Cthulhu D

That one is pretty glorious yeah. Maybe someone should make him a stamp with CONVENTION DISRUPTION!! and that would cut down the time he needs to spend on it even further. The first one is pretty good too - Jeff Goldsmith points out that there has been a fundamental failure by the committee to gather the information to create a ruling, one of the other panelist agrees and Wolffs commentry on the substance of the matters is 'well reasoned decision'

It's best to work out cases where an option gains or loses - and yeah, I think that makes the tradeoff something like 1430 is superior when hearts are trumps and you need to find out about the queen, and 0314 is better when clubs are trumps, you cannot tolerate an answer of zero key cards from partner, and you have no other way to find things out.

Isn't this a straight up argument for matchmaking? Shouldn't BBO automatically find the guy a suitable skill level partner if he wants the game to find him a partner of a suitable skill level? Edit: Related note, someone tell me how to find a decent partner! I promise not to complain about matchmaking.

Is this the thing where 3NT is takeout and X is a balanced NT hand? That doesn't seem completely retarded if we're being honest.

Yeah, I play basically Glenn's proposed 2C method, some observations. We play 2C-2H is a super negative, and our responder invitational hands start 2C-2NT. This lacks grace and your responses are by necessity cramped, I do like your idea of a 2H relay. Definitely define what you do with strong hands after the relay - this has happened to us a couple of times and it can be tough to find a slam when you're starting exploration at 3NT. There is probably a case for making 3C and 3H strong/weak bids, but I haven't really thought about. As for the two level prempts, we play 2C as described, 2D as diamonds + a major assumed fit style, 2H as both majors assumed fit style and 2S as a preempt in a minor suit or a good 3M preempt, 3C as both minors and 3D as 6 diamonds 4 majors exactly. The 2C bid is very effective - while similar bids are fairly routine, it is always slippery to defend against unanchored pre-empts. Opponents are much less likely to pre-empt you I find too, but you get most of those benefits just playing 2C: Strong or Diamonds. I am unsatisfied with the 2D bid, we are thinking of changing to Wilkoz or playing it diamonds and hearts or something.

GIB and Jack both play MOSCITO.

The splint initiatives thing a total beat up, they date back to the 13-14th century in common usage. There has never been a time in the history of 'English' where people didn't split infinitives. The source of the argument is some guy in the 18th century didn't like them because you cannot split infinitives in Latin, because Latin grammar/vocabulary doesn't support it. But that's like complaining about the use of tense in English because Bahasa Indonesian doesn't have a declension of verbs for the past and future tense.

Eh yeah, that should have been bid 3H, let me edit that post... and yeah, game makes both hands. We're both still pretty raw so while one of the guys at the club strongly advised I should bid 4H, we both concluded that partner should probably bid 4H with a goodish 9 count.

Just wanted to check my judgement here. Scoring for both is Butler IMPs. Sitting left of the dealer, all red you pick up: S: AJ7 H: T864 D: Q97 C: J85 Playing something resembling 2/1 GF, this is a pass, and it's passed around to partner who opens a 14-16 NT (I know that fourth in a 15-17 is probably better but this is what you are playing). Do you invite? Would this be different in another seat? 3rd in all red, partner passes (you open all 11 counts), RHO bids 3D. You hold: S: AQJ43 H: KQ76 D: C: T743 I elected to make a takeout double, and partner bid 2H 3H. What should I do next? e: Fixed a mistake on the second hand.

You could easily test this with Jack or GIB - they both support enough systems - ACOL, 2/1, Moscito to make it fun.

The Strasburg shutdown was pretty dumb though - why not pitch him less all season? Or keep his pitch count down all season? It was weird.

Except there is considerable controversy over whether String theory counts, as it's not practically testable and thus doesn't meet standards of scientific rigor. I think you made your point?

So is the statement 'the theory of evolution may or may not be true' or 'the theory of gravity may or may not be true' or 'creationism may or may not be true' a balanced look at those concepts? Of course not - saying 'the theory may or may not be true' is completely absurd in all three cases. It's not a balanced view in any way. For another example, consider three claims being made by groups of people currently: A) ~49% of UK residents self identify as religious (encompassing all major religions), with 51% identifying as no religion. B) ~34% (approx, source CBS news) of Americans and 25% of the British think that 9/11 was an inside job performed by the US government. C) A cabal of fruity conspiracy theorists think The US government is secretly controlled by a cabal of lizard aliens in human form, and you can tell who are the lizards by the colours of their eyes in flash photography. (These guys tried to take over the Occupy movement in Australia. It was pretty dang funny) Obviously there is no tangible evidence to support any of these three position, so what separates A, B and C? Is it just sheer numbers? Is the position "Alien Lizards may or may not secretly control the US Government" a balanced way to look at that subject? Down this path lies madness. Just because people believe it doesn't mean it is true. Many of them specifically claim they are inerrant. Both the Bible and the Koran (to cite two high profile examples) have large groups of adherents that claim that the word of god as contained therein is inerrant. In the context of both of them it is absurd as it is obvious how they were written within a specific cultural context, but the fact they are the perfect and inerrent word of god is the claim being made by the religious adherents. We think it is so, because that is the claim they have made!

How sound are people's partners' openings where this is a game force?

The relative frequencies are such that I think the weak hand is something like 3 times more common than the strong hand. It's wise to treat a 2C: Weak 2 in diamonds or strong as a weak 2 in diamonds.

Why would this matter? The process of Judgement is explicitly described in Mathew, and doesn't mention good: Assuming you were Christian (I am not) and believed that Matthew was a true Gospel, it is unquestionable what you have to do it. Judgement isn't passed on why you do anything, just that you did it.

Can I suggest another option? The biggest problem I have with Naymats is that it's pretty easy for forget because it's not frequent. It seems to me that it makes as much sense to restructure the bids so 3NT is the power major, 4X is natural. This has the added advantage of being much harder to forget. It gives you maximum space to explore slam as you have both 4C and 4D - I play 4C as a one under transfer and 4D as a slam try which probably isn't the best, but hey.

Yeah, raise only non-forcing is the most sensible agreement to start with. I also agree with Zelandakh that I'd never pass a 2H bid there.

The point is though it's silly to ban describing your leads as 2nd or 4th if you actually lead 2nd and 4th (the Continental style), which is currently banned because the English persist in describing stuff that is 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th as 2nd or 4th.

It wouldn't matter - gerrymandering in the lower house ensures that all the seats are safe. You need to change your electoral system that isn't extracted from the darkest depths of Northen Ireland if you want things to change. It's quite simple to fix the US electoral system, but the changes required (abolish gerrymandered districts, institution instant runoff, preferential or proportional representation in the upper and lower houses, then optionally add compulsory voting) are unappetizing to the entrenched political elites.

I disagree with the poll. The definition of tolerance is flawed. I can be both tolerant and begrudge the intolerant their views. Discussion: I am prepared to defend a tolerant society, and it is not right to tolerate the intolerant. An incitement to intolerance, such as backers of proposition 8 in America or whatever, should be regarded as criminal.

Obviously the definition of zero has changed at some point in crossing the pacific! Surely if it's worth discussion (See: Goldsmith's remarks), then it far exceeds 'zero'

How did north not get a ZT penalty for those antics? What an idiot.

How did north not get a ZT penalty for those antics? What an idiot.

When did I say need? Please specify how we could eliminate medical errors other than by eliminating medicine at this point in time? Yeah, good idea.