WellSpyder

The other reason why I don't worry about this too much is that even though I play at a reasonably serious level, I just don't believe the gains from cheating are generally enough to offset the costs. So, for example, for a recent league match we were offered the opportunity to use pre-dealt boards, even though the traditional approach is for boards to be dealt at the table. Using pre-dealt boards offers the home team increased opportunities for cheating, but on the other hand players like the opportunity to have hand records they can study afterwards. In this sort of situation, my belief is that people are playing the game to enjoy themselves. I just can't envisage people wanting to devote a whole evening to playing a game that they have already rendered pointless by fixing the deals or looking at the hands, or whatever. So accepting the offer to pre-deal the boards is a no-brainer in my mind. Obviously the perceived gains can be higher at international level, but I still believe most people will not want to devote a substantial part of their lives to living a lie...

A serious question, I think. But one thing that suggests this may not be as serious an issue as you assume is the number of comments that have been put forward indicating that this pair have been under suspicion by fellow players for several years. I don't see any suggestion that either the signal or the code in use were detected earlier, so these suspicions were not a result of the things you describe as stupid, but presumably the result of a number of unusual, but unexpectedly successful, actions. I wonder whether those who made such comments about this pair could say how many other pairs they are aware of in the current international bridge scene who were/are subject to the same suspicions? (obviously without naming names!)

LOL - we play those, too.

Agreed. But if you finesse when East has one of the former holdings you are down immediately, while if you play for the drop when East has one of the latter holdings you may still make it on a squeeze, as demonstrated by Cyberyeti, for example, above. Too complicated for me to work out the odds.....

it looks from Giangibar's examples as if they can be abused when the suits are known, too, since the very first hand given doesn't appear to match the published agreement.

Can't East have ♦10xx? You also may struggle to know who has 4 hearts and who has 2 if West returns an immediate diamond after winning K.

How confident are you about that? The thing that has always worried me about prevention is that is impossible. Whatever measures we take, they are never going to prevent CO2 concentrations rising. (As I pointed out a few posts back, even if the UK eliminated ALL net emissions, it would still only delay the inevitable by two years.) So adaption is, and always was, going to be required (as has always been the case in the past, too, as the climate has changed). Obviously that doesn't mean that there is no point in some measures to reduce emissions alongside some adaption, but putting all the focus on the former has diminished the credibility of climate change activists in my opinion.

That is indeed a reasonable question to consider. But you said earlier that you wanted to adjust on the basis of North passing the 3NT bid, which is a completely different, and in my view irrelevant, issue.

I wonder whether he makes a habit of saying this? I have always remembered the exact same comment he made to his client when playing against me many years ago. I wasn't complaining since both 5H and 5S had no chance....

Sounds like a good illustration of the scientific method, as well explained by previous contributors to this thread. When was the last time a follower of the religious "method" suggested abandoning a religious theory on the grounds that evidence had not been found to support it?

Sure, I'm happy to do that. But how is that relevant to North's decision to bid on over 3N? Surely you can't be suggesting that he should take South's word for what 3N shows (even supposing he happens to have heard South's word at the point at which he has to make a decision)?

Extraordinary! I thought maybe you had a different idea of the origins of the universe and the earth. But if we accept the statements you have made here then you have just proved the BBT since I think we are all agreed that we do indeed have an earth.

I don't see how you can justify this when north had no UI so was entitled to bid whatever he wanted to. As to why he decided to treat 3N as RKCB despite not having any such agreement over a minor, perhaps it was because he couldn't think what else 3N could be intended to mean? (Not strictly relevant, but the OP made me realise that I don't think I have any real agreement about what 3N means in response to a Precision 1♦ - we just don't use the bid in practice.)

Hey, I thought we were having an argument :). Mutter, mutter.....

3NT wimpish? It is far more speculative than, say, 6♦! There is a reason why 3NT didn't even appear on Nigel's marking list - there is no particular reason to think you can make it, while 5♦at least must be more or less laydown. How many tricks will the hand make if partner has, say, ♦KQJ10xxx and no other useful cards?

I'm not aware of anyone actually suggesting it, and I don't think it is a serious suggestion. In that sense it is indeed a straw man - though I think it does nevertheless serve a useful purpose in illustrating what might or might not be achievable. Although no-one has suggested closing down the UK, we are nevertheless altering significant areas of the countryside by covering them with solar panels or wind turbines, including areas designated as being of "outstanding natural beauty", in the interests of cutting carbon emissions, even though the total impact of all this action might be to delay global warming by less than two hours. This is probably the only comment you have made since I joined in this discussion with which I completely disagree, but I'm not sure that is very significant for any other part of the discussion. Good question! Perhaps because it is pretty tough to decide what should be done! But I am an economist by training and by profession, and I think if there are wider negative impacts from greenhouse gas emissions then the best way of achieving some sort of proportionality between different actions taken is to find mechanisms for putting a cost on those emissions, ie a carbon tax in some form or other. To be useful, this would have to cover as high a proportion of emissions as possible, otherwise untaxed emissions may simply replace taxed ones. I think it is very hard to know at what level such a tax should be set at the moment, but I am happy with the idea that the balance of evidence suggests a positive cost of emissions and therefore a positive tax should be set. If we discover in 50 years time that non-manmade climate change is actually moving towards the next ice age and the risk is that the world will get too cold rather than too hot we can always switch to a negative carbon tax.....

Are you two still playing together? :) FWIW, I'm with Phil on this one, though I can easily see it having the result wank suggests.

Yes, changes in climate will produce changes in weather. But the weather is always changing, and not all changes are a result of changes in climate. I agree to a certain extent, but this is a rather one-sided way of looking at things. You could make the same argument about any change. Might it even be irresponsible to spend large amounts of resources that could otherwise be used for reducing poverty/malnutrition/ill-heath or whatever on reducing CO2 emissions when you don't know what the result of those reductions will be? Looking at it another way, if we reduced the UK's CO2 emissions to zero by closing down the economy completely and offsetting all remaining emissions from humans and other animals, two years' growth in China would be enough to outweigh the impact on global CO2. If humanity is heading for a global warming catastrophe at some point in the future, is it really worth the complete destruction of the UK for that to happen two years later than it would otherwise have done? Somewhere there has to be a notion of balancing the costs and benefits of taking different actions on climate change.

Fine by me. But this bothers me a bit. How many of the events listed would you describe as climate events? They pretty much all look like weather events to me, not climate events - though I notice the WME also uses the term climate events, not just you. It is one thing to agree that global warming is happening. It is quite another to say that exceptional weather events are all a result of global warming. I don't regard myself as in any way a global warming sceptic, but I do find myself worrying about a number of doubtful propositions that seem to find their way either explicitly or more often implicitly into statements from people or organisations pushing an active approach to reducing man-made CO2 emissions.

It feels to me like this should actually be the key consideration, but it appears to be excluded by the WBLF minutes. So which club would actually be led without seeing the penalty card? I think it depends on the bidding and the rest of opening leader's hand whether he would normally lead a high club and hope for another trick somewhere or would normally lead a low club because the diamond ruff was the only realistic chance for a second trick. Similarly, if the opening leader has KQJx, it feels to me that you are entitled to know partner has to play A IF HE HAS IT, but not that he actually has it. So if you know you need 4 club tricks, it is probably right to lead low rather than to crash 2 honours on the same trick. But if you are just choosing the lead because it is a good combination of both a relatively safe and an attacking lead, then it feels wrong to be allowed to lead the low one.

Not sure what is standard, but I would expect this to be forcing if undiscussed.

What strikes me about the passage you quote is what it doesn't say, rather than what it does. "climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk" - Indeed, and presumably that applies just as much to non-manmade climate change as to manmade climate change? "human-caused climate change is real" - OK. I'm not sure that is seriously in dispute, is it? "while the public is becoming aware that climate change is increasing the likelihood of certain local disasters, many people do not yet understand that there is a small, but real chance of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts on people in the United States and around the world." - OK, I guess, though presumably climate change is reducing the likelihood of certain other local disasters, too. But nowhere does it say that it is manmade climate change rather than other climate change that is increasing the likelihood of certain local disasters. And nowhere does it recognise that climate change is inevitable anyway, even if we can have some impact at the margin on the manmade component of it.

Might make an interesting variant for a bridge party, though...

One of my partners makes a habit before leading of always asking "my lead?". Since we play in England where the bidding cards are usually left on the table until the opening lead is made, I often feel like telling him to look at the auction and see whether it is his lead or not. Usually, though, I say nothing at all (I don't want anyone to think I am giving him UI!) and leave it to oppo to reply if they feel like it.

Except that even when there is an infraction you only adjust if there is damage. Since the NOS scored -300 they were not damaged by any action that resulted in them not scoring -600.