EricK

I have heard (and I don't know how true this is) that Belladonna and Garozzo used to have an agreement that when dummy went down declarer would say "Thank you" if it was what he was expecting and "Grazie" if there had been some sort of mix-up. Apparently on one hand Belladonna absent-mindedly said "grazie" even though Garozzo had bid perfectly. "Grazie? What do you mean 'Grazie'?" yelled Garozzo.

I think you misunderstand what governments want. Governments (at least in democracies) want to get re-elected. To do this they have to convince people that they are doing a good job (normally in spite of the facts!). To do this, they make use of many things one of which is statistics. And the trouble with statistics is that they best apply to things which can be measured easily. Measuring how many of a set of facts a child has learned is easy. Measuring how well a child has mastered independent thinking is hard. So they set the curricula and targets based on these simple measures.

I think you should just bid 2NT on the third round. This must show extras - with a minimum hand you would pass 2♠ - and it gives partner an opportunity to show 3 card ♠ length or extra length in ♦. It is true you don't have a ♣ stop, but if partner does not have 3♠ or 4♥ or 6♦ then he has at least 3♣ himself and might very well have enough to give you a full stop. If partner passes 2NT then the chances are that 3NT is a very touch and go contract, with opps setting up enough ♣ tricks before you can set up your nine.

I have thought of something similar but in a "Little Major" context (i.e. 1♣ = ♥; 1♦ = ♠)

If you mean will my consciousness continue after I die, then I strongly suspect the answer is no. If you mean will other people's consciousness continue after I die then I strongly suspect the answer is yes!

I wish I could analyse on BBF as well as you play at the table.

Why not 5 categories corresponding to Bridge Master levels I - V? That's not to say that we need 5 separate forums, but posted problems could be rated in this way (either by the poster or by a helpful mod).

Although the bidding by NS wasn't perfect, this is tremendously hard to bid accurately after the 3♦ pre-empt. eg. How does responder find out if partner is 2-0 or 1-1 in the reds? Alternatively how does opener find out if partner has a control in ♥ and the ♠K? All without going above 5♣. The only way I can see is a sequence like this - although I don't much like it: 1♣ (3♦) 3NTi 4♣ii 4♥iii 4♠iv 5♣v 6♣vi i Responder upgrades his hand because of all the Tens ii opener realises that if partner has the outside suit stoped, he almost certainly has ♠K. Also, the absence of a negative x suggest he might very well have some degree of ♣ support. And if he also has the ♥ stopped there might be a slam iii cue bid, showing ♥ control, denying ♦ control, suggesting some degree of support (better than xx). iv cue bid promising ♦ control and showing ♠ control v nothing more to say vi I hope we don't have a ♣ loser and if partner only has ♥K they don't lead a ♥ A bit contrived, you think? Certainly!

It's even better to bid 3♥ on the first round. That way, 4th hand can't get a lead directing double in and you will probably cruise home in 3NT.

I came across this article, in the Jewish Chronicle of all places, which might be of interest to participants in this thread: http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m1...57237&ATypeId=1

What was 3♦? if it is a cue (and not shortage in responder's first suit) then responder's hand becomes even huger. I can't imagine his not looking for slam now - especially when partner doesn't make a ♥ cue after the double. If you take all the bids at face value, opener has shown ♦A, he's denied anything in ♣ (because a. he didn't redouble, and b. East has shown ♣ strength) and denied the ♥AK. He must have good trumps for his opening bid followed by ♦ cue and responder can count 11 top tricks plus at least two obvious chances for a twelfth (♥ ruff or extra trump length).

Indeed they do say they have an alternative source of knowledge. The trouble with their alternative method of arriving at what they would claim to be truths is that it is functionally equivalent to the methods of rival religions which arrive at rival truths. So it is clear that their's is not a method which arrives at truths after all.

True enough. But this can't lead you anywhere. If you accept the world is governed by logic then you can deduce things about the world. If you assume the world isn't governed by logic then ... nothing. As I said in an earlier post, what annoys me is the use of logic most of the time, except when that would lead to their having to discard their pet theory.

The point I've been trying to make is that the line is not so black and white. If religion is correct, then teaching kids scientific theories that disagree with the religious viewpoints would be "brainwashing". The difference between teaching and brainwashing is all in your point of view about the particular subject being taught. To a KKK member, all those bleeding-heart liberals in the ACLU are just a bunch of fools, the Black Panthers were a terrorist group, and it was clearly their duty to pass on this "truth" to their children (and anyone else they could get to listen to them). The concensus isn't always right -- there was a time when the concensus among highly educated people was that the Earth was the center of the universe. It's not a question of whether the something is true or not; it's more a question of how you arrived at that opinion, and what methods you use to perusade someone that they should hold those views. You can brainwash someone into believing something that happens to be true, and conversely, you can persuade something of something which happens to be false without brainwashing them (if what evidence there is isn't quite conclusive).

I don't think you are quite accurately reflecting my opinion. I don't think an opinion is true because it is the consensus opinion; I think it is true based on the method that was used to arrive at the opinion. It just so happens, that for scientific ideas, that method will be sufficient to convince the majority and so will coincide with the consensus. What is so annoying with most religious and political views is that the people who espouse them are quite content to use the scientific method when it comes to most other things, but as soon as that method leads to something which disagrees with their pet theories, they suddenly discard it. It is this incosistency which is evidence that they have, in some sense, been brainwashed.

Vulnerable I think you should seek the safest contract as down 2 will be a bad result at MP unless they have a game on. This means that transferring is the best bet, I think. Non-vulnerable things change as two down undoubled mightn't be a bad score against their partscore. Transferring, especially into ♥, makes it so easy for them to find their fit. From a tactical point of view it is often better to just pass with a weak hand and only run if 4th hand doubles and RHO leaves it in. The weaker your NT, the more the above applies, as the more likely it is that the hand belongs to the opps.

Isn't that the "brainwashing" that was suggested should be avoided. Therre's a difference between religion or politics - where despite what people may say their views are not primarily determined by the evidence, and science where the consensus is determined by the evidence. Teaching kids just one religious or one political view as if it were the correct one might be called "brainwashing", but teaching them the current scientific consensus (and why it is the consensus) can hardly be considered the same thing. If you use the same word for both then the language becomes next to useless.

Why not? How do you learn the great teachings of the white supremacists unless you sit down and hear from them directly, for example? Listening to the white supremacists is bound to give them a biased view on the topic. It's not teaching the children the pros and cons because the white supremacists will not tell them anything about the cons (and will probably lie about the pros as well). There's nothing wrong with teaching children that there are people who have these views, and these are the reasons they have these views, and all the scientific data suggests that they are wrong.

Nice rhetoric. But your examples are not actually examples of learning "about the pros and cons of all positions"

But if you immerse them in Jewish life you are depriving them of the chance to be immersed in, say, a Buddhist life. As to the OP, rather than not expose children to any religious or political beliefs, it would be better to expose them to as many religious and political beliefrs as possible. This is really the only way to allow them to make an enlightened choice. And as a bonus it will tend to steer them away from the more extrem viewpoints.

Both X or 3♥ could work out. The upside of 3♥ is that it gets our longest suit into the auction and heads towards our most likely game. The downside is that we will end up declaring 3♥ sometimes doubled opposite some horrendous dummies when a better contract might well be availalble (partner isn't going to rescue us into even a six card minor at the 4 level). Personally, I lean towards making the double - especially if playing some sort of Lebensohl. I think after partner bids 3♥ then you have to bid 5♥ on this sort of hand. Nobody really knows who is making what, but with your surprising length in ♥, you might have far fewer tricks in defense than partner expects.

Just to be clear, I am not talking about a pick up pair who haven't got around to agreeing any carding (but, as others have pointed out will come to some sort of agreement as they play some hands together, if only implicitly). Instead I am talking about a pair who have actively agreed (or claim to!) that their cards don't send any message.

So is nobody worried that people might cheat this way?

Are a partnership allowed to not have any agreements as to defensive cardings? On the one hand, a partnership might claim that a good declarer gets as least as much use out of defensive signals as the defenders do themselves, but on the other hand (and the real reason I ask) allowing this would seem to allow a practically undetectable way to cheat (i.e. claim that your defensive cards are at random but actually have some meaning attached to them).

If I wanted to explore for a slam on this hand then I would bid 2NT. eg If partner shows a singleton ♣ things look more promising, if he shows a singleton ♠ they look lousy, if he shows a snigleton ♦ I'll look surprised.