pilowsky

noted. Sky club is the only place on BBO where I am consistently abused. This may explain the difficulty that you have in finding subs. Sky Club is on my list of places that I will not play. The list is very short. Sky Club is the only Club on it. Here is a (very mild) sample of chat that I recorded after my last visit to your Club: (name removed). "Table: pls return Sp, not STUPID Cl ...". Every time I have played in your Club the players feel it is appropriate to speak to each other (and people they don't know) in a similar vein. The player continued in a similar vein. This was not the first time. Apparently having a 'star' is no guarantee of charm. So, no, I don't substitute in Sky Club. The level of unpleasantness, and the tolerance of it, is unacceptable. I am guessing this is the reason why you are having problems.

Would this help? You can specify two hands, and rotate hands with dealer position optionally. Afterwards, you can fiddle with the lin file in any text editor.

It would be helpful to me - as someone who occasionally substitutes to help out with no expectation of reward or appreciation - to know the name of the tournament(s) that you TD for.

I noticed this on Board 1 and immediately wrote to Diana saying that I felt unethical stealing points from my EW opponent. I was concerned that it might be a wrench in the works for the generally well-mannered robots.

Welcome to the forum. Judging from your 'handle' Bridge could be as new to you as it is to me! It took me about a year to get used to (just a few) of the mysteries of BBO. It was worth the effort. I suggest you browse the internet for the many helpful videos on how to use the platform. When I started it was as baffling as turning up to an Italian railway station and being unable to find the place to buy a ticket. Don't get me started on the choice of bathrooms. Like the Italian (railway) platform, all computer interfaces have their secrets that take a while to unravel.

Tell you what. If the Iowans simply consume some of the lithium they might feel happier about moving into the 21st century instead of blackening the skies and contaminating all the atmosphere. Then it will be a ' ' Alternatively, they could listen to .

Yes, I understand some of the Australian dens of antiquity have re-opened. I was just quoting the main Forum page for this thread.

So, is this Forum re-activated - possibly as "non-BBO" bridge?

Particularly apposite since Caligula appointed a horse to be a Senator. Trump wouldn't appoint a mule because it might be seen to present (at least in part) a Democrat. I suppose the Horse always voted neigh. I wonder what Trump's Donkey would bray about it? No doubt he would consider it a nugatory experience if they failed to feed him hay.

One of the problems with events that only occur once every 100 hundred years is that there are so many of them that we are likely to encounter one every year. And that isn't including the one in 50-year and one in 20-year events. The two hands below just came up in an afternoon [...] When board 18 turned up, after my narrow escape on board 10, I had a sense of deja vu - all over again. Board 10 I'm North with the hand below. What should I do? What is the best outcome? What does West have? [hv=pc=n&n=sak76h872dk73ca73&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=pp4h]133|200[/hv] [...] After 7 more exciting games, Board 18 arrived. After quickly checking board 10 to make sure nothing funky was happening, how would you respond to partners double? Was the opening to your taste? What does South have? What does the West double mean? Should I give up Bridge for (insert answer here)? [hv=pc=n&e=s32hakqjt763d5ca4&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1h3ddp]133|200[/hv] [...]

It's true, we don't all see things the same way. "was looking for a fight and he got one." or " The rules were not complicated and not burdensome". A.) Individualism versus B.) acting for a social good even if there is a mild cost. I pick B. Can I have a merit badge? A person is standing in line. In a shop. There is a deadly contagious disease raging. Someone else crowds in. They ask them to step back. What sort of person finds the response, "OK, I'll step back" hard to understand? I'm not like some other members of this Forum in that I don't like characterising people or opinion with unnecessary adjectives. Instead, I just shake my head sadly and characterise their inability to understand a simple social syllogism as suggestive of a mild cognitive disorder - of the type that seems fairly common in Bridge clubs, and some sociopathies. BTW, this inability to behave (or even think) in a manner that cleaves to the common good is clearly part of the political philosophy of around 50% of people that voted for Trump - based on the latest data suggesting that this number would leave the Republican party to join a 'Trump clump' on the stump. Here's a simple test. If you think that Greg Gutfeld is funny and Tucker Carlson interesting, then you are a 'pod person'.

I don't think that authoritarianism can be frame as 'left' or 'right'. Authoritarianism sits on a separate axis of political philosophy. There is a tendency towards authoritarianism in all social organisations. There is even a term for it, "The iron law of Oligarchy". It was first expounded by Robert Michels (http://www.csun.edu/...0supplement.pdf). You can even see it at work in organisations as small as Bridge clubs. One group of people with a particular mindset gain the levers of power (committee positions). They then arrange matters in the organisation using timing and rule changes to make it very difficult for anyone but members of their 'team' to have a meaningful voice. Is this good or bad? I think bad. Although, like many people, I believe that I am right about pretty much everything, I am also a confirmed atheist. I do not believe that it is "Gods will" that my opinion is always correct. I believe in scepticism about everything. Orwell would have framed it as 'four legs good, two legs bad'.

Yesterday I joined the EBU, and today I played in my first tournament. Without a partner, I decided to hire a robot since I understand (a little bit) the GIB system. As it turned out, I was in good company; human+robot accounted for 50% of my opponents. The tournament started with the Director ‘Dave’ introducing him(her)self. Dave asked me to alert my system and carding. I announced, “GIB 2/1, but the carding is a little bit of a mystery”. Then Dave warned me, inter alia, that chat was recorded - but only for disciplinary purposes. I warned my partner to behave and to explain all his bids. He was generally compliant. I was a little concerned that if asked about his signals, my partner might refuse to explain, but no-one asked—a narrow escape. Since my Human/Human opponents were all playing variants of Acol (AKA Bridge), this allowed me to discover how much better or worse Acol is than 2/1 GIB. My average result against Human/GIB opponents was almost exactly 25% worse than my results against Human/Human pairs. The findings prove - beyond any shadow of a doubt - that Acol is 25% better than GIB (n=1). Conclusion: I very much enjoyed my first outing in the EBU. My only quibble or cavil is that, unlike the ACBL, the EBU does not provide tournaments (other than daylongs) at times suitable for semi-British ex-pats like me that live in Australia.

Well, since you bring up the topic of altruism vis a vis (enlightened - I presume) self-interest, I would say that altruism, like Bridge, is a topic about which I have very little knowledge and therefore am prepared to venture an authoritative opinion. I am deliberately (as I think Winstonm suggested) arguing for the idea of enlightened self-interest rather than altruism. If you would like to learn about altruism as it relates to the practice of medicine - along with some history of the term, here is an excellent paper. http://bit.ly/AltruismPilowsky I'm unsure how the rules of copyright apply here, but if you want the whole thing and don't have access to a medical library, I can send you a reprint. In that paper, you will discover that Auguste Comte coined the term ‘altruism’ In the mid 19th Century. Comte was a famous French philosopher who made significant contributions to both sociology and the philosophy of science. Comte was so famous that JS MIll wrote a book about him: http://bit.ly/ComteByJSMill Central to the idea of altruism, compared with enlightened self-interest, is that the act performed has some cost to the person providing the service, and that person gains nothing by delivering it. As you can imagine, true acts of altruism are rare. There is almost always some sort of discernible secondary gain for the person delivering the service. This is particularly so with social animals such as (many) humans who may simply enjoy others’ gratitude. Humans are unique in the animal kingdom for many reasons. One of these is the ability to produce facial expressions. For some people, even a smile may be a sufficient reward for providing a service. For others, only money talks. Altruism must be distinguished from ‘pro-social’ behaviour. A friend of mine Dr Peggy Mason once published an article on pro-social behaviour in rats. This work generated a great deal of interest. You can read it here:http://bit.ly/SocialRats As an aside, I have no idea if Auguste Comte is related to Olivier, but Auguste was known to have a phenomenal memory and won prizes in Latin and mathematics. You’ll have to ask Olivier - I can’t find any definite information. In general, I suspect that most human interactions involve more than a soupçon of ‘secondary gain’. In the case of vaccinations, the gain is obvious. There is no point in partially eliminating a deadly virus. To make this clear on an individual level, many drugs may be more than 99% effective at treating an illness, but when someone has cancer, a treatment that only kills 99% of the malignant cells is not very helpful (except as palliation). To cure the world of COVID19, and other things like climate change is a global emergency. Trips to Mars are only helpful insofar as they generate new knowledge that can solve the real-world problems that we face.

I would never cast aspersions in that way! But, I would suggest that it is in your personal interest to ensure that as many people throughout the world are vaccinated as quickly as possible. Unlike the ♠Q being either with East or West, infectious diseases are different. LSCT (large scale clinical trials) tell us whether or not a compound (whatever it is) is safe and efficacious, but hidden in the numbers is a very broad range of individual variance. The likelihood of getting any disease is dose-dependent, and the level of immunity that an individual obtains varies with the individual. This means that your best (selfish) hope for preventing disease is to ensure that as many people around the world are vaccinated as rapidly as possible. Vaccinating one population does not confer safety on that population if there is a vast reservoir of (possibly mutating) virus everywhere else. To put it another way, it is in the national security interests of all Americans to ensure that the disease is eradicated (contained) everywhere. It's the same reason that countries send their army to places where dangerous authoritarian regimes are threatening to gain a stranglehold on global security.

Perhaps one useful way to imagine health care, and education and minimum care for all citizens, are as "matters of national security". It is generally accepted - even in America - that an Army is important to all citizens. It protects all the citizens from external threats so that the Country as a whole can thrive and survive. To me, there is no difference between an Army and Health Education and Welfare. There is no charge for vaccination in Australia. Everyone has access to roads, hospitals and education. Health Education and Welfare are fundamental to the national security of a nation. What is the point of making a vaccine (or treatment for any disease) if there is not equality of access? This is most obvious with an infectious disease. It is the premise of the entire Zombie/nuclear holocaust genre. Climate change falls into this category. Preserving jobs that are toxic to society as a whole makes no sense. It's a little bit like saying "sure, concentration camps and torture chambers are a bad thing, but what about the Guards? If we stop imprisoning people for political reasons and torturing them to 'improve' their thinking, where will these guards find work to support their families?" Or as someone once said in a film "sure the Death Star is bad and shouldn't be there, but if we blow it up, what happens to all the contractors?" https://junkee.com/news-corp-death-star-resignation/237728 "To: sheev.palpatine@gemail.com From: N567433.trooper@gemail.com CC: storm.trooperz.net, deathstaff@gemail.com, deathstarhr@gemail.com, sebulba@bing.net Hi Sheev, Thank you for the hologram regarding fundraising and support initiatives in relation to the exploding of Alderaan by the Death Star’s devastating super laser. Unfortunately however, this does not offset the impact the Death Star has had on Alderaan in the past few parsecs. I have been severely impacted by the Death’s Star’s super laser in relation to the extreme explosion of the planet, in particular the misinformation that has diverted attention away from the real issue — which is moon sized super lasers — to focus on rebel forces (including disintegration of Bothan spies). I find it unconscionable to continue working for the Galactic Empire, knowing that I am contributing to the spreading of ‘super’ laser beams over mono-topographical planets."

That all sounds fine, but I disagree with "Partner mistake? Do not insult. Be positive. Suggest action+result, eg, "4!s makes if you finesse !h" Many of the people that one meets in tournaments know when they've made a mistake, and find it a little annoying to have someone point out the obvious. I don't mind being a 'bad player', I don't ever expect to be a 'good player' but - with the exception of difficult endings I can usually tell when I've blundered, and if not, a quick look at the double-dummy will tell me. I don't know if it is 'rude', but I don't like having mistakes pointed out unless I ask for help.

Can I have a definition of 'obnoxious' - Is there an "obnoxious" analogue scale - say from 0 - "so pleasant I want to pay them for the pleasure of being my opposition" to 10 "Any court in the land would let me off if I bopped them on the snout". Or, is it an open-ended scale like the Richter scale? Can we call it the MMR scale (Mycroft Moral Relativism scale)? Not to be confused with a Morbidity and Mortality Review or the Measles Mumps Rubella vaccine - both useful in their own way, but unlikely to be helpful in this situation. Do we need to calibrate it against an objective measure of how obnoxious we are (either individually or as a pair)? This could be the ethical breakthrough that Bridge-players have sought for decades - I'm very excited. "Hmm, I think you rate a 6 on the MMR, but before I give up the trick I just need to consult my partner to see if I am over-estimating the conjoint MMR". Applied across an entire field of Bridge players we may have to use a new test-statistic - the X-test (so-called because it detects whether the offending party makes you significantly cross (X) or not. Raising the question: is obnoxiousness normally distributed? Ultimately, there will need to be a law that Directors can apply to determine the Joint obnoxiousness of each pair and use that to add or subtract IMP's.

You may have discovered the art of the sacrifice! Here is a straightforward example. The hard part about sacrificing is that, in duplicate Bridge, other pairs MUST make the optimal contract for your sacrifice to be worthwhile. This type of sacrifice is very common. Here is an example from yesterday. On this board, it turns out that EW can make 4S West vulnerable for +620, but 5D-3 doubled by NS (not vulnerable) is +500 to them. Obviously, it is better to be +620 rather than only +500. But this only works if the other people in the field are allowed to make their vulnerable game contract. This is what the possible outcomes are. You can see that West can make 4S, but 5DX is a better outcome for NS. We were North-South. Because we were allowed to play in 4D and made 4D-1, we ended up -50 but got a score of 67.11%. If we had let them play in 3S, they would make it easily (many did), and we would get -170 and score a measly 27.63%. As it turned out, in this tournament, 39 tables played the hand. 5 made 4S. So that's why our percentage was so high. We got a smaller negative score than we should have! [hv=pc=n&s=s87hqjdaqjt32c987&w=sqt9432hkt7d4ca62&n=sk5ha985dk987cqt5&e=saj6h6432d65ckj43&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p2dp3dpp3spp4dppp]399|300[/hv] A tragedy of Bridge scoring is that you do not always get rewarded for making the 'right bid' - you only get rewarded if you prevent someone from getting their contract. Suppose the rest of the players don't bid and make the best contract, then your 'genius' is met with derision. In real life. it is sometimes to your advantage to lose if it prevents someone from gaining something that you really want. It's probably the reason that big companies buy up small competitors. It prevents newcomers from taking their customers and forcing the established company to charge less for their service. In real life, there are limits because people can get hurt. In Bridge, the pain only lasts a very short time.

That's exactly what my wife says.

About two years ago, I stopped watching television. The main reason was a TV show called 'Gogglebox'. It seemed that the premise of this show was that I was supposed to enjoy watching stupid people making stupid comments about "Stars" dancing or cooking or something else. I have in the past stopped smoking. Giving up television was much easier. I didn't have to chew on the antenna for a week while my mouth tasted like an ashtray. So, apart from learning to play Bridge and some other stuff, I occasionally sampled information from various sources. These sources included Maddow, Hannity, Carlson (my favourite because he always looks so confused) and others from across the spectrum. Growing up, living in, and being schooled in many countries, one thing that interested me about these commentators was their 'voice'. Most of the time, these people are not functioning as 'Journalists' in any real sense. They don't synthesise information and 'report' it in any useful way. Instead, they cherry-pick and present commentary in a way that results in maximum ratings (upvotes/cites/likes/ - even masterpoints - etc. all the same thing). Despite this, it is valuable to listen to all these perspectives because otherwise, I cannot understand how some people justify their bizarre idiosyncratic thinking. In the end, at its core, everyone wants food, shelter and the approval of others. Some people have a world view that means that they should have more food, shelter and approval than others. In fact, they want so much of it that their 'world-view' may damage others. I draw the line here. Trump supporters believe that they are 'entitled' to whatever they can get and that everyone that cannot compete with them should just 'suck-it-up' or die. This Lord of the flies, Battle Royale, Hunger Games political philosophy is abhorrent to me because it means that proponents of it are 'a danger to others'. As Prizzi said in Prizzi's Honour': "The Italian's love money more than their children, and they are very fond of their children". Trumpism is cut from this same cloth. So if you believe any of the following - just a few examples: I should be entitled to carry a gun.Jews are 'on average' smartOn average, black people are not as smart as other people.All South African Jewish women are arrogant. Then no, I don't think your world view is acceptable. I haven't gone through the record to determine exactly what your views on these and other matters are, and I'm not taking Sheldon's ( ) word for it - even if he is a 'regular dude'. What I can say is that anyone who doesn't laugh and cry when Kayleigh McEnany ( speaks is surely in need of some re-education - albeit not in a camp. You mention Rachel Maddow specifically. I do agree that she tailors her commentary specifically for an audience to maximise ratings. I do not regard her as a news source by any stretch. My favourite Maddow-ism was when Putin attacked the Crimea and built a Bridge connecting two landmasses. With the aid of photos, large arrows and diagrams, Maddow pointed to the Bridge and expostulated: "And then they built a weird bridge". Give me a break. Some of my bidding and play could happily be characterised as 'weird', but a Bridge? During the Trump interregnum, even Seth Meyers became serious. That's how bad things were. So no, a world-view that denies climate change, believes that a group of people are more or less capable on account of their skin colour and cleaves to irrational explanations for self-enrichment is not OK by me, either.

Sounds useful, where do I get wit certificates?

Shelo, obviously . But, as AL Rowse (AL. ROWSE, bachelor, eccentric, misanthropist, poet and, whatever his detractors may say, foremost Elizabethan scholar of his age) is alleged to have remarked: "You have to tell people they are third-rate - how else are they to know?" The irony of Trump and his supporters calling everyone who is smarter than them "third-rate" is not lost on me.

Unlike some other players on the Forum, I actually enjoy playing with the robots. They come with a reasonable instruction manual that they never deviate from. Robot declarer play is considered (by the manufacturer) to be 'Expert level'. Bidding is a different problem. According to the Author of GIB: "All of these techniques are used, and all of them are useful. Gib's bidding is substantially better than that of earlier programs, but not yet of expert caliber". [1] Ginsberg's statement fits with (my) human experience. It is easier to develop expertise at being a Declarer than at being a Defender. Becoming good at bidding may be a lifetimes work. The same is true in other games (and life in general!). Playing chess requires a deep knowledge of the openings to avoid falling into obvious traps. You cannot avoid this component; you have to learn a repertoire of openings (just like bidding). The middle game is a different story. Here it would help if you had a deep understanding of strategy and tactics along with the ability to bamboozle your opponent to reach an optimal ending. Finally, many 'set-piece' endings must be conquered. Almost anyone can checkmate with a queen and king vs king. Try doing it with two knights in less than 50 moves. Ginsberg rates his brainchild as an expert level Declarer but less good at defending and bidding. I would agree. Looking at your specific example where EW has no makeable contracts (https://dds.bridgewe...78.44026004.pbn), but NS can make either 5♦ or 5♥, it looks like the West robot with 11 losers decided to keep his nose clean: notwithstanding the 9 card fit. Points may not be everything, but they do help. I gave Gib this hand, and it bid 'pass' as West. This is what the NS robots did. 5♦ makeable, but 4♥ is better. As a newbie, I find the problem of trying to find an 8-card fit with a 4/4 split as an overcaller playing 5 card majors as problematic. Sometimes as an overcaller, I'll bid my 4-card major and expect to take my chances in a 4/3 fit if it turns out that way. On the teaching table, if I bid the hand the way you describe, East bids as follows: [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1sdp2dp2np3d3sppp]133|100[/hv] When I let GIB play this sequence out, the score is 3♠-2 +100 to NS (300 if doubled). Finally, I tried bidding 1NT as the opener to see if East would evaluate its hand with 5/4 in spades and a minor as worthy of bidding 2♠ Cappelletti. It passed. NS then went for -200 in 7NT (obviously). Which just goes to strengthen the point that Gib - like most humans - is better at Declaring than Defending since it should go -5, not -4. To the extent that computers 'think', It looks to me like EW thinks it is going nowhere in this auction and wisely steps aside, hoping that NS will reach a sub-optimal contract. What did you want GIB to do, what did others do, and what was your score on this hand? [1] Ginsberg ML (2001) https://www.jair.org...iew/10279/24508

Just to be clear then, The reason that you are laughing your A off is not that Hannity is a schmuck, but because you think that someone else is biased? The most amazing part of that belief is that it comes from someone who can play a mind game reasonably well (or is that an assumption?).