vuroth

1 - I assumed the 76 was either the review panel, or the set of candidates from which the review panel was pulled. You do know that the scientific process requires a paper to be reviewed by a panel of experts before it is "accepted"? 2 - Did I look into it? I surely did. I found that the JREF has problems with the process and scientific validity of the findings. That's a big deal. Scientists can and often will disagree vociferously over what data means, and how best to model it, and which theory best explains the data. But all of that happens AFTER the data is vetted by the scientific community. If there's an argument about whether or not the scientific PROCESS has been followed...well, let's just say it's not time for the common man to get excited about this, YET. 3 - As for the journal being a fully peer-reviewed journal, that seems to be at the heart of the debate. Certainly the journal (Bentham open?) feels that they are fully peer reviewed, and that they meet the generally accepted scientific standards. JREF, at least, does NOT feel that way. All things considered, I think I'd side with JREF 99 times out of 100 at least on issues like this - it's kind of their raison d'être. Depends. If Sherlock Holmes found it, I'd be interested. If Jerry Springer found it? Maybe not. What alarms me more than anything with the quoted article is that, rather than try to address the concerns of the scientific community at large, in order to bring their findings up to "fully accepted" status, they seem to be spamming the web with findings and refutations, and a war of words with JREF. That sounds a lot like rabble rousing and profiteering, more than genuine knowledge seeking. Don't get me wrong, they may be correct. I just don't think that they've proven their point yet, not by a long way. V

No, he really, really, really was not. Based on your belief of that fact, I feel it is my moral responsibility to warn you that your Nigerian friend is, in fact, trying to steal your money. V

It's generally a bad sign when you're trying to present evidence as scientifically sound and you're also involved in a war of words with the JREF.

I wondered if that was where you were going. My understanding is that the idea behind a splinter is you're hoping to find that you and partner have like 13+13=26 of the 30 points OUTSIDE your short suit, which is very strong. Here, even if partner has 13, you only have 13+8=21 of the 30 HCP in the lower 3 suits. Ok, so you have no spade losers, but missing 9 points sounds like 2-3 losers to me. PLUS, your own 8HCP aren't exactly beefy. If you're ever taking 11 tricks in ♥♦♣ with only 21 points, you're probably going to have your points in a lot of aces and kings - not jacks. That's my guess, anyways.

Indeed, and you need to be an expert player to foresee the danger. The expert player will ask her/himself the following question when dummy's cards are shown: "What can I do about it if trumps break 4-1, with East holding four to the jack?" Take it from me, that question sometimes runs through the mind of an intermediate. Unfortunately, what follows is usually only silence, punctuated by an "uhhhhh....." :)

Looks like I made the same mistake as others did. Took me a minute to be sure, but I agree that only 2 rounds of spades are necessary. Thus I can make on either 3/2 split. The great thing about this hand is that, really, the club to the diamond on trick 3 does not cost. It would require impressive vision to see it coming that far off, though. V

Oh wow. This is kind of hard I think. I can tailor to RHO having Jxxx in trump, but I need it to come down to a very specific ending. What I really need is to shorten my hand in trumps (ok, I also need spades to be 2/3 exactly, I think, and hearts to be 4/2 or 3/3. The general plan is to cash my 3 spades, then run hearts on the board, and overruff, to eliminate my trump winner. The tricky part is that I can't have more trumps than RHO, or it won't work. K♥, K♦, ruff a ♣ in hand as insurance (wow will I have arrived if I ever maket his play at the table.). Q♦, get the bad news. Ruff a ♣. NB: Now, I have 2 diamonds in hand, the AT. RHO has the J8. J♥, AK♠, Q♠. Someone will be out, but hopefully not RHO, as I said. Now, my ♥ and ♠ are BOTH good. Run the ♥, discarding ♠s. Overruff when necessary, drain the last trump, and run ♠ if necessary.

Never mind. Either way, both opponents should have at least 2 clubs. What my real question was - why not go Q♣ now, see who has the K? That might help me sort out who has the K♠, so I can decide whether or not to finesse or drop for it. The only thing that bugs me is that I wonder if RHO could possibly have both kings? (Certainly LHO shouldn't have them both)

Which one is more deceptive - the J or the Q?

My Intermediate vote is for 2NT. I don't really want to hang partner for opening a rule of 20 hand, and if I don't say NT we might not get there.

Thanks Fred. Neither second link works for me - both just give blank templates. Both first links now work, and the link from my hand record also now works. Of course, I'm on a different computer now than I was earlier when I posted. Both are running Firefox, though. I'll try to look at this again when I get home, to see if the first link is still giving me problems. /confused V

Is it reasonable to assume that LHO started with 5♥ and 3♦, and RHO with 4♥ and 3♦? It looks that way to me from the play.

Movie link: http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...5496-1239667260 Movie link, resolved: http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...D4|pc|S6|mc|10| Lin link: http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...ayed=1239667260 For me the lin is fine, but the movie stops after the 1D bid. Iirc, 1D was alerted, then the alert was clarified later. Not sure if that's the problem or not. V

Clearly, BillHiggin would be my choice for VuGraph. ;)

Is there a huge difference here? I mean, among the people voting, is it like a 60/40? A clear distinction? Or is it 51/49? How much difference does it really make?

Good point on the juxtaposition. Always worth thinking about whether or not it can be done that way. EDIT: Besides, I couldn't possibly get it right first time. That never happens. :rolleyes:

I definitely endorse the BIL experience. Having a mentor I could bounce the sometimes ridiculous questions off of certainly helped my game, and continues to do so.

Awesome! :rolleyes: How long do these tourneys last? Am I correct in concluding that if I work really hard over the next few years, and close the gap, that I, too, might someday be able to pull in a dollar an hour at money bridge? EDIT: Oops. Ok, I just read Justin's other blog entry, and now there's egg on my face. Seriously, jdonn, that is an unbelievably impressive record!

RHO started with 1 or 3 ♥, so LHO has 6 or 8. LHO had 2 spades. LHO pretty much has to have AQJ♦. So LHO is 2631 with 1 more minor card. That card should either be the T♦ of the A♣. Since dummy has the T♦, LHO started with xx KQJTxx AQJ Ax (or something close to it). K♦ on the Q, low club, ruffing, ♠ to the 7, throw both red losers on the JT♣, making with an over?

Win in hand, concede ♦, win ♥ in hand, ruff ♦, AK♣, ruff ♣, ruff ♦, Q♣, ♠ to hand. I still need them to lead ♠ for me though.... Most likely way to 10 tricks I think is 6♥, 3♣ and a ♠

Well whether or not it's standard, 4th from longest is the "beginner" lead.

Thanks guys. Both opponents self rated advanced, fwiw. Dummy had 4 hearts, declarer had 4 spades. Q♠ lead led to 3NT=, and a 0 for us. It seemed like the standard lead 4th best club) might have worked, so I wondered if my deviation was sane or insane, especially in the aftermath when I didn't understand the bidding at all. V

Bah, 3 was fun to think about. I feel like 2 should have been easy. thanks for the problems! V

Opponents bid: 1♥ 1NT(1) 2♦ (2) 3NT ap 1 - forcing 2 - better minor, 10-13 What should I lead from: ♠QJ3 ♥T52 ♦986 ♣9632 What inferences should I be making from the bidding? EDIT: ACBL tournament, SAYC assumed