nigel_k

Everyone's defence sucks and that feeling that defence is the worst part of your game is normal for most of us I think. Visualization of possible layouts and the consequences of each action is harder when you can only see half of your side's assets and half the other side's assets. In general, before playing a card, make sure you have in a mind a layout where your chosen card will work and the alternative(s) will not, and that is consistent with the bidding, declarer's line of play, and partner's defence and carding. Be sure to analyze what will work on the basis of declarer (and partner) adopting a single dummy, not double dummy, line of play. It sounds like you already know this and there are really no shortcuts. Just keep plugging away until you get there.

Another pin play is: KQ98xxx Ax JTx x Defender should play J or T. Also: AJ7x x KT8x Q9xx Defender should play the 8 when declarer leads to the J. Arguably doesn't count because declarer should just lead low to the Q next if they only need 3 tricks, but maybe it is matchpoints or they are greedy or don't know how many tricks they need. But not: AJ7x Kx T8x OR K8x Tx Q9xx Playing the 8 on the first round all the time is inferior and allows declarer to increase their chances if they know the defender does that (but not if both defenders always do it).

I'm not a fan of the law (and that's putting it mildly), but it should be noted that the law does not say you should have nine trumps to bid to the three level. If they have eight spades and you have eight hearts, the law says that either 2♠ or 3♥ is making. It is generally right to bid 3♥ in that situation, especially if you do it early to maximise the chance of them making a mistake.

How old is the book? Maybe it is from before count signals were invented. But I suppose this could work sometimes.

I don't think this is so, as a general principle. Each sport has its own code of ethics which has developed over the years. In basketball you can even foul intentionally, deliberately breaking the rules, and this can be regarded as good play. Whereas in cricket, there are people who are widely regarded as villains because they found unusual ways to win within the rules (bodyline, underarm etc). I agree that the organizers should take some blame, but whether it is 10% or 90% or something in between, depends on the norms for that particular sport, not on any general principle.

The winner should be able to choose their opponent. If there are two winners from separate groups, have a countback (e.g. sets won or points won) to decide who gets to choose.

Is it not possible for a robot to replace the disconnected player, but the other player keeps playing? It wouldn't handle the case where the robot plays better than the player who left, but Josh is probably taking those players' money regardless.

Agree 100% - just play that a direct overcall in their suit at the one level is natural and everything else as if they opened the suit they showed. Simple and close to optimal IMO. You may also need an agreement over the responses. If they make a GF relay, you will be bidding obstructively so 1NT=minors etc. Probably the same if their relay is invit+. But if they have some kind of artificial response which may be invit/GF or responder may just pass whatever opener does next, then you will need to know what you are doing over that.

This is not asking a question purely for partner's benefit. West has already decided to ask the question and is able to do so at his turn. So there can be no benefit to West when East asks the question. It is possible that East will benefit from learning the answer to the question a round earlier than he would have if the laws had been followed, or from realizing that the question is an important one and drawing the appropriate inferences from that. If the opponents are damaged as a result, they can get an adjustment. Otherwise I would just remind them of the law, tell them not to do it again, and let play continue with East asking the question.

If you can change your opening 1NT to the same as the field and keep everything else more or less the same, then do that. Switching between four and five card majors is too hard though due to the flow on effects, and a different NT range is the major anti-field risk. If you normally play weak NT and four card majors, I would not switch. Strong NT and four card majors is hard to play. But five card majors is just better IMO so I would switch permanently for that reason (but keep the weak NT, especially if playing in England).

On the first one I chose 1♣. This is a little wierd probably, but I was taught to bid this way playing Acol and it has generally worked well as long as you hold good clubs and sufficient values to get the spades in twice. I don't think there is a material difference when playing five card majors. The second one is a very clear double. It's quite unlikely that defending 3♥ is best for us and partner will be well placed to choose a contract after the double. There is room for partner to have quite a good hand, e.g. xxx xxx Qx KJTxx or maybe more. 2NT also seems pretty normal on the second one. If NT is correct it should be from my side and I've bid two other suits so partner will not expect me to have spades all locked up and has plenty of space to investigate if uncertain.

Our problem is that we are worth three and a half spades. Neither 2♣ nor 2NT helps to solve that problem. 2♣ followed by three spades suggests a weaker spade suit, not this hand. I would bid 3♠, but 4♠ is tempting.

Sometimes you should and sometimes you shouldn't. But the stronger you are relative to your opponents, the higher the probability of success you need. This can be illustrated with a simple example. Say there is a 'normal' contract that the field will play and a 'superior' contract. Let's assume that if you choose the superior contract, you will get a top 57% of the time and a bottom 43% of the time. If you play the normal contract, your result will depend on your card play and opponents' defence. If your expectation against these opponents is 55% when playing a normal contract then you maximize your score by playing the superior contract. If your expectation is 60% when playing a normal contract then you maximize your score by playing the normal contract.

I disagree that 2NT is an overbid, and prefer it to 1NT. But I would bid 2♠ (good club raise). Four card support is fine for this since partner can always bid NT when they don't have real clubs. You'll play clubs when that is best, or NT from the right side.

Against 3♠, if they start with three rounds of hearts and West pitches a club, you have to draw two rounds of trumps exactly before playing clubs to avoid a club ruff. Then East wins the club and leads his last trump and you have no entry to dummy's long club so lose a diamond at the end for down one.

There are plenty of reasons to prefer a handgun to a shotgun for home protection. And obviously the need for protection may still exist when you go out. And if only shotguns were legal it is a simple matter for criminals to hacksaw the end off and stuff the remainder inside a coat. That is exactly what they do here in New Zealand where long guns are common but handguns are difficult to get. So I don't agree with a handgun ban. The effect on criminals is small compared to the reduction in the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves. Even worse in a country where handguns are already common. I doubt that anyone needs a fully automatic weapon purely for self defense. But the second amendment is based on the premise that ordinary untrained citizens need to be able to participate in national defence if needed, which is not consistent with a ban on assault weapons.

I have the complete opposite view. Not having full information makes the problem exponentially harder. Actually, I'm not even sure the problem of how to play and defend a hand is well understood enough right now that any speed of computer could be programmed to beat the top humans.

If the declarer has AKQ7 in hand and 9xx in dummy, I recommend you don't cover the nine with T8xx :) Maybe you have specific examples, but I tend to think that you will cover with shortness and this won't give anything away because declarer will seldom have a choice of plays in the suit in those cases. With length, you don't cover unless it's obvious to do so.

Fantunes may be superior, but IMO to be convincing you either go completely with the scientific approach and attempt to hold all other factors constant, or you go completely non-empirical and just look at the situations where there are likely to be gains and losses. Just looking at hand results where a pair with outstanding card play and bidding judgment used one system exclusively and did very well with it, is not an indication of anything we don't already know. If these kind of analyses were persuasive, we would all be playing Blue Club.

I think the content of the saved files is just wrong sometimes, so would be the same for everybody. It is not just commentary - there can also be a mismatch between the hand (including bidding and play) and the final contract and result. Fred said a while ago that they are aware of the problem, but it is difficult to fix and not a high priority. I don't really understand how it can be that difficult to fix, but Fred should know I guess. It is worse for those of us in a different time zone.

♠A is probably the best choice as an attacking lead. It needs Kxxxx with partner, or maybe Qxxxx with one opponent having Kx. Other leads need more than that to produce five tricks. But I would try to go passive here and lead a club.

You definitely need rules, and you almost certainly want to use simulation to deal with situations the rules don't cover. It is not presumptious to think that rules can be added to GIB to make it better. But I don't want to have to reinvent GIB or the equivalent before starting to do that. Can I suggest starting with bidding only? It is a smaller problem, it is GIB's weak area, and it is well suited to a primarily rules based approach with some simulation. Also, development of bidding rules is probably the area where the combined wisdom of the forums can add the most value.

I would like to upvote inquiry's post but the buttons are not there. They are on the other posts, just not Ben's one.

I don't mind Hardy's writing, but maybe I am used to reading a lot of turgid stuff. We can't all be Mike Lawrence. My main issue with Hardy is that I don't agree with some of his ideas.

I would open the hand you held, but not any of the others. Hand 1 might be ok if you have prior agreement that you open light. It's a pity you didn't post any examples that are close in strength to the actual hand. For example, I would consider A7632, AT42, T72, K to be a bare minimum opening. Without the ♥10 I would pass.