TimG

Perhaps a better way to judge how much the spade position plays in the success of the contract is to change the spade position so that two spade tricks are not possible and see how good 5C is then.

I think I agree with this. The best spot might be 9, 10 or 11, but will generally be 10. The deal selectors should strive to select problems that won't be solved by everyone, but when a flat deal slips through, the top should still be about 10.

Some of the information you say is not yet available has been posted in this thread.

Play with people you know.

Was Mr. Piltch late to the table then, or did he deal one board in the time you took to deal 3? It would seem weird for neither side to mention that Mr. Piltch was absent for the majority of the dealing. If he dealt only the one, it seems mighty fishy that he remembers which one it was so well when no one else at the table did. #1 which you quoted says that all four players were present for the shuffling of all eight boards. It seems strange that you would then presume Mr Piltch was "late to the table" or "absent for the majority of the dealing". It seems to me that the correct conclusion is that Mr Piltch is a slow dealer. What in Mr Hinckley's post suggests that Mr Piltch was the only one to remember which board he dealt, or even that he remembered at all? All we know from Mr Hinckley's post is that someone remembered. That having been said, I would not be surprised to find that Mr Piltch keeps track of which boards he deals as a result of the experiences of another professional from Indiana. Tim

Can you see which is less frequent and subtract that likelihood from the making percentage? Constraints: - North has at least 11 hcp, South at least 5. - North has at least as many diamonds as clubs, and (no 5-card major) or (more diamonds than cards in each major) - South has at least 4 hearts - If South has 5 spades, he has more hearts than spades West makes 5♣ 59.3% of the time (10000 runs) North has ♠KQ: 30.1% of the time North has ♠Hxxx: 27.8% of the time I realize there are some other considerations -- 5C making isn't always due to the spade position -- but it does seem like the correct percentage is much closer to half the 60%.

I would expect the bottom few seeds in the Spingold are very often eligible for one of the mini-Spingolds, but choose to enter the Spingold. There have always been concurrent events a team could enter and there have always been teams with no chance which enter the Spingold.

Can you see which is less frequent and subtract that likelihood from the making percentage?

But, then everybody would be above average! I see your point and understand the math, it's not really that the club partial deserves a better score, but that the club game doesn't really deserve a 10. I agree with you: once you decide the top spot must get a 10, then you should adjust the other scores so that they are right on a relative basis.

I don't think any solution which does not allow for each of the top 32 seeds to advance is a good one.

A 1NT opening by east will not be overcalled.

Why? That makes it ridiculously better to be 34-seed than to be 33-seed. If Josh's guess of the 32 seed being an 85% favorite against the 65 seed is correct, what chance is there that the 65 seed will advance? The 65 seed will win both matches 2.25% of the time. If they advance 15% of the time quotient is used, that only leaves them advancing 4.2% of the time. Taken evenly from the 32 and 33 seeds, that means each of those teams has a 47.9% chance of advancing. That doesn't seem "ridiculously" worse. Of course if eyhung's 65% is correct, then the 33 seed has only a 40% chance of advancing. That does seem to me to qualify as a ridiculous difference.

I doubt this was the motivation. I expect ACBL recognized that some people did not enter the Spingold because they felt like it was a losing masterpoint proposition and also recognized that these same players would enter a restricted event.

The 32 seed wins both matches 42.25% of the time. They win one match 45.5% of the time. Half of those times a team will have won two matches and half of those times everyone will have won one match and quotient will be used. If you consider that the 32 seed is 65% likely to win on quotient (not sure this is a valid assumption), that means the 32 seeds advances 57% of the time.

The question becomes: would you rather be the 32 seed and face a 3-way with one survivor with the 64 and 65 seeds, or would you want to be the 31 seed and face the 33 seed in a head-to-head match? My intuition tells me that the 32 seed would have a (much) easier path to round two. And, that seems counter to the objective of seeding.

I agree: it seems wrong, and I hope it is illegal.

I think your scores are pretty good. If you matchpoint the results achieved by the 27 participants and then scale the scores to a 12 top, you get: 7N = 9 7C = 4.8 6N = 2.3

I doesn't look to me like the 2D bid was made by a passed hand. Obviously if drury was bid, then the first call was a pass. Do I have to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s? I'm sorry, I still don't get it. You said the 2D bid shows a max passed hand, but the 2D bidder is opener and opener isn't a passed hand.

It's the ACBL. It seems to me that any adjustment would be equivalent to saying this player cheated. And, for that there should be evidence of how the presumed information was obtained.

1♠-2♥ 3♦-3♠ 4♥-4N Q-bid, keycard 5♣-5♠ 1430, sign-off (or something else when hearts are trumps) 6♠- P realizing mistake from explanation Opener is in possession of UI from the explanation. His obligation is to bid on as if responder was asking in hearts and followed up with 5♠. So, what does 5♠ mean? It's quite possible that this partnership has no agreements about next round bidding beyond a queen ask, 5N and signing of in their suit. If that is the case, it seems to me like 5♠ being a signoff is AI and can wake up opener. (This issue of UI and AI both pointing in the same direction has been tackled in another thread recently.) South did not make a mistake in describing the partnership agreements when asked by the opponents. Though why the opponents were asking, I have no idea.

But, you get better rates in Baltimore in winter and New Orleans in summer.

That was our auction, though the DBL was not two-way.

27 BBO forum pairs isn't reflective of the real world?

This is probably right, the GCC includes in the disallowed section: But, I would suggest that any systemic uncovering of a psych makes the psych part of the system and thus not strictly a psych. What these controls do is untangle muilti-way bids, and most of these multi way bids would likely run afoul of system regulation without the psychic control clause. In fact, if they did not run afoul of regulations, then a partnership could use them without being subject to the psychic control clause because the bids would be systemic rather than psyches. Anyway, I think "psychic controls" is sort of an oxymoron.

In this contest, 11 pairs stopped in 3♥ while 10 pairs reached 4♥. So, I don't think your premise that "any sane pair should have no trouble staying out of 4♥" is correct.