shankle>> It's not that I am not interested but most of these explanations are way out of my purview.

I'm particularly useful for vague "intelligent layman"-type questions. When I said I could answer any question "you" had, I meant you specifically - not an expert. 45 years ago I was Ok with advanced math questions also, but it's been a long time since I could pass my orals. This is your opportunity to ask the type of question which "real" experts sneer at. They're usually lousy at explaining things to laymen, because they don't really understand it. They just learned to manipulate the equations and solve them by rote - like me, 45 years ago.

shankle>> The comment about the Bridge percentage is not correct. Bridge experts(not me) have decided that the 3/2 split will occur 66% of the time. 1/4 or 5.0 is rare.

This is a simple application of binomial theorem - Pascal's triangle. The number of ways to make the possible distributions are 1, 5, 10, 10, 5, 1 (you probably recognize that sequence). So chance of 3-2 is 20/32 = 5/8 = **62.5%**; 4-1 = 5/16, 5-0 = 1/16.

I guess it's possible, nevertheless, that @jimg is right. Maybe *in practice* it often comes out 1-4. Here's a possible explanation. That split is better for your opponents than 3/2, obviously. The guy holding 4 spades is more likely to let you have your spades. Thus in practice - when you actually play it out - wouldn't be surprised if your opponents are split 1-4, more often than one would suppose from the stats.

shankle>> I reference to what Nan said "spinning coins in opposite directions". Would spinning them in the same direction make any difference?

The coins are only an analogy or illustration of spins entangled opposite (Bell state psi+, or psi-). Spinning them in opposite directions, or not, doesn't matter. I didn't say anything about it, some misunderstanding there. BTW I'm not "Nan", but rrr314159 - NaN means "Not a Number", the tag line is a reference to "The Prisoner" with Patrick McGoohan :-)

@FORTRANS, there's some confusion here. @shankle is talking about opposite "spin" directions, or not, in the *coin* analogy. You're talking about opposite spins, or not, in actual QM experiment.

You're right, most QM experiments and gedankens use spin-0 decay to generate two fermions with opposite spins, +-1/2 hbar; or photons with opposite polarizations. But it's very easy to consider spins in the same direction. For one thing a photon of energy >= 1.022 MeV can produce electron-positron each with positive spin 1/2 (or, both negative). But the easiest way is to simply invert one detector 180 degrees! May seem like cheating but it's perfectly legitimate. In this way we can talk about the Bell state phi+ (or psi-, entangled spins in same direction) instead which is simpler conceptually. Also of course with a quantum computer we can create any Bell state as easily as another.