Echognome

Fred somewhat preemptively answered my follow up question. But why not have different CC's for different levels of events? Restriced Convention Chart - SAYC (pre-filled out) GCC - Something similar to current ACBL cc (maybe even pared down) Midchart - A more in depth cc Superchart - Several paged cc

When it gets to December 31st, we should all go revisit the Laffer curve.

To answer the first question, it will obviously depend on what city you live in (since taxes vary down to very granular levels when you include things like sales taxes), what income you make, what income your household makes (if you file jointly), how many dependents you own, whether you own a house and are paying interest, etc. etc. To answer the second question, what difference does it make? Can't I just answer that I think I should pay 0 taxes and have everyone else pay for me? Why should we care what people think their taxes should be individually? We should only care what they think collectively. The collective answer should depend on what benefits people are getting for their taxes and that goes back to public goods and, as Richard points out, an entire field of economics.

Many (most?) IQ tests are normalized to have a mean of 100 (which I think almost everyone knows) and a standard deviation of 15 (which I don't think many people know). So 156 would be around 3.73 standard deviations above the mean. According to my probability tables that is around .999906, or above 99.99% of the population. I.e. 1 in 10,000. Go Justin! :lol:

Depends somewhat on the form of scoring and your opening NT range. For better or worse, I would: Bid 3NT at MP's. Transfer to diamonds a show heart shortness at IMPs (assuming I have this available). Otherwise I would transfer to diamonds and bid 3NT or just bid 3NT.

When I played in the LM pairs against Rodwell and Diamond, I had a choice of playing for them to have misdefended (not cashed out) or to just take one down (which I also happened to think would be a relatively poor score). So, I played for the misdefense for a very good board. It turns out that they had a signaling misunderstanding. Now I know that's in part because they are not a regular partnership, but it certainly happens even to the best of players.

How about 2♥ Ingberman, so that 2NT is natural and GF?

There's also a great example in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Practice-Game...g/dp/1559212233

I would bid 4♥ with x QJTxxxxx xx ?x Where the ? would probably be the difference between the weakest and strongest I would bid 4♥ with.

My thinking would be along these lines. 1. I won't have a diamond stack or else I would double (as maybe partner can double them if they have clubs). That takes away the "natural" interpretation 2. I won't have scattered defense against both minors, else again I will double (or pass). 3. I must think they have a reasonable spot and/or I have a more offensive hand, as I am competing to 3♥ in front of partner. 4. If spades were our agreed major, then we'd have a convenient way to show heart values. Here we do not, without going to the 3-level. So, I'm going to go with having concentration in the majors as I cannot think of a reasonable way to show this. Something like: KQxx Qxx xxx xxx Depending on our style, we could also be something like: KQxxx Qxx xx xxx Or maybe even: KQxx Qxxx xx xxx

To be honest, it's not a problem I personally face often on BBO, as I typically play with friends. However, it's a problem I have heard about in the MBC. The problem is when it's the next person's turn to call. They click the bid, hear the answer, then pass. That conveys that the meaning of the bid affected their answer. I would not suggest changing the self-alert part of the procedure. If we add in an explanation later or change our explanation, then the pop-up showing for both opponents should carry on as normal. To make my example perhaps clearer, suppose an auction with no alerts goes: 1♣ - P - 1♠ - P; 1NT - P - 3NT - .... At which point, you get a click asking what the 1♠ bid was. The answer is "natural". Lo and behold, opening leader finds a spade lead from say Qxx. Wouldn't you be unhappy? Nothing prevents that from happening right now. My suggestion would just eliminate any worries that UI is being created, since if it happened that the opening leader asked what 1♠ meant, no one would care.

I feel like you're trying to add an unnecessary rider to my bill. Look at what the software does now and what I'm suggesting it should be. Your suggestion is a complete aside. I'm not stating an opinion on your suggestion, just stating that it is a separate topic that I wouldn't want to be a part of this suggestion.

Hardy wrote a few good books. I don't think many experts heed his general advice though. No offense, just saying he's not the first source I would think to quote.

Here's the situation I'm thinking of: You make a bid and it's either alerted or it isn't. One of the opponents clicks on the bid. You give an explanation (maybe that explanation is 'natural'). This explanation now pops up for both opponents. This is UI in the sense that now one opponent knows the other asked about a bid. I think this form of UI can be completely eliminated. I don't know how difficult it would be to implement this, but in order to address this issue, why not have the explanation be revealed only to the player that clicks on the bid. If both happen to click on the bid while you are typing, then both receive the explanation. If only one clicks on the bid, then the other won't find out the answer unless they also click on the bid. It seems to me that this would completely eliminate partner even knowing we asked a question and thus any UI surrounding that question. Thoughts?

I don't know if anyone has already suggest this, so apologies if this has already been discussed. I am thinking of a feature for tournaments and potentially for team matches. What if there was a feature that during Bidding and Play, one could not speak to the table (and hence to their partner), but could only speak to opponents. I know that won't eliminate some of the more obvious forms of cheating, but it would be rather refreshing that you don't have to deal with post mortems or people speaking in a foreign language or such that might be difficult to deal with during a match. After the round is over, everyone can chat away to the table. If this is an optional feature, then TD's and team match organizers can use it at their discretion. Any thoughts?

I can't imagine anything wrong with offering a premium service for a price. I haven't heard any discussions about removing key functionality to non-premium members, so why should we complain? What is included in the premium service is a business/personal decision of Fred and his team. Edit: In order to answer the poll, I'd just have to see what was on the table and at what price. I already give BBO some of my money (albeit not a lot) for services that BBO provides, it's hard to say what more I'd be willing to pay for without seeing a menu of options. I guess my answer is that I'd certainly pay some amount of money for extra features.

Depending on which way you parameterize your exponential that could mean that either 4♣ captures most of the preemptive value that 5♣ does or quite a bit less than 80%.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. The premise seems that all weak hands just pass 2NT. I think you could even just play that all bids are natural and forcing, with 3M showing a 6-card suit. You bid 3m with either 4-5 or 5-4 and if partner has support, partner can clarify it for you on the way to 3NT.

I think it's completely a judgment call. My judgment says that pitching the club on the diamond is careless, not irrational. The reasoning is declarer's statement that he thought he would only get one trick, thus conceding the club. When I concede the club, it's somewhat irrelevant to me whether I concede it at trick 12 or 13 when I'm careless. It doesn't seem irrational to me to concede the club at trick 12 when I think it's a loser anyway.

Ahhhhh....... I understand. Here's the problem I had last night that got me thinking about this: [hv=d=n&v=e&s=sat932h6da643cak3]133|100|Scoring: MP 1♦ P 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ P ?[/hv] I really like my hand, and would like to bid something stronger than 4♠. I couldn't figure out the best way to make my intentions clear (because I couldn't figure out what the above sequences meant). I suppose I could have just asked "how should I bid next", but I'd like to understand all the possible auctions for when this next comes up. Assuming you play support doubles, I think this hand is too good for a splinter, unless you were going to make another try over pard's signoff. Can you blame pard for signing off in 4♠ with: KQxx Kxx KQxx xx? I would start with 3♣ because this rates to elicit a 3♦ call a lot of the time, which is great news for us. I would splinter with this hand, intending to make one more try after a sign-off. I'd rather partner be able to evaluate his hand, knowing the nature of mine. I don't particular see why I want to take control. Sometimes partner doesn't sign off with 4♠ and if he keycards, then I can definitely show my hand. Of course, partner is somewhat limited by his 2♠ call, but I will have made a slam try. I just feel we are in a better position if I can describe my hand with a splinter. If I start with a 3♣ game try, I'm afraid the auction might become convoluted very quickly.

No. Not unique. On my 15 second search, I didn't find any data on the number of unique travelers. But the point is there, that maybe in 1960 if you traveled by airplane, you were probably considered to be rich. That is no longer the case today. So one saying that they do not have sympathy for someone who travels by airplane, because they must be rich, is (1) covering a large percentage of the population (in particular in developed countries) and (2) really doesn't understand that air travel is for the masses (again more so in developed countries) than for the elite.

I think Nigel did understand and I base that on his comment about 1NTX. If the opponents let you double them in 1NT and they make nine tricks, then they were better off playing in 3NT.

So in your world, there are a heckuva lot of rich people.

I'll offer: 2♣ - 2♦ 3♠ - 4♣ 4NT - 5♦ (03) 6♦ - 7♠ (6♦ asks for 3rd round control) This also let's you find it if North holds xx rather than Qx.