[neilkaz]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-04, 12:14, said:

I still can't see the public comments.

No, I think I have heard enough. No comment from Jeff needed. I will take you at face value that it was done in a completely objective manner.

Did everyone vote 4♥? Or did some people (no names needed) vote 2♥ or 3♥ which, to me, is a very different animal?

And how many total people voted? I feel these are all very fair questions.

I am curious.

Thanks.

I think you need to vote publicly to "see all public answers".

[MrAce]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-04, 11:49, said:

Can you get Meckstroth to provide a comment because all I see is the poll question itself. I see no comments and no results.

Thanks.

Hi
As I said in my previous post, no, I will not bug him for this silly hand one more time.
This type of hands and trying to make a huge noise about these type of hands are not in the interest of any good player. I can start explaining you why, but it will take me tons of pages of typing and from your replies so far I do not think I am willing to do it free.
I will not call you troll or I will not go through your "MyHand" records. I do not think you are a troll (although I can understand why some think you are) and I do not give credit to BBO records even though I have an "OK" one. I disagree with almost everything you wrote so far but that is how forums work. As a player I tell my opinion and if the topic is interesting enough I may debate further, but this type of hands, as I said earlier, are not in the interest of many good players. The reason is, these type of hands and the outcome of this type of deals rely on MANY variables that in the long run none of them benefits as much as the benefits of preempting, especially when you hold a very long suit that is worthless in any other contract.

[MrAce]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-04, 12:14, said:

I still can't see the public comments.

No, I think I have heard enough. No comment from Jeff needed. I will take you at face value that it was done in a completely objective manner.

Did everyone vote 4♥? Or did some people (no names needed) vote 2♥ or 3♥ which, to me, is a very different animal?

And how many total people voted? I feel these are all very fair questions.

I am curious.

Thanks.

• Register to BW and you need to vote publicly in order to see others and who voted for what.
• No everyone did not vote for 4♥ but it is the majority vote so far. There are couple of 2 and 3 ♥ votes as well.
• So far 1 vote for 2h, 10 votes for 3h (3 very good players among them) 24 votes for pass (2 good players among them) 27 votes for 4h and many good players among them including Meckstroth and Diamond. Of course "good players" are my own opinion only.
• About the difference between 2 or 3 or 4H bidders. I agree that they are not same. If you read my first post here, my argument was against passing, although I voted for 4H.

[RedSpawn]

MrAce, on 2017-April-04, 12:25, said:

Hi
As I said in my previous post, no, I will not bug him for this silly hand one more time.
This type of hands and trying to make a huge noise about these type of hands are not in the interest of any good player. I can start explaining you why, but it will take me tons of pages of typing and from your replies so far I do not think I am willing to do it free.
I will not call you troll or I will not go through your "MyHand" records. I do not think you are a troll (although I can understand why some think you are) and I do not give credit to BBO records even though I have an "OK" one. I disagree with almost everything you wrote so far but that is how forums work. As a player I tell my opinion and if the topic is interesting enough I may debate further, but this type of hands, as I said earlier, are not in the interest of many good players. The reason is, these type of hands and the outcome of this type of deals rely on MANY variables that in the long run none of them benefits as much as the benefits of preempting, especially when you hold a very long suit that is worthless in any other contract.

No worries and thank you for the vote breakdown.

We have a right to disagree, that is what makes bridge great. Again, I could see a 2♥ or maybe a stretch to 3♥, but I just can't sign on board to a direct 4♥ open. And we were in the throes of heated discussion over 4♥, not 3♥ or 2♥.

2♥ is beyond a safe bet. You have 9 cards and 4 trump missing. Even if the trump does a remote 4-0-0 split unfavorably, you have 5 tricks plus an expectation of 2 tricks partner = 7 tricks versus a contract of 8 tricks.

Except for the errant poisoned dart throwing, the poll was fun.

[JonnyQuest]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-02, 13:36, said:

COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH REFERENCE TO REAL EXPERTS AND OPENING LIGHT ON HCP OR SUIT QUALITY: PLEASE SEE BELOW

Wait a minute, did a World Champion just say that he passes a lot more now when he has crap hands for 1-of-a-suit bids --- even when bridge is CLEARLY a bidder's game?

I think it's fair to say that if he presses PASS a lot more now when they have crap for 1-of-a-suit bid, I think the same rule would apply for a very poor suit quality weak 4 pre-emptive bid too.

Also, if he suggests the 1-of-a-suit bids in Standard needs to be sounder, what reasoning would he have to suggest that a preemptive bid needs to be less sounder than a normal preemptive bid (of the 1950's per se)? Walk-me through the logic of why 1 level needs to be sounder but ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING goes for a 4♥ opening bid in 2nd seat with both teams vulnerable.

It seems to me he is saying if you want Standard to work for you, whether preemptive bids or 1-of-a-suit-bids, the openings need to decent and sound.

So opening bids of "whatever I feel like bidding" doesn't seem to be on the menu for Standard.

Sounds truly truly outrageous, right?

That's a lot of "supposin'" and "wait a minutes" and "doesn't seem to be" and "he is saying" considering Meckstroth opens the [ab]"normal preemptive bid" 4♥.
I guess we can just chalk it up to different strokes for different folks, huh?

[RedSpawn]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-03, 07:43, said:

Come on!

What is the likelihood of your receiving 9♠, T98765432♥, Q3♦, 9♣ in the 1st place?

This is freakishly "MONSTER MASH" ugly.

JonnyQuest, on 2017-April-04, 07:31, said:

Now stop that. You can't bring math into the conversation. That's just unfair! Next you'll trot out logic.

[For clueless readers, the above is called sarcasm]

JonnyQuest, on 2017-April-04, 14:17, said:

That's a lot of "supposin'" and "wait a minutes" and "doesn't seem to be" and "he is saying" considering Meckstroth opens the [ab]"normal preemptive bid" 4♥.
I guess we can just chalk it up to different strokes for different folks, huh?

JonnyQuest, when you actually take your lips off of poisoned darts and respond to my posts, I might have a shred of respect for you.

You haven't responded about the nit-picking of semantics of "likelihood" versus "expected frequency" when everyone knows I was talking about the expected frequency and/or likelihood of getting a 9-2-1-1 hand shape versus other hand shapes.

No, RedSpawn, we honestly thought you meant the likelihood of getting that hand which is 1 / 635,013,559,600 and is the exact same chance as getting any other hand of any other shape which is 1 / 635,013,559,600.

So I have to go back and then say "expected frequency of getting a 9 card suit" which is one and the "expected frequency of getting a 9-2-1-1 shape hand" which is the other.

I then present the mathematical probabilities tables showing the expected frequency of the various hand patterns. The tables show that the expected frequency of getting 9-2-1-1 shape or 9-card or 8 card or 7 card suits is exponentially lower than the common 4-4-3-2 and 4-3-3-3 hand shapes.

No response from Vampyr or you. No, "that's crazy. That's absurd." Nothing. . . Interesting.

I don't hear anything because the mathematical table of expected frequencies of hand shapes doesn't serve your interests.

Ah!

You were never posting to have an intellectual discussion about bridge, you were posting for self-aggrandizement.

That's why you really don't do or say anything until Vampyr, MrAce, and others have done all of the real legwork for you.

So shady.



This is why I can respect and disagree with MrAce and Vampyr, but have to give you a side eye. How difficult it must be for you to sit in the background and not respond to any posts yet hurl nothing but insults and crafty witticisms at opportune moments.

It comes as no shock that you joined the poisoned dart bandwagon when you see the fruit of someone else's sweat equity (e.g. Bridgewinner voting poll conducted by Mr. Ace with input from Jeff and called in through a favor.)

Ding! So obvious.

[sfi]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-04, 08:35, said:

Should I have used the term expected frequency?

No - you should have paid attention to the rest of Vampyr's comment. To restate:

Vampyr, on 2017-April-03, 15:25, said:

but anyway there is no reason to suspect that the other hands will have unusual distribution. You have been told this already.

She is not talking about how improbable holding a 9 card suit is - you already hold that so the probability at this point is 1. She is commenting about your assertion that you should expect strange distributions simply because you have a 9 card suit. To provide just one quote of yours:

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-03, 07:43, said:

Normal rules do NOT apply to this board as distribution parameters have changed.

This is simply wrong - math still works. You still only have a 2.6% chance (assuming my back of the envelope calculation is correct) that the rest of the suit is 4-0-0 around the table, so worrying overly about it is just one reason your "magic" hand is not a real concern. Similarly, there is no real reason to assume everyone else holds an 8 card suit just because you do. The odds increase, but not by that much.

[RedSpawn]

Here was my original poorly worded question in quotes:

"What is the likelihood of your receiving 9♠, T98765432♥, Q3♦, 9♣ in the 1st place?"

The technical answer to this question is:

1 out of 635,013,559,600.

What is the likelihood of my receiving AKQJT98765432♥?

1 out of 635,013,559,600.

For each player, each hand you get has equal occurrence.

But that is not what I meant by this question.

The more pointed question is:

What is the expected frequency of getting a 9-2-1-1 hand pattern of total hands available?

Answer: 0.00018%

what is the expected frequency of getting a 9 card suit?

Answer: 0.0037%

What is the expected frequency of getting a 7 card suit?

Answer: 3.53%

What is the expected frequency of getting a 5 card suit?

Answer: 44.34%

Notice how the expected frequency is getting exponentially smaller as the suit pattern(s) requested gets larger?

sfi, on 2017-April-04, 16:08, said:

No - you should have paid attention to the rest of Vampyr's comment. To restate:



She is not talking about how improbable holding a 9 card suit is - you already hold that so the probability at this point is 1. She is commenting about your assertion that you should expect strange distributions simply because you have a 9 card suit. To provide just one quote of yours:



This is simply wrong - math still works. You still only have a 2.6% chance (assuming my back of the envelope calculation is correct) that the rest of the suit is 4-0-0 around the table, so worrying overly about it is just one reason your "magic" hand is not a real concern. Similarly, there is no real reason to assume everyone else holds an 8 card suit just because you do. The odds increase, but not by that much.

Please read the tables and start with acbl.

We are arguing over semantics.

"Among the 39 possible hand patterns, 5 hand patterns comprise 70 percent of the total possible hands." So the expected frequency for higher suit hand count shapes is lower!

Each hand I get has equal occurrence that is 1/635,013,559,600; however, the expected frequency of my getting a 9-2-1-1 hand shape is not the same as a 4-3-3-3 OR 4-4-3-2 or a 5 card suit or a 7 card suit or a 13 card suit.

There are only 4 combinations of a 13 card suit so the expected frequency of 13-0-0-0 must be lower than 9-2-1-1.

That is how math works with combinations!

Don't argue with me, argue with the expected frequency of the hand patterns shown in all of the tables below.

As I request for longer and longer suits patterns, the expected frequency of said hand pattern gets exponentially smaller until I request the grandaddy of them all the 13-0-0-0.

Each hand has equal occurrence of showing up in my position.

However, varying hand patterns do NOT have the same expected frequency in the population of total hands available.

http://web2.acbl.org...ernsrevised.pdf

http://www.durangobi...rSuitStats.html

https://en.wikipedia...e_probabilities

http://www.bridgehan...istribution.htm

http://www.bridgeguy...cal_tables.html

[RedSpawn]

sfi, on 2017-April-04, 16:08, said:

No - you should have paid attention to the rest of Vampyr's comment. To restate:



She is not talking about how improbable holding a 9 card suit is - you already hold that so the probability at this point is 1. She is commenting about your assertion that you should expect strange distributions simply because you have a 9 card suit. To provide just one quote of yours:



This is simply wrong - math still works. You still only have a 2.6% chance (assuming my back of the envelope calculation is correct) that the rest of the suit is 4-0-0 around the table, so worrying overly about it is just one reason your "magic" hand is not a real concern. Similarly, there is no real reason to assume everyone else holds an 8 card suit just because you do. The odds increase, but not by that much.

Actually it is closer to 10% and the probability gets larger if someone else on the board has an unmentioned 7 card or 8 card suit. Could get as large as 20%.

You could dismiss 20% and I am okay with that. I have seen larger occurrences dismissed.

[sfi]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-04, 16:51, said:

Actually it is closer to 10% and the probability gets larger if someone else on the board has an unmentioned 7 card or 8 card suit. Could get as large as 20%.

You could dismiss 20% and I am okay with that. I have seen larger occurrences dismissed.

10%? 20%? You might want to check your work.

Let's try some of this math stuff, shall we? It is simple enough.

There are four cards outstanding - the ace, king, queen, and jack. They can be in any of the other three hands and we want to know the chances that all four are in the same hand.

Start by putting the ace in one hand. There is a 100% chance it is in one hand (85% if the rabbit is at the table, but we'll ignore that possibility). That's one card located.

Now the king. There are 38 unknown places in the three hands, but only 12 in the same hand as the ace. So the chance one player (any of the three) holds both the ace and the king is exactly 12/38.

Assume those two are in the same hand (if not, we're done because we can't reach the outcome we want). How about the queen? Well, there are 37 unknown places left and only 11 in the hand holding the ace and the king. So the chance one person holds the AKQ is (12/38)*(11/37).

Finally, the jack. Following the same logic (sorry JonnyQuest, the word just snuck in), there are 10 places in the hand holding the other honours out of 36 total. Which gives us the total chance of any player holding all four honours (12/38)*(11/37)*(10/36).

Let's fire up our trusty calculator and see what that gives us... 2.6%


The 9 card suit in our hand doesn't affect this at all. Of course, RHO is unlikely to hold all four since they passed initially, but that's the only thing that does affect the odds here. Part of the time it is partner who holds the four honours, which isn't something we fear either.

[johnu]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-04, 16:51, said:

Actually it is closer to 10% and the probability gets larger if someone else on the board has an unmentioned 7 card or 8 card suit. Could get as large as 20%.

You could dismiss 20% and I am okay with that. I have seen larger occurrences dismissed.

sfi is correct that the odds of a 4-0-0 split of the remaining 4 cards is 2.6%
(actually 2.608% according to Borel & Choren, The Mathematical Theory of Bridge)

2-1-1 48.08%
3-1-0 27.122%
2-2-0 22.191%
4-0-0 2.608%

Also, 1/3 of the time, partner has the remaining 4 cards in the suit so you run into a 4-0 trump break only 1.739%. Are you just making up numbers? Nothing wrong with that, just post in the political forum.

[RedSpawn]

sfi, on 2017-April-04, 17:23, said:

10%? 20%? You might want to check your work.

Let's try some of this math stuff, shall we? It is simple enough.

There are four cards outstanding - the ace, king, queen, and jack. They can be in any of the other three hands and we want to know the chances that all four are in the same hand.

Start by putting the ace in one hand. There is a 100% chance it is in one hand (85% if the rabbit is at the table, but we'll ignore that possibility). That's one card located.

Now the king. There are 38 unknown places in the three hands, but only 12 in the same hand as the ace. So the chance one player (any of the three) holds both the ace and the king is exactly 12/38.

Assume those two are in the same hand (if not, we're done because we can't reach the outcome we want). How about the queen? Well, there are 37 unknown places left and only 11 in the hand holding the ace and the king. So the chance one person holds the AKQ is (12/38)*(11/37).

Finally, the jack. Following the same logic (sorry JonnyQuest, the word just snuck in), there are 10 places in the hand holding the other honours out of 36 total. Which gives us the total chance of any player holding all four honours (12/38)*(11/37)*(10/36).

Let's fire up our trusty calculator and see what that gives us... 2.6%


The 9 card suit in our hand doesn't affect this at all. Of course, RHO is unlikely to hold all four since they passed initially, but that's the only thing that does affect the odds here. Part of the time it is partner who holds the four honours, which isn't something we fear either.

When someone addresses post #106 and #108 regarding expected frequency of suit patterns versus probability of a hand, I will address this one.

Johnny you have been reading all of the posts and #106 and #108 has been up there well before you pounced on #110, which I expected.

Again, you and several others have never even addressed the tables and or figures in post #106 and #108.

One person has suggested I was asking, what is the probability of my having the hand I already have which is 1.00. Wow! Are we going there tonight?

I wonder why you skipped over postings #106 and #108. Are they grossly wrong. Are they just plain dumb? If so, where. Why isn't that one being attacked for it's rudimentary calculation of the probability of getting a certain hand? I am assuming you read them before #110.

JohnU and JonnyQuest both responded to post #110 before #106 or #108. Let the record show I even posted all of JonnyQuests posting in #106 but still got no response. Makes you wonder are they waiting for something. . .

[RedSpawn]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-04, 17:28, said:

[johnu]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-04, 17:28, said:

JohnU and JonnyQuest both responded to post #110 before #106 or #108. Let the record show I even posted all of JonnyQuests posting in #106 but still got no response. Makes you wonder are they waiting for something. . .

I didn't respond to #106 or #108 because I wasn't involved with those subthreads. I don't see any point in discussing what percentage of hands have a 9 card suit since it is irrevelant. By the way, you miscopied the answer for a 9 card suit. It should be .037% for any 9 card suit (or .0178% for 9-2-1-1). You have .0037% which moved the decimal place. As was mentioned by others, the OP specifies a 9 card suit so those are the conditions of the problem.

In any case, whether the chance of a 9 card suit is 3.7%, .37%, .037%, .0037%, .00037%, etc, the methodology for calculating the distribution of the other 4 cards among the remaining 3 hands doesn't change. 2.6% is correct, and your 10 or 20% is wrong.

[sfi]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-04, 17:28, said:

When someone addresses post #106 and #108 regarding expected frequency of suit patterns versus probability of a hand, I will address this one.

What johnu said.

You seem to be captivated by the idea that hands with 9 card suits are rarer than 4-4-3-2 hands, for example. Nobody is commenting on that because it is both obvious and irrelevant to the initial question.

The thing is, you already have this 9 card suit - the chance of you picking up one on this particular deal is 100%. The question is not how lucky you are to pick up one because it is really rare. The question is what you do with it.

[JonnyQuest]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-04, 17:28, said:

JohnU and JonnyQuest both responded to post #110 before #106 or #108. Let the record show I even posted all of JonnyQuests posting in #106 but still got no response. Makes you wonder are they waiting for something. . .

RedSpawn, your leap into the fray on this topic came in grand fashion. Your initial post (#34), included some pretty formatting, some obvious thought—and strong opinions--into what YOU believe to be a “must PASS” hand. However, you included some ridiculous hyperbole in an attempt to bolster your position. “Can you honestly justify taking out your partner's 4♠ overcall of a 2♣ open?” Really? Is this a serious question? Isn't this sort of like asking an innocent man "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Then, in your post (#38) you wrote, “Opening 4♥ with such obscene garbage is not bridge, it is Texas Hold Em Poker. It's not partnership bidding, it's guerrilla, "Highlander" bidding.” All of this followed by further pontificating. Intent on teaching us are you? This is not a recipe to endear oneself to the BBF. But maybe it's your style.

Then, in a vain attempt to show us your bona fides, in post (#39) you cite chapter and verse of your recent BBO glory, even closing it with a “Nice try. Better luck next time.” Really? Please don't say, "But he did it first!"

Now you attempt to double down (post #51) on your previous statements with, “COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH REFERENCE TO REAL EXPERTS AND OPENING LIGHT ON HCP OR SUIT QUALITY: PLEASE SEE BELOW” in citing Rainer Hermann’s post from several days before. You write, “It seems to me he [Meckstroth] is saying if you want Standard to work for you, whether preemptive bids or 1-of-a-suit-bids, the openings need to decent and sound.”
No, he did not say anything about preempts. Your conclusion (wild ass guess) is wrong.

But enough about your entry into the fray, let’s address mine. I responded to a post (#78) that sfi made. It was in response to your question, “[W]hy do you believe it [the law of averages] will help you avoid getting a 4-0-0 trump split.?” sfi wrote, “Because, well, math.” Easily the best post today!
My pithy response to his post was “Now stop that. You can't bring math into the conversation. That's just unfair! Next you'll trot out logic.
[For clueless readers, the above is called sarcasm]”

My post referred to the probability of a 4-0 trump split---AS DID YOURS! Was my remark intended as a “poisoned dart?” You bet. The pontificatng was becoming tiresome.

I then followed up with a link to Timo’s poll on BW. I had made the trip there myself, intending to post a poll, knowing full well I would get a few world class responses and many, many real expert opinions. However, I had the sense to check first to see if someone had beaten me to the punch. Timo had.

Your further attempts to educate by quoting “expected frequency” and “probability” percentages continued the “I AM TEACHING THESE POOR SOULS WHAT’S WHAT” theme. We’ve seen them before. We know how to find them. We can all spell G-O-O-G-L-E.
Now, in your post (#90) you quote my post, but respond to expected frequency probabilities of 9-2-1-1 splits and 13-0-0-0 splits. Why? It is unrelated to the question of whether a 4-0 trump split is affected by the law of averages.

Now . . . as far as “no response” from me. I work. I’ll leave it at that.

As to your statement, “you were posting for self-aggrandizement,” well, no. I was only adding a bit of levity--and yes it was snarky--to what I perceived to be a bit of grandstanding by a seemingly self-professed “knower of all things bridge related.”

Now--- in response to your post (#106), well, frankly RedSpawn, I don’t give a *&^% if you have a shred of respect for me. Why am I required to respond to your, “You haven't responded about the nit-picking of semantics of "likelihood" versus "expected frequency" screed when my post was NEVER regarding either of those topics. You are attempting to misdirect. Can you spell S-T-R-A-W-M-A-N?
Aaaah, but you were not finished. In your post (#112) you write, “JonnyQuest . . . responded to post #110 before #106 or #108.” That is a lie (this is easy to corroborate).

So, you go ahead and pass, safe in the knowledge that it is “not partnership bidding, it's guerrilla, "Highlander" bidding.” I would be more inclined to agree with, or contemplate the opinion of, someone who shed the know-it-all attitude.

[RedSpawn]

Obvious and irrelevant. So says you and your wrestling tag team homeboy.

Thanks for the "analysis" and feedback.

I am glad BBO deemed both of you the arbiter of all things relevant and sufficient for public consumption. I know why the numbers in 106 and 108 were left alone so far and the ones in 110 weren't. I know why you refuse to comment on them as vociferously as 110 but it has naught to do with relevancy. I am waiting for others to tell me that the statistics in 106 and 108 are categorically wrong and provide the correct ones. And for freaking sakes, I am not asking for the probability of the hand I already have which is 1.00.

You know full well that is not what I am asking. So to throw that answer in my face as an appeasement....is inadequate. The fact that john u and sfi once again appear as tag teamers is laughable and as official consignors of each other's narrative....predictable.

I don't see the analysis on 106 and 108 yet....hmmm. What I see is the same cavalier dismissiveness others have come to expect.

I eagerly await an analysis of 106 and 108 as detailed as 110. Thanks.

[RedSpawn]

.

[RedSpawn]

JonnyQuest, on 2017-April-04, 20:16, said:

RedSpawn, your leap into the fray on this topic came in grand fashion. Your initial post (#34), included some pretty formatting, some obvious thought—and strong opinions--into what YOU believe to be a “must PASS” hand. However, you included some ridiculous hyperbole in an attempt to bolster your position. “Can you honestly justify taking out your partner's 4♠ overcall of a 2♣ open?” Really? Is this a serious question? Isn't this sort of like asking an innocent man "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Then, in your post (#38) you wrote, “Opening 4♥ with such obscene garbage is not bridge, it is Texas Hold Em Poker. It's not partnership bidding, it's guerrilla, "Highlander" bidding.” All of this followed by further pontificating. Intent on teaching us are you? This is not a recipe to endear oneself to the BBF. But maybe it's your style.

Then, in a vain attempt to show us your bona fides, in post (#39) you cite chapter and verse of your recent BBO glory, even closing it with a “Nice try. Better luck next time.” Really? Please don't say, "But he did it first!"

Now you attempt to double down (post #51) on your previous statements with, “COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH REFERENCE TO REAL EXPERTS AND OPENING LIGHT ON HCP OR SUIT QUALITY: PLEASE SEE BELOW” in citing Rainer Hermann’s post from several days before. You write, “It seems to me he [Meckstroth] is saying if you want Standard to work for you, whether preemptive bids or 1-of-a-suit-bids, the openings need to decent and sound.”
No, he did not say anything about preempts. Your conclusion (wild ass guess) is wrong.

But enough about your entry into the fray, let’s address mine. I responded to a post (#78) that sfi made. It was in response to your question, “[W]hy do you believe it [the law of averages] will help you avoid getting a 4-0-0 trump split.?” sfi wrote, “Because, well, math.” Easily the best post today!
My pithy response to his post was “Now stop that. You can't bring math into the conversation. That's just unfair! Next you'll trot out logic.
[For clueless readers, the above is called sarcasm]”

My post referred to the probability of a 4-0 trump split---AS DID YOURS! Was my remark intended as a “poisoned dart?” You bet. The pontificatng was becoming tiresome.

I then followed up with a link to Timo’s poll on BW. I had made the trip there myself, intending to post a poll, knowing full well I would get a few world class responses and many, many real expert opinions. However, I had the sense to check first to see if someone had beaten me to the punch. Timo had.

Your further attempts to educate by quoting “expected frequency” and “probability” percentages continued the “I AM TEACHING THESE POOR SOULS WHAT’S WHAT” theme. We’ve seen them before. We know how to find them. We can all spell G-O-O-G-L-E.
Now, in your post (#90) you quote my post, but respond to expected frequency probabilities of 9-2-1-1 splits and 13-0-0-0 splits. Why? It is unrelated to the question of whether a 4-0 trump split is affected by the law of averages.

Now . . . as far as “no response” from me. I work. I’ll leave it at that.

As to your statement, “you were posting for self-aggrandizement,” well, no. I was only adding a bit of levity--and yes it was snarky--to what I perceived to be a bit of grandstanding by a seemingly self-professed “knower of all things bridge related.”

Now--- in response to your post (#106), well, frankly RedSpawn, I don’t give a *&^% if you have a shred of respect for me. Why am I required to respond to your, “You haven't responded about the nit-picking of semantics of "likelihood" versus "expected frequency" screed when my post was NEVER regarding either of those topics. You are attempting to misdirect. Can you spell S-T-R-A-W-M-A-N?
Aaaah, but you were not finished. In your post (#112) you write, “JonnyQuest . . . responded to post #110 before #106 or #108.” That is a lie (this is easy to corroborate).

So, you go ahead and pass, safe in the knowledge that it is “not partnership bidding, it's guerrilla, "Highlander" bidding.” I would be more inclined to agree with, or contemplate the opinion of, someone who shed the know-it-all attitude.

No analysis of 106 and 108. Hmmm.

[sfi]

eagles123, on 2017-April-04, 09:36, said:

PhilG was a much more enjoyable troll than this guy

Not sure about that. I don't remember being this amused from PhilG, but we're well past the point of no return from the nonsense of watching him be furiously upset that nobody is arguing his chosen "point".