Leaderboard

Round 13: crazy4hoop 3 Natali_ 7 I thought I couldn't possibly lose board 4. Wrong again! Well done, Natalia, for the entire match. http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:e4fd0091.29bc.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493127693&u=crazy4hoop

70% v JJ_ 75% v barmar 50% v impfdich

JJ_ / Zzmiy Tied http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:18865df1.2a12.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493164286&u=JJ_ Spyrosm / JJ_ 40% - 60% http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:1aca9eed.2a1e.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493169444&u=JJ_

Round 12: crazy4hoop 6.5 impfdich 3.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:70e25c08.2a1d.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493169159&u=crazy4hoop

Sorry. I hope this one is right. http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:49515daf.2a1d.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493169093&u=crazy4hoop

Spyrosm / Gerardo 50%-50% http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:f180d7f6.2ad5.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493248402&u=spyrosm

toast1 4.5 - 5.5 broze http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:46316035.28a9.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493009315&u=toast1 toast1 7-3 JJ_ http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:05343ccd.2962.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493088662&u=toast1

stoppiello 30% gordontd 70% http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:d181a83c.28be.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493018568&u=stoppiello

ant590 - Mkgnao 2 vs 8 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:16b202f5.287b.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1492989478&u=mkgnao

Spyrosm / Barmar 25% - 75% http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:2fda3dc1.2a0b.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493161319&u=spyrosm Spyrosm / Impfdich 40%-60% http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:3bac4a3c.2a0b.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493161339&u=spyrosm

I'm passing. I'm going to like whatever partner leads and if there happens to be a 5 card club suit over there when we can get the pump on now or soon it's max upside. Stopping short of game is wimpy and game is hardly a sure thing. The downside is relatively small unless they make this AND we make game which is a parlay I'm betting against.

http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:5a726390.2a03.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493157954&u=gordontd

Currently law 12 states that the purpose of an assigned adjusted score is to remove any advantage the offenders may have gained from their own infraction. The new laws will add: This clause does not appear in the current laws. Current practice, in England at least, is to apply what has become known as "sympathetic weighting" to an adjustment, to skew the weightings of possible outcomes slightly in favour of the non-offending side. So if without an infraction you think the opponents would bid a making game half the time, you might award 60% of +620 and 40% of +170 rather than 50% of each score. I don't care for the name, as it's not really being done out of sympathy for the non-offenders, but rather in an effort to make sure the offenders don't gain from the infraction, but I approve of the practice. Is the new wording of law 16 supposed to put a stop to sympathetic weighting?

The GIB System Notes page is very clear how GIB follows to an opening lead: Anyone who has played with GIB knows it doesn't quite work like this. Barmar's take on things:

Those are reasonable ranges opposite a 1-level overcall which could be pretty ilght, but opposite a takeout double which should show an opening hand (albeit counting shortness) ? You can't convince me to bid less than game with 14 points when partner makes a takeout double. And while I could see a possible set if opener has 5 of the outstanding 8 diamonds, a good diamond lead, and we can't rattle off 9 winners, partner isn't going to raise 2NT on many hands on which 3NT is a good bet. I bid 3NT although at these colors I have some admiration for those that want to defend 1Dx.

wackojack / pio_magic 50:50

60% vs stopiello

phoenix214 - wackojack 5.5-4.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:cd012eff.298c.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493107036&u=phoenix214 phoenix214 - Smerriman 5.5-4.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:d4b035e6.2938.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493070972&u=phoenix214 phoenix214 - Linxu01 6.5-3.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:87cfa17a.2965.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493090170&u=phoenix214

Round 14: crazy4hoop 6 Gerardo 4 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:5da51ab2.2afb.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493264475&u=crazy4hoop

I played with a wannabe Marty Bergen type once and made him promise to have a 6 card suit in 2nd chair. 2nd chair only. A few hands in he opened 2♥ in 2nd, p - p - dbl float. They drew trumps in 5 rounds, knocked out our side Ace and ran that suit when they got in with the last trump. Me: You PROMISED to have a 6 bagger in 2nd seat! Him: (hurt look) I DID! clubs :)

Round 16: maximusg vs spyrosm spyrosm 55% http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:e89c7f1c.2ad5.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493248387&u=maximusg

Round 14 Icycookie - Phil 4.5 - 5.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:a015b679.29f5.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493152058&u=icycookie

Eagles123 - Ant590 4.5 - 5.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:e45b491a.2a53.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493192545

Are you sure about this? A 2♣ response in SAYC promises a rebid. If you hold a 3244 11 count, what is your planned rebid over 2NT? How about a 3145 hand? The truth is that SAYC is somewhat nebulous about the correct structure here. One of our resident posters here who has looked into SAYC a fair bit has written that the best way of squaring the circle to what the booklet says is for a weak NT to rebid 2♥ and for the 2NT rebid to show a hand too strong for a 1NT opening. That may be a minority position but it is certainly a very playable option. In other words, whilst it is clear what a 2NT rebid means in the first auction, the second is system-dependent, not only due to the NT opening range but also from the rebid structure being employed.

I do not think it is as simple as this assessment. The lower range of the opening is relevant here and Acol traditionally opens light. Would you open ♠xx ♥Axxx ♦AQxxx ♣xx? If this is a 1♦ opener, and it will be for some but not all, then I think the range of your 2♥ raise is too great if the OP hand is also included. The simplest way of seeing it in my mind is that the OP hand is worth about 16. If our 2♥ range is 13-16 then this is a 2♥ rebid. If instead it is 12-15 then this is a 3♥ raise. It is possible to play either style while still "understanding a weak NT".

The concept of biddable suits is basically obsolete. You bid according to your shape. With a very weak suit you may choose to deny it if 1NT seems a more descriptive response, but if you have a fit you will lose it. Also, a player rebidding 1NT (or 2NT) may skip over one or both major suits in order to show a balanced hand in the appropriate range. This is why most partnerships have a way of checking back for a major-suit fit.

I think 4♣ here should be a slam try for the minors, something like ♠AQxxx ♥AJx ♦Kx ♣AJx. Gerber and the like make no sense as there is no hand that wants to force to slam based only on aces without a fit. One thing I disagree with the panel on so far is with the constructions showing strong hands with 4 clubs. These would (for me) have rebid 3♣ so I consider them impossible. Over 4♣, my logic would dictate that 4♦ shows a potential diamond fit, 4♥ would be a slam move for clubs and 4♠/4NT/5m are offers to play. More practically, the meaning of a bid like 4♣ here with a pick-up is pretty much "I would like a new partner". If it comes up with a regular partner in practise it is good to define some general rules that can be applied in all auctions. An example rule might be for a 4m call of this nature (ie in a suit that we cannot hold) might be showing slam interest and no convenient call, which probably leads you back to the definition in the first paragraph.

linxu01 - Mkgnao 5 vs. 5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:a587a722.2965.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493090220&u=mkgnao

Pass. With switched vulnerability, even equal, I would go with 3NT. With kind regards Marlowe

Float that shizzle.

m1cha - jexa_ 4.5 - 5.5 http://webutil.bridg...3109415&u=m1cha

I'm passing. The most likely distribution around the table starting with me clockwise is something like 3253 3352 4414 3424. If so I hope to take most of the tricks outside diamonds, which (adding the diamond) already scores about as well as game. If opener has longer diamonds, 3N is in more danger - since a) we're less likely to benefit from suit blockage, and b) opener is commensurately more likely to be able to double if he's got an outside ace (or two).

You mean he holds something like xxxx AJx x AQxxx and we hope ♥ finesse does not work AND they have enough diamonds to set? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif Let me give you guys a secret about why this is a bidders game! Because opponents do not see your hands. Yes if opening leader has KQJTx(x) ♦ he has an easy lead. However he will also lead ♦ from KQJx. Will he lead ♦ from KJxxx on this auction vs 3 NT? Or will he know to lead small from KQT9x ? Because if he does not, your ♦ 8 may create a big problem for defense. Are you guys seriously suggesting to invite when pd doubles and you hold 13 count with 2 Aces and a King? Seriously? What have you guys been playing all this years? You are not bidding a grandslam ffs! You are playing IMPs and you are bidding a very reasonable 3 NT. Yes I know it may go down but so what? Good luck at trying to stay in 2 NT and expect it to make exactly 8 tricks. Good luck with expecting pd to know when it is right to accept and when not. Oh and btw, they give a big bonus for playing games, such as 300 points instead of 50 for partscore NV and 500 instead of 50 vulnerable.

Round 12 Icycookie - Natali_ 5.5 - 4.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:383f8295.29bc.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493127403&u=icycookie Round 13 Icycookie - Gerardo 5.0 - 5.0 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:f56bb1fe.29c8.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493132874&u=icycookie

hijunny132 - nulve 3.5 - 6.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:60c800d2.2a28.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1493173856&u=nullve

The reason why I think that "sympathetic weighting" is appropriate is that the infraction robbed the non-offenders of a possibility to obtain a great score. Without the infraction they just might have guessed every card right or they might have bid to the excellent contract. They could have chosen to go against the field. With the infraction, they are convicted to the "middle of the road" from the point of the infraction. I don't think it is fair to give them the excellent contract with the maximum number of tricks, like it used to be. But I do think that the non-offenders deserve a little bit of compensation for losing the opportunity for a fantastic score. Rik (edited to include the part that I was commenting on.)

Wackojack 50% Tim_Ucin 50% http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:c1c40fc5.2869.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1492982034&u=wackojack

There isn't really a contradiction. All the statistics show is that there's a significant minority of Trump voters who both: 1. Disapprove of his job performance. 2. Do not regret voting for him. Keep in mind that the election was basically a binary choice between Trump and Clinton. A Trump voter could easily be unhappy that (for example) there are still Muslims coming into the US when Trump said he would ban them, or that construction on the wall hasn't started yet, or that Obamacare (which he said he would repeal on day one) is still there, etc. Yet this does not mean they wish they'd voted for Clinton (who did not even say she would do any of those things which Trump said he would do but has so far failed to do).

You might also want to point out that in the latest statistics, 33.6 of each thousand white teenaged girls in Arkansas gave birth, while only 14.1 of each thousand black teenaged girls in Massachusetts gave birth. So the state of residence does make a difference. States vary widely in the quality of sex education provided to students. Although several decades have passed since I was in high school, matters of sex in those days were much more restricted. The only place that high school students could buy condoms then (that I knew of, anyway) was a particular gas station where they were sold 'under the counter' for 50 cents each (a lot more money then than now). And the only place that I knew of where a girl could get an abortion was in Chicago, and you and the girl had to leave cash on a table in an empty room -- then leave the room while the cash was gathered -- before the girl would be taken in for the procedure. Returning to those days won't make America great again...

Have you ever taken a look at the correlation between unmarried teen high school dropouts and political governance? The 10 states with the highest rate of teenage pregnancies are almost all Red states, while the 10 with the lowest are almost all Blue states. You do keep trying to convince us with your superficial right wing talking points, but the problem for you is that many of us understand that reality is a little more nuanced than O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck et al appear to think. As for your assertion: show me who, on the 'left', says that unmarried teen mothers make good parents? Show me someone advocating for unmarried teenage girls to become parents. You know who does? Right wing 'pro-life' people. Sure, they all say that the girl should not get pregnant, but they all also say that sex education is bad, contraception is bad, and abortion is bad....and then act all horrified that girls get pregnant. You really ought to think before pressing send on some of your posts...take a little time to think about what you are writing and ask....is this correct? Virtually every factoid or proposition you post is easily falsifiable. Don't you ever get tired of learning that reality isn't the way you think it is? My guess: no, because you aren't interested in facts, only in repeating alt-right nonsense. Prove me wrong.

The problems with US schools have been discussed in this (and other) threads and have little to do with teachers unions. They are: 1. Poverty. Kids who need to worry about where their next meal is coming from, or who is taking care of a younger sibling, or how they are getting to and from school safely are going to have a tougher time learning than more affluent kids. Kids whose parents have time to help them with homework will do better than kids with parents who are hustling 12-hour work days to make ends meet. US has much higher percentage of children in poverty than other comparably affluent countries. While we spend relatively a lot on schools, we spend very little on social safety net. 2. Allocation of spending. Since schools are funded primarily by local property tax, the wealthy communities spend a lot and bring up the average, while poor community schools are underfunded. We could fix this without increasing overall spending, but the wealthy communities are very powerful in local politics and will lobby heavily against it. 3. Use of spending. A series of laws requiring equity in education mean that the US spends a lot of money educating kids with mental or physical disabilities. This is laudable in some ways, and many countries do not do as good a job for such children. But it raises the average (mean) spending per pupil significantly while not helping the majority of kids. 4. Attitude towards teachers in culture. This is not so much pay (although that could also be better) as promotion to leadership, respect in writing on education, etc. The way teachers are treated in US discourages people from entering or staying with the profession. Other countries give teachers a lot more respect.