hotShot

Oh goodie, finally someone with answers..... B) Pretty please, when I download a torrent avi and play it in MP or Real or Winamp, they are often REALLY dark. What can I do? (my monitor controls are maxed out) Many thanks. VirtualDup has filters for that to. The problem is that it is limited to avi files and that video compression takes a lot of CPU power/time.

Asuming that you have the proper codecs installed and if your MP4 movie is inside of an "avi" container you can use the free VirtualDub for the rotate, resize, recompress step. It will produce an "avi" container again.

Playing ACOL west knows about a ♣ fit from the opening 1♣ bid on. Having a fit they can concentrate on finding the best spot to play. This is indeed easier than using a system where the ♣ fit is unknown. But why would you want to show the ♦? If opener had ♦, he would have opend 1♦ using SAYC or SEF or opener is strong enough to reverse over responders 1NT bid. If opener can't reverse or can't repeat his ♣ suit, 1NT should have some play. I know of partnerships who use the 1♦ answer to 1♣ as artificial weak response showing 6-7(8) HCP (no 4card major) to make the 1NT stronger (8)9-10.

I can't let this sort of rhetorical trick uncommented. You are implying that anyone with a different opinion is an unreasonable person. You are implying that you are speaking for all sport fans (or at least a big majority of them). I did not see any riot at the ceremony and i did not hear of any bridge world wide commotion about it. They should apologize to those who feel offended, but who are those (other than the USBF) ? My impression is that there is a scale from: - what they did was ok - it was bad taste, they should just apologize and lets forget about it - they violated rules, but it was no big deal. They should apologize, and we will have to make sure something like that (or worse) won't happen again - they have to be punished hard

We have read a lot on this topic here and at other sites. Perhaps someone can point me to any valid source that documents that the WBF, the Chinese hosts or other honored teams present at the ceremony felt offended.

I use the Lionel Convention against weak NT, because it allows to find and play 4-4 fits at the 2 level. So I can double promising 4-4 distribution with ♠ and a 2nd suit and 11+ HCP. Playing none or other conventions this is a clear pass.

I let my beginners play 4 boards of "dealer plays 1NT without bidding" every now and than. I tell them that this is an exercise about signaling, because the signals are the only source of information they have. As a side effect, they stop to fear 1NT contracts.

How do you know it was only send to Person B? Person B can't see any address given in the BCC field and Person A could have forwarded the mail as often as he liked.

Why did you pass over 1♥? I think your hand would be worth a 2♣ overcall, if that was available. Your partner passed in 2nd seat, he should not have the values you need to make 3NT. Opponents promised 12+ and perhaps 6-9 HCP, you hold 14, so there are 8- HCP left for your partner. You partner calculated the other way round and found that you have opening strength. So he expected you to have opening strength and ♥s (why should you pass 1♥ otherwise). He wanted you to know that your side has the majority of points (because he is maximum) and that he's not onesuited . He expects you to know that he's short in ♥, and wants you to bid your 2nd suit as low as possible. These simple considerations have nothing to do with the system you play, and they should be automatic for advanced player.

I would expect "For Your Information" to mean just that.

This pass has to be penalty. The reopening dbl asks partner to pick the part score contract. So his pass is obviously his choice. This is not unreasonable since he would have to pass, holding e.g. 5♠s and opening strength.

We don't know much about defenders hands, but what do the defenders know about our cards? Does defender know that Q and 9 are equivalent? He won't know that his partner holds the Ace. His partner could hold the single K or only small cards. I don't think that this situation is equivalent to holding touching honors in your own hand. But knowing that he would never play A from A9 and sometimes Q from Q9 makes playing the K a little more attractive.

It may be safest, but the only the home of the brave can be the land of the free.

Interesting use of "appropriate". Since it is impossible to get more informations from bidding and playing the side suits, this problem is very restricted. It is a tiny bit better never to play the king. This is, because the 5% of the boards where RHO is void in ♠ can be excluded. So the average ♠ length for RHO is a little above 2. So the Queen is a little more often with RHO. RHO holding AQ9 is a little more likely due to this fact, but we would have seen the Q on the J than. Basically it would not matter much, if humans could decide this truly random. Playing the King based on subjective randomness, will lead to worse results most of the time.

To answer that question you need to know your situation. If you are the underdog the tactic will be different from that you choose being the superior team. If you are the superior team just play bridge. You will make an extra trick here or there being declarer and you will win an extra trick on defense, winning a (game) swing because your partners will bid or play better. If you are the underdog, take more (calculated) risks it is hard to compensate a game swing within 8 boards. So bid a little more aggressive (e.g. 44% games instead of 48% games) and defend a little more aggressive (imagine the best possible hand partner can have that will make opps go done, and play as if he has that until you know better). This tactic will make you loose higher than you would normally do most of the time, but it will allow you to win on rare lucky days. If you don't know your situation, assume you are superior.

My view is that the freedom of speech is limited by the dignity of our fellow human beings, their right to live and the right to the integrity of the person. I'm saying that the legal authorities have enough laws to enforce that. You told me that the US constitution puts the freedom of speech higher than the dignity of other human beings. I did not know that. I expected that UN members in some form had to accept the "United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights". I feel uncomfortable about this fact. And indeed if the laws fail to enforce basic human rights, I will have to get active myself and exercise my right of free speech to contradict such a statement.

It's not my view that is confused here. The European constitutions I'm familiar with guaranty the dignity of human beings and freedom of speech as constitutional rights. This way the freedom of speech does not allow degrading remarks. So back to your example, in Chicago I would have to practice free speech to contradict that view. Free speech is not easy.

My knowledge of us laws is not very good. Assuming you are right, that there are indeed no laws against racist remarks, he should not enter France or Germany (and I think several other European countries) or he will find that he's staying there much longer than he planed. But I bet he'd be welcome in Iran.

Fred here are 2 answers to questions you did not ask: During the closing ceremonies of the World Bridge Championships, may a player who is receiving his or her medal on the podium display a politically-oriented sign that is big enough for the audience to read? Yes, definitely yes! (As long as it's content is legal.) Would I fell the urge to display a political-oriented sign, if I happen to get a medal for anything. No. But I support the right to exercise free speech.

Since when have organizations the right to vote? Since when have organizations parents or other family members? I think that at least most bridge player are smart enough to distinguish between athlete and official spokesmen.

Actually your list is too big because the only item that matters is the last one. I was hoping that someone in the "some" camp would try this because once you say "signs that insult someone are not appropriate" you are saying "no signs are appropriate". There are people who would be insulted by any sign regardless of its contents. The point I am trying to make is this: For any definition of "some" one of the following will be true: 1) It will be the same as saying "none" 2) It will be the same as saying "all" 3) It will necessitate the creation of a sign approval committee Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com I'm sorry I was not clear enough, should have consulted a dictionary. I meant: deliberate insult, verbal slander or assault There are people who will be insulted even without a sign, just because don't like e.g. the color of your tie.

Google news has 0 hits for "venice cup", so I guess the scandal is unnoticed by the general public. If it were a scandal, the public might notice that there is a bridge championship at all...... Google finds 7 hits, one hit in a polish newsgroup, 2 on the site you quoted and 3 blog entries (probably from people reading this forum). What an impact. The latest scandal I followed, hat more than 10000 forum entries withing a weak in each major newspaper and television forum, not to mention several hundred newspaper articles.

I don't think that there is a biological reason and I wonder why females suggest that it is that way. I think it's more of an educational and statistical thing. Boys are educated to search for competition and participate in it. Girls are usually not educated that way. If you look at the male/female ration in your local club you will probably have a balanced ration. Then take a look at the subset who plays at regional events, you will probably find that the ratio changes. May women are not interested in playing outside of the club, even if they are competitive. As a result the pool of players that are interested in competitions contains much more men than women. Usually the number of top players grows with the pool from which they are selected. To form a strong pair you need two good player and they have to build up a lot of partnership experience. But the pool of female players is smaller. It's much harder for them to find a good female partner or if they don't live in the same area, they won't be able to play enough.

I would have liked to pick all signs, but I would exclude signs that: support illegal activities support violence are insulting someone (The list may not be complete.) Other than these normal limits of free speech, I have no problem with signs. If you voted for no signs, then I guess you are aware that wearing a necklace with a cross (clearly a religious sign) would not be allowed as well.

I think it's about the first formular in some applied math paper, not sure which one. Probably something about either evolutionary biology or analytical mechanics (since Hamilton was mentioned). You are right about evolutionary biology, with emphasis on evolutionary algorithms and the fitness function. Although Hamilton likes to operate in the Hilbert space, this is more about iterating topological loops.