semeai

One solution would be to play late at night and learn Chinese (or, rather more likely, find some Chinese partners who speak English). My perhaps incorrect impression is that the old Wei-style precision is roughly the base system there.

Honestly, these sentence adverbs are just text-based emoticons. Fortunately, I don't really object to that. Surprisingly, putting one in front of each sentence is reminiscent of . Admittedly, he used "Noun:" instead of "Adverb,", but the effect is very similar.

1. Double here is partially "can you bid 3NT." We have a diamond fit and spades are probably 2-2. Still, passing looks correct. Partner has at most two hearts, so probably we get two heart tricks. If partner has ♦A we get that, but no more probably. If we're making 4♥ or 5♦, then we can only lose [a heart if we're in 4♥ and] a spade and a club or two spades or a spade and a diamond. In all these cases, it looks like we get a club ruff and they're down 2, with the preceding guesses. And it could be better. If we're not making, they still look like they're down 1 or more. 2. Yes. How about xx xx AQxxxx Axx or Kx Jx AJ10xxx Qxx or Ax x QJxxxx Axxx. 3. I'm definitely leaving it in at MPs. 4. No, I like pass. Maybe partner will bid 3NT, or double. Added: White vs Red is really the key point here. At IMPs frequent scenarios per my guesses are we'll either get 500 vs 400/420, a mild win, or 200 vs -50/-100, a good sized win. At MPs both of these are big wins.

Introducing the worst fix ever: 1H-2S = 4S, 5+C (if only 5C, then less than 2H), invitational. Call it "(Reverse Flannery)++" or maybe "Half Reverse Muiderberg" or "Half Frelling."

There's a descriptivist argument that the "oblique case" (slightly more general term than "objective case") [includes me, us, etc] can be used in the complement of a copula: "It's me." See the wikipedia link in the previous sentence, and also the ones for grammatical case and English personal pronouns. This is the disjunctive case ["stressed" case]; think "moi" in French. See disjunctive pronoun. It's less controversial than using the objective/oblique case in the complement of a copula, which is arguably a special case of this (see the wikipedia article).

Thanks for the history. It's still there: ACBL Defense Database Very sad. For this last method, though, isn't a 1m bid showing spades even GCC legal? The GCC allows "all-purpose" "artificial or natural" 1m bids. I suppose showing 4 spades exactly doesn't fit the description of "all purpose"?

Just bid like most Americans do now: 1M-3x invitational, and with your 4S-6m hand start with 1S and sort it out later with xyz if partner bids 1NT or cry if partner bids 2om. I'm sympathetic, though. Not getting to play your preferred way is certainly annoying. Added: If it's 4S-6D, you can tweak things so 1H-1S;2C-----[something]-----3D means this hand, so with some work you only cry if you have 4S-6C [and fewer than 2 hearts] and it goes 1H-1S;2D.

The problem here is that the first club finesse is not for the overtrick --- it's necessary to make the hand. This means the claim is not just incomplete, but rather also somewhat incoherent. A finesse for an overtrick would necessarily be the second finesse, since the first one is just what you need to do to make the contract (though you don't care if it wins or loses). I generally don't like being unforgiving, but here I'd have to say it's down 1 because of this.

Okay, fair enough. The sentiment in the last sentence of my previous post made me want to believe there was a possibility of them being more reasonable. Also, 5 letters? What word was that?! :)

This comment of Tim's makes sense. I wonder, hrothgar, what would have happened if way back when you went in front of the C&C committee you had suggested the simple defense (over 1H showing spades) of double = like a 1-level heart overcall, 1S = like a takeout double of spades, higher = whatever the pair plays now over a 1S opening (or if you need to suggest a complete defense, just standard stuff). Maybe you did as an alternative, but you argued forcefully enough (or they already believed strongly enough) that it wasn't optimal that the committee decided nothing good enough could be simple enough? It seems that having people running around playing transfer openings (in midchart events) and most of their opponents playing this very simple defense would do no harm to the ACBL.

It seems that you could just play 1NT semi-forcing as over a 5 card major opening since you can just pass with all those 4 card major hands. Your choice whether minimum balanced 5-card major hands should pass 1NT or bid on. Then you can put the 3-card limit raises in 1NT if you want. If not, you do need to keep them in 2♣ or so I'd think, since you don't want to be getting to the 3-level with a 4-3 fit and less than game values. Now 2/1 is game forcing and you can go simple or complex. For a really simple approach you can just have 2NT confirm a 4 card major and bid 2M with 5 cards no extras (even bal) or single suited. With this approach, your choice what should happen with 17-19 bal, 5M: put them in 2M, 3NT, or add them to 2NT. *** The really interesting part is dealing with competitive auctions, of course. I mostly ignored the discussion of strong NT + 4 card majors in Robson and Segal when I read it, but they had some good suggestions I seem to recall.

I agree, but certainly something can be done here. If you can figure out what (among the data that you have) makes two people stay at the same time playing with each other for an extended period of time after using the "find a game" function, that would be great. You have access to lots of data, so you could make some hypotheses and test them out, and then build them in as (probabilistic?) preferences for the "find a game" function. Some example hypotheses: 1) Two players with the string "sayc" in their profile are more likely to play together longer. [similarly for the strings "2/1" "sef" etc] 2) Two players with a non-empty name field which contains no numbers or symbols [other than those commonly found in real names, like ' and -] and at most three contiguous strings of letters are more likely to play together longer [supposed to model people who put a name in their name field]. Similarly for two players with non-empty name fields which do not meet the criterion in the previous sentence [supposed to model people who put system data in their name field]. 3) Two players from the same country. 4) Two players of the same level. 5) Two people with multiple instances of capitalized words in their profile (i.e. instances of a capital letter followed by lower case letters) will play together longer. Similarly for two people with no instances of capital letters in their profile. Similarly for two people with all caps in their profile. And so on.

Sectionals are the smallest of the not-just-held-at-a-club tournaments (usually serving just part of a state or one small state; regionals are larger, usually serving multiple states; and then there are nationals). On this side of the pond swapping CC's happens only occasionally, perhaps due to the expectation that everyone pretty much plays the same thing. At regionals and nationals people are more likely to check, of course.

There was an example heavily discussed at bridgewinners a while ago of I believe Michael Rosenberg playing on when an overtrick in 6NT was technically possible if Meckwell defended horribly, but that otherwise the result 6NT= was certain. If I recall correctly, the hand took 10-15 minutes to play out, with the defense taking lots of thinking time. This isn't the same, and is surely not illegal at least since there was the barest possibility of the 1 imp pickup, but is close to what Phil is talking about. Added: Here's the link.

I'm pretty sure Han meant when you make the bid itself, not the whole system that will necessarily surround it. That said, Fantunes 1-level openings are themselves "limited" in a way, since they don't include the weakest end of the spectrum, which are the most common hands for a standard 1-level opening. If we believe, as seems quite reasonable, that more definition in a particular bid is better for hands you then actually make the bid on, we'd have that a precision 1M opening > standard 1M opening, and Fantunes 1M opening > standard 1M opening, but precision 1M opening and Fantunes 1M opening are incomparable by this criterion since Fantunes leaves out the weakest hands and precision leaves out the strong hands. This ignores the effect on the rest of the system, of course, and so is not a claim that standard is a worse system. [Okay, Fantunes 1M opening contains very strong hands not in a standard 1M opening, so technically they're incomparable by the reasoning above.]

I completely agree. I think if you inappropriately make a call (insufficient, out of turn, whatever), and then when things have been corrected and you make a call again, if the new call shows the same set of hands or a subset of the hands the original call would be made on, there should be no penalty. This can be at the discretion of the director so that the OS doesn't steamroll the director in confusing artificial auctions, but I'd not want it to be something the NOS has to consent to. [And if you make a call that can be made on a hand that the original call would not be made on, then partner should be barred etc.] The revoke law was made less punitive. I see no reason why the laws regarding insufficient or out-of-turn calls should not similarly be made less punitive when there is no harm.

Maybe this best hand stuff is all a conspiracy to prevent people from exploiting GIB's gullibility by psyching and wildly preempting! Or not, but it's an added plus[/minus] I suppose.

In fact 2/1 seems potentially easier for humans as well as robots. The extra conventions are a minor problem, but as you point out you can read the explanation, at least if you know to do that. I wonder what percentage of the population does understand the bit about reading the explanations of even your own bids before you make them. Is it nearly universal or not? This seems hard to test. My understanding is that it's not that the software is outdated for the cheap bots, but rather that they're given less thinking time, and are thus cheaper for BBO. No comment on the price (who wouldn't want a cheaper price?) except to point out that they're not seven times as expensive unless you play every day of the week.

Yep, IMSA (International Mind Sports Association) uses the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) prohibited substances list. Caffeine and nicotine are mentioned as part of the "2012 Monitoring Program" but are not prohibited substances. Ritalin (methylphenidate) is a prohibited substance.

It's not so bad actually. You can use the regular "empty spaces principle" to figure out the relative likelihoods of A, B, and C above (with or without the 6-3 split). Here's how: Without the 6-3 hearts: You're comparing a specific 1-4 split to a specific 2-3 split. This is the same as comparing where to place one extra card when you have a specific 1-3 split already in place. West has 12 empty spaces and East 10, so the ratio of the probability of a specific 1-4 split (placing the "extra card" in East) to that of a specific 2-3 split (placing the "extra card" in West) is 10:12. [This doesn't match up exactly with the percentages you quoted because they were rounded. If you go back to Pavlicek and ask for more digits, you'll see this matches.] With the 6-3 hearts: Now when we posit the specific 1-3 split, there are 6 empty spaces in West and 7 in East. Thus the ratio of the probability of a specific 1-4 to a specific 2-3 is 7:6.

I like the rule for this sort of situation that a double is takeout unless "The doubler passed up an opportunity to make a takeout double earlier and is not balancing at the 2-level and no new suit has been bid," as I suggested in the defaults for doubles thread. That would make (for me): 1D P 1H P; 2D X takeout 1D P 1N P; 2D X penalty 1D P 1H P: 2D P P X takeout

I gave some examples of how one could gain by looking at hand sorting. Frances gave another. Do you think those examples aren't something someone could possibly take advantage of? Frances's example seems particularly clear cut as something that would be very easy to notice. I wouldn't try to notice any of these personally, and I'm sure some who think they are are deluded, but it does definitely seem possible to gain by watching an opponent sort, at least if that opponent is not particularly careful.

GIB was always getting one of the last two. The play at trick 11 (ruff or no ruff) didn't matter. I'm sure GIB knew/simulated/whatever this and just chose one of the two cards that works (i.e. anything but the top trump) to play at trick 11.

Nice possible explanation.

Wow, that's the best palindrome I've ever seen.