You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As for the bridge hand, I am guessing the idea is whether to finesse C first to decide whether to make the safety play in trumps against W, or to play A of trump and then try to endplay E if he has K doubleton. Without worrying about E ruffing before you can strip the red suits if you choose the endplay line, it seems that is twice as likely as the finesse C first line.

I don't see the relation between the bridge hand and the football question, but then I am probably totally off about the bridge hand.
Aug. 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The one thing missing in article is that it assumes the winning % in overtime for the team behind is 50%. Since they basically took the 2 point conversion to be 50%, then the critical overtime % is 67%, as I wrote in the earlier post. So indeed in their analysis the Cowboys should have gone for broke. Because of the huge advantage of winning the coin toss in overtime according to Tom Townsend, you need to be really significantly better to get to 67%, but it is not impossible (e.g. the opposition's QB has just got injured). Ironically, Cowboys won the coin toss and still lost.
Aug. 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The coin toss % is included in the consideration of the winning % in overtime. However, note that the smaller the overtime winning % is, the more one should go for the win in regulation by going for 2 now.
Aug. 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No matter what the % of 2 point conversion is, it depends on your chance of winning in overtime to decide on whether you go for 2.
Aug. 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You need to decide if your objective is to win in regulation or to tie. Let's say you have y % chance on winning if it goes to overtime. Then by kicking now and kicking again (you assume you will score another TD, otherwise it is irrelevant what you do now), you have a y % chance of winning. If you go for 2 (taking Danny's 50% conversion, which is high probably, but I don't know much about football), your chance of winning is 50 + 25y/100. If that is less than y, you play safe and kick. If it is greater, go for 2 now. The critical value is ~67%.
Aug. 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For sure when someone prone to confusing apples with oranges indulges in what she thinks is sarcasm, it takes kindred spirits to realize it. I am not one of them unfortunately.

Anyway, it was dumb of me to post in this thread, and I will not be reading this thread nor posting in it as of this moment. Sayonara.
Aug. 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are so right. To lump all muslim majority countries together is itself a racism. But of course to the few people here who just want to call everybody else anti-semitic, they are blind to that.

It is sad. Bali is an idyllic place to have a international bridge tournament. Only a couple of weeks ago, the USA teams were posting how much they look forward to going there. Then come a few people who are loud and eager to call everybody else anti-semitic, and now if people go, they are considered insensitive to the holocaust.
Aug. 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mrs. Wolff, you are confusing jewish with Israel. You doubt US tax dollar is going to Israel? Are you for real?
Aug. 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right. Sorry I got confused. Thanks.
Aug. 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does it matter that this is BAM? If this is MP, and you use the info from the unshuffled cards, you take advantage of many pairs who have nothing to do with the carelessness. That is clearly wrong. But here you are only punishing the team that was negligent. What if LHOs at your table shows you he has the Q as you were deciding to finesse RHO? Do you have a duty to ignore it and finesse the way you decided?
Aug. 2, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How they play in 6 has no relevance to how you play. If they bid and make 6, you lose the board. If they go down, you win the board. Your play is only relevant to if they are in 4 or 5.
Aug. 2, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
N opened 2H thinking it was weak 2. N cannot take S's alert to wake her up that they are playing flannery. Therefore she must continue to bid as if she has opened weak 2 and bid as if partner is responding to her weak 2.
July 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As far as I know, Mr. Jacobs did not make his statement on this site. And yes, if you are president of an organization, you do have additional responsibility that a random person (like me) does not have in what you say publicly. His statement was quoted by Hanan Sher as “facts” in fact.
July 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually I care, because as president of USBF, anything he says de facto represents the position of USBF. When you are president, and you issue public statement on something related to your organization, you cannot claim you are speaking as an individual. IMO, it was a big mistake on his part.
July 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not going to go into the Indonesia-Israel issue. The only obvious thing to me is that if Israel told China they have to tell them about security details, any response by China other than “ We thank you for your concern” or “Send us what you need, and we'll do what we can” will be very surprising to me. Seriously, if you reveal security details for one event, you are revealing to for many events; and if you reveal it to one country, you are revealing it to many countries.

Did China answer to security details concerns of individual country in previous international events? Or did they just answer to the governing body of the event?
July 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So now China is going to reveal security details to Israel? Fat chance.
July 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming 2 confirmed ,
3 - competitive, probably unlikely to be 8 over 8.
X - BOP, which is kind of equivalent to maximal overcall X.
These are consistent with other situations where both sides have found fits.
July 22, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would think 3 over 1 shows 4 and 6 invitational hand. 4 would be splinter.
July 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why? 1.5 billion people, many of whom are interested in bridge. Even soccer federation realized the game cannot survive in europe and S. America alone.
July 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, beat instead of bid of course.
May 12, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top