TimG

It was once disconcerting to see "contact" used as a verb. I still don't like to see "hopefully" used as a sentence adverb, but my children likely will never care.

Probably because educated people are more likely to wait to have children and those in their 20s are generally more fertile than those in their 30s (or 40s).

Going for a big play on 2nd and short (and in other situations where the defense might expect run) is nothing new.

My kids (now teenagers) payed Clue, it is still on the shelf. I see it in many households. It may not be played as often as it was 50 years ago, but I suspect it is still common, if only because grandparents remember it fondly and give it to their grandchildren.

Perhaps time well spent? Sometimes there are right ways. Sometimes there are many ways which are not wrong. The right way evolves, what was correct 100 years ago may not be considered correct today. Who is really to say that we are right today instead of yesterday or tomorrow? I think the important part is that we communicate. I see "your" or "ur" used instead of "you're" quite often. I know it is wrong. But, I also understand what is being communicated. Perhaps when you see "lead" instead of "led" the author becomes less credible to you, meaning that she has hindered her ability to communicate her ideas to you. Or, maybe your perception (your hangup on grammar) has hindered your ability to understand the author's ideas or distracted you from focus on the author's ideas instead of the presentation. In short: why do we care about grammar as long as the idea, thought, or fact was communicated to us in an understandable way?

I think the "what" and "why" are interrelated so that you cannot really talk about one without talking about the other. I think that love is an instinctual reaction to a person or circumstance that is hardwired within our brain to in some way benefit our survival (or our ancient ancestors' survival). When we see Pat and experience what we recognize as love, it is because our instinct says "this will help me survive" (the "why") so our brain sends out the endorphins that make us feel good (the "what"). I think the instinct is ancient (but always evolving) and may have nothing to do with survival in the present day. I do think that our feelings are more complex, of a higher order, than the feelings of non-humans. But, I also think that at some basic level there isn't any difference between me smiling and my dog wagging her tail.

Do "empty threat", "hollow threat", and "idle threat" all mean the same thing? Is there a term for a threat with consequences that would be beneficial (or neutral) to the one threatened?

I understand that it may help you get an idea for what system your partner might be familiar with, but I dislike the prominence of the country designations (flags). It seems to me that waving a flag is more nationalistic that listing a country of residence. I'd rather not display a flag and make it appear that where I am is an important bit of information to me. So, I frequently fly the Reunion of Faroe Island flag as a small protest to the importance given to flags.

True enough, I was thinking only of 1♣ openings.

"may be short" only applies to non-forcing openings, so I guess #3 is possible, but I've never heard of of such a system. Nor have I heard of #2, but it seems more plausible than #3.

One of the uses of "retard" was "To retard the thread drift a bit". Maybe a few others were similar? A number of the uses were in the Water Cooler where standards are relaxed. Many of the uses we in reference to oneself (I still don't like it). But, you called out opponents behind their backs and used it in the thread title.

They may not understand, but they're more likely to accept. But, it's not enough to say "they easily pass the Chi-Square goodness-of-fit test". He needs to show his work or give p values (and explain what those mean). I think Bud wants to do two things: test the actual hands played for a month, then two months, etc which will obviously be a small sample; and test the hand generator on a larger sample.

These observed and theoretical numbers don't do much to help Bud out. The skeptic at his club will just say: there are supposed to be 1505 7321 shapes and there were actually 1556, I told you the dealer program does funny things. Bud needs to know whether the 1556 observed hands is within the expected range of results with some sort of % confidence. It's been a long time since my statistics classes, I don't know if what he needs are confidence intervals or chi square tests or something else, but Bud definitely needs some sort of statistical testing rather than just showing raw numbers.

Offering "some of these bids had unusual meanings, would you like to hear about those meanings" is different from offering "[this bid] meant [this]" (in other words, forcing an explanation on the opponents).

Also a bid to show control of a suit, often also called a "control bid". I guess "cue-bid" was the wrong term, at least for the bid of 3♦ (4♦ showing control of diamonds seems to fit one definition of cue-bid). Neither 3♦ nor 4♦ would be considered natural (or an offer to play) by the vast majority of tournament bridge players.

I think 3D is clearly a cue-bid and passing it would not be a LA. I also think that 4D is a cue-bid so that passing is not a LA. I really don't see that either 3D or 4D would be considered to be an offer to play there if there had been an alert. I think that North is allowed to wake up at the four level. Unless there has been some mannerism from south that suggests there has been a misunderstanding, North is not in possession of any UI. He's allowed to realize (or guess) that he forgot michaels and pass partner's major suit bid (or correct hearts to spades), certainly at the four level.

Can one find episodes of Fawlty Towers online (and free)? I cannot. (Netflix does not seem to have it or Coupling.)

Is this position already covered in the "mandatory falsecard" thread?

I don't think one should be allowed to change a claim based upon a realization. I would take a "claim without statement" as meaning "I'm going to cash top tricks". If he is a trick short, the "realization" might well take place at trick 13. So, I don't think your 2nd and 3rd options should be considered possible lines as a result of the claim.

I believe that, when adjusted for times, our first President was also our richest President. (Kennedy came from a family with more money, but it wasn't all JFK's.)

Didn't Ted Kennedy come from a rather rich background and still champion the causes of the poor? I must admit to not having any idea how he voted on any issues, but doubt that he would have voted for tax cuts for the rich and the like.

I thought that too about the "Golden Rule", but my internet searching kept coming up with Sermon on the Mount which is New Testament. Can you point me to the Old Testament verse? (It is, of course, a sentiment expressed in many other beliefs.)

Are you saying it is human nature to see a black man and think he is poor (or came from a poor background)? And, then for white people not to be able to sympathize with him because they likely came from a less poor background?

Why?

It sounds to me like you are saying partner's actions put you in a position where you had to take a lesser action because of ethics. His BIT was not unethical, but it put you in a position where your ethics could have been compromised.