TimG

One session (and especially the 2 or 3 boards you play against any other pair) will have little effect on ratings in the long run. Yes, your opponents may get a small bump and you may drop a bit, but it shouldn't be significant when mixed in with your 100+ sessions over a year.

Shouldn't that be "Do to"?

Silver doesn't claim that Obama is going to win by a 70:30 margin, he claims that there is a 70% chance that Obama is going to win.

Enough for me.

You may be right; I may be wrong. But, this seems very wrong to me. Is East really supposed to ask questions based upon what is in his hand? That's giving information to the whole table. I frequently play a system where I can open a weak four-card major. Sometimes when I open 1M, next hand says something like "you play four-card majors, right?" It's a pretty good bet that they have 5 (or more) decent cards in the suit I've opened. In the given case, suppose East asks about the 3C call and then passes. Hasn't he given his partner UI that he holds club length?

This isn't a proper explanation, is it? Wouldn't North instead just say "no special agreement" or "undiscussed"? I really don't think this is one of those times were East is supposed to do a lot to protect himself through questioning.

The idea behind 3S with this shape (not necessarily this hand) is to avoid an immediate commitment to what might be a 4-3 heart fit. I believe I read about it in a book by Al Roth though I am sure the theme has appeared elsewhere.

I believe the position is that the world would be a better place if a woman has control over what takes place in her body, not that the world would be a better place with or without the lives of individuals who were conceived through rape.

I don't think there is a LA to 3♥. The wrong explanation suggests that partner's upper limit is lower -- he would have made a game try with some hands that would be willing to signoff in 2♥ opposite our agreed range. But, I don't think there was ever a question of bidding 4♥ opposite partner's signoff, so i don't think it is a LA.

4♠

3♦

5♥

Not better than Finland? I think the analogy would be better if you used Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze giving back their gold medals because of the role judges had in determining the outcome.

US voters have much shorter memories than 50 years and somehow believe that things can be fixed in four years.

I think there is probably need for some modification to reflect partnership experience. In general, a pickup partnership of two 57 players should not be expected to perform as well as an experienced partnership of two 57 players. Of course if the two 57s in the pickup partnership earned their ratings by playing mostly in pickup partnerships while the experienced pair earned their 57 ratings almost exclusively playing with each other. . . Anyway, I would seem to me that the partnership aspect of things is more complicated that assigning rating based upon the arithmetic mean of two ratings. A case can be made for having partnership ratings only rather than individual ratings.

3 for 3! But, I was far from confident about the capital. I bet the percentage of Americans that can point to Iraq, Iran, and Israel on a map is also rather small, but that doesn't mean Americans don't have strong opinions about all three. Many opinions are not based upon a foundation of knowledge. (Mine included.)

Probably the best player in the state. At least over the last 5-10 years, though it seems his winning percentage is dropping of late.

I'm trying to figure out who this "one of the best players in the state" is. Sad part is this sort of bidding doesn't disqualify him (or her) as "one of the best players in the state".

I do not know the details of the EBU National Grading Scheme, but in general a dynamic rating system should work this way. . . When A plays with C and his rating drops, then goes back to play with B and has the same results that previously had the partnership at 57, A's rating will not go all the way back up to 57. A's rating will end somewhere below 57 and B's rating will end up somewhere above 57. I don't think the scenario where A plays like a 57 player with B, but plays like a last place player with C is realistic. Maybe A unsuccessfully plays a wild and gambling game when he plays with C? If that is truly the case and A, B, and C seldom play with other players, then the rating system could give some odd results for these players. But, as A, B, and C play with other players, these oddities should be lessened.

Crazy, huh? Was just going to post the link, but I'm rather late.

That's what I would have expected. I really thought that in this Age these things had become sort of trivial.

What's involved?

Found this on the ACBL website today: I know very little about this sort of thing, but am surprised that a server switch would require 2-3 days of e-mail outage. Am I crazy?

NYC schools seem to have an inconsistent enforcement of their cell phone ban as well.

I've just had a look at the EBU Tangerine Book's description of the permitted methods at different levels. Am I correct to understand that a 1H transfer opening (showing 4+ spades and opening bid strength) would be allowed only at Level 5? Level 4 allows 1C or 1D opening bids that promise 4+ cards in a specific suit, but says that 1H and 1S openings must promise 4+ in the bid suit. So it seems you could play a 1D transfer opening, but not a 1H transfer opening. Just checking to make sure I've read things correctly. Thanks.