GreenMan

The so-called wisdom of crowds is only useful in some situations. One situation where it goes awry is when the estimates or judgments are not independent -- that is, you can see what others have said. The suggested rating system here would have that flaw; I suspect it would degrade its usefulness to near zero. A wise-crowd system also requires diversity in its contributors. I don't know what "diversity" would mean in a BBO context, but we shouldn't assume we have it without some research. (We're already a narrow group -- Internet-connected bridge players with free time. It may be that diversity in country, age, and playing level would be sufficient, but even then we can't be sure the raters represent such a range.)

The list is labeled "Murder offenders." In 3,925 cases they don't know (officially) who killed the person.

This was not a federal grand jury. I suspect that reliable state-level statistics are scarce, or that site would have reported on them. Different states use grand juries differently -- I've lived in Kansas, where they are quite rare (PassedOut's federal experience notwithstanding), and Texas, where they are common -- so it would be hard to generalize in any event.

... unless the 8th team wins or almost wins.

Despite my best efforts I did not drag the greenman-ArtK78 partnership below 50%. :) It was fun. Thanks for organizing it.

People are generally not very good at distinguishing between the basis for their inferences and the inferences themselves. I wouldn't say "It's probably Spiral Scan showing the ♥K" because that's drawing a conclusion, but "Most people at my partner's usual club would play that as Spiral Scan showing the ♥K and he knows I know that" gives the relevant information without stating an inference as fact.

Yep, standard takeout. In an indie, particularly a free one, I would not expect a random pard to recognize a support double. I'd avoid that one for now unless you know your partner. Same here: random free indie pards likely won't know inverted minors. P thought you had either 10+ or 13+ depending on what they were taught to begin with. As you're discovering, it's difficult to impossible to know what a random P is thinking. Hanging out at relaxed tables and the beginner-intermediate club will give you some practice at accommodating unknown partners and introduce you to more people in a lower-stakes environment.

And often not.

I like to think I'm reasonably well aware of what goes on in the world, and these days I am constantly reminded of how little I know of this particular phenomenon. I suspect that, in large part, the average guy doesn't realize it because a) calling attention generally doesn't do any good and often just attracts more harassment, so b) lots of the objects of the abuse don't see any point in making it known, and it doesn't become visible to the wider public. Some of the people I pay attention to are becoming more assertive in making this sort of thing public (*cough* #gamergate *cough*), but I don't know how far the word is spreading yet.

I like this. East has been informed, falsely, by an opponent that the ♣2 has been played from dummy and that thus it is his turn to play.

This is the sort of lawyering that makes the game intolerable when it happens. "Sure, I deliberately gave you false information, but it doesn't say in this dictionary here that I was trying to deceive you." That's BS and you know it. So you're saying that providing false information about one's bridge agreements is following a social convention? That's BS and you know it. If you're not saying that, why bring it up? Through deception. Citation please? Or is this a "just so story" that lawyers pull out to con non-lawyers in arguments? And again, what's the relevance? Anyone who would seriously argue that "deliberately providing false information" does not imply intent to deceive need not be taken seriously. There's honesty and there's trying to win debating points, and I think we can see which is going on here.

Would there be any point to reporting this kind of harassment?

I think we would all be happy if the Laws carried some provision for a situation where someone plays a card because an opponent misled him or her. It's clear by now that they do not. Surely this is why L84 exists, because the Law writers did not anticipate every possible situation ahead of time? Why tie ourselves (and the FLB) in knots?

We've reached a point in bidding system development where there's no such thing as a superior method. 2/1, Precision, Polish, Fantunes, etc. all can win world championships if the people using them use them well (and play well). So unless everyone but you is for some reason playing some primitive version of Standard American, you won't beat the field with a better system. You can only choose which of the various workable systems you prefer and go with that. If you decide to add some randomness to your results (and hope for the variation to go in your favor) you can deliberately play anti-field methods. But as outlined above, if you do so, you also have to understand how to play the contracts you reach with respect to the rest of the room.

The ACBL GCC does not.

I would have supplied more information, e.g., "We didn't discuss this, but we have a partner in common, with whom we both play it as showing the other two suits." If I don't have that much of a basis then I won't volunteer information (but will describe any relevant considerations if asked, e.g., "Undiscussed, but 'takeout' is common at the club where we play"). This is why I ask new partners to agree to "undiscussed = natural when in any doubt."

More than that: As Barry points out, since law enforcement agencies can turn around and use seized goods and cash for themselves, they have a systemic incentive to "acquire" these things. It thus becomes just another part of the officers' job and morally neutral or positive, overriding the "do not steal" ethic.

Kib chat was somewhat sympathetic given the state of the match. And who'd think they would have 12 tricks in NT without being able to run the heart suit? IMHO it's a reasonable double that got extremely unlucky.

Most USian public opinion defaults to "If the cops stopped you then you did something wrong, and if you had all than cash then you must be up to something, and if they seized it they must have had a good reason." That won't change without a good number of high-profile reversals of bogus arrests and seizures like the one in the link. The average American believes that if you've been arrested you deserve it and probably more, and if you haven't then either you're good or you're getting away with something and we need more cops so you can get caught. Many of us are more skeptical of the authorities, but that's the gut reaction that even us progressives often have to consciously resist.

Government regulation plays a big part. The debt markets are much more heavily regulated than the cash markets, and AFAIK debit cards are generally treated as cash for these purposes.

You can play with their and our side suits the same way and come up with 8-10 tricks for each side, averaging 9, for a total of 18, which is the same as the number of trumps. We guess looking at our shape that we probably don't have 9, meaning the actual total averages 17. We don't know if they have 8 or 10 so we take the average for calculation purposes; in the long run it'll balance out to about that. That's what the LoTT is for, the long run, not figuring out This Hand. We have to estimate; it's the nature of the game. That's why cards have backs. :P

Are you a music lover? Call it Tunes Fan.

I played a deal at the club some time back that had 26 trumps but only 25 tricks. QED. Although the temptation to lead the wrong suit meant that there were +1770s in both directions. Eh? New prescription drugs get 0.1% or less, don't they?

Not a complete win, but we'll take it. Thanks for your hard work.

You could play on this and keep the Norse theme by calling it Loki. :P "You must be truly desperate to come to BBF for help." :D