Flem72

Please let me hijack this question! I'm trying to set up constrained deals in a two-person bidding room. A helpful guy named Boyan sent me these instructions, which I will parse into steps: 1. Hello, Click on Practice > start a teaching table or a bidding table 2. Then click on the triple bars (≡) and go to Deal source > random deals. 3. Now click on the + sign in Constraint Sets Select who will be the dealer and the total HCP for N/S (e.i. Min 28 - Max 36) 4. You can also define the distribution , clicking on Constraints and assign for South min 11 pts max 28 HCP and number of cards in spades, hearts, etc 5. Then click on Constraint 2 and select North Min 8 pts max 12 pts - number of spades, hearts, etc min 2 max 2 Now close the Deal Source pop-up and click on Redeal . I perform these steps and get many many hands that do not fit the constraints, few that do. Ergo, I assume dreaded User Error. Step by step: 3. "select who will be the dealer": Does this mean you can restrict the dealer to one seat -- uncheck all but one -- and establish a HCP range for that pair? or does it mean that whenever a partiicular seat deals NS will hold that HCP range? 4. Does this eman that I should close the #3' window' and go back to click the + sign by "constraints"? Or that I can and should use this opportunity to set suit length and HCP ranges by clicking "constraints" within the #3 'window'? 5. Same question: Is "Constraint 2" located in the main "Deal Source" 'window' ie I need to click on the + sign to generate a new Constraint? Somewhere I'm getting the progression wrong b/c deals do not at all match what constraints I think I've set. When all is said and done, should there be only one "Constraint" set in the Deal Source 'window' containing N dist and HCP, S dist and HCP, dealer on all boards and dealer's pair HCP range? or is each of these a sepererate constraint, so that there should be two? or three? "Constraints" appearing in the Deal Source 'window'? Any help greatly appreciated.

If it interests anyone, I have a structure taking what seems to be the best alternatives from Pavlicek and Woolsey who have both favored 5cdM Stayman for a very long time. Message me, and we'll get it together.

Playing NegXs and Transfer Leb, we use the 3-level direct cue as shortness, usually 5-4+ in minors, SI.

Defensive bids above 3N: 1♠-pass-4♦(splinter)-X (asking for ♥ lead)

IMHO, when it goes 1N-P-P to you, and the opps know what they are doing, you are better off passing. With < 6, responder is already running and with 11ish, s/he is bidding. Why get into an auction at the 2 level when opps hold, on balance 20+HCP? That said, it seems that most who allow a balancing double reduce the HCP requirement to about a K less than the direct seat requirement.

Your advancing structure MUST vary depending upon the WNTers systems after a X. For an authoritative discussion, see http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/taming-the-weak-notrump-part-1/ and Part 2 a week later.

Your ranges work out mo' bettuh when your opening 1N is 14-16/17

Re: Wittes' position What do you think about RBG and her public statements? Kagan's emails on the ACA? I hope you'd agree that both should either resign or recuse on a bunch of cases?

Elaborate? what "actions"?

Feel free to show where that claim was made. I listened to her NBC interview and can remember no reference to Quaaludes; jeez, it was nearly impossible to get them after the mid-'70s.

If I have time and inclination, I'd like to look at the K transcripts to see exactly what was asked and answered. OTOH, I rarely can gather the energy to distill all of the innuendo down to what is actually confirmed or likely. Perhaps some of the more virulent anti-K posters (some have posted what appear to be this kind of thing) would care to do some actual factual investigation? I mean, since we've gone from gang rape parties to 'I saw him at the punch bowl handing out red cups to girls....'

@hrothgar "need to be more specific." Yes, you do. All of this stuff about the summer texts was covered in the judiciary committee interviews. You can even read the transcripts. Imagine that. "i've seeing plenty of attempts at slut shaming, but nothing that addresses the core of her claims." What in the core of her claims does not require proving a negative? Come to think of it, what allegations constitute the core of her claims? You're going with Avenatti? Seriously?

@PassedOut: "What a guy."@Winstonn: You know, I really don't care so much what a college guy did during drunken frat weekends - what I do mind is that he hasn't changed - we don't need a smart-ass drunken frat boy SC justice. You both seem very certain of the conclusion that K is the same person now that he was in high school. Is it fair to conclude that you folks are the same persons now that you were in high school? I would rather have had Barrett, Eid or Thapar in any case: K was a priori too much of a Yalie for me from the get-go. I think K was a serious twit, an immature prep school and Yalie jerk. He's also a top rank jurist, and there is nothing in any of this about his adult life--30-35 years after the "fact."

Keep checking the updates on the story.

@Winstonn: I await the evidence supporting your allegations. @barmar: Ditto, and I would've said that any person who cares about the role of English common law and the Constitution in the construction of our political discourse/process, who would not become angry at the blatant political hatchet job directed at him/her and his/her family and at destruction of his/her entire adult life-- which, one might note, has harmed Dr. Ford as well -- has not a shred of the kind of human understanding and fiber that one expects from a judge. Even an appellate judge, whose decisions are 98% relatively rarefied and far removed from the spit, crap and evil of a criminal trial court. "Sexual predator" seems a stretch. Ask a survivor of criminal rape whether his/her assailant displayed any emotional behavior other than cold, power-driven intent.

I just want to talk to the person who drove Dr. Ford home -- a 20 minute drive -- from the party. Can't be identified? Won't come forward? One of the FACTS that buttressed Juanita Broderick's allegations against Bill Clinton was that several people encountered her immediately after the event and were able to speak about her disheveled condition and distraught emotional state. What happened to the two guys who contacted the WaPo saying they were the two who jumped Dr. Ford? Hoax? As usual, we cannot have the discussion we should be having: Should teen age mistakes in the context of an exemplary legal and personal life -- one might say redemption in action -- bar someone from SCOTUS?

No reasonable East would pass 2♣. No reasonable West would pass 2♠ after 2♣. No reasonable West would not bid 3/4♥ after partner's 2♠. IMHO this layout has more to do with two voids than it does with 2/1 structures.

Recovering responder's strong jump shift is an excellent, and often overlooked, reason to play XYZ.

Weak Reverse Flannery.

TY, useful information. I'm trying to get a copy......

Folk:I'm looking for a copy of a May, 2007 The Bridge World article that deals with how to unwind stoppers after, for example, 1♦-1M/3♦. Sorry, don't know the author. Anyone? Regards and Happy Trails, Scott Needham Boulder, Colorado, USA

D1P2 by steps, or "elements"

I believe that most who play RFR use this sequence as a "3rd Suit GF." The call is artificial and number of H is irrelevant.

I agree with Phil. The 1m-1S/1N-2H auction is reserved for 5-4+ hands that couldn't stand to pass 1m, 0-5ish. The auction is definitely POC. Over 1m-1S/2m and 1D-1S/2C, the weakest hands (couldn't bid 2H at first response) just preference. And the use of responder's rebid of the other major as GF in 1m-1M/2m, 2om-2OM is a beautiful thing. These structures are at least as valuable when they don't come up as when they do. I had one partner who fell in love with the 0-5 HCP, 5-5s, and wanted to add them in to 1m-2H. This is not bad -- gains at mps seemed incontrovertible after looking a hundreds of random layouts -- but he wanted to do it without a checkback for the 0-5s. This was a huge loser opposite the balanced 18-19s, and big hands with both majors, and a disaster at both IMPs and mps.

Ummmm, what hand are we evaluating?