hotShot

Klöden left Armstrong about 200 m before the the finish line. This was enough for him to gain a 6 sek. lead.

When South is opening 1♣ and both opps bid ♥, than North can count: South can't have more than 2♥, he does not have 5♠ and assuming an American style he should not have 4♦. So South shape has to be 4234 or (more likely) 4135 ( or 4144 perhaps not playing American style). While I agree with North first pass, bidding 4♣ should be considered and has a lot of appeal. Working points and shortness in ♠ are goodies.

I usually try to implement a major/NT/minor game or partscore policy. Combined with bidding up the line, this leads to the agreement, that responder only bids 1♦ over 1♣, if he has a 4 card major too. Without a 4-card major (partner will usually not have 5M after a 1♣ opening, so there is no major fit between us) responder bids 1NT directly, even holding 4 cards in ♦ or ♣. Off cause the 1NT bid is therefor nonforcing. Over responders preemptive 1 NT the unpassed opponent does not have an easy 1M overcall or an easy t/o to the majors any more.

Did you realize that after the the top of the Tourmalet there are 90 km downhill till the finish. Bad climber usually compensate by being great downhill racer. When it gets more flat a big field has the usual 1min./ 10 km advantage over any smaller group. Trying to gain tomorrow is a wast of energy.

Well the tour rumor is, that the team strategy was to bring Armstrong to the lead today and let Contador overtake him later in the tour. It's the impression of many that Armstrong could have followed Contador, but did not because you never help the competitors to close the gap to a teammate.

Fred is right, you probably don't have the right to write to the BBO directory.

I guess you mean that dummy plays the J at trick 1 because he does not have the Q and South could no longer have the Q in position 2?

Obviously their 1M openings have a better suit quality than usual 1M openings. Opps will have to alert all rebids, because the rebid suit could be longer than the opened suit. So I can ask about that stuff later. Since they open 1m more often than other pairs, we have more chances for a cheap 1M overcall. I think opps system has weaknesses against weak jump overcalls over 1m or other preemptive moves. I don't think the system is that silly, but if opps like to make their life harder, I won't object.

150 years for stealing 65 billion dollar. This is about a day of jail for per stolen 1.2 million dollar. So the punishment for stealing 13,88 dollar is a 1 second of jail. All crooks should ask their lawyers to make the judges recalculate their punishment, I guess almost all would have to be released at once.

But GIB maximizes expected total points, doesn't it? So if a deal where the unsafe line goes down occurs once in its simulations, it should go for the safe line. I think GIB optimizes the number of tricks he can take.

Player A and his Partner B are part of a top team. Player A expects that winning the tourney will bring him some sort of financial advantage. Player B is completely unaware of what A does. Player A is familiar with the tournament location and manages to get a room that is visible from most parts of the playing area. He asks his wife who shares his financial interest to watch the life vugraph from his match from the hotel room, and change the window status (open/close) if he should bid more aggressive next board. A notices that his wife has opened the window. Next board partner opens 3m and he looks at some sort of Yarborough and would usually have passed. But with the extra information he bids a confident 5m over RHOs pass. Partner goes down 4 dbled non vul., but Opponents miss their slam/grand because of this. A few board later he notices that the windows is closed again. Next board partner opens 1M and he upgrades his close to maximum single raise to some sort of invitational hand. His partner would have passed 2M, but now risks to bid 4M. The other table had 2M+2. These 2 board should produce a significant IMP advantage for A's team probably enough to win and since their opponents will feel they are behind, they might start making mistakes. Does this sound realistic enough for you? Of cause his wife could also sit outside on a park bench or walk through the hall as a signal.

Michael Jackson started his career as a 5 year old, in the 60's. For people from the 60's to the 90's this was the music of their youth and his death reminds them of their own mortality. Believe it or not it stretched into my youth too. My mother had the 'Bad' album and I listened to it constantly when I was very young. Perhaps you still young enough to feel immortal?

Michael Jackson started his career as a 5 year old, in the 60's. For people from the 60's to the 90's this was the music of their youth and his death reminds them of their own mortality.

You may not be aware that this is a complex deal for GIB. Since North is void in ♣ he's got a lot of legal cards that can be payed and the same is true for West (and South) in ♠ after the first round is played. This means that GIB needs more time to double dummy solve the simulated deals. Since GIB operates under a time limit it's possible that GIB made his decision based on 1-4 simulated deals, giving these deals a lot of weight. By the way if the time limit of GIB is fixed, GIB gets better with every card played, because with fewer cards the simulations are faster and GIB can simulate more deals during the limited time. More deals meant that the simulated deals are a better representation of the true probabilities.

You have to understand that GIB does not know what a finesse or squeeze is.

I don't know why so many think that signaling would be done every board. Do decide a team match between top teams, it would be enough to signal that the next board is a makeable but unbidable game or slam. A player could use a non playing friend without the knowledge of his partner to get that information and just bid a little more aggressive on the next board. If the aid can see what board his partner is playing and what the result off the next board was in the other room, all what is needed is a little time to signal that information. During a live vugraph there is enough time for that.

I always thought that that among the ten commandments was: "You shall not kill" But it seems that some pettifogger changed that to "You shall not murder"

Watching live vugraph is best, Usually I would not care much about a 30 min delay, if the comment was live. I would not get up in the middle of the night to watch a vugraph live. I would not take a day of work to watch vugraph. So if I could not view a match I was interested in live, I would watch it (preferable with live comment) if offered at a more convenient time.

To an automated vugraph, the solution would be to use cards (and bidding boxed) equipped with RFID chips. Under/In tablecloth there would be a detector. Of cause there would be a need for a "claim" card, to signal a claim to the system.

I can think off some reasons that would make a "delayed" vugraph a great thing. 1) If the delay is long enough, all those pauses where nothing happens could be removed. Allowing for a better time management. 2) Operators and commentators could correct mistakes. 3) If a match is during office hours, I could not view it anyway. 4) If the vugraph is delayed, it would not take much to allow anyone to watch the vugraph at the time he wants and with the speed he likes.

They are also filtered by vul. Or to be precise, there are 16 pools of boards for any vul. situation and the next board for your table is picked from the pool that has the required vul.

That would not be so easy as you might think.

I both of your examples, the psyching opener deviates from the agreements, by passing forcing descriptive bids. In both cases his partner made the systemic bid as if the psyching player had his bid. By passing the forcing bid, the psych is revealed. That is legal. Illegal would be, if if responder passed forcing bids, assuming you might have psyched.

To North 4♥ seems a making contract so bidding 5♦ seems necessary, but 6♦ is to much.

There is a borderline between a legal psyche and cheating by using a concealed (implicit) partnership agreement. A psyche is legal, if your partner is as surprised about the psyche as opps are. If he is aware that you sometimes psyche, he has to disclose that experience to opps. If your partner knows that you have psyched before, he has an unfair advantage to recognize a psyche during the bidding. Partner has to bid as if the psycher has the hand he promised until it becomes obvious from the bidding that this is impossible. If a bidding system is designed to cater a specific psyche, the TD will have to assume, that this is not a psyche, but an undisclosed partnership agreement.