shyams

IMO, the link to the results is incontrovertible proof. I feel the results don't need to be confirmed by both people.

Based on what has been posted on the other thread, the status of the matchups is as follows: nullve vs. cherdano nullve vs. shyams nullve vs. stephen tu 42 IMPs -- 50 IMPs 37 IMPs -- 06 IMPs 22 IMPs -- 05 IMPs cherdano vs. shyams cherdano vs. stephen tu cherdano vs. mkgnao 25 IMPs -- 04 IMPs 06 IMPs -- 16 IMPs 38 IMPs -- 18 IMPs shyams vs. stephen tu shyams vs. mkgnao shyams vs. antonylee 14 IMPs -- 29 IMPs 36 IMPs -- 20 IMPs 12 IMPs -- 17 IMPs stephen tu vs. mkgnao stephen tu vs. antonylee 25 IMPs -- 23 IMPs 24 IMPs -- 46 IMPs mkgnao vs. antonylee mkgnao vs. nullve 25 IMPs -- 14 IMPs 26 IMPs -- 19 IMPs antonylee vs. nullve antonylee vs. cherdano 06 IMPs -- 36 IMPs 10 IMPs -- 17 IMPs

You have an option to cancel a challenge before it has been accepted by antonylee if you so desire. You could then probably initiate a challenge to the other two people in the group. However, it's up to you and others to decide.

According to the other thread (link here), the six players in group 2 are: nullve cherdano shyams stephen tu mkgnao antonylee The format is a 16-board IMP format with the "non-best hand" option. I thought I will set up two challenges today with a hope to play this weekend (or on Monday evening). So I have chosen to challenge antonylee and stephen tu today. If either of you does not wish to play this weekend (the challenges lapse on 27th Sep afternoon UK time), please reject it on BBO and/or post here. If the two matches go thru this weekend, I'll be happy to schedule/accept other challenges around next weekend.

OK here's a random topic: English --> English subtitles. I have noticed (esp. on BBC) UK that when Asians or Africans speak English, the BBC adds subtitles to "clarify" what the people are saying (an example: ). I recall seeing this phenomenon when a Kenyan was talking about some terrorist event in his city, an Indian talking about some elections, and (the above clip) a BBC correspondent from Pakistan describing a distressing situation. In each case, I found the clip had a sufficiently competent English speaker who (although had an accent) could probably be understood by most Brits. It is impossible to imagine an equivalent scenario where a Liverpool resident, a Scouser (from Newcastle) or a Glaswegian (from Glasgow, Scotland) is interviewed on BBC and they subtitle the text. Honestly, the Scouse and some Scottish accents are so thick and complex that often native Britishers are unable to understand every word of what's being said. However, any attempt to subtitle their speech will cause a huge uproar and the BBC would probably be forced to apologise. Now isn't that interesting!?

A worrisome point about Western media (incl. those in the US) is their morbid fascination with all things labelled "terrorism". Right at this moment, CNBC (a channel perennially focused on business impacts) is pretty much giving a running commentary on the tri-state area bombing fiasco. Why would they do that? Is there nothing economic/financial happening in the US today? My point is that the US media (indirectly) contributes to the fear component of "terrorism". It seems what happened in NY/NJ was the act of a fringe lunatic with warped ideology. There were zero fatalities and zero serious injuries. Yet, the #1 business channel of the US is focused only on that event. I find it perplexing. Mind you, CNBC is not a typical TV news channel -- this is a network notorious for asking their expert panel questions like "So what is the likely impact of the Japan earthquake on the stock markets?". Or another expert saying "The human toll here looks to be much worse than the economic toll and we can be grateful for that". They are a cold, heartless channel and even they tend to focus on some fringe acts of so-called terrorism as if it's the only thing that matters.

In all honesty, I felt that Leaping Michaels wouldn't convey information accurately when the major suit is longer. Perhaps, upon reflection, I should have pretended that the long suit headed only by a Queen to be equivalent to an average strength 5-card ♠ suit.

This post isn't about the ideal bidding sequence for the human. I just want to focus on why North (the Robot) was unable to conclude/infer that 7♥ is the proper bid. For example, manudude03 pointed out that perhaps the Robot expected two key cards and/or void not being in diamonds. It sounds possible to construct such a hand. However, the probability of it being generated in a simulation sample feels low to me.

I'll play

Although I may not reach the knockout phase :), I feel 64 / 96 board matches will be too much. If the round robin matches are (say) 24 boards split into two parts, then the knockout phase should probably be 36 boards with the final maybe 48 boards.

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt9762hjdaq984ca&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=2h(weak)2s(Agree%20with%20this%3F)4hpp]133|200[/hv] a. Is 4♠ obvious? What would you do with the South hand? b. Is the 2♠ overcall OK? If not, (assuming leaping Michaels available) what is your choice of first call?

There was a practical & quite scary application to Nicholas's scenario which he discovered. USBF tournaments involve 4, 6 or 8 sessions of 15 boards each -- these are numbered 1-30. If the sit-out pair inputs boards 1-3 of session 1 and uses the code to crack it, they will know all remaining boards not only of session 1 (boards 1-15) but also of session 2 (16-30)! This can be done every time (take boards 1-3 of session 3 to get full knowledge of every card in session 4). There may have been other scenarios where one set of boards spills over two or more sessions.

[hv=pc=n&n=sq7hq85dt876ckq43&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=ppp2c(Strong%20two%20club%3A%2019%2BHCP%3B%2023%2Btotal%20pts%3B%20forcing%20to%202N)2d(11-%20HCP%3B%20twice%20rebiddable%20!D%3B%209-12%20total%20points)2n(Positive%20NT%20--%202-5!C%202-5!D%202-4!H%202-4!S%3B%208-11%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20pts)p3h(5%2B%20!H%3B19%2B%20HCP%3B23%2B%20total%20pts)p4n(Blackwood%20%5BH%5D%20-%202-5!C%202-5!D%203-4!H%202-4!S%3B8-11%20HCP%3B%209-12%20total%20pts)p5n(Even%20no.%20of%20keycards%20%26%20some%20void%20--%205%2B!H%3B%2019%2BHCP%3B%2023%2B%20total%20pts)p6h(Why%20not%207!H%3F)]133|200[/hv] This is from the daily free MPs tournament. North was a Robot and chose to bid 6♥ at this time. I (South) held: [hv=pc=n&s=sakj92hakj763dcat]133|100[/hv] 6♥+1 scored 53.8% whereas 7♥= was 90.8% As an afterthought, I felt that all deals in the Robot North's sample (if it does sampling at this stage) should indicate 7♥ is the logical/correct bid. I'm asking in earnest whether sampling works at different stages of bidding and (if so) why North would not directly bid the grand slam.

IMO, the SB wins this one. There is no way for declarer to play his top three trumps very fast without the defenders cooperating by speeding up as well. Why would anyone do that? There is nothing wrong with taking (say) one second to play each card carefully. Sometimes the defenders get caught out by tempo plays and lose. This one is no different.

This sounds like a great tool. I'm going to incorporate it into my bidding system... Thank you!

In the opening post, I said it is Matchpoints. So let's revisit your alternatives from the MP perspective: 1. You play West to hold Qxxx and therefore run the Heart 10. ....1a. You got it wrong. East wins, returns a club and you are no longer in any position to score more than 10 tricks. Your MP score is (almost) zero MPs. ....1b. You got it right. You score a top on the board. 2. I play to drop Queen on the third round. ....2a. I get it wrong. I switch back to diamonds. And score an average on the board. ....2b. I get it right and score a top. Which of these two is better?

Wouldn't it be easier to upgrade the dealing software so that it is no longer subject to brute force attacks? There are readily available solutions on the market. Instead of contorting one's process into a variety of shapes, it may be best to abandon it and replace with a stronger process.

+1. I got the same sense from reading Nic's message quoted by hrothgar.

I thought they have a 600 year lag on the Christian world. I wonder how Christian orthodoxy shaped the world 600-800 years ago. This is a gross misinterpretation of what most Muslims (even those in the Middle East) aspire to in life. Many years ago, Sting had a single called "Russians" {album: Dream of the Blue Turtles}. The song refrain probably applies to any human conflict.

A slight digression but I have a question: Suppose I as declarer observe a defender accidentally expose a card in such a way that their partner could have seen the card, if they were looking. It is also clear to me (and everyone at the table) that their partner did not see the card. Can I insist that the accidentally exposed card become a penalty card? Leaving the ethics aside, what stops me from doing so?

Spain vs USA in the round of 16! :( Too early in the knockout for two BBFers to face off each other. Have a great match, both. And may the better team win.

Why is there a fascination to literally disprove every statement in a generic argument with specific examples? How does it add to the generic argument OR the gist of what was being conveyed?

I was hoping for a few more responses. In any case, here are some interesting points relating to this problem: Part 1: North's jump shows 5+ card ♠ suit and fewer than 8 HCP. You really need a "perfect" arrangement for a slam (e.g. trumps to split kindly + North to hold ♣A & ♦K, and West to hold ♦A so that when you lead up to dummy's King it scores a trick). In short, at MPs, it makes little sense to explore slam. What is the risk in trying? Well, this deal was from the daily free MP tournament. Everyone who explored slam received a club lead and had to settle for 11 tricks {either 5♠= or 6♠ -1}. Part 2: As Kaitlyn S pointed out, you need the ♥Q to drop on the 3rd round of hearts (it need not be RHO who began with QJx, it can also be LHO deciding to lead a low ♥ from Qxx). This allows us to draw trumps in 2 rounds, discard all the clubs from dummy on declarer's hearts and then ruff the ♣5 in dummy. You only lose one diamond. However, there was a small but significant precaution that must be taken. You cannot afford to throw both ♠4 and ♠6 on the top two trumps. For example, #1 ---- ♥4 - ♥2 - ♥J - ♥A #2 ---- ♠A - ♠5 - ♠4 - ♠3 #3 ---- ♠K - ♠Q - ♠6 - ♣3 #4 ---- ♥K - ♥6 - ♣2 - ♥7 #5 ---- ♥5 - ♥3 - ♠9 - ♥Q Oops! You have two winning hearts in the South hand but no way to reach it without allowing opponents to cash a club and a diamond. Instead, you must play a high spade on trick 3, ruff the low heart with a high spade on trick 5 and then overtake ♠6 in hand and discard two clubs on the winning hearts. The reward for playing carefully? You score 95% of the Matchpoints! Over half of the players in 4♠ led a diamond at trick 4. Of the handful who went about trying to establish hearts, some found too late that they had no way to return to the South hand without conceding two tricks.

The odds have shortened on a Trump victory. They currently stand at 29.4% -- odds on betting exchange are currently 3.40 (or 12:5).

A suggestion: While it makes sense to use the round 1 scores for deciding qualifiers (among those who lost) and to determine match-ups, it would probably be useful to decide brackets/progressions immediately as part of round 2. What I mean is: Round 2: #1 plays #16, #2 plays #15 etc Round 3: Winner of {#1 vs #16} plays winner of {#8 vs #9}, winner of {#2 vs #15} plays winner of {#7 vs #10} Round 4: ...etc. We then wouldn't have to worry about IMP margins except in Round 1. It will also reduce the workload/follow-up requirements of the organiser, and will allow winners to know who they play next regardless of margins. For your consideration