HighLow21

Being a recovering alcoholic (2 years sober earlier this week), I am a huge fan of pomegranate juice and seltzer. ;-) Before I quit drinking, though, I was a huge fan of any decent pinot -- noir or grigio.

Given that revenue began falling due to a long-term debt cycle decline (read: depression or deleveraging), one of the worst possible actions that could have been taken would have been to cut spending. All that would have done is further exacerbate the depression. Actually, cutting taxes in that scenario is also one of the worst possible ideas, but Republicans still seem to dig it. See: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/economic-theory-via-youtube-and-cartoon/?_r=5

The remainder of this post has "Tea Party" written all over it. Riddled with non-sequiturs and arguments that have no purpose in a discussion on this or any other germane topic. I'm happy to point out many of them if anyone likes.

No, you could run into a diamond ruff by the hand short in trumps. You could run into a duck, as you noted, followed by a 3rd round ruff by LHO on a diamond return. (Remember, according to your line, only 2 trumps are drawn at this stage and you don't know how the outstanding trumps are divided.) Even if the diamond finesse succeeds, if the cover happens on round 2 you could find yourself stuck in dummy with no quick route back to hand to draw trumps short of your black aces, and using them exposes a loser. I'm not saying your line won't make most of the time -- it will. In fact it will frequently get an overtrick. But it will also go down way more often than it has to. Again, the low diamond line at trick 3 has the simplicity of making anytime RHO has K♦ OR at least 2 diamonds. Something around 90% even accounting for the bad trump split, you will have 3 diamonds, 5 hearts and 2 black aces. And even in the 10% case, check this out: 1. You lose trick 3 to the hypothetical K♦ with LHO. 2. You lose trick 4 to the hypothetical diamond ruff by RHO. 3. You win trick 5 and draw the final outstanding trump in trick 6. 4. You still have AQ♦ in dummy plus an entry card. Making SIX hearts, two diamonds, and two black aces. I have no problem correcting my own errors in analysis: my line is actually 100%. Also, final point -- fiddling around with the clubs is a blackeye-to-nothing gambit. If the club honors are wrong and a spade comes back, you are now more or less dependent on the diamond finesse or hearts 3-2.

For all intents and purposes it might as well be! :)

BJR. I finally figured out what it means. Hint: I only see it when at a table with a French player.

Once again: in the OP's system, the choices are 1NT or Pass. I choose 1NT for the simple reason that that's what the hand is worth in the OP's system. Partner could have a rock-crusher and game could easily be on in NT, ♥, ♣ or ♦. The risk of going down 3 in 1NT has to be faced, because the risk of missing a making vulnerable game by passing is greater. And perhaps even greater of a risk: alienating your partner by making an anti-system pass.

I see your point, and I think you see mine. One is a mistake regardless of the result, and the other is a mistake given the result. The argument is starting to become semantic, and remember -- the original question revolved around empirical observations of IMP score variation per hand (or per set). My point is that any factor which leads to more swings--different bidding systems in play, different levels of ability among the pairs, trickier hands, etc.--will obviously correlate to a higher standard deviation of IMP results per hand. Whether you define mistake as "egregious error" or "deviation from par result", at least a large part of the variation will be due to mistakes. And more mistakes will be made when you're playing against a bidding system you aren't familiar with or don't have an effective defense against.

International Match Points. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplicate_bridge#Scoring

1NT. It's anti-system to pass unless you're playing an unusual system.

Winston, this may seem ridiculous to you, but this point is lost on most Americans. ;) In all sincerity, though--corporations CAN be good for the general public, but it requires that the government properly direct their actions for this to be accomplished. The government makes the rules, period (and if they fail to make the rules, the corporations will, to their own benefit). That was the tradeoff that was made when we decided to exclude the public option. It is deeply ingrained in the American culture to choose the "free market" over government solutions, thanks to Reagan and a number of others. Obamacare was designed to do exactly this--build a system whereby corporations can make their profits, but not at the expense of the American people's health. I, for one, am against most of my American compatriots in this respect. I am deeply distrustful of corporations and their motives, just as Adam Smith was. I'd much rather have single-payer. But the concept of "free enterprise" is part of the American bloodstream, and the whole idea behind constructing it this way was to get Republicans on board with the plan because it remains pro-profit. Instead, they just continued to oppose it, because their viewpoint is that ANY cooperation with Obama and the Dems is bad for their party. (What's best for the American people, to them, is completely irrelevant.) Note that I use the scare quotes because we don't really have free markets or free enterprise anywhere. But trust me when I tell you those folks you mentioned are NOT credible Presidential candidates. Some may run but will be out of the primary by the 3rd state. Chris Christie is probably about a 70% favorite to win the GOP nomination in 2016 at this point.

No, it's the right play.

I had it reversed -- West showed out, not East. But my point still stands -- you need to clear hearts entirely to ensure 3 diamond winners. For that to be the case, the King of hearts will be gone. If you leave the K♥ there, you won't fare nearly as well in the long run--you might lose 2 trump tricks, for example. If you leave a single trump outstanding, a ruff of the 3rd round of diamonds leaves you stuck in hand and the diamond winner in dummy twisting in the wind. The line I recommended works as long as the long-trump hand has K♦ singleton OR at least 2 diamonds. Period. The key is, get all the trumps out of the defenders' hands as soon as possible without using a black ace. Should be about a 90% line and I am nearly positive there's no better line available. And this line has the benefit of not revising the OP's line of play. -Tate

Good explanation. I think the most important point that follows is that some of the variation you'll see in the pooled results will be caused by randomness, and some will be caused by the relative strength/weakness of individual pairs. The more variation in talent across the pairs, the higher the standard deviation of the observed results. The randomness component will, of course, always be there irrespective of the relative quality of the pairs.

It depends on how you define mistake, doesn't it? Any time a pair fails to get its optimal result on the board, it could be argued that it's a mistake. Many such mistakes will be made routinely by even the best players in the world, but if you define it that way, swing = mistake.

If West correctly ruffs the 3rd round of diamonds you have almost no choice but to go down. Dummy's winner will be entryless and your hearts are still blocked.

The recommended line can be set if West has a singleton diamond, otherwise cannot be set: 1. Low ♦ towards JT8. Do NOT lead to a black ace. 2. Assume whoever wins correctly returns a black card, taken by South's ace. 3. Play J♥ and another pitching spades. 4. Opponents take their black trick plus a heart and K♦. You take 3 diamonds, 5 hearts, and 2 black aces. Other lines court greater dangers.

It's easy if clubs 2-1 and diamonds no worse than 4-2. It's also easy if West started with 4 hearts, though I'm guessing they are 2-7 based on what's been said. I'd ruff the heart, cross to K♦, lead K♣ to A♣. If 2-1, establish diamonds with 2 high ruffs and lead 3♣ to 5♣. If clubs 3-0, we need Q♦ short or ♦3-3. Alternatively on finding out that clubs are 3-0 we could opt for the ruffing finesse in ♦. Only problem is that I cannot imagine East has the Q♦, unless West failed to lead a top spade from AKxx(x).

So we get 2♣ 1♠, 1♦ and 1♥ for sure, plus another heart (if he is not ruffing them) or a diamond (if he is). Seems pretty easy to get another diamond with the trump promotion line. Good hand

That's true too -- anybody playing an unusual system, particularly one against which the opposing partnership doesn't have agreements, will likely increase the volatility of results. Basically, the standard deviation is caused by mistakes--anything that increases the frequency or severity of those mistakes (poor players, unusual systems, very wild distributions, etc.) will increase standard deviation. Similarly, a group of expert/world class players would probaby demonstrate a much lower typical swing per board.

Crap, right. I was envisioning 4th best leads I think. Then A♠ and another seems best. The forcing game. Now all players have 3 trumps and we can control what order they are drawn in. Or maybe the best plan is to take the 4 side-suit winners first? This then places both black queens with partner, but we have to take them in the right order (AK clubs, Q clubs, spade return, another spade). Now West is reduced to 3 trumps and cannot draw trumps without playing in NT. He will lose 2 spades, 3 clubs, a diamond and a heart, OR, if he fails to draw trumps, there's a good chance he will lose 3 overruffs. Now I'm just getting curious to see the answer. my guess is that, as usual, I have a lot of the right ideas but am missing the exact, killing answer.

More East than West, but some West for this reason: East opened the bidding and West has an independent heart suit and 7 losers. East should have 7 losers for his opening bid, and even with a singleton heart there may be a chance spades can be set up for discards from his perspective. The vulnerability is red-on-white and game shouldn't be missed. Both players should have bid 4♥ at his final turn. And if 4♥ gets doubled, West can at least give thought to running to 4♠.... and then NOT run, because the hearts are fine.

Did partner bid anything the first time around? If so raise his suit. If he bids NT raise to game. If he passed, double again. This hand has only one bad high card (J♦). We can make 2 in either black suit (maybe 3) if partner has 5 of them. If he doesn't, we have defense against their contract. If you failed to double the first time -- double in the passout seat. Anyway about the defensive problem -- it's as well we didn't double, as it turns out East is stacked in the suits we like so we can't make much our way, unless West is 2-5-5-1 and even then we have real problems on a heart lead. West is probably 5-4 (we can do less against 5-5) in the reds with 3 very likely top losers in the blacks--maybe 4 if he is 5-4 (he could have Qx♠ or be put to a guess with Kx♠). If he is 5-5, this could be a real problem, because I don't see how to get more than 3 red suit tricks without partner holding either excellent heart spots or K♦. In either case, a diamonds return is best. I would guess, on average, partner has 4 points and they are slightly more likely to be red points, not black ones. I'm going to guess Q963♥ and xxx♦, with a black queen. I'm betting West is 2-2 in the blacks, and we'd only lose by underleading A♠ if he holds the singleton K♠. But on the auction, partner is likely to have some points so West might have singleton Q♠ if he has a singleton at all. North's lead provides further evidence West's blacks are 2-2 not 1-3. (Again, they could still be 1-2.) To me defending this hand feels like a guessing game (where are your queens, partner?) and the A♠ underlead may be a good way to put West to the test. If he guesses wrong and partner has Qx♠, 2 more rounds of spades will probably lead to all kinds of good things for our side. Even if West has KT9x♦, which would expose South's J♦, declarer will soon lose control. One final note is that I disagree with the notion that a trump opening lead is not a good one on this hand because it's only at the 2-level. I think the auction SCREAMS for a trump opening lead, and as North I'm less afraid to do so at lower levels (at IMPs anyway). It's not as though I'm going to be handing them a large plus by sacrificing a tempo if my partner is strong -- and on the auction my partner (South) rates to be very strong with no good bid to make.

This sounds a lot like Obamacare/ACA would be if there were a public option. Sadly, the Dems removed the public option in the attempt to get some Republican support for it and got none anyway.

X