beatrix45

:blink: 5♣. I think I must bid a bunch of something, probably now as opposed to later. For once, I have to go almost 100% with the 'old guard' and against the 'young guns' - at least given the paucity of analysis from the new generations' replies. This deal strikes me as almost a tactical problem because the vulnerability plus my hand and the opponents' relative strength constrains partner's hand to something like AQ eighth with a side three bagger or AQ seventh with a side four or five bagger.

:) If you don't teach your own children what you believe to be the 'correct' attitudes toward politics, religion and racism, you are abandoning this function to the STATE or the TRIBE. Way to go, bozo!

:) Maintenance of racial purity is too important to be left to outsiders.

:P I am a little confused as to how one could possibly justify awarding declarer all of the last four tricks regardless of the tempo that LHO used in playing her last four cards. 1. declarer relies on opponents' tempo breaks at his own risk 2. LHO's discard of the club king was not an error. To assume she would have made such an egregious error as to discard the club king had you finessed in spades is far fetched.

:blink: Wow. The man had an 83% game playing a system none of the opponents understood. Where is Geo. Day now that we really need him?

:blink: To see if data follow a normal distribution, the first thing to do is to calculate the moments of the data - the first moment is the mean, the second is the variance (derived from the standard deviation). These can be anything. The third, fourth and fifth moments will be (or be close to) certain specific numbers if the underlying data are normal. I suspect that scores from a 26 board duplicate session may tend toward the normal since they are based on 26 separate events, but, no doubt, it ultimately depends on the nature of the field. Testing to see if they follow other distributions uses similar techniques. If you have some data files you can send me, let me know. We can exchange e-mail addresses, and you can send them to me. It's not much effort to run the numbers once you have them in the computer.

:( Transfers lose some of their luster when using a 12-14 HCP one NT opener. Pro: Often the 'big' hand has the opening lead running to it - but less an advantage than with the 15-17 HCP variety Con: On part score suited contracts, the defense sees the weak hand and can better judge its defensive prospects Con: When reponder has a wildly unbalanced hand, it is visible to the defense Con: In general, defense is easier when the closed hand is so tightly defined in terms of high cards and distribution With the dreaded 'kamikaze' 10-12+ HCP one NT nobody advocates transfers

:P I think one of Mike's points is that a 4-4 spade fit cannot be missed over a 2♥ rebid. The other point, and I hate to put words in Mike's mouth, is that I think he sees 2♠ in the same terms as a traditional jump shift - namely, that it shows a hand that will produce a laydown slam opposite partner's perfect minimum. So, what produces a laydown six opposite: AKJx AQxxx Qx xx xx Kx AKJxxx Axx Oooops, gotta have the king of hearts and the sixth diamond extra. Q.E.D.

:P Lots of choices, all of them pretty close in merit as far as I can see. For what its worth: 1. 2NT against stronger opponents - two ways to earn a decent, hard won swing - a. a close game where well placed cards (♣KJ) play a key role. b. 2NT making or down one versus opponents 3♣ make 2. 1NT against weaker opponents. Play it safe for a plus score. Assume most games will be bid anyway since 1NT over 1♣ shows some cards. 3. 1♠ or 2♠ if we are behind. Hope for some swing. I see this as fairly desperate with 4-3-3-3 distribution.

:P Several points: 1. The actual hand was one card (ace or king) short. It did have the requisite running club suit. It would have brought home 3NT with the extra card. 2. 4♠ cannot be forcing - gimmie a break - the 3NT rebid defines a rather specific hand - responder's next bid usually places the contract or asks for aces. 3. When you hear this auction, and it is passed out at 3NT, lead out your ace or king looking for an unstopped suit.

:P Well, u da man! Tell us, what would a small club followed by the club queen done for you? I think it might well have worked with jdonn's regular partners. I think this is a good lesson hand for us ordinary mortals.

:P It just came to me. Discarding a low club followed by another low club denies the club ace and gives count - probably five since four are in the dummy. - even better would be the club Q the second time as suggested by jdonn - attitude folllowed by count + wake up call. Bravo, jdonn!

What if partner has an Ace? :P Do you mean what would I discard if I had an ace? Well, I discard a big spot card in that suit. Do you mean what if partner has the ace of clubs or hearts? Well, I think the uppercut is still the setting trick even if declarer discards his stiff club on the fourth spade. Of course, partner can cash his ace first, I suppose. He has no reason to believe there is an uppercut available, it's just the only chance left. I guess I'd rather payoff to declarer's rare club void than confuse partner. Yup, that's what happened at my table: Partner had the Ace of clubs and cashed it, not appreciating the importance of the immediate trump promotion. Only it didn't cash, so contract made. To be fair to partner I did not make it obvious to him that attempting to cash the Club Ace was a bad idea, hence this thread. :o Maybe some 'wake up' wild carding would have diverted partner to go for the uppercut right away, but I really don't see how. Stuff like that plays better in the post mortems, and imho those kind of post mortems are for losers.

Strictly, no, but it is "almost" true and probably easier to understand than the correct definition of confidence intervals (see my previous post). Note: I'm not referring to the problem of approximating the binomial distribution with a normal distribution, or other technicalities specific to this particular model. I'm assuming that we're using an exact method to compute the confidence interval. :) Think Central Limit Theorem. The underlying distribution doesn't matter. The sampling distribution approaches a normal distribution as the sample size increases, and sample size is usually fairly large in election surveys. In election surveys, you have to assume a two-tailed test - there is no reason to rule out either tail a priori. The 800 pound gorilla in these applications is whether or not the sample itself is random. For example, what do you do when you can't contact one of your sample survey members? Do you move on to the next name on your list? This implicitly assumes people who are not home are 'just like' the rest. But, maybe they aren't home because they are at work at 8pm dinnertime, and people who work second shift are more likely to vote for a particular candidate. Also, is the sample member going to vote? Lots of problems. Typically, the people who pay for this kind of work appreciate and compensate for them. However, when they broadcast survey results as propaganda to try to make some point or another, I suggest you take it with a grain of salt.

What if partner has an Ace? :P Do you mean what would I discard if I had an ace? Well, I discard a big spot card in that suit. Do you mean what if partner has the ace of clubs or hearts? Well, I think the uppercut is still the setting trick even if declarer discards his stiff club on the fourth spade. Of course, partner can cash his ace first, I suppose. He has no reason to believe there is an uppercut available, it's just the only chance left. I guess I'd rather payoff to declarer's rare club void than confuse partner.

:P Backward run the sentences until reel the mind. In statistics everything is stated in a sort of backward fashion. The statement you give says: For A: There are 19 chances out of 20 (assuming the commonly used 95% confidence interval) that candidate A had between 22 and 30% of the vote at the time the survey was taken. There is one chance in 40 that he had more than 30% of the vote and one chance in 40 he had less than 22%. For B: There are 19 chances out of 20 that B had between 21 and 29% of the vote. One chance in 40 he had more than 29% and a similar probability he had less than 21%. We are assuming the survey was done correctly with all the statistician's assumptions being met (most surveys, almost all in fact, aren't so pristine, and they fall short at least to some degree). Many political surveys stray so far from the necessary assumptions, that their plus or minus so-and-so statements are pretty much worthless. That's it folks. That's all. There ain't no more.

:unsure: Third seat non-vul. Planning to pass any response.

:unsure: 6♣. 3NT should be running clubs and two or three other cards. Either major suit king is enough to give us a good play for six ♣- seven clubs and six hearts or seven clubs along with ♠ AK and ruff and back to the ♥ A. Another possibility is seven clubs plus ♦ AK and ruff plus major suit aces. ♥ or even a ♠ finesse might be there. No point in being cute in the bidding, I sure don't want to draw a trump lead.

:unsure: One argument for bidding an immediate 3NT is that failing a horrible heart split, it is unbeatable from your side. Playing lebensohl you will often have to play 3NT from partner's side and might get a diamond lead through the king. Also, we don't have a tenth trick in 4♥. Of course, I hate to miss my slam, so double seems right with most partners. Opposite a really weak partner, I'm bidding 3NT though.

:rolleyes: What? Me worry? I don't see any reason to get cute. Just play my smallest diamond followed by my smallest club. Pard will then know my 4 or 5 HCP's do not include an ace, so the trump promotion has to be the only chance for another trick. I'm concerned that a 'wake up call' play will only confuse a good partner since the trump promotion is the best logical alternative.

:rolleyes: The smart money in this thread is on double, double. I can understand the first double since I can bid 2♥ over 2♦, but I am having trouble understanding the virtue of the second double. Over 3♦, I guess I have to bid 3♥. Isn't double followed by 3♣ the second time a tad better since I can pass a subsequent 3♦ knowing we have at least a 5-2 fit with five bagger in the weak hand producing some tricks not available in other contracts?

:) I like your bidding just fine, and it worked out well as it should have. You could have doubled one heart for penalties, imo, but psyches of 1♥ are quite rare these days in duplicate bridge, so a pass makes sense. 3♦ was a slight possibility, but doesn't work out here for sure. The second round double was routine. Often, they will then roll out into a club fit, but this confirms you have a red suit fit. You then have plenty of bidding room between 2♣ and 3♦ or 3♥ to sort things out.

:) 3NT. Hamman's law: "if 3NT is a possible bid, bid it". This is a good example hand. What is partner to do over 3♠ if he can't raise spades and has no heart stopper? Similarly, even worse, after a (ugh) negative double. 3♠ and dbl are perfect "Futile Willie" bids. Accept that the 3♥ preempt has done its damage, and make the best of it. Pass is a halfway reasonable second choice, but way against percentages opposite a sound opening bid.

:) Have to pick Eli Culberson, who first popularized approach forcing as number one. Charles Goren, a close second imo., codified a comprehnsive system that allowed players to bid with one another - after all, it takes two partners using the same system to be effective. Al Roth was, imo, by far the best theorist of his generation of players - he invented the negative double. Oswald Jacoby also invented some important conventions (one of these, the Jacoby 2NT, required my help - until Jake and I talked, it was called the Jacoby 3NT convention). Jeff Rubens is probably the leading student of bridge history alive - ask Jeff to get the best answer to this question.

:) The debate is framed by a faulty premise. West should never play the king of ♥. If you have trouble seeing why, I know a nice 10 cent (Canadian)* rubber game that wants your patronage. * not so funny anymore, eh Yank!