TimG

I've played lots of canape in GCC events. That includes 1♦ openings which could be as short as 3 with a longer suit and not what you call "consistent canape" -- that is, a sequence like 1♥-1♠-2♦ could be either x45x or x54x. Of course, the fact that I've played it doesn't mean it is GCC legal, I and everyone who I have played against might have been unaware that it was not GCC legal. (I don't mean that facetiously, it's certainly possible that it slipped by everyone's attention.)

I think it would be GCC legal in the ACBL. Though I'd want to double check the artificial 2♣ game forcing response.

What nige1 said.

Well, Justin says: Notice that he didn't say "very light". I think I would be more likely to pass opposite a pickup partner for two reasons: 1) I think it is just bridge that lots of players open a little light in 3rd seat; and 2) doubling adds an extra complexity to the auction that isn't needed in a pickup partnership (for instance, if I double and advancer bids a suit, partner's pass is probably forcing through some level, but I don't know what level).

I bet Justin didn't vote in the poll, so it's probably 23-3.

Suppose instead that we had been given this auction. I suspect everyone would be focusing on whether East should have bid 3N instead of 2N. Any mention of 2♠ as an alternative to 2N would likely be met with ridicule. Misplaced ridicule, I think, but that's the reality I would expect.

Is this very light? Only 9 HCP. But, 2 QT. A good suit, but 4432 isn't exactly shapely.

The ACBL card has a tick box for "VERY LIGHT: 3rd Hand". I do not know what "very light" is.

I thought maybe I has been sloppy in my wording and you were referring to me, but I said: which seems far from assuming such a split, rather it is just allowing for the possibility. Those people who open light in 3rd seat and then pass a balanced 10 count when 4th hand overcalls 1N must think they gain more from the pesky 3rd hand openings than they lose from them. Or, perhaps they just play bad bridge. There's nothing in the rules against playing bad bridge, is there? I think it is common for people to open light in 3rd seat and don't think it is unusual enough that special disclosure must be made, it is simply general bridge knowledge. If asked about style, of course, full disclosure should be practiced, I'm not suggesting hiding agreements or tendencies. Just that a tendency to open a bit light in 3rd seat is just bridge in many people's opinion. I wonder if someone would often open 1♠ in third seat holding ♠KQTx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣xxxx, must they alert? (Or, make special note on the SC?)

I still wonder how 11 HCP (let alone the 10 in the opening post) can be a mandatory double opposite a 3rd seat opening. Even if you don't have an agreement to open "extremely" light in 3rd seat, there is no assurance that the deck isn't split pretty evenly.

In Maine, and probably most states, grocery stores are required to post per unit prices for all items. The idea is that consumers shouldn't have to figure out whether a 12.7 ounce can that costs $1.29 is a better or worse deal than a 23 ounce can that costs $2.49. But, there doesn't seem to be any requirement that similar products be priced by the same unit. A large can might be priced per pound while a smaller can is priced per ounce. Some items are priced per fluid ounce in one container and per ounce of weight in another. It seems to me that these switches happen most frequently when the larger size item costs more per unit -- that is when a consumer would be wrong to buy the larger size -- but that may well be selective memory.

I thought "all y'all" or "y'alls" were plural while "y'all" was singular. "Gonna", "y'all", and "strat" all coming under fire recently. Maybe we need some kinder, gentler, New Year's resolutions.

I believe there is an ACBL regulation that says just this. The only time I have heard of it being used is in a case of dumping. Yes, it is (or was) written in such a way as to make things like holdup plays illegal. It is a bad analogy and really not applicable in this thread. Sorry to have posted it.

Losing a trick you could otherwise win is against the rules in ACBL land, yet lots of people do it quite intentionally.

Good thing this responder has only 10 HCP!

I understand that this is somewhat counter to the spirit of Lockhart's approach, but I'm curious whether anyone knows of material that helps guide a teacher or parent through such a course of math or present situations that are likely to elicit interest and exploration.

I think it very rare that a 3rd seat opening in a suit with length is a psyche. I don't think this one qualifies. In a style where 3rd hand can open light, I do not think south has a penalty double. So, even if it was determined that north did psyche, I would classify it as Green.

I think there is lots of beauty in numbers, shapes, and patterns that students and teachers alike can appreciate without either ever having encountered a course in Abstract Algebra.

I showed this paper to a friend who teaches music in a public elementary school. She lamented that Lockhart's opening scenario is not as far from reality as most readers would believe. I do not think that Math students are unique in that they could benefit from more exploratory learning. Students in all disciplines are being taught to memorize rather than think. This is not a new phenomenon. 200-300 years ago, young men learned Greek and Latin, not through spoken exploration of those languages, but through translation of written works. The purpose of the translation was not to investigate the new ideas presented in the works -- there were existing translation that could be read for the ideas and the ideas in the works were rather old anyway. Thomas Paine did not write Common Sense in Greek. Everyone of us who took the SATs likely at one time or another worked through some vocabulary word lists. List of words that we've probably never used or heard used. We've likely all been required to memorize dates and names in History classes. I know my Earth Science class entailed a lot of memorization of things like rock and cloud types and characteristics. From the paper: I imagine this little bit from the paper gets lost or overshadowed. Perhaps how students learn about notation and technique should be taught differently, but Lockhart is not arguing that students shouldn't come away from school with an understanding of these things. I don't see in the paper a claim that all students will want to explore all techniques that they should learn. I think it should also be pointed out that the students which Lockhart encounters at St. Anne's quite likely tend toward the exceptional, or at the very least are not your average students; what works for him might not work for teachers in public schools, especially in non-affluent areas.

Are you sure ACBL wants to encourage this?

As far as math goes, I think a lot of the problem is rooted in failure to build foundation skills in the middle grades, something like 5th through 8th. Like KenBerg pointed out, kids get to high school without being able to handle things like determining the measure of an angle in a triangle given the measure of the other two angles. High school teachers spend time reviewing (and teaching) material that kids should have down pat. This time drain prevents them from presenting the material they are supposed to and students fall further behind. It is not a matter of throwing better educated and more skilled teachers at high school students. Their talents will be wasted on kids lacking a solid foundation.

To be honest, I could not really tell you what differentiated Differential Equations from other advanced calculus courses. I was a math major at the University of Vermont. Not an elite school by any means, but decent nonetheless. I entered college with eight credit hours of calculus through advanced placement, so I took Analytic Geometry & Calculus 3 as my first college math course. It wasn't until the fall of my junior year that I took Ordinary Differential Equations. Based upon this, I would suggest that very few high school math teachers would require any training in Differential Equations.

It is my opinion that any post graduate degree is an excess when it comes to teaching high school students. In math, for instance, things like Abstract Algebra, let alone Differential Equations, will be of little or no use when teaching Pre-Calculus. There is a balance between enthusiasm for the subject, enthusiasm for teaching, and knowledge in the subject area that needs to be achieved. A PhD in Mathematics won't make up for a lack of interest in teaching; a Masters in Education won't make up for a lack of interest in math (when it comes to teaching math); and of course, a lack of basic math knowledge can't be overcome by enthusiasm and knowledge of teaching techniques.

I did not try any other meaning if 1♥-1♠. I wanted to parallel standard bidding as much as possible. Removing the hands that would pass a standard 1♠ opening from the 1♥-1♠ sequence would have meant changing some otherwise standard response (to accommodate weak hands) and I did not want to do that.

This isn't the best declarer can do, is it? If declarer sticks to his original line of play he can always make half of the ATxx-x/x-ATxx splits and 100% of Txxx-A regardless of a defender's duck percentage, can't he?