other forums i know, where a separation makes sense, I don't think everything about the current structure makes sense discussing bridge. Moving posts to other parts of the forum, is just a waste of time. I would suggest that we come up with a better structure.

I think you are not fair. Both rhm and awm have specified (most of) their simulation parameters, Rainer offered to rerun the simulation if someone had objections to the ones he made, but nobody posted usable parameters. Rainer specified overcaller with "No 5 card ♠ suit, either 6 cards in ♥ and 10 to 17 HCP or 7 cards in ♥ and 10 to 15 HCP". Adam specified overcaller with "11+ points and 6+♥." Adam's setting should produce more games than Rainer's. Rainer specified that North should not have less than 4♣, while Adam did not restrict responders ♣ length. This is problematic, because allowing responder to have more ♣ will shorten the average ♣ length of West shifting the result slightly in favor of EW's ♥ contract. But his effect should not be bigger than 0.5 percent points. Rainer used "1000 random deals, double dummy results with West declarer in a ♥ contract", while Adam used: "My single-dummy analysis might be different from double-dummy. There are very few hands in this set where our side has a real "play problem" whereas there were a number of hands where a non-intuitive diamond lead at trick one seems to be the only possible setting defense." This is the interesting part, from all the critique made about Rainer's simulation the only relevant thing is that North's ♦ lead is counter intuitive. Obviously ♦AQ (T98) are more likely to be in the South hand than in North hand and the double dummy solver will always find the ♦ lead. So it is possible that in this specific setting the double dummy solver could deviate more from the human play than the average 0.1 tricks. Rainer stated that about 62% of the time you can make 3♥, Adams little extra strength and a non intuitive lead could easily shift a lot of these to making 4.

Obviously East, because he forgot that transfer responses are standard in this sequence, if nothing is agreed. Since this is an individual you can't agree much so East should have sticked to the standard.

What about the people who post in the expert forum, because they want an experts opinion and not one of a fellow B/I player?

I think you can use the forum enemy feature to filter a specific poster.