semeai

This.

It makes sense that you'd want a system that does well on 16-20-ish hands in 4th seat, but that's true in any field. In a weak field the gain from playing a different system that is good on these hands would presumably be lower (and possibly negative) unless you believe the system is great at getting weak opponents to make unforced errors. In that case, though, you'd want to play it in any seat against a weak field. Maybe instead play 2/1 but add gazzilli and/or other conventions that help out the 16-20 hands in 4th seat if you don't play them generally

Not sure. Maybe GreenMan mistook one for the other. Or maybe he's just a fan of the economist. It seems like wikipedia might have to swap the naming for the pages, giving precedence to the nobel prize winner now for the name-without-a-middle-initial privilege.

Nope. See the wikipedia page for our Al Roth.

Maybe try paring down the word count and resubmitting it. It's pretty long for a letter to the editor. You could look at how long the (longest of the) letters to the editor usually are and shoot for that.

Here's a dictionary suggesting "second bite at the cherry" is British, so perhaps that's the distinction.

Two points: 1) The phrase is more commonly second bite at the apple 2) I prefer "second bites at the apple" if it's the same (metaphorical or not) apple. I can have my second bite and you can have your second bite at the same (metaphorical or not) apple.

Unlike that situation, in bridge there is no one correct way to bid. If you're teaching beginners and they can't handle the conventions you introduce, it's always an option to go back to how they played before you introduced the convention.

Some possibilities: Solution 1: Allow them to play this way. Solution 2: Introduce concepts at a slower rate to them. Also, make sure they understand why this is a better way to play. If they are resistant or can't understand why, consider Solution 1. Solution 3: Laugh, say, "I bet next time you'll both remember," and carry on as you have been.

This probability of his already takes into account the uncertainty due to the time until the election, so the same number is less impressive the closer to the election you get. What should impress is his "now-cast" of Obama having a 97.8% chance of victory if the election were held today.

The 5M and secondary club fit hands can bid 2♦ if the auction 2♣-2♦;2M shows 3. If partner doesn't show 3 of your major you can then bid 3♣ if you're just invitational. [You can still have 2M by opener show 3 even if you allow 4M-5C hands in your 2C bid. See e.g. the Fantunes structure I linked above.]

Here's the paper.

What is marmic? For converting to Swedish Club, 1C = 17+ or 11-13 bal or 11-13 some [or any] 4441 patterns seems fine. I agree with gwnn that not even 11-13 hands with 5 card majors should not be in the 1C opener, if marmic means 5431 patterns or something. If marmic means just 4441 patterns, then it seems okay. Added: It seems that maybe marmic = 4441 or 5440 after using a bit more google-fu than previously. If so, I'd separate the 5440's off from the 4441's and just have (bal or some 4441's) be grouped together.

There's a difference between free practice of science and the regulations one places on corporations that are involved with science for profit and are bringing a product to market. That said, being opposed to GMO in theory seems crazy. Being opposed to specific implementations or uses and/or requiring extensive testing before a product comes to market need not be crazy. What the scientists in the video were saying (as opposed to what the producers of the video were implying) hewed toward the latter. I agree, the way the video was put together was somewhat off-putting.

Aye aye.

Not crazy, but it seems that the only extra you're getting is that you have that "we're missing the Queen but maybe it's still okay" LTTC in one specific case (2 keycards no queen). Other than optimizing what holding exactly gets to have the LTTC bid, isn't this just about equivalent to something extremely close to standard: 5S: 2 with queen 5H: 2 without queen 5D: 0/3 5C: 1/4 Over 5D, 5H is the queen ask. Over 5C, 5D is the queen ask. Then 5H = no queen, but some useful holding anyway (or whatever) [instead of showing ♥K+♠Q], 5S = no queen and no useful holding, 5N+ = yes queen And on top of that we still have 5H over 5C free (for "I need the queen and a useful holding" if you like, or some more normal bid that guarantees all keycards). Shuffling the bids around differently may make the 5H over 5C bid more useful. [The place you lost this extra bid is that the standard approach assumes that everyone will know based on the auction whether 3 keycards a holding that can possibly stop below slam.]

A decision tree to summarize: 1) It really doesn't much matter, so just sit down randomly and skip to step 6. 2) If anyone just doesn't like being at the table with one of the opposing players, seat so these players don't meet. (Likewise, if one of their players is made uncomfortable by one of yours but not the reverse, I guess you're supposed to seat so they do meet if you're being cutthroat.) 3) If your better pair is more active than their better pair, seat your better pair against their worse pair. If their better pair is more active, seat your better pair against their better pair. 4) If pairs are similarly active, then decide based on relative strength. If you have an edge in that your better pair is generally better than their better pair and your worse pair is generally better than their worse pair, have your better/worse pair in the same seats as their better/worse pair, respectively. That is, have your better pair sit at the same table as their worse pair; that way you theoretically have an edge on each decision made at the two tables. If it's the reverse and their pairs generally have the edge, seat the opposite way, with your better pair facing their better pair. 5) If you still haven't found a reason, just go by whatever setup makes everybody feel happiest. 6) Play bridge!

A nice standard structure, from here, based on Rigal's "Precision in the '90s": You can of course relay over some (but not all) of the rebids after 2C-2D if you like. You can also use the Fantunes response structure or something like it (their 2C is pretty similar: unbal 5+♣, 10-13, no 5422), see here (search for "2C Opening"). Theirs is a bit better at finding 5-3 major suit fits. Basically, 2C-2D;2M is 3+ cards, and they find out about 4 card majors with further relays.

It looks like a fun website. You may have outgrown it if you have notes on how to bid over Michaels, though. Your 3♥ bid looks fine. My guess is that the authors of the website just didn't program in the 3♥ bid over Michaels.

For some at least, recording a game breaks concentration, and hence makes the player a bit weaker. Compare three methods: 1) Having a friend record the game for you. 2) Recording by tapping/clicking out the moves on a screen. 3) Recording on paper by converting to algebraic notation. Converting to algebraic notation in (3) requires more thought than just visually making the move on a screen in (2) and thus likely requires more of a break in concentration. For some I imagine the difference in strength is substantial.

Thanks. I didn't mean to come off so harsh. The study you meant to link looks well done and the conclusions are fairly stark. They're from data at the Air Force Academy, where they were able to randomize which professor each student got, ensure that the students took follow-on courses, and had consistent grading. The same sorts of things (and many others) are tracked in the paper you originally linked, at some other university. There the conclusions are all pretty mild it seems. None of the effects of perceived qualities of the professor (perceived by the students) on performance in subsequent courses were significant except for perceived easiness, which was negatively correlated. (They tracked perceived hotness as well, among others!) I'm not sure what all this means. Could we look at teacher performance in terms of how the students do in subsequent years? This sounds exploitable (campaigning for your previous students to your colleagues), but so does everything else.

Of course it happens in real life. A common one is for a player not to split honors when it can't hurt to do so. Simple example: Dummy: K10xx QJxx .............. Axx Declarer: xx Not splitting as West is really bad,* but it happens. You'll almost never be called on it. I recall this one in particular because a while ago when I was starting out I failed to split in this situation. Declarer then sat there staring at me, apparently having picked up some tell. He even said something like "did you just fail to split"? He eventually went with the K, but it was quite memorable. * Assume it's some trump contract and it's clear that declarer can't get or won't ever need a second trick in this suit.

Your quote is not from the paper you link, which furthermore does not have the conclusions you suggest. Furthermore, the authors are from U of Toronto. The closest they come is that perceived easiness of a professor is negatively correlated with student performance in subsequent courses in the same subject area. The quote is instead from this paper by someone from from UC Davis and someone from the US Air Force Academy, which does have the results you summarize. Namely, student evaluations are positively correlated with student performance in the current course the students are taking, but negatively correlated with student performance in a subsequent course in the same subject area. No comment on the conclusions of the second paper, I was just thoroughly confused when trying to find the results you suggested in the data from the first paper.

It does sound like it can't be that hard. That said, it sounds like maybe the kid just had Fritz running and wasn't using the game record program and nobody noticed earlier.

The program is apparently approved only because you can't change programs while using it. You need to enter a result for the game to quit the program. I don't know all the details, but see here, in particular the USCF Approval link down at the bottom.