hotShot

The DD-solver "plays" better than both NS and EW. So the causality you give is distorted. Additionally the DD-solver does not bid, so the optimum playable contract found using the DD-solver is not necessarily biddable. Often the biddable and makable contract will be the same, but if it's not this should not gain to much weight in the players ranking. As usually there are advantages and disadvantages to this approach. One advantage is that the DD-solver is equally strong, not depending of field size or strength, preferred bidding system and pairing. Disadvantages are that that the DD-solver always finds the perfect lead, never misguesses a finesse ...

I don't see why. In the discussed case, the averages of NS and EW have been separated by 34 IMPs as jerome71 mentioned. Each board will alter the averages and although it would average out, if enough boards are considered, in a tourney with a limited number of boards this will not happen. So the approach to compare NS and EW separately seems fair.

Of cause you need to score NS and EW separately as you do in an Mitchell-Movement anyway. Lets calculate that correctly: Lets assume NS play a NT (vul.) and the DD-Solver can make 13 tricks on "on 3 finesses and a squeeze". Every reasonable Human player stops in 3,4,5 NT. Those NS pairs that score 600-690 get -17 IMPs a pair making 3NT+4 get 720 will lose only -16IMPs. So the score of the NS side is "distorted" by 1IMP, this board is not selective at all. A lucky pair that bids and makes 6NT, will lose only -12 IMPs and gain a 4 IMP advantage over the other pairs on their axis. A lunatic pair that bids 7NT and fails will lose -20 IMPS 3 more then the reasonable player. The same applies to the EW side.

The IMP scale is not linear. Compare the range for 1 IMP 20-40, 11 IMPs 500-590 or 21 IMPs 2500-2990 So any type of IMP scoring is sensible to those scores close to the datum score. Simulating frequency tables will generate a noise in those scores close to the datum score, while DD results will produce a systematic bias. I prefer a systematic bias to random noise.

1NT

Sorry for this off-topic post, but does anybody know when medicine will allow brain transplants?

Actually I did not post to this, because I did not get it. Why is the 2♠ bid from West explained by South as penalties.....

Show a little respect, they have almost hijacked this thread. :)

The case in OP is: - not a regular partnership - undiscussed situation - the player is aware that it is undiscussed Under these circumstances a player can try to transfer - although unagreed - bidding 2♦ knowing that he will pass partners 2♥ or run to 2♥ himself, if opps double 2♦. Accepting to suffer a possible loss if partner and opps pass that bid. (see Law 40A3 and Law 40C1). If even one of these circumstances where different, this would be a complete different case. If East were sure they had agreed to transfer in this situation, he has no reason to run from 2♦X. It's hard to believe that a regular partnership has never had this case before.

broom closet

2♥

The hesitation suggests bidding on, and pass is a LA for North. (It would be interesting to poll the pears if anyone considers 3♦ a possible bid.) So I will correct the score to 2♥=.

Most of the posters of this forum play a lot online. They are familiar with the situation that they have only few (if they made any at all) agreements with their pickup partner. Playing offline, especially at in an established long term partnership this will be completely different.

With the restrictions given, I'll just bid 4♠.

The Bowles evaluation method* values this as an opening bid. The people who suggest it's a pass are either Kaplan/Rubens addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand. Doesn't that make just as much sense as what you posted? * This method consists of looking at the hand and deciding how much I like it. Actually Kaplan and Rubens supplied formulas for everybody to replicate their method. So if I wished to adopt K/R i could do so. If I where to believe that the Bowles evaluation method (BEM) is superior , I doubt I could replicate your evaluation.

Let us assume for a moment that there were screens. When the tray comes back and it's responder turn on bidding, he has to deal with 2♦X. Even if he were sure that there is an agreement that system is on, he would know that partner forgot. No need to see the alert on nonalert from partner. There are (almost) no hands that opener would start with 1NT, that could successfully play 2♦ opposite responders possible void or single.

Check the system lang variable in linux. reinstalling java might help, but I'm not sure that this would help because I'm not sure that it is in one of the *.properties file of the java configuration. maybe it's in the java call. java -Duser.language=en ....more switches

This looks like a java issue, seems that java is getting the wrong system language (so it could also be a problem of the system settings).

I think you alert agreements, since there was no agreement, why should there be an alert? If there was no obligation to alert, the missing alert can't create an UI. The problem is not the missing alert! Because North did not alert the 2D bid South has received the (unauthorized) informaton that North understood this 2D bid differently from how it was intended. The problem is that South has used this (unauthorized) information when selecting his next call. Your logic is flawed! If opener took the 2♦ bid as transfer, he would not alert it, because it's a guess and not an agreement. So your assumption that North can conclude from the missing alert that South did not take the bid as intended is wrong. South could have taken it as intended, but decided that he would rather play in 2♦ undoubled, even without a fit, than to risk a 2♥ contract that is doubled. South can risk to go down 6 undoubled in a contract that should only make 8 tricks without getting worse than 2♥X-2. South could always have had the intention to correct to 2♥, if 2♦ gets doubled.

If you don't mind the obvious 3 reasons: - Your 1♠ bid is quite preemptive and forces your LHO to risk an overcall on the 2 level opposite a passed partner. - Partner might not open in 4th seat without a spade length. Since you have 5 ♠ he's less likely to have ♠ length. - Opps might preempt aggressively in 3rd seat keeping your partner and you from entering the bidding.

This depends on the partnership agreements about openings in 2nd seat and the corresponding agreements for openings in 4th seat. If it's agreed that 1♠ can be a weak opening, I prefer that.

I think you alert agreements, since there was no agreement, why should there be an alert? If there was no obligation to alert, the missing alert can't create an UI.

Isn't that Einstein in the middle of 6?

If there is a war going on, than the terrorists are heros, and should be treated like prisoners of war. If the terrorists are criminals they should be treated like criminals. Which includes investigations, a lawyer and a fair trial. It's unacceptable for a constitutional state that terrorists should have no legal status or rights. Not only because it's wrong, but also because these terrorists fight for a kind of state that is not up to our standards f.e. separation of state an church, human rights, free speech ... Our response to a threat from them should not be that we lower our standards, reintroduce torture, ignore "habeas corpus" .... because if we do, we make the terrorists successful.

So you would call those amok runs, terrorism, because usually they kill themselves in the end. Seems to me they don't expect to get away. "A flight passenger on his way to Denver tried to commit suicide, if he had succeeded he would have caused the dead of 300 other passengers. What caused his desperation is yet unknown. Rumors say he was misguided by fundamentalist." I think that kind of reporting would make being a suicide bomber much less attractive than: "Terrorist scared Amerika, now billions of passengers are searched, expensive equipment is installed, freedom and privacy are restricted to prevent another act of terrorism."