TimG

I bet if the question was in an SAT type setting, a significantly higher percentage of those students would give the correct answer.

You will need to track the cost of not being able to open 2D with whatever multi replaces to get a true value of multi, not just the results when multi 2D is opened.

You'd also need to track the instances where you chose not to use your systemic device. For instance, if you want to track your preempts, you also need to track those borderline hands where you choose not to preempt. Or, if you don't preempt with a [void, outside controls, etc.] track the results for whatever you did open with these hands.

Actually, in New England, we have a Tournament Manager/Business Manager. That person is responsible for negotiating with sites (which includes room rates, convention space, hospitality, and other things) and producing tournament advertising. We also have a Caddy Master who is responsible for all things caddy (this job may have been eliminated recently and could now be the responsibility of the Tournament Manager). The Tournament Chairman is generally responsible for finding volunteers to man the hospitality and partnership desks. I'm sure there are other responsibilities, but it is mostly involved with coordinating local volunteers. In New England, I would expect a Tournament Chairperson who was asked about convention charts (or any other conditions of contest sort of item) to consult an official before answering (or simply refer the questioner to the appropriate official). Things are done differently in other districts. It could well be the case that in some districts the Tournament Chairman has many more responsibilities. I think the number of districts with a Tournament Manager/Business Manager can be counted on one hand.

In New England, the Executive Board makes decisions like this (mid-chart or not). If there is a tournament chairman, he/she would not have been in on the decision making process unless he/she also happened to be on the Executive Committee.

If the three-way is considered a single match and there is one team eliminated in this match, it won't change the answer. Still 78 matches required.

Good counter examples. Relay events in track may be a particularly good case.

This seems spot on to me, in the case of a substitute individual. Here, I would think that you could do it either way, give the substituting pair the score or give the pair substituted for the score. I'd vote for giving the score to the pair that played the hand, but I could see going either way.

In all team sports that I can think of, there are players who get little or no playing time, but who still receive a gold medal or championship ring, etc. (I know: bridge is not a sport.) Does it really matter whether someone who hardly plays at all wins a championship?

Will there be any three-way matches with two survivors or will there be byes? 78 teams will be eliminated, so 78 matches.

My first thought was: it's not $1 and 10c. A moment later, I had the correct answer. I think I would have gotten this right even without the warning that comes with the question being asked in the Water Cooler, but of course, can't be sure. I in no way think this makes me smarter than those who are tricked by this problem.

When I substitute the 6 for the 5 in the original holding, suitplay leads the T as the best play for 5 tricks, just as cyberyeti said. For the original holding, suitplay does play the T on the second round in the MAX line.

Churchill devised his methods in the 20s and 30s and published them (along with Albert Furguson) in 1936. Churchill later (in 1976) published virtually the same methods in a much larger book. I may have the dates wrong, my copies are apparently in a box rather than on the bookshelf and I don't want to dig them out at the moment. The only artificiality that Churchill includes are a "utility 1NT" response to an opening bid (basically a catchall negative response to nearly, but not quite, forcing one bids) and I believe takeout doubles of opponents' opening bids. Churchill enjoyed much success with the methods. For a long time he held the record for highest percentage in the finals (or overall) in a National LM Pairs event. Playing with mostly inferior partners and teammates, he competed quite well with the name players of his generation. Of course, that does not mean he, or his methods, would stand up to the top competition of today. In the introduction to the 1976 book, Kaplan said that he was sure that "none of the top pairs in the world at that time could match Church's efficiency in slam bidding." Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but Kaplan's statement should mean something. Churchill surely had more agreements and understandings than the two rules that the OP set forth, but really not a whole lot more. I stand by my contention that hrothgar's "You'd still need very detailed agreements, the only difference is that they be about hitches rather than bids" is an overstatement. In capable hands, Churchill's methods would still serve well in today's world without the need to rely upon hitches. I'm not talking about Spingold or Bermuda Bowl, but capable players could use Churchill in a regional event and not be at much of a handicap, might even be at an advantage over some small samples. "Modern Churchill" is an oxymoron. In my brief look at the linked page, it seems that the Karate Structure is meant to handle competitive bidding. That is, I admit, an area where Churchill might suffer in today's hyper-aggressive world. Then again, the honor trick requirements for certain opening bids means that speeding opponents can be caught with more frequency that against modern methods.

I don't think Rule #4 makes midchart the default for 1500+ events, it just means that the sponsoring unit or district can make such an event midchart without advertising it as such. Districts and units are in charge of determining which convention chart applies to their regional and sectional events. For instance, it was not that long ago that multi was allowed in the top flight/bracket of District 25 KO events (midchart), but not in regional Swiss events (GCC). It's been a couple years since I have played in a District 25 event, so it may have changed without my notice.

I think you are wrong, or that you overstate the case. An almost entirely natural system, something like Churchill, can be very effective without reliance on that old black magic. I'm not saying it will match a big club/relay system, or even detailed eastern scientific, but it can be quite adequate at many levels.

That's just the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks.

Earlier in the year, he completed a 30 digit x 30 digit multiplication problem. He is using the lattice method, so he did 900 single digit x single digit multiplications and then added 60 columns (diagonals) of one digit numbers. No, he did not get it all right the first time through. He and I checked all 900 products together. I told him which column sums were incorrect. This is not a gifted student (if he was he'd probably be doing some of the things Mbodell suggested) it's more an OCD thing.

Yeah, I've found big number calculators online and played around a bit (that's also how I checked his 30x30). I'm looking for a neat product. If he gets the numbers from me, he gets a little more attention than if he does it by himself. I gave him 300 digits (from pi) that he can split up how he wants. But, there is time to give him a new pair of numbers tomorrow.

I have a 4th grade student who wants to perform large number multiplication. Earlier in the year, he used a lattice to multiply a 30 digit number by a 30 digit number, now he has even bigger aspirations. He has asked me to provide him with the numbers to multiply together. Specifically, he asked for a 160 digit number and an 80 digit number (apparently how much space he has for a lattice on the large sheet of paper I gave him), but I'd be happy to reduce the size of the numbers by a bit. I'd like to be able to provide him with two numbers that produce a product with a digit pattern of some sort (for one reason it would be easy to check the answer). But, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to go about coming up with these numbers. Any ideas?

Is 1♣-(P)-1♥-(3♠)-DBL for penalties? Or is this one of those values-that-can't-otherwise-be-expressed doubles?

Is this necessary? Both sides had the opportunity to call the director at the time of the infraction.

I don't think that 9 hcp opposite what constitutes a one-level major suit overcall equates to thinking you can make 1NT. Bidding those values helps partner judge whether to compete further, and having those values reduces the likelihood of a big penalty if you're already overboard.

Just last night, I umpired a softball game between two teams of 10-12 year-old girls. I held a brief pre-game conference at which I discussed with the coaches the league-specific rules which deviated from ASA rules. There was brief discussion about one rule, we all agreed a solution, then we played ball. It's just a fact of life that not everyone will like the rules of a national organization or world organization and will come up with local rules that serve their purposes. Those purposes are going to differ from place to place; we are still a diverse community even though today's technology allows us all to function as virtual neighbors. A few years ago, the US Government made some misguided attempts to make school curriculum uniform throughout the country. The effort, perhaps apocryphally, resulted in students in NYC being required to learn Eskimo poetry. I believe that in ACBL-land, a club could use WBF system regulations -- clubs in the ACBL are given great latitude -- I doubt any have adopted the WBF system regulation in an effort to homogenize the bridge world.

Thanks for the votes and comments. As you might have guessed, there was UI involved, the auction was actually: 1♦-(3♣)-2♠*-(P) *withdrawn and replaced with pass There was no director call at the time of the insufficient bid because the woman making the bid is legally blind and didn't see (or hear) the 3♣ bid correctly. It is my guess that at a Flight A level, there is no LA to DBL. (Maybe I am wrong about that.) But, this player was well below that level and I wondered if Pass was also a LA at that level. That's why I posted on Novice and Beginner. As an aside: I can imagine lots of Flight A players upgrading this to 18 and opening 1♦ with the intention of jumping in NT on the next round to show a hand too good to open 1N. I'm sure this pair was playing 15-17 and the player in question opened 1♦ simply because he had what looked like a good five card suit. One other thing: I was not the director...nor was I at the table.

IMPs, nv/nv, 1st seat, you hold: ♠AQx ♥Kxx ♦AJ9xx ♣Kx You open 1♦, LHO bids 3♣ (weak), passed back to you. Your call?