pilowsky

Your expectation of what counts as high school maths is set at a very low bar. Mathematics does not teach you how to avoid burning yourself or poisoning yourself - most people learn these things before they get to school: typically before they know what algebra is. If the purpose of high school is thought to be the prevention of self-immolation or accidental consumption of toxic waste, then we are in much worse shape than I thought we were. A key benefit of mathematics and science education, in general, is that it teaches a person how to think, assimilate new information and create new ideas that make cohesive sense. Thinking is an underrated skill. On the other hand, it might explain our political leadership and their disinterest in funding education. If Australia scrapped its deal to operate nuclear submarines for the USA (and pay for the privilege) and spent the money on more educational opportunities for its citizens, we would all be better off. Nobody is going to save the world by blowing ***** up or being amazed by how far an object can be propelled from a tube and still hit a target, even if they can apply mathematics and the Coriolus effect to work out how to make it happen.

By Shane Wighton.

Are the 30,000 active at the same time? Day and night? I also play on Stepbridge (Australia) it runs about 5-10 tournaments a day with about 100 players per session. Like other Stepbridges, it is run under the local rules with local directors. I estimate it to be Australia's busiest local club. Still nowhere near BBO and nothing like chess. Recognising the existence of a problem is the first step to fixing it. In general estimates of activity based on membership are flawed because many players register with multiple clubs/jurisdictions. The online numbers I quoted are likely an underestimate because they were a snapshot during daytime in Sydney when the world sleeps.

It also raises a minor question (apropos of the current 1NT thread) about which jurisdictional rules apply in games run under the auspices of BBO which this one was.

That's exactly my point. The two games are similar in many ways. It could be argued that a Bridge hand is equivalent to solving an endgame problem in Chess. The relative merits of the games are not what concerns me. They are both excellent in different ways. One thing that chess definitely lacks is dozens of jurisdictions where some of them outlaw playing d4 as an opening because it is too hard for beginners to cope with. Chess also doesn't have the DOP adjudicating the game if one of the players loses their internet connection. Just because you can see all the pieces does not mean that everything is easy. The imperfect information component of the game of Bridge has nothing to do with the issue at hand. We (me anyway) are questioning the bizarre need to have multiple jurisdictional rules that make the game transcendentally difficult to play across borders in a time when borders for games like Bridge, Chess and Go are evaporating faster than (insert metaphor here).

Concealed agreements are not the issue here. Banning certain unconcealed agreements is the problem.

Playing in a BBO tournament today my partner and I arrived in the disaster shown below. This was not looking good and after the double, I think that I should have bid 1H; but I didn't. Things were looking dismal until on trick 4 my partner led the ♦5 from dummy and North stopped playing. Eventually, the time expired and an average was posted. Two boards later, the Director announced that the board was adjusted to 1CX-3 and when I asked why I was told: "Because the result is obvious". So my question is: if a result is obvious why bother playing the hand? Why not just ask the TD to adjudicate the 'obvious' result if I'm unhappy with the opinion of the opps, or if my partner decides to leave for a snack at an inopportune moment? [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st%7C%7Cpn%7COpp1,partner,Opp2,pilowsky%7Cmd%7C2SKQ32HKJ8DJ2CKJ52,ST954HAQ4DQT5CA74,SA87H62DA94CQT983,SJ6HT9753DK8763C6%7Csv%7Cb%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%204%7Cmb%7C1C%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CD%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CD5%7C]300|300|[/hv]

The writing of the part of the GIB system notes on defence was outsourced to Python (Monty) LLC. The description is so anodyne that it seems that the takeaway message is "GIB knows what cards have been played and can work out (by counting) what's left." Literally, count. Not UDCA or rectify or any other type of count. It also doesn't give an attitude signal - even a bad one. The phrase "usually give" is completely devoid of useful meaning. It's like saying "when driving a car GIB will 'usually' stop for red lights" - not encouraging for passengers. Computer scientists enjoy talking about artificial intelligence but if it's artificial then it isn't intelligent. What I mean by that is that if it was intelligent (in the way that you and I are) then GIB would do things against its best interests sometimes. GIB doesn't. It will always do the same thing in the same situation. This is why in smerriman's example he had to 'force' GIB to play in the way he wanted. You can take a horse to water, and randomly, it will drink. Present GIB with the same hand and the same bidding sequence and it will always do the same thing.

Your pencil case was probably better than mine.

Really? Can't you just write to support@BBO.com and ask them to remove them? While they're at it they could remove 'nazi' and 'ni**er' and a whole bunch of equally offensive names that appear to have real names associated with them.

This 99% guess is likely to be less accurate now that online play is more common. I am currently a member of the ACBL, ABF and EBU. I have played in multiple actual Clubs in all of them. I've also played in BBOitalia, the SABF, the German league and many others. The objective of local laws appears to be to create more fog in the "war". Bridge is more international now than it ever was. Local codes were first invented when I was learning mathematics with a logbook (we didn't have slide rules in the early 1970s because the Fabs weren't available). Some of you may be aware that we now have computers and the internet (even in developing countries like the USA and Australia). If the problem is pairs not making full disclosure (sounds like a Bridge joke) then have a rule that penalises failure to make full disclosure illegal (oh wait a minute) - not a rule that discriminates against the ♣10 and its friends. All honours are equal but some honours are more equal than others? After a long discussion with ♦7, I can report that it isn't happy with the current state of affairs. Some of the other cards are also complaining about their awful working conditions. Last night after reading this thread, I went onto LiChess. It's the second-ranked platform, and right now, there are >80,000 players online with ~35,000 games in play. BBO is the biggest Bridge platform and has only ~26,000 players at ~6000 tables. There's a future out there; if we use both hands and don't suffocate in CO2, we might find it.

I'm guessing your partner has 4+ Clubs and 5+ HCP. Does it look something like this?: [hv=pc=n&s=sat63hq8dqt64caq8&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1cp1hp2hdp3c]133|200[/hv]

How about "trying". That's how my mother always described me.

The ability of individual authorities to generate idiosyncratic rules is one reason Bridge is doomed to be one of the least popular of the recognised mind games. Many people know the basic tenets of Bridge, but the number of people that play regularly compared to Chess or Go is orders of magnitude smaller (just compare the number of online players in Chess vs Bridge). The problem is not whether or not bidding 1NT with a particular strength or shape is good or bad. Or a forcing pass system. Or any other mad idea that someone wants to come up with. The problem is making these mad ideas illegal. So long as the understandings are made clear during bidding, the idea of individual fiefdoms making rulings about what is and isn't right and proper is as sensible as demanding that rhinoceroses wear hats; in North America but not in Australia. It also has the extremely negative effect of making an already difficult game harder to learn. I even have difficulty understanding why specific methods are restricted in any competition. If the fear is that people will not play because they'll get trampled on, then hand out masterpoints all the way to the bottom of the tournament. That way, everyone will have an incentive to play as well as they can right to the end. At the very least, such an approach might create some value for an otherwise pointless method of estimating skill.

As a much better Australian PM said after the conservative coup in 1975: Our Prime Minister Scott Morrison (he's the one on the left) believes that we don't need to worry (about anything really) because technology will always save us. Mr (Angus as in beef) Taylor is one of Scomo's ministers.

Apparently, you can say anything you want in the USA. (sounds like Morlock (HG Wells), the Asatru Folk Assembly aims to preserve the culture of anyone of Northern European descent; so that they can honour their gods. No non-white people are allowed. Meanwhile, in Congress, there is a great deal of concern that investigating threats of violence towards public officials could " ", which would be bad. Who needs to wait for Robert E lee when Michael S Lee on the Judiciary Committee will do the job for you.

When playing against robots I claim early and claim often. Sometimes there is a clear winning line that I can't see but which satisfies the robot algorithm. The same applies IRL. As you may be aware, some (never me of course) people stuff up cold contracts.

"touch one touch all" is a union motto in Australia. I don't think there are any organisations in the USA that are as far left as these particular unions. Some of them are so far to the left they have re-emerged on the other side.

Where does all of this immigrant=evil come from? It is embedded in religious culture and goes back in history as far as you care to look. If a person is prepared to accept the existence of a fictional figure - for which there is less evidence than the tooth fairy or Santa Claus (at least there was a tangible artefact suggesting their existence) - then it is a short step to believe that the fictional figure that you believe in also holds that you are special and more worthy in some way. This 'specialness' is described in many ways - purity of the blood by the Nazis. If the divine order holds that some are better than others, it is a short step to argue that "the others" are not equally human. Four legs good, two legs bad. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. Shylock might bleed if you cut him, but pure blood. The failure to understand that if you "touch one you touch all" is at the root of the failure to address problems such as climate change.

I have the same problem - a workaround is to switch them to ignore first and then change to neutral. This seems to work. Other people I know don't have the same 'sticky name' problem.

There are many important differences between mathematics and literature (for example). Some people enjoy the process of problem-solving. That is, they enjoy seeing a problem and then achieving a satisfactory solution to it. Literature is different. It can be enjoyed passively. No intellectual effort is needed to be entertained. Filmed entertainment is the same. Feynman wrote that the thing that he enjoyed most about research was the sensation of realising that he understood something that nobody else in the world knew or understood. The sensation that Feynman describes is common to many people engaged in research. Such people could, if that was what floated their boat, solve already known problems and associate different bits of knowledge in order to make more money, but that is not what attracts people to engage in research. I suspect that this is the real reason that Tony Fauci is livid and shaking with rage when someone like Rand Paul says things that are obviously wrong. It offends his sense of truth and knowledge. Or as Maxwell Smart put it:

[hv=pc=n&n=sk92hj87dkqt9c864&e=saj3hakt6432da53c&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp4h4sppdppp]266|200| This hand came up today in a free matchpoint tourney. Using standard bidding methods, my partner arrived in what turned out to be a makeable 4♠X. Except, after winning the first trick with the ♠4, South proceeded to draw trump playing the ♠5 (♠7) ♠K to East's Ace. East now has the opportunity to defeat the contract. My questions are: What must East return? And, Does East have a reasonable way to find it? [/hv] Here's the whole hand

I think this is a key point. The proportion of crazies is the same but in the USA the total number is so high that when they are crazier than usual really bad things happen.

That's easy. Google Northern Territory Chief Minister's response to Cancun Cruz' stupid tweet.