Cthulhu D

I think he should raise on 2 there, yeah. That's fine support.

The other thing to look at is if 10-13 is to wide a range on your constructive auctions. I used to play 10-13 with one partner but we decided to firm it up to 11-13 to make constructive auctions easier, and we weren't convinced that opening 10 counts was winning bridge. You could also redefine your 4th seat range as 'to play' you could even include crisp 14-15 counts if you open all 10s.

That is brilliant.

For some reason cannot edit: if 2C is weak diamonds only 2H as inv+ saves a ton of space. If 2C is weak in either pointy suit or strong it saves less space.

Edit: Double post.

Because we use 2H for the double negative. ;) More seriously that is very workable, it depends what you want to do with your continuations when 2C is strong. We like the 2H super negative (it's basically zero cost because if you have a QJ or less and partner does actually have the weak option he can just pass on the basis that they have atleast 27 HCP and probably slam, and realistically if you are that weak partner is gonna be strong or someone has bid already) because that gives us nice absolutely GF auctions after 2C-2D with kokish and stuff. We've decide to sacrifice some accuracy and preemption when pard has the weak 2D. I'm not sure if it's right, just where we have landed and inertia has truly set in. I have no idea where the right balance is (I think for example that maybe 2C-3C should show a very bad hand with 5+ diamonds for responder a la bramars' transfer negative, then if opener is weak and fourth seat bids opener can take preemptive action, and if opener is strong he knows what responders suit is and that his hand is awful). I've looked at that idea (2H as the invite) or something similar to manage 2C as weak diamonds, weak spades or strong, but it doesn't save that much space in the end. The other option is make the invite 2S but I work about wrong siding 3NT - most of the information about the method is in Dutch so I unsure about what the general experience is. Highly recommend it though if you play an artificial 2D and a strong 2C.

I'm not suggesting that ALL high variance actions may be good - but that's not what we're discussing. You flat out stated that you are unwilling to explore whether high variance methods may be good because regardless of practical frequency, the risk of disasters offset any gain for you (i.e. you have a low risk appetite, which is reasonable). The argument about 'well, if it was good, why don't pros play it' - four observations A) Pros have stated that learning two systems is too much, you need to play the same system all the time for your 'serious' partnership. B) ACBL and WBF restrictions ensure that a lot of methods are banned in some or all competitions you play. For example, assumed fit pre-empts are banned in ACBL midchart competition. Every professional pair plays these events from what I can tell. C) The Ekren's assumed fit preempt was certainly popularised by Helgemo (or atleast he brought to the Bermuda bowl, which is where it was indirectly exposed to me)... so they do. D) JLall makes this very good point: If you are a top pair playing against weaker pairs (which, if you are in the top 10 pairs in the world, is basically all the time), you don't want to play high variance methods! This ties into both A, B AND the risk aversion issue. There is another issue as well - Fred has commented that when playing with team mates who didn't play standard weak 2 preempts he felt as though he was under huge pressure when one came up at his table because his opponents wouldn't get the same auction and this was a possible swing board. Playing Ekrens or whatever has a cost, you cannot play a different possible weak bid - and this creates the same pressure! The combination of these five factors mean that imho, looking at top players who regularly play in the US to see if these methods are good or bad is not useful, because they are unable to play these methods. (You can make a similar analysis to quickly see why no-one would play forcing pass even if it was massively plus, because you can never play it..) This makes the entire thing a complete crapshoot. We really have not substantive evidence whether, say, Ekrens 2H is a good idea (nor how much variance it actually has). The only way to see if it's good or not is, realistically, to program Jack or wbridge 5 to play the convention, then deal and play 5000+ hands to see if it is plus or minus imps. Edit: Another intresting note - I think it's generally hard to get new methods adopted, see: total failure of transfer responses to 1♣ to become popular with American pairs, and even the general lack of uptake in Europe.

What would 1H-2NT-3NT mean? Stiff diamond w/extras? Stiff in oM? Additionally, what is partner's view on opening a strong 1NT with a 5 card major. If I was playing with a clone of me, I'm gonna guess there is a balanced 17-19 count over there. Playing a 15-17 NT if partner always opens 1NT with a 5 card major (and it's hearts we are raising so he is more likely to have), partner has 17+ to 19- (or he might have opened 2NT) I agree with WesleyC it would have been nice to splinter, but as I cannot do that, I'm going to wheel out blackwood and punt. Edit: Did a really primitive sim (south holds this hand, north has a 17-19 NT with a 5332 shape and the A or K of diamonds): Slam makes: 83% Grand makes: 70 times of 273 Small Slam makes: 155 times of 273 Given the 83% shot, you have to take it. Blackwood increases those odds by about 2%.

State of Victoria (of which Melbourne is the capital): 2.9 per 100,000 United States: 4.7 per 100,000 Overall violent crime rate (crimes against the person), is much lower than the US. It's completely pointless looking at the rest of the world. If it's not a developed country with a 'real' police force, how can we make a comparision about police shootings? Also, the numbers in my previous are for number of fatal shootings by police of civilians. Your " much better at murder and getting away with it" seems ridiculous, unless you think US police are intentionally murdering civilians.

Incidentally, JLall has a good article on this: http://justinlall.com/2011/09/06/the-negative-effects-of-professionalism-on-bridge-pros/ Paragraph 8 of the post and onwards. Mikeh is expressing the client's view. It's impossible to know who is right though. Obviously as a hyperactive bidder I think my style is correct, or atleast more fun for the same cost, but you have to pick your spots.

Unfortunately the US does not tabulate the killings in a useful way. There are some numbers for justifitable homocides (~400-450 a year). Total killings by police are estimated at 750-1000 a year. Australia records all people killed by police with firearms, and has tabulated it here: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/21-40/rip34.html Taking the lower 'Justifiable Homocides' number not 'all shootings by police' - so this comparison is in the US's favour. This runs at over 400 a year, so averaging the Australia rate since 2008, we kill 64 for every 400 killed by police in the US - best case estimate. Atlenatively, a US cop is 6 times more likely to kill a suspect with a firearm than an Australia cop. That is a best case estimate - if we use the 750 number (which is more comparable), that jumps to 12 times more likely. Overall, US police are much more likely to kill civilians than Australian police - or UK police, or German police or basically police anywhere else in the OECD.

Sure, but that is another symptom of the problem. US cops kill unarmed black dudes at a ridiculous rate. They just shot a 12 year old playing with a toy gun in a park: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/cleveland_police_officer_shot_1.html Other countries manage to not have this happen, so logically the US can not kill a bunch of minorities as well.

I see your point, but I question 'inherently flawed' I think the worst case disaster potential estimate for any assumed fit method has to be 0.9% - and that's assuming that 100% of the time you blunder into a no fit auction that you get doubled and go for 800 and it's always a part score deal which is just not true. Lots of Moysians are going to play for 1 off, against a part score their way, and that's assuming they get you every time. I think it's closer to 0.1% as a practical matter - for a disaster anyway. The breakdown of the issues with the misfitting hands are more like: Hand type How likely are they to let you off the hook when you have no fit? How bad is the damage? Part score It depends, if you're showing minor+major often they will bid a 5 card major. Potential part score swing, usually modest, unlikely to get a big X Game Most serious danger zone, often they can get you for 800 or 1100 vs a game. This hurts if Vul, if NV it's usually quite tame (3 off vs a making 3NT is usually fine) Slam Very, hard to double 2D when you know you might be making 6C Not usually that bad. A 3 imp loss is possible on lots of boards, the worst are usually when you open in 1st and partner has 55 minors, whereas you would have got out in 2C playing standard, you are totally railed in this. It's rarely a disaster, but it can a part score swing and 5 imps hurts. This assessment of the is conservative and fits with my practical experience - my biggest penalties have been going for 800 and 1100 against a tight vul game that the field wasn't always making in a swiss pairs (a loss), and a cold NV game (a big loss) in ~2.5 years of playing the methods (so about 3000 boards, perhaps more, but I play TWO assumed fit preempts not one with one partner). You could play quite a few team games and never notice. But that can happen playing a weak NT! You always take risks making any bid, and while some styles have more penalty risk, you have to take some risk.

By linked, I meant conceptually, in that in both partner makes an invitation very slowly. Given partner takes the same action both times, isn't the suggested action both times to bid.

I'd lead the J♥ without much conviction. Hopefully partner knows I do this so the spade return doesn't get fired though. So you'd never partner with team mates playing assumed fit preempts? I personally find this weird, because it's clear that preemptive bids are modest winner over all, but assumed fit preempts definitely have some more varience than weak twos. If I contrast these two opening styles: Style One Style Two 2C Strong only Weak 2 diamonds or strong 2D Weak 2 Diamonds Weak with diamonds and a major 2H Weak 2 Hearts Weak 2 hearts 2S Weak 2 Spades Weak 2 Spades Style Two is behind Style One on Strong 2C auctions (arguably, and not very much, though the odd slam bidding that starts 2C-2NT-?? Damnit, I've got the strong hand and he's inviting to game opposite a weak 2? is difficult to bid), you're behind on weak 2D auctions because you must cater for the strong hand when you are weak with diamonds, but you're ahead on the 6% of hands when you open the assumed fit 2D. BUT, that Frelling 2D opening has a bunch of disaster potential. I feel it's perfectly reasonable bridge though.

Isn't this linked to the other thread where it's deemed a hesitation shows a heavy invite? If the SB is correct and the hesitation can show partner is stretching, surely the other thread (where the hesitation showed heaviness). I really do not understand the laws re: logical alternatives at all I have realized.

I open ekrens 3rd in. Having done that, I pass. But more seriously, I like pass more than double. I don't think I get any vig from +200 vs +100 and if this and 6NT makes it costs - see Akwoo's reasoning. The biggest danger is it helps in the play of the hand. I don't have strong convictions though - Cherdano's logic, that the advantage in the play of the hand is low and I get some vig because matchpoints is quite reasonable too. It's an evaluation question about what do you think is the field action vs the cost to the play, and that is hard to estimate and depends on a ton of things.

Do the feds actually have jurisdiction for the shooting? Edit: Related note - why the hell was he even presenting exculpatory evidence? Is that even a requirement in Missouri? I don't think it is?

But that can still happen today. They are supposed to be a check against the government bringing a case without cause - but if the prosecutor wants a case they always get one, as seen by the stats.

For the number, that is drawn from public statistics. For the behaviour of the prosecutor, this has been academically studied. A number of actions are unusual - the number of times the testimony is released are tiny for example. As an Australian, we do not bother with Grand Juries, so I have obviously not been involved. Edit: Yes, states do different grand juries differently. It is weird, I do not understand why they even exist. If the prosecutor thinks he has a case, he should prosecute. They are a weird legacy of the era I suspect.

It is highly unusual. It's worth noting that of the 162,000 federal grand juries in 2010, only 11 did not return an indictment, or less than 0.01%.

Playing a naymats a like, how many people put this though that, rather than the direct 4S? It even has the advantage they cannot double clubs!

It's a pretty simple set up. For example, changing the suit symbols in html is this 7 lines of code: text = matchobj.group(0) text = text.replace('C', '<span class="ccolor">♣</span>') text = text.replace('D', '<span class="dcolor">♦</span>') text = text.replace('H', '<span class="hcolor">♥</span>') text = text.replace('S', '<span class="scolor">♠</span>') text = text.replace('N', 'NT') return text You just need to change the Spans, or the CSS style sheet. Easy. The BSS one is the most complex (the way he's implemented it, you need to understand recursion), but you just want to change the LATEX and HTML and that is very simple.

Let me direct you to your quote That is a fairly bold statement that Joshua Donn does not know what he is doing at the bridge table. I mean, I'm fairly sure all would agree that Joshua Donn is a bridge player! A good one even!

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-6242/ Joshua Donn voted for 4S, which makes Hog's comment totally lol IMHO.