Nidoking (nidoking) wrote,
Nidoking
nidoking

I'm helping people the only way I can

Today's Bridge: I predicted a day when I wouldn't make any mistakes. That's because I assumed I'd be drawing the low card. Instead, I played, and I played carefully. The opponents opened a 2C about halfway through, then spent so long arguing about suits that they eventually settled at 4NT. Ken doubled that, and I'm not sure I agree with him, but it scared Paul enough to run to 5C, and while I couldn't double that with four clubs to the jack (because that was all the power I had), Ken's diamonds vastly overpowered Dan H's diamonds when Paul ran out of clubs pulling mine. Ken opened 2C in our final hand, when I had S Q-x-x-x H Q-x-x-x D x-x C K-x-x. There are days when I might bid 2NT on that, but today was a 2D day. Ken jumped to 4D, a practice which I disapprove of, largely because of what happened next. Knowing that we had a diamond fit, I still needed to look for a possible major fit, so I bid 4H and he bid 4S. Now it's time to let him know that I'm top for my negative bid, but 4NT will be taken as natural, so I have nowhere to go but 5S. With a minimum 22, Ken decided to raise to 6 in the hope that I had one of the two aces he was missing. With room for Blackwood, he'll know to stop short at 5 and we make it easily. We discussed the nature of jumping after a 2C opener afterward, and my stance remains "don't." Don't ask what hand merits a jump after 2C. If you're holding it, you'll know. It's much better to keep the bidding at a low level so you can find a fit and then talk about power, since you've lost the entire one level.

Today's Work: Code freeze has been set for tomorrow afternoon, so I stayed a bit late today making sure my changes were pretty solid. I forgot a detail, but another change I made recently prevented it from being a fatal error. I almost wish it had been, because then I'd have found the problem and fixed it. But I can do that tomorrow easily enough, as long as I remember what it was. I found a feature that wasn't listed in the manual because it appears to be broken, so I came up with my own substitute that works about as well, and that led us to what looks like a discrepancy in one of the values between the client and the server. It's about 1% off, which I don't think is horrible, but I'm not an end user of the system, and the actual users will now have both values to compare and notice the difference. It might be worth investigating tomorrow.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 0 comments