FM75

When you took out the price colum (which is too wide because of how it is filled) you lost the ability to sort the column.

I would recommend bifurcating this topic. The new tournament part of the beta client is poor. It has a very bad GUI and reduced functionality. It is troubling that this even saw the light of day. The "movie/store" part is an exciting step forward. It promises tremendous advances in that art, as well as an interesting glimpse into a new business model.

It seems clear that you simply do not understand the reference work that was provided in your earlier thread. It is nice to know that you do not see an insuperable barrier... When can we expect to see your program in competition? Perhaps you should read up on some game theory. Its foundations go back to the 40's. What is your human rule for this situation? After an opening bid of 2NT, the player in the balancing seat always doubles. How should the "declaring" pair handle this in their bidding? Will the balancing player (team) modify its behavior? How? When? (I am not trying to hijack this thread. I only pose a game theoretic straw man to suggest that. in fact, games of imperfect information tend to be perforce stochastic.)

Tough beat! With a pickup partner, you need a clueless partner to stop in 3N or 4H. With my regular precision partner, we have the following auction available: 1♣(1) - 1♠(2) 1NT (3) - 2♥ (4) 3♥(5) - 4♥ (6) 5♣(7) - 5♦(8) 6NT (9) 6♥(10) 1) 16+ not 4441 2) Balanced hand, no 5 card spades 8+ forcing 3) Control ask - also right-sides if we end up in NT 4) 4 controls - A=2, K=1 - So from Declarer either A, and 2 kings or 2 Aces and 0 kings (4 kings eliminated by looking at your cards) and p will become declarer in hearts. 5) Trump asking in hearts 6) Positive trump setting reply - top honor 4th - so p has A♥ 7) Control ask in clubs 8) Third round control - p has A♥, pointed Kings and third round control in clubs xx, or Qx[x] 9) Dirty Harry time - are you feeling lucky? if p has club Q you are winning in pairs 10) Usually you will be winning in imps or pairs. 6-1 ♣ is much less likely than partner having the ♣Q I need (33%) :) Note that if you pick 6 ♥, the lead will not be the ♣A, but might very well be the singleton. Tough beat!!

ROFLMAO. Nice!

Nowadays, few care. ;)

I think you have over-estimated the frequency by nearly a factor of two. 18-19 occurs about 2.6 % of the time, but imposing balanced - defined as any 5332, 4432, or 4333 cuts the frequency almost exactly in half, to 1.3%. Eliminate 5332 reduces the frequency to 0.9%. If you consider that roughly 50% of the 5332's could be opened 1M instead of 1m, then a good estimate of the 18-19 balanced including any 5332, where the 5 is a minor would be about 1.1%. You can play with this: balanced = shape(north, any 5332 + any 4333 + any 4423) strength = hcp(north)>=18 and hcp (north) < 20 strength and balanced action frequency "hcp" (hcp(north), 18, 19) in the BBO Dealer program. (Paste the script in and modify as you see fit.) That script is not sufficient to elicit 1M responses, unless they are forced, which might reduce the frequency further.

Thank you.

Ok - pardon the thread drift - maybe I will think about putting Wine on my Mac(s). Seems pretty involved, just to get a couple of bridge programs running... Anyway back to the questions of the thread. For these two in particular I would like authoritative answers - especially the second. I suppose I could try to arrange several people to test the first question. Does it matter whether opponents or kibs are using browser or windows client with respect to seeing the "alerts" during play? Is there a way, on the web, with an FDCC loaded, to force the alerts/announcements to be visible only to opponents and not your partner? As to alert/announcement - does the FDCC software have alerts and the cards are just wrong, or are alerts just not supported?

My partner and I use a Full Disclosure Convention Card using the web version. (Yes, it is a royal pain to get it there - impossible even, if you have no access to a windows machine and BBOWin.) I noticed the following day that when I looked at the hands we had played, there were no "alerted" bids. We play precision, so in uncontested auctions, most of our bids have an explanation. Is this the intended result? Are some of the explanations too long for the handviewer? Does it matter whether opponents or kibs are using browser or windows client with respect to seeing the "alerts" during play? Is there a way, on the web, with an FDCC loaded, to force the alerts/announcements to be visible only to opponents and not your partner?

Graduate to the web version. Then categorize your friends and select a distinctive color for different types of friends - for example, playing partners, experts, students, etc. You will then be able to pick them out very quickly.

I have heard from many BBO windows users that the movie part (hands already played), when they try BBO Version 2, is confusing unless one is sitting south. I have to say that I agree with this complaint. Why not orient the movie table for players so that they are at the bottom of the movie table? It would be nice to do the same if one were kibbing only one seat. Clearly this is only an issue while actually playing or kibbing. Here is a chance to make windows users happier to convert.

Thanks to all who answered my question so clearly. I also considered calling a director, since I did not know the right explanation at the time. I expected that, even if it were discussed privately with the director before the explanation, partner would likely work out my honor holding - and probably ops as well. After all why would I need a director?. On the actual hand it was highly probable that we would declare - opponents were passing, so opponents would be benefactors if they worked it out, which would be their right to do. Had I called the director, and made the required explanation, what would follow from that point with respect to bidding by my partner, and play in the event that we ended up defending?

I like the explanation of the 2NT bid. I wish all my partners' partial stops were as good as declarer's partial stop in hearts. when it does not mention partial stops in the pointed suits, I wonder what one should infer. Do you suppose it has a treatment for each bid over 1 spade and an algorithm for choosing the smallest lie?

The OP was about "investing" in one the two options. So far their has been no discussion about whether it was an investment or an expense. If you don't know the difference, an investment is supposed to be returned over time with a profit. An expense is something that reduces revenues. Whether the OP really was using the term investment correctly is not clear. Did the OP really just want to hear preferences of players for one option versus the other, or the preferences of club owners, or was he interested in the return on the investment, or the effect of the expense? Might be nice to clarify. :)

You have made an asking bid which was alerted by partner, and explained correctly when asked. At his turn, he makes a reply - alerted immediately, which from your hand you know to be impossible in your system. For example, his reply show 2 top honors in a suit, but you know he can only hold one. 1) If asked for an explanation, do you simply say that "partner is showing one top honor", knowing, but not mentioning, that he is off by a step? Explaining how you know, would clearly be improper. Saying that the bid shows two top honors would be misleading to opponents, so must be wrong. 2) Suppose you have reason to believe that opponents know that the bid shows 2 top honors and did not ask for an explanation. Opponents now may be misled by the bid, but correcting during the auction has to be impossible if they have not asked, since it would impart information to partner. What is the correct procedure here? 3) Shudder - suppose partner suddenly realizes that he has made the wrong bid - but heard a correct explanation of his holding, from which he can infer either that you misunderstood in line with his error, or that you simply corrected his error in the explanation! I presume in the event of scenario 1, that after play, opponents and partner should be told the correct meaning of the bid to avoid any further complications? I explained "partner is showing one top honor". Hope I got it right. On the spot it, seemed the most ethical treatment.

Those programs are written to run on a computer essentially dedicated to the owner of the software and computer. They do not have to play thousands of others simultaneously. Perhaps BBO would compete with them, if they were forced to operate at a corresponding level of resources (cpu cycles and memory). That said, I would not have much particular interest in the result. What would be interesting would be playing each of those opponents on line. Why do none of them support that? Do you think the fact that they were all written to run on a PC is an important part of that answer? :) Perhaps if they could interface to BBO, you could pick your robot of choice as a partner.

I do not find this explanation persuasive. For example, Voice on Vugraph works quite nicely even when commentators are in Europe. Voice has a much higher bandwidth requirement than passing a bid, or play between two end-points. However, the voice *might* be streaming on an HTTP connection. I do not know what type of protocol the two clients use, but it would have to work without the benefit of a CDN realistically anyway, since the content is dynamic, not static, like a video, and the 4 seats at a table can all be players from different continents. If it were that simple, then tournaments in Australia would simply be impossible. Even if Australia - US bandwidth is lower, the complaint is that it has gotten worse on both clients, not that it is bad. So what has changed? QuantumCat's type of connection? Activity in Australia? Does an iPad do better? Was the problem during some intense BBO activity from Australia/NZ?

Precision 1 club forcing, expecting interference. Over 2♥ overcall, partner should show a positive response with 2♠. After an overcall we get 2 negative responses instead of just one, pass, and double, showing 0-3, and 4-7 hcp, but do not need them here. 3♦ will be an alpha trump asking bid. On the actual hand partner will show 4+ controls and no support, (Qxx is minimum support). A second ask will clarify the hand as lacking a first, second, or third round control in diamonds, i.e. 3 cards, in one step (4♥). That will establish trump, and can then ask about heart controls, discovering first round control. 7♦.

Should there be much attention paid to this hand type in designing a system (precision or otherwise)? I am not suggesting I know the answer, but just offer the following data to consider. It likely arises in just under 3 hands per 1000. (So maybe you see it once or twice if you make it to the finals of the Bermuda Bowl) You might need to apply some minor corrections based on whether there is a previous opening bid. Example: Using http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/dealer/dealer.php With the following input: generate 1000000 condition shape(north, any 4441) and hcp(north)>15 and hcp(north) <24 action frequency (control(north)+control(south), 1,12) #action frequency (hcp(north)+hcp(south), 16, 40) On average the deal has roughly NT, Major game level hcp, (or controls) - pick which action you want to see. Frequency : 1 0 2 0 3 2 4 26 5 129 6 360 7 585 8 667 9 628 10 334 11 186 12 42 Generated 1000000 hands Produced 2959 hands Initial random seed 1342147595 Time needed 1.504 sec

Nice improvement! I would strongly suggest using more obvious controls and less reliance on fortunate random taps. That approach makes all 3 versions harder to learn. The graphics looks more polished than the previous two versions - bbowin, and web. BBO Web and Mobile Apps should look as much alike as possible! and the behavior should be identical. That is not to say that a spin object should not appear on a mobile device, and a drop down using web browser, but getting either event to occur should happen as the result of the same action on either. Is there an analog to right clicking on iPad, iPhone, etc. (double tap)? If so, put it in the help, and make it work the same. I also echo the sentiment of making landscape work. For a kibber, it is really annoying that the mobile screen saver results in a lost connection. Can you fix that, so that when you swipe back on, the application is still live and not logged out? My $0.02.

It might be nice to know whether the opponents are advanced enough that you could expect them to be familiar with Bird - Anthias "Winning Notrump Leads", or the article that they wrote in Bridge World. The auction could just as well have been 1N-3N, since north had the opportunity to show a 4 card major and declarer is very unlikely to have 5 card major. That auction was extensively analyzed, and the winning leads from declarer's perspective must be a major, but much less likely 4th here - most certainly not in hearts. If they are likely familiar with Bird - Anthias, there is some reasonable chance the the ♥5 is a doubleton, not 4th. If West were short in spades, on this auction a spade, even A from Ax is the "book" lead. Also W is unlikely to have AKQ, AK, or even KQ in the spade suit. Opponents are 8-7-6-5. The majors seem reasonably likely to be dividing fairly evenly. No preemptive overcall by W, though W could easily be short in hearts and long in spades but holding little in the way of honors. Why not play the 8!H, just to see which of JT96 East has? If W has JT9, then J is probably his best lead. Can East afford to duck? So I think we should at least take a look. Next consider the major splits. You can reasonably consider ♠6-2 and worse as less likely than normal after this auction. ♥ 2-5, or 1-6 is possible, after this lead, (if they have read the book), otherwise, 4-3 heart split odds increase (intuition). That should marginally improve the odds of 3-3 diamond split as well as a 3-2 club split. To me, playing the diamonds first looks best for the reasons mentioned, and looks perhaps to have better percentages than the a priori odds. Nothing about the bidding suggests that the location of the ♣ king is better than 50-50 guess, and you will get no improvement on that guess during the play of the red suits. If it gets to that point, you will have to decide what line is best after 2 discards by each opponent.

Because you forgot last month's score a day later? :) I guess that saves paper.

You don't have to turn on the sound in a browser. You can't turn it on in the windows client. So browser is better than or equal on this issue. Both the browser and the windows client show the graphics on your computer screen. Browser and program equal. You don't have to play bingo on browser. Can't play it on client. Browser still better than or equal. So seems like it boils down to "I am not changing because it is different."

One solution that could work (after some elapsed time) is for a player who wishes to only play in one system (or even more than one system) is to make friends of players playing the corresponding system(s). Use the category to identify each friend. After some time you will see plenty of people playing your desired system(s) and join the tables at which they are playing. A nice enhancement for the BBO software might be to treat categories as tags like google, instead of attributes, like BBO (1:n, instead of 1:1). That would allow you to tag friends to more than one label. For example, 2/1, Precision, intermediate, advanced, friendly, intense, grumpy, etc. The downside is that the coloring scheme quickly starts to fail here. There seems to be a natural limitation to this type of self-selection, though. Socialization of the existing club system. The idea of setting up "clubs" seems like an idea that needs more development. It has the advantage of being consistent with version 1 software. The trick with the clubs, is to have clubs at which all 4 players would agree to the same goal. This carries with it the implied commitment of the players at a club to play consistently with the goals of the corresponding to the club for the duration of that table. These clubs would just extend the idea of the "main" club and the "relaxed clubs. They would be public, and the "enforcement" would be social/table host. It might even work better than main/relaxed. I have seen plenty of "relaxed" players asking for "faster play, please" - maybe they just ended up at the first available table - that probably should only be an option for a particular table type(?). Extending the public clubs could be in more dimensions than just bidding systems. There could be speedballs, moderate, and slow, French, English, Urdu, single, married, soccer lovers, high school players, college, retirement village, etc. :) Natural selection would sort it out. Clubs that remain empty for too long, would be folded by the software (after the public had already stopped going there). Yogi Berra fans might like the clubs that are so popular that hardly anybody goes there anymore.