TimG

I'm not sure that is quite correct. When KO events became too big and created scheduling uncertainty, bracketing was devised to fix the problem*. A lot of masterpoints are awarded in a bracketed KO. KOs became even more popular. It's not just that a lot of masterpoints are given out, but how they are distributed. The players with fewer total masterpoints are put in lower brackets and have a much better chance of winning masterpoints than they would if the event were open. If 200 MP were awarded for first place in an open KO, that wouldn't attract nearly as many players as a bracketed KO that awarded 75 in bracket I, 50 in bracket II, 35 in bracket III, 25 in bracket III and 15 in Bracket IV. * Back about 1990, I played in a Flight B KOs that started on Friday night. Because the field was so big, the event would have taken 6 sessions to complete. There were only 5 sessions available, so the Flight B event was randomly split into two events in order to accommodate all the entries. I'm not sure whether it was after a single such event or two such events that New England started bracketing KOs. Scheduling is easier on organizers when the KO will last a known number of sessions, and also more appealing to many of those who enter the event.

I don't think it's the fear of the end, but rather the fear of what might happen if death is not the end. It is easy for me to sit here and say that I do not fear death -- I won't suffer after death, or experience anything after death, because I will be no longer. But, what if I am wrong and there is something after death? Then I, and my incorrect atheist views, might have something to fear in death; if I'm wrong and the Christians are right, then I'm going to suffer for a very long time. Death would then be a very scary prospect.

Not quite I think - after the 7 loses to the Jack, you should cash the ace. So it only loses to K54, 5 and 4. You are right. But, in practice, RHO will pop King some of the time when he holds Kx. He doesn't have to do this often to make the second round finesse the better line. Right?

Thanks for the links, Inquiry. The BridgeCaptain solver is Double Dummy Solver which I mentioned in my post -- but, I now appear to have a newer version. None of the programs automatically show number of tricks associated with each card as the GIB analysis on BBO does, though many have the option of showing the current double dummy tricks for each card when requested. It's probably a computing time thing.

You can just open the saved hand (.lin file) in the NetBridgeVu.exe and choose the same option as when you're kibbing (GIB -> Show double dummy analysis). However, this only shows the analysis for the hand as it was played. If you want to see a different line, you can load the .lin into a teaching table and play the hand out how you want, doing the same thing. Thanks. I can now replay the hand with GIB's analysis. But, when I loaded a hand into a teaching table, I couldn't figure out how to set a contract. Not that important, it is far more complicated that I had hoped.

If the death penalty was voted in, someone would have the right to make the decision and someone would have the right to carry out the act Legal right, sure. But, moral right?

This ignores the opponents to a certain extent. If we are 2=2=2=7 and partner is 1=6=4=2 with a partnership total of 17 HCP, that means the opponents have 10 spades and 23 HCP -- they will surely be bidding more. If we silence them with our strong sounding bidding, perhaps we will unwittingly find a good sacrifice, even against their partscore. BTW, I voted for pass -- I agree that we could easily get overboard by forcing with 3C -- but I would be happy to transfer to clubs if that were available.

I like the GIB show double dummy analysis feature. Is there a way to apply it to saved hands, or an application (similar to Deep Finesse) that shows the number of over/under tricks? I have used both Deep Finesse and Double Dummy Solver, but those just tell whether a card is good or bad as far as the contract making, nothing about over tricks or extra under tricks.

MW online give "hatefully or shockingly evil " as the definition of heinous. It doesn't seem a good choice if the objective is to remove evil from the equation.

When I think of evil in the good and evil context, I think of some cosmic force (which I don't actually believe exists). I don't believe that those who perpetrate vile acts are possessed of an evil force that makes them do these acts (anymore than I think that those who do kind things are possessed by a good force). I also think that today's usage of the adjective evil describes despicable things, but does not necessarily imply a cosmic force at work.

One could argue that there are obvious benefits to religion, too. One could argue that the world is flat. One could be indoctrinated into believing the world to be flat. It wouldn't render the world flat. Maybe I should have said "one could reasonably argue" or some such. But, I think you knew what was meant. I don't think that in order for religion to be beneficial that the benefits have to be unique to religion.

In the US, it takes jumping through some hoops in order to establish an entity as a non-profit and non-profit and hobby are two very different things.

Are you suggesting that all 501©(3) entities are private?

This sounds like it was option three, private chat, not lobby or table chat. If it was lobby or table chat then many others would have seen it. I mentioned it because it tends to support the notion that part of the BBO user agreement includes a provision for BBO to monitor private chat (as had been speculated earlier in the thread).

From BBO's website:

I'd guess no, especially considering the recent investment in (purchase of a portion of) the company by a couple of individuals. I'm not an attorney, but I don't think the mere fact that an entity is incorporated as a 501©(3) would make it immune to discrimination laws. And, even more likely, they would still be subject to ADA regulations.

You don't get to show diamonds first and then canape into spades?

Well said.

2NT seems to be an accurate description.

I'm sure you are right that BBO could include an appropriate clause in their user agreement and monitor private chat as they see fit. For better or for worse, I don't think BBO can deny service for whatever reasons they want. Especially since they are likely deemed to be conducting interstate commerce.

I wonder if BBO users can have an expectation of privacy when it comes to private chat? What if the player in question had sent an e-mail after the session instead of asking the questions in BBO chat? Would people still think it appropriate for BBO to take action? As an aside, I think gold stars were a mistake and BBO would be just as well off by removing the feature entirely.

4. All of the above.

My keyboard has the Print Screen/SysRq key, but I just tested it and it did not require ALT in order to screen capture. I was going to post something similar to you, but figured before I said "it's not always that easy" I'd actually try it out and was surprised at what I found. BTW: it worked with or without ALT.

How often can the opponents make 4♠? What are the passers going to do after 4♠ on their left, passed back to them?

One could argue that there are obvious benefits to religion, too.