USViking

You can't. I believe I did. Look up "sic" Not OK. Whether or not atomic theory is falsifiable he did not offer impossibility of falsification as ground for insinuating God. In fact he did the opposite: he said Dark Matter theory was having "falsification problems", and that those stupid panicking scientists had concocted a theoretical "Zeus" to plug the gap.

Yes. No. Maybe. OK, I guess.

A combination. For example telescopes were not available to Ptolemy, and four dimensional geometry was not either. Those are just two weapons of the vast arsenal of modern science. I believe Galileo said that the Book of Nature is written in the Language of Mathematics. Another scientist, I forget who, said that mathematics possesses “unreasonable effectiveness” as a tool in the study of Nature. Those statements seem to me to imply both description and explanation, if in fact there is a clear division between the two. I think proof is in principle unavailable for any scientific theory. We just have to hope we can arrive at satisfactory explanation and description of Nature without the need to meet impossible standards of proof. You have skipped ahead of me with OD, what is that? And L, W and H?- the three spacial dimensions? I have not heard that spacial dimensionlessness is a requirement of Dark Matter.

Stop right there. The original theory is tied for the lead in the history of science for confirmation by observation, experiment, and utility. Utility you say? Yes, besides that camera we flew to Neptune, closer to home is all that GPS stuff for which the original theory works pretty darn good, or to put it another way, it is pretty f*cking strong. No. We are permitted to make other assumptions. For example, serious Dark Matter theorists assume that although the subject of investigation is neither “magical” nor “dust” it IS invisible. Anyone gotta problem with “invisible”? You said it, I didn't. The underlying theory has had questions and questioners from the start. This is not its first challenge. An analogous recent challenge was the 40-year long “missing” neutrino problem: See link: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/bahcall/ It turned out nothing was “missing” after all, and in 2001-2003 original theory triumphed again. No. For 2000 years we had nowhere near the powers of observation we now do. Our powers of observation are multiple trillions better than they were in the day of the great astronomer Ptolemy. If Ptolemy had had the powers of observation we do now, I think it is reasonable to assume he would arrive at the same conclusions that we do now. I think there is no danger, literally no danger of that.

Include me with those who see nothing godlike about Dark Matter. It is just another of those many big mysteries that the big guns of science are paid to spend their working lives trying to help figure out. Plopping "God" into the issue is an inaccurate and unconstructive rhetorical flourish. In this case the problem with looking for a solution by examining basic propostions is that the propositions needing to be examined are the gravitational theories of Newton and Einstein. In fact, they would have to be discarded, because the whole Dark Matter issue arose from the observation that the rotation speed of galactic objects do not conform to the predictions of gravitational theory: objects furthest distant from the center rotate about the center much faster than they should. A "halo" of dark matter surrounding all galaxies is a logical, parsimonious explanation, and smearing science which you for some reason do not cotton to by calling it "God" is luddite. Of course no theory is holy writ, and all are fair game. Newton himself was corrected by Einstein's more accurate theory, although Newton remains good enough to allow us to put a spacecraft through a bullseye 1km in radius in the vicinity of the planet Neptune. Nevertheless, I predict that Newton and Einstein will remain intact and that those who enjoy imagining the collapse of great repuations will be disappointed again, as usual.

I hope I made the correct choice by selecting the "windows only version". My choice is the "Version 5.2.6" accessed by clicking a Knave icon on the desktop screen. I have tried the other version but have not found any comparative advantage to it. I have noticed one comparative drawback to the other version: the shade of red used for the heart-diamond pips is too dark for my slightly colorblind eyesight, and appears almost black and undistinguishable from the spade-club pips. The different shade of red used for the "Play or Watch Bridge" and seveal other caption bars is ok though. I guess I could get used to browser version if I had to, but I am close to 100% happy with the windows version, and I hope it never has to be shut down.

From ages 21-60 I averaged over 40 cigarettes a day, plus from ages 30-60 I smoked about an ounce to an ounce and a half of of pot a year, use about every other day. Just before I quit literally merely walking to the car or getting undressed for bed made me breathe heavily and made my heart pound. I got a prescription for a smoking cessation drug in 2007 but put off filling it because I was afraid it would not work, and the worst prolonged pain by far that I had ever experienced occurred as a result of my previous attempts to quit. I decided that my 60th birthday would be a appropriate time to try quitting again, so I filled the prescription, followed it to a "T", and By God the damn stuff worked. It really and truly worked. I put out my last cigartette at exactly 9:54am 6/30/09, and have not taken one single puff since then, with no, repeat no withdrawal symptoms at all, none, although a small, lingering desire to smoke remains, and will probably always remain. I did smoke pot 4-5 times in July-Aug '09, and then once again on New Year's Eve '09, but not since, so perhaps the medicine I took is implicitly meant to be effective against illegal forms of recreational smoke as well as legal. I also drink. I am not going to try giving that up for a while yet, if ever, but consumption there is probably down by well over a sixpack a week, another benefit of the healthier life I think ultimately enabled by this smoking cessation medicine which I finally tried. I did not gain much if any weight after quitting, or experience increase in appetite. I was about 20-25lb overweight, of which I have lost about 10lb since also taking up exercise and diet. I am not going to name the medicine. Ask your Doctor about what I might be speaking of and there should be a good chance of your getting ahold of the same stuff that worked for me. It does NOT work for everyone, but it works for enough people for YOU, you smokers out there, to give it a try.

Thanks very much for your attention to the issue.

uday, thank you for the reply, but I do not feel your points are well-taken. Anyone who is affected by the new system should be entitled to speak, regardless of what option he may use to join a table. I have in the past used the "Help me..." option. I will never use it again because it of its role in the aggravation being discussed here. But why limit the new redeal system to people who use this option, and not also extend it to the cases where people scroll the table list and chose a table themselves, instead of having the computer chose for them? In either case, I do not mind at all playing a few tricks "blind". I addressed this before. The incoming player is ONE person. There are THREE other people at the table who have invested time, thought and emotion in the deal. The needs and wishes of THREE people should usually take priority over the needs and wishes of ONE person, and I see no reason why the BBO table procedure under discussion in this thread should be an exception. I think incoming players may also cause a redeal even if the bidding has not started.

The problem was raised earlier in this thread: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=37254 Maybe it will soon be corrected.

Me and probably 100s k other bridge players truly appreciate all your efforts to make BBO the best bridge playing site in the world that it is. But I do not believe you thought out section b. above: you are assigning priority to the percieved feelings of ONE new player (the "sap") at the expense of the possible feelings of THREE players already at the table, and that does not seem at all fair to me. If any one of those three players wants a redeal let them say so. Otherwise let the "sap" live with a few minutes of blind leads. Now that I know the "Take me to a table" feature is part of the cause of this problem I will stop using it. I aways seem to wind up with 8hcp hands when I use it, anyway.

I have just been informed by a kind playing site monitor that the recent increase in redealt hands is the result of experiment by adaministration to curb effects of kibbitzers joining a table after seeing the hands. IMO this is a classic example of the fix being worse than the problem it was meant to correct. The old method, whatever it was, was better than having something like one quarter to one third of all hands dealt disappear into thin air. PS: I guess I should by now, at long last, finally learn how to spell "kibitzer".

If by this you mean that hands are programmed to disappear whenever any new player joins a table, then it is a new feature, and I really it is reversed as soon as possible because it is leading to a very frustrating deluge of tanked deals.

A followup: I have just noticed that when using the "Help me find a game" option, the hand originally at the table I am taken to disappears in about one second, and is replaced by a brand new hand. Another member told me today that this sequence of hand disappearance and replacement seems now to take place whenever a new player joins a table.

Today I have had several deals disappear at various intervals from prior to the start of bidding to during play. Redeal requests would have been inappropriate in all cases, and in any event there were no redeal requests, or at least none visible to me. No record of these hands appeared in the Movie section. In the past this has been an uncommon occurrence of less than daily frequency, which I have attributed to momentary computer glitches. The sudden dramatic increase in disappearing deals today makes me think there is a problem in need of a fix. In this vein, but a separate issue: I recently became aware that if one defender makes a concession the other defender not only has no say, he may not even be made aware of the concession offer. For him the deal just suddenly disappears, although it does appear in the Movie record. On several occasions I have been the "other" defender, and I have been quite certain I had more tricks than my partner realized. I wonder if a fix might be possible by which the "other" defender must also agree to a concession for acceptance to take effect?

My guess is that they won some big rugby competition. I think there are two preeminent touranments, one of them international, and one including only NZ, Australia, England and South Africa. Although NZ is well known for having a decisively winning record against every country it has played, something like 50 of them including the three noted above, its performance in the two touranments has not been as dominating.

Thank you for providing calculations for both DK location and scoring.

Here is my reply to cascade. That does not mean I will ever bid 7 myself under such cimrcumstances, because I won't. And I won't like it if a partner does so. However, 75% is I think too good to reasonably voice objection to unless the odds can be improved by further investigation.

If 7H is a scientific 75% favorite to make after I show two Aces then I will go along.

I did. But see below. I know. I do not have a bid in my limited arsenal to cover this. I do appreciate that you and others have drawn my attention to the fact that the CK is marginally important. I nowhere said or implied that partner should have bid 2D. I agree that 4NT is appropriate. I thought that was clear enough from what I said earleir. I am still baffled as to how 7H might be worthy of consideration in most circumstances.

I accept that I may be laughed at if I err. Perhaps you will accept it if I now insert an LOL in response to your suggestion that someone might recommend passing 6D. I do not accept this because, as I suggested before, if old-fashioned Blackwood for Aces may be employed without discussion, then it is reasonable to assume that old-fashioned Blackwood for Kings may also be.

You mean to ask if I would recommend bidding 6H or 7H, don't you? I would recommend bidding 6H, in view of apparent prevailing expert opinion here that 7 is only a 50-50 prospect. I understand the answer might not be the same under a different scoring system, or toward the end of a tourament.

LOL deserved. I actually think I would have thought of the Diamonds though.

Do you play at BBO? There is space in your public profile for listing conventions, and "Blackwood" is posted in mine. Partner himself employed what I earlier termed "vanilla" Blackwood for Aces, so it is reasonable to assume that "vanilla" Blackwood for Kings is also part of his arsenal. Other experts who have commented here say that chances of making 13 are 50 % with 2 Kings. Do you mean to say that the chances do not improve significantly with 3 or 4 Kings? If I have missed some things in the analysis of the hand, none have been pointed out by you. Thank you, but as there is disagreement on the issue I will not be posting in the advanced/expert forum again. I certainly was interested in asking questions. I thought my view of the hand and the bidding was completely right, but I wanted to know if that would be corroborated by experts. So far I have some expert agreement with my view, and nothing that really makes me question the accuracy of my view. I think the bid was outlandish for any level of player, especially for a WC. I have never thought to depict myself as a flower.

I would have gone down two if I had not been able to discard a spade on CK. I understand, and I am not being snide, that a better player than me might well see a sure line for getting rid of a Spade with only 2 Kings.