TimG

It would be nice if there was an "auction" button (like "fullhand", "onesuit" etc) that would space an auction well in the default proportionally spaced font.

laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcend space and time... from the atheists.com philosophy pages: if those were created to explain reasoning it means that someone had to create them, that there was some point when they didn't exist... who created them? when? which of those 3 laws didn't exist prior to humans? Why is it that Logic must have been created rather than discovered or identified? While the universe followed the Laws of Gravity for eons, it was only recently that man came to understand gravity and articulate this understanding with Laws that described the phenomenon. I anticipate that you will say that the Laws of Gravity describe observable phenomenon while logic does not; we cannot explain (or account for) logic through observation. Logic is a concept of the mind, perhaps more specifically of the conscious mind; logic is not a description of any physical behavior but rather a reflection of truth through consciousness (an abstract or conceptual law that cannot be derived from the physical). This truth (some would say absolute truth) is accounted for in the Christian world view by saying that it comes from God (perhaps is a reflection of God or even is God -- I've attended enough church to have heard "God is Truth"). This same argument can be made for any number of religions which are based upon a transcendent creator, so this could more broadly be referred to as a religious or godly world view rather than specifically a Christian world view. The Christian (or more generally the theist) says he can account for logic through his world view while the atheist cannot account for logic through the physical world. Since logic must be accounted for, the Christian world view must be the correct world view. I'm not convinced that the atheist must be limited to the physical world. I cannot explain consciousness. But, that does not mean that it must be divine. And, I am quite content to say that Logic is self-evident without any need to attribute it to an absolute God (or any other higher power).

Pass. Game for our side is remote, especially now that the opponents have laid claim to the spade suit. Any plus score should be fine. The opponents likely have a better fit in hearts and a double might make it easier for them to get there.

Um. I don't think the premise "p or q" in this covers all the bases. If it does not, then both the premise, and thus the conclusion that given ~q, p must be the case are not valid. the argument is valid and any text book would show that it is... change q to "any non-christian worldview" if you want... all that's required for ~q is to show that q is internally inconsistent, that it contains contradictions within its own presuppositions - for example, by saying abstract entities do not exist or by saying something such as "absolutes do not exist, everything is relative" Excuse me if I have missed it, but can you explain to me how a world view accounts for logic? Even setting aside your claims that the atheist world view cannot account for laws of logic, isn't it possible that this statement is false? Maybe neither a religious nor an atheist world view can account for laws of logic.

The existence or non-existence of god, as an academic issue, pretty much went out of fashion during the enlightenment. There was a semi-joke a few years ago about a Bayesian method for computing the probability that god exists that got some media attention, and a well-known biologist wrote a popular book called "the god delusion", and that's pretty much it. IOW while it was considered an important issue among medieval philosophers, today it is confined to popular media. There have been books written on the subject other than The God Delusion. One prominent example of a book that comes to a different conclusion is The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins, the director of the Human Genome Project. This is not to suggest that this is as serious an academic issue as it used to be, but academics do consider the issue and probably will for many years to come.

I watched some of this, but admit to not giving it my full attention. It seems that their conclusion is that Flight 77 (maybe have the wrong flight number) did not hit the Pentagon, but rather it was a military aircraft that hit the Pentagon. Did they ever speculate about where Flight 77 went?

Does that mean that religious non-Christians also use your world view when using logic? I'm not following the all the arguments (from either side), but I am particularly confused by the idea that logic is dependent upon Christianity. Back in 7th grade when I was first introduced to logic in math class, I learned that true implies false is false. Was my teacher actually teaching me religion? And, was this bit of logic non-existent before Christ? (Or, before Judaism came to be practiced?)

While it's common to agree that the last bid suit is the keycard suit (because sometimes you don't have any way to make a forcing bid that also sets trump), that understanding should generally only apply to suits bid naturally. While there may be occasions where the king or queen of the artificial suit happens to be the useful extra information you need, it's more likely to cause confusion later in the auction. Of course it's silly to assume keycard for diamonds on this auction. Did you misunderstand me and think that I was recommending keycard on this auction?

I've received such messages. I simply set them as an enemy (and don't receive chat messages from enemies).

Lots of people are so in love with keycard that they agree that when there has not been suit agreement, the last bid suit is the keycard suit. Also, lots of people respond to a quantitative 4NT as if it was Blackwood, when they are accepting the invite (just to be extra careful). It does not surprise me that someone has combined these and concluded that 1N-2C-2D-4N is keycard for diamonds (when accepting).

What does a penalty double look like on this auction?

These sorts of questions are not always prompted by "strong disagreements". Why couldn't the opening poster and his partner have thought along these lines: a reasonable case can be made for a couple of calls, let's post it to BBO and get the opinion of a few more players before we decide how we want to solve the problem?

Aren't you the RS disciple? I think they would use 3N as a raise that hints at a sacrifice and 4C as purely blocking and not inviting preemptor to act again.

Opener has bid spades-hearts-spades (which normally shows more strength than Spades-spades-hearts) with an aceless hand. It strikes me as a pretty good bet that opener has some playing tricks. If responder bids keycard over 3S and confirms all keycards, opener should have an easy time bidding the grand.

Is there a difference in expected strength between these two jumps to 3♦? P-P-1♥-DBL P-3♦ P-P-1♥-DBL 1♠-3♦

I faced a similar decision recently, holding ♠AKx ♥AQT9xx ♦xxx ♣T, I opened 1♥ and partner responded 1♠. I think a case can be made for rebidding 2♥, 2♠ or 3♥.

You're being rather condescending, aren't you? Edit: It has been suggested to me that I have been condescending in the same way. And, I'm probably guilty.

My preference would be for a 1♥ opening bid. As it is, I'll rebid 2♣ and await developments.

Richard would have survived in 5C...

When I click on your attached .lin file, I get a new tab with the .lin file text (I am guessing). I suppose I am supposed to save it locally and then open in in a .lin viewer of some sort. But, wouldn't it be easier to simply display the hand results in the post? Or, am I supposed to have some default plug-in for .lin files?

I think double dummy has value. As you say, the biggest loss relative to double dummy result comes from the opening lead and overall the defense performs a bit worse than DD while declarer performs a bit better than double dummy. If I find that a certain combination results in 9+ tricks in NT ~50% of the time, I am pretty confident that bidding the game is worthwhile. If I find that the same opening hand plus a slightly different responding hand makes 9+ tricks in NT ~56% of the time, I can be pretty confident that the second hand is worth more than the first. Recognizing all the while that declarer will likely make more often than the DD simulation suggests. I recently did some work with 4432 hands facing 4432 or 4333 hands. The 4432 or 4333 hands had 15 HCP (strong NT) and the 4432 hands were responding hands with 10 points. Using DD I could find that 4=4=3=2 facing 4=3=3=3 produced x tricks in a spade contract and that 4=4=3=2 facing 4=3=2=4 produced y tricks in a spade contract. If I tell you that 4=4=3=2 facing 4=3=3=3 produces 9.7 tricks on a DD basis, you might reasonably say: "So what? We don't play double dummy." But, If I tell you 4=4=3=2 facing 4=3=3=3 produces 0.4 fewer tricks* than 4=4=3=2 facing 4=3=2=4, that might be of some value to you because even though we don't play double dummy, it seems reasonable to expect that each simulation will be affected the same way by being DD. That is, while the absolute number of tricks may not have great value, the relative number of tricks should have value. * I don't remember the actual numbers and am not going to look them up for this post. I will note, however, that someone I shared the results with suggested I post to BBO to see what other people thought. I declined for a couple of reasons, one of which is the disdain that some have for DD simulations. Along similar lines, you might hold QTxx K9xx xx Axx and want to know which suit is more attractive to lead against a 1N-3N auction. DD over 1000s of hands is probably going to give you a better answer than whatever by-hand method you use over 100-150 hands. In my opinion, DD has its place if you understand the limitations.

I think 60 minutes, and the resulting 12 boards, is a disadvantage of ACBL games on BBO. I'd much rather play 24 or 27. Yes, I could play back-to-back speedballs, but I think the results over a single longer session are more meaningful.

The difference is that in a bracketed event teams aren't guaranteed the option of playing up; in a flighted event playing up is always an option.

I'm sure this varies from region to region, but the next regional in New England has: Wed -- stratified pairs Thurs -- stratified Swiss teams Fri -- bracketed compact KO, stratified pairs, flighted KO (with Flight B bracketed) Sat -- bracketed compact KO, stratiflighted pairs Sun -- bracketed round robin teams Counting bracketed as a form of flighting, that means 5 flighted and 3 non-flighted events. (I haven't counted side games and senior events.) One reason for not flighting events is that the events become very small with flighting. This is why the Wednesday and Thursday events in New England tend toward stratified, while on the weekend days when more people show up the events can be flighted without reducing the events to Howells. I'll admit that the flighted KO on Friday night of all New England regionals is quite unusual. Also, the bracketed round robin teams has a note that "top bracket open upon request", so playing up is an option, making it even more like a flighted event.

North East South West 1[he] [space] [space] 1[sp] [space] [space]P [space] [space]P DBL [space] [space]P [space] [space] P [space] [space]2[cl] P [space] [space] [space]P [space] [space] 2[he] [space] P 3[di]Playing expert standard (even if I'm not qualified), what would you expect the North-South hands to look like at this point in the auction? And, is 3♦ forcing? Edit: IMPs, both Vul.