ASkolnick

I was trying to figure out the best way to combine IMPS and match point scoring since I can see flaws with each of them in a pair game. Matchpoints: Bad +100 and +110 are essentially the same score. Good All hands are treated equally Imps: Exactly the opposite. I was thinking of being able to combine them in the following way: 1) Matchpoint the Score. 2) IMP the score against the mean Take the # of StdDev of both combined as your score. Now for a question: Would your play more like matchpoints or IMPS?

The probable explanation of this is: RHO psyched 2♦. LHO has a big hand so he bid 3♠. RHO got off the train. But it is possible he just didn't realize it was forcing. I don't think you have a game anywhere since LHO with all the points is behind you. You are probably better off just to go plus.

Cascade, first off. I love the dealer.exe program. It is so easy to manipulate and make shapes. But for simulation, instead of dividing by HCP, you may want to use the suit quality function as well. For example, I am sure J9x probably works better than J32 for ruffs as well.

Always 8 trumps (5 in master hand, 3 ruffs, A Spade, Diamond trick)

Trust me, I am not a bible expert or even a creationist at all. My only point is that Creationism (if not taken literally) and Evolution can co-exist together as a theory. Also, let's assume through a series of mutations that a new "species" is born. Who gets to categorize it as a new species? Theoretically, if they started from the same population, couldn't they not be grouped based on their starting point and not their evolved form. I'm not saying they are, but somebody decided this is how they should be grouped. I can start with a horse and donkey coming up with a mule. Let's say the mules can then reproduce (yes, I know they can't). There is nothing to say you could not group together horses and donkeys as the same species. Call this group Hornkeys. If in the bible there were 100 (don't know the number off hand) groups listed, it is possible to use a different taxonomy then the one created to create those groups.

Or to make it a little more interesting, make it a 2 table tournament with 8 individuals. 14 Boards, barometer style. Both tables will be playing the hands simultaneously. Every 2 boards, you play with 7 different partners and 2 teammates for 2 board rounds. You receive +/- Imps for you as an individual instead of your team. This way, the size of the boards won't matter since each team gets access to the same boards. Also, you make sure you play with everyone else. You would not need to change the rules of bridge. Winners can work as follows: If you want to divide the money, it is an even-sum game, so each gets a percentage of money earned or lost. Or have the tournament winner get A%, 2nd place A/2 %, 3rd A/4 %

Although I do like Elianna's approach, I think it is very difficult, at least with evolution, to keep them mutually exclusive. However, the good news is, I don't think it has to be mutually exclusive. Remember, Clarence Darrow in a famous court case was able to use the Bible to prove evolution by interpreting the Bible not as literally as most religion does. A "day" representing an era, etc. The funny thing about the doctrine of "Separation of Church and State" is: Although it was suggested in a letter, there is no specific clause of Separation of Church and State, it was an interpretation made by the Establishment Clause. The government violates this all the time. In our courts, we swear on a bible. On our money it says "In G-d we trust". But my favorite saying I got from a bumper sticker "In G-d We Trust, all others pay cash." The pledge of allegiance in school, now uses Under God, although it didn't use to. But one of the things I would like a school being for my son and daughter is to be open and discuss people's different ideas and leave it up to their own interpretation. Problems with Science: Many science things are suggested as fact instead of theory, until somebody disproves them. Problem with Religion: There is no evolution of information once new information comes to light. For example, being Jewish, I think Kashrut laws were a great idea prior to refrigeration, now I don't think they are necessary.

1♠ followed by 6♦. Good chance things are breaking badly.

#1 I understand what a "species" is. Scientist have defined species in such a manner. This however does not need to be the only method of grouping. It just may be the grouping among scientists, the expert community etc. #2 always seems to be a sticking point which evolutionist which they seem to push aside and say chance. I just don't think that is good enough. I agree there are definitely similar traits among the animal kingdom to indicate that suggest animals evolved from one type of animal to the other. And that is the most likely explanation. Even I learned in Biology: Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny I don't know if a supreme being exists or not. I'm not sure why it happening only once is any more or less likely than a supreme being. I actually do believe that evolution is the most likely course of action that occured, but I just see sort of a hole as in how did it all start. My whole point is this 2x2 grid is not black and white.

I am not pro-evolution or anti-evolution (I actually believe it is sort of a combination) , but I do think that the evolution "theory" has a lot of holes in it that scientists do not take into consideration. Yes, there are items which prove that evolution exists as well, but I do sometimes feel you currently now have a similar situation where evolutionists "pu-pu" any theory counter to their theory without giving it consideration. 1) Some are, when is the last time we have seen a species "evolve" into a new species? We have seen characteristics of the same species change, but when did it actually change species. And what does "change species" actually mean? And once you define it, can you define it in a different manner where they are the "same species"? For example, a Donkey and a Horse can mate ? Are they separate species? According to our scientific classification, yes. But why does someone have to use that scientific classification? 2) Let's assume you don't think God created man. How did the first breath of life begin even at the atomic level? So, I think it is more than just a yes-no question. Also, with global warming, we do remember we had an ice-age and things melted as well. I am sure that we are contributing to the problem of global warming, but that doesn't mean it may not have happened by itself.

Not a problem. If this is not the appropriate forum, OK.

Along the lines of Tim G., how often do you need to be right when NV versus Vul. Let's assume the following: Some percentage of the time: If Pass Gives you +300, versus +600. You lost 300 points. If you are wrong, you lost -100 versus +300. You lose 400 points. If this were the only two possiblities. You would only need to be right 42.6% (I may be off a decimal) to think leaving the double in is the winning option. On this particular hand, I am not sure why you would think you necessarily have 9 tricks. you have no tricks in clubs (but you do have defensive tricks), your hearts are not a good fit with partner. The spades do fit nicely and your diamonds are ok.

I was the one who brought up the "affair" and I only did so because when people use the word affair, that is what I thought. Once it was corrected, I was curious because of other things I knew happened to go on at other times. As for the "alleged" cheating in SF, now I am curious about that.

I actually think the most practical shape for him would be 1-4-3-5 and a strong hand, but a bad club suit. With a good hand, he could just bid 3X over 2 Spades.

I'm not sure that is quite true. What if partner has a partial stopper? Qx, Qxx, xx, or xxx etc. is he really going to bid 3N by himself? So, I think that 3 spades should suggest a partial stopper (which is what you have). Looking at the hands, there may be times that 5m goes down, but 3N makes. It also may depend on what the sequence, 2N(Lebensohl) followed by 3S actually shows as well.

1. Yes, you can create an alfgorithm. The dealer program (by Hans Van Sternen) is the one I love. It uses a function Quality to evaluate each suit and CCCC for the overall. This uses Kaplan-Reubens evaluation. To evaluate "scattered values" versus "concentrated", once could take the standard deviation of the combined 4 suit Quality. Where your breakpoint of what you consider "scattered" I don't know.

I am disappointed. When I was up in Schenectady, I heard a lot more about affairs between pro bridge players. I think the forum may have been inappropriate, but I don;t think it is a big deal. The way I see it, that is exactly representing one of the best things about the US, you can have a differing opinion.

I'm not quite sure what the problem is here: You have 25 HCP and an 8 card spade fit, I would be in game. To play: I assume the play went 2 clubs followed by a diamond shift. Win AD, cross to AH, cash 2 trumps ending with K and hope that either hearts split 3-3 or the person with less than 3 trumps also has the heart shortness. Sure, in hearts you sort of need the same kind of breaks, except you need to follow to one extra round of spades. So, I have no problem playing in about a 45-50% game.

1N for me in SA, but this is my general problem with Inverted Minors. Sometimes you have a simple/constructive raise. Many other treatments you could play.

My understanding is you can only play one system through the entire event. You can only change based on seat, position and/or vulnerability. Let's say you were allowed to play: Precision against Standard American 2/1 against all others. The other team: Standard American against 2/1 Precision against others. You could have an infinite loop. Theoretically, you could play that the team with searing rights declares their system last, but not in the rules. Feel free for anyone to correct me if they think I am wrong.

I am more curious about who is having the alleged affair.

Yes, theoretically if the opening leader hand holds a stiff diamond, the AC, AS and 2 or 3 hearts, you can pitch your diamond on the long club. Very possible since the lead is most likely a singleton, therefore you cannot make it if the KD is off.

There are a couple of problems with Forcing Pass in general: 1) Short rounds How am I going to say 5 minutes before a pair comes (let's say 12 pairs), let's look at the suggested defense, maybe I like it, maybe I don't. I certainly won't have time to do it. 2) It does not allow you to play your system. Even over aggressive style openings, you can play your system, forcing pass does not. I am not quite sure why transfer openings are that big a deal though since you can play transfers in almost any other seat for any other reason. So, I will disagree with Dr. Todd saying it is reasonable to play against. However, that being said, there is no reason I should not have to play against it in a National Trial or International Event (Even real KO events such as Spingold) with the following: A) Notes submitted in Advance :) Defence submitted in Advance I don't care if you put on a website or whatever. I can look at my draw and figure out if I need to concoct something or I like what was suggested. If more people play something and more people defend against it, eventually the defense will catch up. While I understand why Forcing Pass may be a problem, what I don't understand being illegal are: 1) Transfer Openings Disadvantages: Overcaller now has two extra calls, Dbl and bidding the xfer suit. 2) Multi 2D - Really not that hard Disadvantages: 2H over 2S 3) 2H Muitenberg - Which is natural. Disadvantage: Don't know, but it is no different than 2 Hearts and less likely you want to come in. 4) Power 2D (4+-4+ in Majors) - I can plau natural, but I know I have bad splits. So, having the ACBL draw a line in the sand somewhere is OK as long as its clear. But there needs to be at least a more liberal policy and I think people will think of adequate defenses against all of these if given the ability to play against them.

Your odds are A Priori, but your auction is not. There is not an equal chance of different combinations happening based on the fact the East holds 12+ HCP, and LHO has clubs. First assumption is that west has 4 Clubs and led the 9. Unless he holds KJ9x and plays 3rd and 5th, it looks like East holds KQJ. We won't make it unless we pick up: Spades for 1 loser. Looks like we need a 3-2 break or both the KQ onside. Hearts for 1 loser. Because of the diamond position, I think I need to play West for the AJ of hearts. Diamonds for 1 loser. Smothering the Stiff J or Stiff T is better than playing for stiff A of diamonds, but I think it requires the J of hearts in West for entries. Don't know if its right, but seems reasonable. Haven't figured out the order of play yet.

Any reason not to be in 6♣