Gilithin

One of the things I have learned from lurking this forum for a while is that the LTC is counting points, just doing so in a particularly unsophisticated way. Point count systems are designed for hand evaluation generally. Some point count systems, such as Zar Points, are specifically designed for optimal use with distributional hands.

Ken, you are trying to force a political position onto an academic subject. CRT is not meant to be political. Let it do what it is meant for and leave the political decisions that follow to think tanks and politicians.

From the wiki entry: Strangely enough, one of the biggest criticisms of CT generally is precisely that it does not provide a suggestion of a clear course regarding practical political policy. Rather it is concerned with identifying how the structures and cultural influences of a society work together to create social problems, with CRT specifically focussed on the social problems surrounding race under the axiomatic assumption that race is a socially constructed entity. Exactly what should be done about any enlightenment that comes from CRT is specifically not part of the academic subject.

From what I have picked up from interviews with actual educators, there appears to be no state in which CRT is actually taught as part of the syllabus at school level. This is different at university level, where CRT is routinely taught in appropriate subjects. Certain aspects that are included in CRT, such as facts concerning the history of the USA, are of course taught in schools. If the current laws being introduced in red states were to ban such facts being taught to students, I would regard that as problematic but in fairness not more problematic than being allowed to teach the Big Bang over creationism or that the world is not flat despite certain Bible passages.

There are other groups too: open 1NT with 5♥ but 1♠ with 5♠; open 1M with (35)(32) but 1NT with (25)33; open 1NT with (25)33 and 1M with any other 5M holding; or open 1♠ with 53(32) and 1NT with any other balanced 5M holding. There are probably also a few others around, particularly when you get into variations of suit quality rather than just distribution.

If you play the style where a 3♣ rebid shows extras you are supposed to rebid 2NT with this. If you play the style where a 3♣ rebid can be a minimum if 5-5 then 2♠ was incorrect on Opener's hand.

Here is another man who was clearly . I would suggest that this effect is the origin of the Ohio woman's claims.

In my first bridge book, the suggestion was for Bidder (Opener in this case) to count 3-2-1 and Supporter (Responder) to count 5-3-1. I think most modern thinking is that 5-3-1 is generally slightly more accurate than 3-2-1 for the suit bidder. There are some other methods around as well - Vampyr has already mentioned "Trump Length - Shortest Suit Length" and you brought up LTC (which vastly overvalues shortages). There is also Zar Points, which works out very similarly to 5-3-1. Whichever method you use, you will need to adjust dynamically based on the hand itself. My suggestion is to start with 5-3-1 for both hands and go from there but do what works for you.

This seems to show a fundamental misunderstanding of science and the way medical statistics work. What precisely does the term "very safe" even mean in this context? If I ask you whether a single shot Russian Roulette contest in a 6-shooter was "very safe", most likely very few would answer "Yes". But if the choice is a binary one between that and certain death, the Russian Roulette starts to look highly attractive and lowers out risk significantly. Vaccines are not "very safe" in as much as that there are side effects, and in rare cases these can be quite serious. But they lower the risks for the vast majority of people and, equally importantly, for everyone else in their immediate social circle. It is the comparative risk that is important and if a major broadcaster such as ABC is actively encouraging its viewers to ask the wrong question, I see this as something of an issue and one that is likely to increase rather than diminish the current rise of vaccine hesitancy.

You can (and some pairs do) but I am convinced that 14-16 is significantly better if you want to retain a natural framework.

Strong Club defences vary greatly but here are 5 possible approaches: 1. The simple: overcall 4♣ - bid the limit of the hand and leave the rest to partner 2. The cautious: overcall 3♣ - show your suit and see how things develop 3. The optimistic: Pass - treat the hand as constructive in case partner has the rest of the points or Opener is semi-psyching. 4. The nebulous: Double - this is fine if you have a firm agreement with partner that it shows this type of hand but not so good if partner thinks it means something else (and the SAYC booklet is unclear) 5. The gambling: psyche a 1M overcall - retreat to ♣ as required (it helps to have an understanding partner)

In the second auction, 1♠ is a weak 3 card raise; 2♠ is a weak 4 card raise; and 3♠ is an invitational 4 card raise. In both auctions the cue shows a big hand that cannot easily be shown, with the most common hand type being a balanced 18-19 without a ♥ stopper.

1.1 1♥ (and X if it comes back in 2♣) 1.2 2♥ or P is a matter of partnership style. Both are ok. What you do on these hands has a knock-on effect to partner's action in 4th seat. 1.3 The most awkward scenario. 3♥ is risky but so is passing as it puts a lot of pressure on partner and the hand is not good for a X. So I would expect most to overcall. 1.4 3♥ 2.1 Very easy X 2.2 Again 2♦ or P is a matter of partnership style. I would expect a few more passers here than for 1.2 as the upside to bidding is slightly lower. 2.3 Several approaches make sense here. I quite like a 2NT overcall but you will find plenty of votes for X, 3♦ and P. 2.4 Another easy X

And some not so good:- Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona Rep. Ronny Jackson of Texas Rep. Doug LaMalfa of California Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky Rep. Tom McClintock of California Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama Rep. Matt Rosendale of Montana Rep. Chip Roy of Texas Rep. Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin

This should be an easy yes for anyone born in a developed country.

cherdano's main point seems to be that it does not have any meaning whatsoever unless you actually define what a "lack of a traditional culture of distancing" actually means. And the statement is therefore nonsense regardless of whether you are talking mathematically, scientifically, social scientifically, or even for social discourse. Perhaps you as a biologist would like to share your mathematical insights on his question regarding how to measure a "lack of a traditional culture of distancing". Oh yes, and we are still waiting for your evidence for pollution levels in China. Making a statement and moving on when challenged without backing it up is pretty much par for the course these days in debates; but bridge players are supposed to be educated so let's try to hold ourselves to some sort of standard.

This is, I believe, the claim that started the side issue. Hrothgar provided some specific data to suggest that the actual level of pollution in China does not match the statement. How about providing some evidence of your own to back up your position? This is usually how adult debate works.

I can't say I am an expert on old-style Precision but I think the idea is that after the TAB and AAB asks, you should have a reasonable idea of partner's basic strength and further CABs clarify as required. I think the issue you have come across is one of the reasons the Blue Team developed their Alpha-Beta asking system, so you might consider switching to Italian Asking Bids if you think you can handle them. In truth though, Asking Bids have somewhat gone out of fashion and most modern Precision variants are based on shape relays followed either by control-showing or RKCB. Ideally you would be able to try out each of these methods to find out which matches best to your way of thinking.

By my reckoning CK has the 22nd best passer rating of all active QBs and that is not even counting his rushing ability, so it would be difficult to claim that he is not better than at least some of the white starters. I am not so sure he is the ideal example for pure racism though as the politics surely have at least something to do with his lack of a contract. It would certainly be interesting to see some statistics on white vs black vs other wages in the NFL though. I would be shocked to find out that there was equality in this area.

There is certainly an argument to be made for opening 1♦ and passing any response (including 2♣). With such a poor ♦ suit though, this approach is just as likely to drop a trick or two on defence when partner takes us seriously. With a really good runout system, South can show a weak 3334 hand and get out into 2 of a red suit. Depending on their methods, sometimes opps find such a runout tricky to X with a 3-3 split. Losing a few IMPs sometimes from system choice is fine providing there are matching hands where we gain from that system.

In traditional Acol, 4SG at the 2 level was INV+. In SEF and Forum D, 4SF at the 2 level is GF if above 2 of Opener's suit and INV+ if below. In modern Acol and most versions of 2/1, 4SF at the 2 level is always GF. All 3 variations have their pros and cons so pick your poison. I think this thread though is about 4SF INV-only and GF hands instead make a jump rebid. That is quite a different concept to the more common ones, which was presumably the reason for having a thread for that rather than on 4SF in general.

One thing that shows itself quite strongly in the BBO Acol Club - most of the Brits open 1M with 4M4m(32) and 15-19hcp while most of the Anzacs open the same hand 1m. I would estimate that 90% of the players there would pass a 1♦ opening with the North hand and that very few would try a Double of 1♦ with West.

Any love for a 5♦ FNJ here from anyone or is that suit too thin? One simple method that noone has mentioned yet is 4NT to play in 5X, 5m FNJ, 5♥ slam try.

If you have a hand so strong that you want to force to game, you cannot stand playing in 3♣ and therefore need to bid something else. This principle is sometimes called ParadoX.

Could I humbly suggest someone post: a. % who have had 2 doses; b. % who have had 1 dose of a single dose vaccine; c. % who have had only 1 dose of a 2 dose vaccine; d. % who have not received any dose; and e. (optional) % who have not received any dose but are confirmed to have had covid in the last 3 months. It should be simple from there for everyone to understand the maths involved.