BunnyGo

Hello. I'm wondering what the laws are in the following general situation: South is declaring a hand, and at some point West revokes. The revoke is unknown to South who makes a complete and correct claim based on the count of the hand had West actually been void in the suit. As the cards actually lie, South's claim is completely incorrect. What is the ruling? I have no specific hand in mind, but if details matter, please let me know and I'll construct something.

Does anyone have a wget script they can share to download all my hands from myhands? I'm having difficulties getting mine to work.

Phil, if you set your link so that it makes it look like you've read all the GIB posts, then they won't show up when you look for new content. I did this a while ago, and if you're interested PM me, and I'll figure out how I did it. -Ben

Hi guys, thanks for the responses: Line A was suggested that you just play the Ace and if the king doesn't fall, lead the heart now--don't lead a second heart. This protects against a ruff when the ruffing hand has Kx or x, or either hand has K. I think that this line is strictly better than line C, as line C requires the same things as line A, but loses to a ruff. The advantage of C over A is that when a ruff isn't coming, and the heart finesse loses, it can still finesse the diamond to try and pick the suit for no losers.

Hi all, An intermediate level friend of mine is practicing his IMP declarer play (he's only done MPs until now). He sent me the following hand and asked for my comments--I told him two lines I considered, but that I could be missing something and wasn't able to tell which line was better. Thanks for your comments. [hv=pc=n&s=s54h8daq7543ckq32&n=sa976hk3dj62caj75&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1cp1d2hp3h4dp5dppp]266|200[/hv] The lead was the club 4. He said he took the first trick in hand and immediately played a heart to dummy's king to set up a spade discard--this did not work out well for him when east got a club ruff, and he had to lose a diamond still. I suggested the following thoughts: Hello, So here's how I think about the hand: 1) The 4 is either singleton, 3rd best or 4th best--cannot be 2nd. 2) Why would he lead from xxx of clubs? So likely singleton or 4th best, that means a club ruff is likely coming. 3) I have to lead a heart before they get in and lead spades 4) I have 2 ways to avoid extra losers: a) I can play the A of diamonds. If the K is singleton or if the K is doubleton and that person is going to get the club ruff, then I'm safe--or if the person getting the ruff only had 1 trump, then I'm safe. I'll either pull trump if the king falls, or lead the heart now. b) I can win trick 1 in dummy and immediately finesse the diamond. Let's compare these two lines (and let me say, I think this hand is subtle, and I could easily be wrong, so I'm going to post it on bridgebase online and ask for advice there). The finesse line is easy to analyze. If the king is onside, either singleton, doubleton or Kxx, then you get 4 clubs, 5 or 6 diamonds, 1 spade, and hopefully 1 heart (likely on the bidding). The finesse is better than 50-50 based on the 2H bid, but not a sure thing. Also, if it fails, you're immediately down. Playing the diamond A is a bit harder to analyze. There are several advantageous cases: 1) the king falls singleton. 2) The person threatening a ruff has a singleton 3) the person with Kx is threatening the ruff. If the king isn't singleton, then you need the heart finesse to make. I'm not sure which is better, but both are better than your original line.

I love the latest bridgewinners message: "Due to recent events (*), we are getting a lot of traffic. This has caused our site to become unstable. We are actively working on this, and hope to be back online in the next few hours. (*)Steve bid blackwood with a void again and Bobby hired some hackers"

As Bridgewinners is down, I can only see the videos and commentary here. Is the idea that these hands are indicative of signaling they do in other similar situations? If so, then that's really damning, but as a massive fidgeter myself, I'm sure that I've "signaled" things by scratching or twitching or who knows what. Partners of mine have been known to ask me what song I could possibly be dancing to as dummy. I'm just saying that I find these hands to be interesting, but not damning in and of themselves (and yes, there is a lot more evidence, but this was supposed to be the queen). As there seem to be specific allegations as to how they signal (as in, it is physical, not secreted micro electronics--probably with the tray, and probably with the sweater or other twitching), then I hope someone will be providing analysis a la "the doctors". I understand that it can be hard or even impossible to detect methods, and that it isn't always necessary, but as the alleged methods are caught on tape, it seems like somebody should be able to find them.

A non-bridge clueless comment story: I taught a math class last semester, and at the end of summer break I get an e-mail from a student asking what the book will be. I respond, and get another e-mail with a link to a pdf asking if this is the book. I again respond (without clicking the link) what the book's identifying information is (including an amazon link). Student responds again: "mm, yes. I got that far. But I want to confirm that that pdf book I found is indeed that book. I don't see it indicated in the pdf itself and, for instance, the pdf has 520 pages yet the amazon or ebay description of the book says it has 590 pages, and that's inconsistent. So I was wondering, if you have the book, if you can look at the pdf and look at the book and confirm to me that the pdf is indeed that 7th edition of the book. ?" To which I finally come out and say: "I'm not comfortable advising a student on how to get an illegal copy of a textbook. Sorry, but you'll have to do the legwork comparing with copies in the library." Holding my tongue from telling him what I really think of a student who would ask a professor to help him do this. The conversation continues: "Oh okay. I understand. Although that was straight from Google so I don't know if that's illegal... I see now that it was put up by some University where they speak Arabic, I think." Me: "I think we can safely assume that downloading pdfs of copyrighted material is breaking the law." And the final clueless comment from this kid: "Well I didn't download it. A google search of [book title] yields that "pdf website", or whatever you call it, as the first thing on the list. I go to that "pdf website" and then click save at the bottom. So I saved it, didn't download it, right?" Sigh....then I had to teach this kid for a semester...

As long as spades are no worse than 4-2, I'm happy. Wesley's line is exactly right, and I just keep playing clubs whenever I'm on lead and let them ruff in whenever they want. This is also the line at matchpoints, as I'm ahead of the field by pitching my heart and by not being in 5C which doesn't make an overtrick without help.

Hi all, Can anyone recommend a rubber bridge book? I haven't seen any published in many years, but just came across this one: The Golden Rules for Rubber Bridge Players Any thoughts on this or other ones? Thanks, Ben

Hi all, I think that the Bridgemaster problems serve two big functions for me: the first is I get to see and practice various techniques and lessons; the second is that I get to attempt to solve single dummy problems and see how I do. The problem is that this second function could be better, because the problems are ordered so that I know what type of hand and technique I should be thinking about. Solution: If it would be possible, I'd like the ability to select various levels (say 3, 4, and 5, or just 1, and 2, or just 4) and have random hands presented to me. This way, I wouldn't know if I should be thinking squeeze, or hold up, or what other techniques going into the hand. thank you, Ben (BunnyGo)

Indeed. I've been to a firing range with M16s, Kalashnikovs, and Golanis. The M16 was able to strike a target dead center 5 times in about 2 seconds (single-shot mode) at 100 meters no scope. This was of course an expert firing, but still quite doable. Even the beginners were able to hit at 100 meters no scope firing 29 shots in about 1 minute--hitting target every time. The Kalashnikov was MUCH easier for a novice. It was hard to miss the inner ring. I'd've thought as a military man you'd've had more practice. Edit: The Golani (an Israeli made Uzi) was hard to aim at all as its purpose is to spray and pray.

There are no shortage of alternate history and apocalypse books about this subject...

Is there *any* thing that does not have agency in this universe that you would describe as "dangerous"? If not, then we are using the word completely differently (and I suspect that one of us uses it in a way most people will not due to political reasons). Edit: trying to reframe a view of the world by simply changing what words mean (as opposed to agreed reality) does not make me feel that the pro-gun people have the nation's best interests in heart. Like cherdano, I'm not particularly "liberal" on gun control issues, but listening to what strongly pro-gun advocates say makes me worry I should be.

Sure they are...Just the same way: 1) Knives 2) Explosives 3) even Cars are dangerous. Just because someone won't (usually) be hurt when used correctly, does not mean the items are not "dangerous". There is potentially danger around these objects (more so than most other objects). It doesn't mean we shouldn't use them, but we should be wary when using them. And just because these objects do not have agency, does not make them not dangerous.

I don't understand...what exactly happened to cause this trouble?

Sorry, this defeats the purpose of emergency medicine in a hospital. The point is not to have to travel to the next city (if you're not fortunate to live equidistant from 2 hospitals), but to get the necessary treatments ASAP. The only times I've ever taken patients (when I was on an ambulance) to a hospital that was not the closest was: a) When they had a speciality issue such as a crushed skull and needed to get to the specialist ASAP as opposed to just the closest doctor for stabilization or b) the difference between travel times was < 2 minutes and the patient requested the farther hospital for medical reasons (e.g. there was a doctor there who knew them) Demanding that patients know the differing policies of a hospital is absurd. Treat them ASAP in the best way uniformly everywhere--that should be the law (if it isn't already).

Well....that just makes sense.

Do you play that 2♠X counts as 4 spades? If I set 4♦X -3 do I get up to a 6 level set?

At least it seems clear that it is still "unsettled".

It does largely depend on your sect and time period. Most jewish commentators from the 300s until the 17th or 18th century were of the opinion that: a) Much of the Bible was allegorical, and the historical fictional stuff was still allegorical b) It didn't affect the religion whether these stories were factual, stories have a truth of their own (as expressed well by Vampyr--this was a middle ages Italian Jewish writer who first, to my knowledge, wrote these ideas) In modern times, the Charedim (a jewish like cult composed of "black hats") believe that the bible is factual and that it has never been changed (there are a number of orthodox jews who believe this too, but sometimes more tongue in cheek). Middle ages commentators were fond of pointing out parts of the bible that had been modified (either accidentally or on purpose), and the idea that it didn't matter if it were factual or not. As for the Christian bible--I think of it the same way I do other religion's texts, completely ambivalently (but often a nice read for literature's sake). That said, I do not go around defining myself in terms of other people's views--it does bother me when people constantly try to define Judaism in terms of Christianity just because it originated that way. There were a lot of people claiming to be the Messiah at that time (5 of them led 5 different armies in a rebellion in 70 CE, another led a rebellion in 132 CE--some had very famous and respected Jewish leaders supporting them, all died in horrific ways). I don't think about any of them as more than historical figures. As for "truth", I find the analysis and philosophical debates of the Talmud (which used the Torah as a basis, but then argues over the meaning) as much more interesting than the bible itself. They use the bible as a basis to argue the legal implications of "if I find money in the street, can I take it?" (they had something like 10 different situations to consider) and how to conduct a capital punishment trial (if a unanimous verdict was found, they threw it out because the trial couldn't have been fair if not one person could find a reason to acquit) and (of course) religious doctrine. One of the main stories studied today from the Talmud is one which basically gives an amendment clause to the bible, and gives humans the exclusive right to amend it, and gives God no say in the matter. I'll let you read it here or the wikipedia, but it's quite a nice clause. Edit: As for my personal beliefs, I find God to be an unnecessary part of the religion (given this clause). I came to this after many years of parochial school, but decided that I couldn't believe that God exists. After another couple years, I decided that it didn't matter whether or not there were a God or the bible were factual, the morals and philosophy of the allegories and discussions were the important part.

Very true...I do feel bad about that, I should probably learn to start <snip>ing.

Excuse me, but I must finally take offense. Please don't lecture us about our religion. You may believe whatever you want, but leave us out of it.

AJxxx would be enough too depending on the position of the other cards.

It was at about this stage of questioning the existence of a higher being that I caught up to the early 20th century philosophers and began reading Satre and other existentialists in earnest. When one comes to the decision that we are our own reason for being, and we only have one time through, it can be scary. In the end, I settled with the "only got one time through, better make it a good one" philosophy. That, and I derive pleasure from my own good works--not because some supreme being will judge me well for them, but because good works are their own reward.