MattieShoe

And the important corollary to the above... If you won't be ruffing in the hand with less trump, you should probably lead out trump... Not always of course, but probably. I think the other thing (particularly in MP) is to not be satisfied with just making your contract. Always try to (safely) squeeze out every last trick. If nothing else, it's good practice for when you NEED every last trick.

It is absolutely possible. There are problems though. * If you create a system, people will immediately look for ways to game the system. Lets say the default rating of new players is too high (common in many systems). People may seek out new players to play against to artificially boost their ratingand avoid new players as partners, for example. * If people feel they are being measured, they're more likely to be hostile to poor performing partners. Having no rating system whatsoever avoids unpleasantness. * If one starts measuring performance, some players who care overmuch about ratings will demand additional features like the ability to play unrated games. * The mere existence of a rating system would increase the likelihood of folks creating multiple accounts for the purposes of rating manipulation, or calling their partner on the phone during games, etc. * There are many aspects to bridge, and many players excel at one (lets say declarer play) while being deficient in others (lets say defense). How do you fairly rate these players? Okay, now what happens if said player joins only robot tourneys, where declarer play is much more common than defense (strongest hand is always rotated to south)? Or a player plays well with one partner but terribly with another? I believe it would be possible to create a rating system very easily, but you could spend a ridiculous amount of time on these sorts of edge cases. Honestly, I don't care if BBO ever implements a rating system. But I do wish I magically had access to hand data for everybody so I could roll my own. I'm just the sort of geek that likes writing rating systems.

Sorry, should have been more clear. I'm talking about the robot tournaments, in which N, E, and W are already GiB. Sometimes I may make a bid and GiB will respond oddly. I'd like to see whether GiB in my position would have bid the same (in which case there's nothing I can do), or whether it'd have bid differently (in which case I might have pursued a less than optimal bidding sequence)

Not for points or even factored into results, but when GiB responds in a weird fashion to one of my bids, it'd be interesting to see what it would have done instead.

Another rule of thumb is to lead through strength to weakness... Basically, the person playing fourth is in the best position. If you lead a suit that you know the declarer (playing fourth) is strong in, you will often end up finessing your partner. So if the (future) dummy bid hearts and his partner didn't support them, then the partner is likely weak in hearts. The dummy COULD have KJ and your partner might be sitting behind him with AQ. Or dummy may have AQ and partner is sitting behind him with the KJ, and so on. Leading an ace in a suit your partner bid is not bad -- it lets him know where the ace is and isn't going to finesse him, and likely isn't going to help your opponents in setting up a long suit.

Two come to mind... First was just a family game. We had determined we had 33 points and bid 6 spades. It turns out the 7 points we were missing were the Ace and King of spades. Both fell on the same trick and we made our six. Second was more recent... http://i.imgur.com/a7BP0.png I typically score ~45-50% in these tournaments, but the stars must have aligned that night...

Some reasons, off the top of my head 1) Perception. It's perceived as an old person's game. 2) Barrier to entry. You can sit down and play poker (albeit badly) right away. With Bridge, it's a slow process from sitting down to playing with any sort of confidence. Point counting, arcane bidding systems, bizrre conventions... Once you get over that hump, it is immensely enjoyable. But getting over that hump is tough. 3) Because a huge amount of it is scheduled around retirees -- during work/school hours. Here, there are occasionally beginner lessons on the weekends and one NLM club game each Saturday. Anything beyond that happens when I'm at work. 4) It's a bit intimidating for a rank novice to sit down with people who know what they're doing. 5) Cumulative ranking system like master points doesn't reflect skill very well. People like more immediate feedback. This is probably why I'm currently addicted to the robot tournaments... :-) Chess servers would be an obvious place to look for new players. They'll enjoy the challenge. The other one that comes to mind is board game geeks. They already enjoy the social aspect...

http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=5079-1349154001-13062165&username=mattieshoe

[hv=pc=n&s=sak92hakt982d97c5&w=st864h74dqj52ca32&n=s73hj6dat43ckjt87&e=sqj5hq53dk86cq964&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=ppp1h(Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20H%3B%2011-21%20HCP)p1n(Forcing%20one%20notrump%20--%206-11%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points)p2h(6+%20H%3B%2011+%20HCP%3B%2012-16%20total%20points)p3h(2%20H%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%2010-12%20total%20points)p3s(Help-suit%20slam%20try%20--%206+%20H%3B%203+%20S)ppp]399|300[/hv] My bidding was probably bad, but passing 3♠ seems... well, crazy.

Interesting. It makes sense, provided both partners are on the same page of course. I'm still trying to get my family to give up strong 2's, so... baby steps. :-)

Sorry, I'm not sure what "quantitative" implies here.... Could you elaborate? I've always used 4NT as ace asking or if NT is the bid (ie. 1NT 4NT), then small slam invitation. . . Is this what you mean by quantitative?

I plugged in the birthdates of my sister and me and the graphs looked eerily alike. The two graphs superimposed: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4180351594_825d86dc95.jpg Apparently we cause sunspots. :-)

Amen! I always watch though. Glutton for punishment I guess...

Alas, not enough people to keep it alive http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2797/4165772066_053c40a25b.jpg

gd is nifty. I haven't done much graphics in C/C++, but XNA uses C# and has some very simple and very powerful stuff, and the IDE/compiler is free from Microsoft. I did some silly simple code for effecient circle packing with it for fun. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3485/3796580568_4780d21a01.jpg Took very little time to code. You can use image files like pngs, place them, scale them, rotate them, adjust their transparency, use antialiased fonts, etc. Pretty slick. I made a little boids program with it too, just to familiarize myself with it

I learned some Goren originally but was never very well versed in it. I learned the more modern Standard American stuff later. I don't know how many of these changes are due to a poor initial understanding of Goren, but here's the high points of the differences I've noticed: The goal in bidding has shifted to accommodate finding an 8 card major fit. That's a theme found repeatedly in the newer Standard American systems. In order to do this, opening a major guarantees a 5+ card suit. You can respond with a 4 card major but you can't open with one. With an opening hand and no 5 card major, bid the better minor. There's some variance as to which minor to bid in certain situations, 4432 distribution in particular -- Some would bid the 3 card diamond suit, some would bid the 2 card club suit. Since your partner may open the bidding on a 3 card minor suit, you should really have 4-5 cards in the minor to support it. What you really want to do is mention your 4 card majors, because you're looking for that magic 8 card major fit. If your partner opens a minor which may only have 3 cards in it, and you've got a crap 2 point hand or something and you're short in the suit he named, it's really tempting to try and rescue him. Don't If your partner opens a major, he's definitely got 5+ of em so you can support with 3 card support and no honors in the suit (if you have sufficient points elsewhere, etc). Responding 2NT when your partner opens a suit is dicey unless you've discussed it with him beforehand. A lot of players use Jacoby 2NT convention and a lot don't, so they're quite likely to misinterpret your bid. Point counting when you haven't established a fit in a suit tends to be by length rather than shortness. Add up HCP and add a point for every card past four in the suit. So a 5 card suit gets an extra point, a 6 card suit gets 2 extra points, etc. Once you've found a fit, shortness in side suits is more valuable. Often the rule of 20 is used for openings (if HCP + length of 2 longest suits is 20 or more, you can open it). This is a bit more aggressive than the old Goren days, so it's something to think about when responding. Strong 2 bids are out, weak 2 bids are in. With a typical strong 2 bid (22+ points), you bid an artificial 2 clubs indicating strength but saying nothing about the suit. Responses vary from player to player but I think the most normal is 2 diamonds indicating a weak hand or at least an unexceptional one (no crazy long suits and whatnot). Then you can bid your suit (or 2NT if you've a flat hand) and things go as normal. If partner has some points and a significant suit, they may bid the suit rather than 2 diamonds. If they have points and flat distribution, they can bid 2NT. 2♦♥♠ are preemptive, indicating a weak hand, 6 card suit, 3 honors. Some redefine 2♦ to mean other things since preempts in diamonds are not as useful as majors. Game in NT/Major is 25 combined points, not 26. Most Goren players would figure it was worth the attempt and go for it with 25 combined points anyway, this has just been codified. The point range for 1NT has been shifted downwards by a point (15-17 instead of 16-18) because 1NT is a super-awesome bid -- very descriptive compared to most others. Since you're aiming for 25 points instead of 26, the responses to 1NT use basically the same point ranges as before though. The point range for 2NT has changed from 22-24 to 20-21. After a 1NT bid, the goal is still to search for that magic 8 card major fit. Additionally, you'd like the NT opener to be the declarer wherever you end up since he's got the power and he'll be less likely to be finessed on the first trick. To accomplish these two things, most use Stayman and Jacoby Transfers to respond to NT openers. Responses to 1NT 2♣ -- Stayman, indicates 8+ points. Requests 4 card major. Partner bids their 4 card major or 2♦ with neither. 2♦ -- Jacoby Transfer. Means "Partner, I have 5+ hearts and I want you to say 2♥" 2♥ -- Jacoby Transfer. Means "Partner, I have 5+ spades and I want you to say 2♠" 2NT -- 8-9 points, flat distribution, no 4 card major 3♣/♦ -- longish strong suit. invites 3NT if partner thinks he can control the other suits and run your long suit. 3NT -- 10-15 points, flat distribution, no 4 card major If you're responding to 1NT and you've gotten your partner to bid via stayman or jacoby transfer, you generally decide what to do based on point count 0-7 points -- pass 8-9 points -- invite to game with 2NT or 3 of major with known 8 card fit 10-15 points -- force game with 3NT or 4 of major with known 8 card fit 16+ -- typical slam searching stuff If you open 1 of a suit and partner jumps in your suit, it suggests 11ish points, not 13+. It's called limit major raise. Jumps of your minor suit vary much more from player to player. Those are the major changes I've noticed

I'm guessing the hand itself is not intellectual property, just the analysis of it -- I don't see how it could be protected any more than a random sequence of coin flips. Then again, IANAL and sometimes the law is stupid.

ACBL Learn to Play Bridge Free software for learning bridge. If you've been playing for 8 months, the earlier parts will be too basic. Still, lots of good stuff in there.

Sounds like something I did in Bangkok. HAHAHA I'm glad somebody else said it. :D

I'd pass. NT seems bad due to ♣ and I don't think 5♦ is likely.

When I was in school, I noticed something... My classmates could READ, but they weren't... fluent? It was like watching people trying to listen to a foreign language, where they're internally translating it to the language they're comfortable with in order to process it. And I think part of the reason is because schools emphasize quality over quantity. And the quality they pick is wildly unsuitable! All Quiet on the Western Front may be a classic, but you totally lose the dichotomy between the front lines and the home time when you read it ten pages at a time across 18 weeks. They had us read Animal Farm in 7th grade. 7th graders don't know enough Russian history to understand the allusions to Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. They don't know Boxer was a reference to the Boxer rebellion, or what the proletariat is. It's just a story about talking animals to your average 7th grader. And Shakespeare! The guy's plays are amazing, but they're PLAYS. There's a rhythm and feeling to them that's meant to be heard and seen, and it's totally lost when kids are sounding them out word by word, struggling to even find the surface meaning of the prose. These may be compelling to adults with a lifetime of experience and knowledge, but to kids, they're just a chore. And Dickens! Oh my lord, I LOVE to read and I STILL hate Dickens. I think adults pick these books to impress each other. I learned to read with the same kid books as everybody else, but I got "fluent" reading a berjillion crappy hardy boys novels. They have no literary value whatsoever, but the practice they gave me was invaluable. From there, I moved on to pulp sci fi and fantasy. It wasn't WHAT I was reading, it was that I was reading a LOT. With all those hours of practice behind me, I could read books without sounding them out. With a huge library of pulp in my brain, I could read significant works and identify themes and symbolism without painfully piecing it together. I could recognize when the author is using a utopia/dystopia comparisons, or that this represents a coming of age, and that represents a loss of innocence, whatever. It wasn't Shakespeare or Chaucer or Steinbeck that gave me this, it was the hundreds of pulp novels I read.

I'm not really conservative or liberal (or both, depending on the issue I suppose). That said, I love NPR. I don't think they lean in any particular direction and they provide a clearer view from both sides. Jon Stewart is definitely liberal and it's a comedy show more than political commentary, but in between all the jokes, his comments are usually very insightful and compelling. It's just so satisfying to watch him rip Jim Cramer to shreds.

The repeated piano note at the very beginning of the song reminded me of While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Okay, tangent over. While this is insanely cool, can you magine how annoying it would get if it stayed that way, and you were forced to work next to it?

I think you assume "normal" or "everyone knows this" is a bit too much Lets back up and assume 90% of us do not know this or understand this. I grant I read this stuff 30-40 years ago and I am non math guy. By "we", I meant us humans, not us bridgebase forum folk. I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of quantum physics, but I find it interesting so I read about it occasionally. And from my understanding, we've been dealing with interactions that happen instantaneously across distance for a while now. Variations on Schrodinger's cat suggests it way back in the 1930s. So while the experiment might be something to be excited about, I don't think it's because we found something propagating faster than lightspeed...