TimG

I think the point of the opening post was to see if people's political leanings influenced how they perceived the gesture. I do not think that wanting to hear peoples' reactions is inconsistent with not caring what the gesture actually was. Sort of like those ink blots that the psychiatrist shows you, no one cares what the spots actually represent (if anything), it's the individual reaction that is important. I read the second sentence, the suggestion that it was time to start being polite, as directed at the denizens of the water cooler, not the President.

Not everyone's. I could not have told you which disciple it was that denied Jesus three times (or even recalled that there was denying done until you mentioned it). Nor did I realize it was Good Friday until I read your post.

I was about to suggest the same auction. The only pushy/questionable call seems to be 4♠, but when opener has been able to complete his shape (with 3♦) and then fails to bid 3N over 3♥, it seems reasonable to me. Also like gnasher, I'd be pretty pleased to find this at the table. Edit: I should also add that I'm more comfortable with opener's reverse in a limited opening bid system. In standard, reversing after responder has bid your singleton might be pushy, but that depends a bit on your post-2/1 reverse style/agreements.

One of his aides can: If you view the video, you will see that he clearly grasped with one hand, bent at the waist, straightened, then grasped with two hands. I don't care whether he bowed or not. But, I am disappointed that an aide would try to put a spin on it by clearly mis-describing what happened.

Looked like a bow to me.

But, isn't it when opener has spade values that the opponents are most likely to be going for a number?

Oh yes, it does. I'm pretty sure the comment that has been criticized a few times in this thread is not The former sounding like a bridge lesson given by the director; the latter, as you say, a good way to find out about the actual agreement.

I think this varies from live game to live game, that is whether your idea of a live game is an ACBL club game or the game played at your kitchen table. Maybe expectations should vary depending upon whether you are playing in the main bridge club or the relaxed bridge club. The person serving a table has the option of filling in the description field to set out the basic ground rules of the table so that a player knows what to expect when sitting down. Perhaps using this more often is one solution to this difference of opinion.

It's acceptable at the local library on Tuesday afternoons. You should understand that the main bridge club is an informal setting for most.

Does this mean that the set of whole numbers is not infinite (because it is bounded by zero)?

temporal in the sense of historical happenings I still don't get it. Are trying to add the civil war into the time line? yes Why isn't it already there? it is, but the fact that we're here and now from there shows that there was a beginning I guess I'm still missing the point then. If it's there already, why does it need to be added? As far as there being a beginning because we are here, let's consider that time is a number line and we are at 5. The number line can be infinite in one or both directions. That is, it could have a starting point at zero and continue indefinitely into the positive, or it could have no starting point and continue indefinitely into both positive and negative. If there is a beginning, we can measure our distance from the beginning no matter where we are along the number line, but that doesn't mean that there aren't still an infinite number of points not between us and the origin. Perhaps the problem is that I am looking at time as all moments, past, present and future. While you are looking at all moment past and present (a finite set) and want to add the future moments. But, I don't see any reason those future moments can't be included in the set of moments we call time.

Edit: jdonn's edit covered everything I said.

1. 3D would be the bid of choice over 4st suit with many 2542 hands and opener might have bid 5C along the way with a singleton; we could easily need the club ace onside plus a little something else for 6D (Qx KQJxx AJxx xx). I pass. 2. 4H. I'm confident that partner will bid again with a spade control. 3. Really no way to make a forcing bid in a minor? I guess I'll just shoot out 6C. 6N could be just as good (or just as bad), but I have no way of knowing. And, 6C does not preclude partner from converting.

temporal in the sense of historical happenings I still don't get it. Are trying to add the civil war into the time line? yes Why isn't it already there?

temporal in the sense of historical happenings I still don't get it. Are trying to add the civil war into the time line?

How about KTxx xx Axxx QJx?

I think this is what Jimmy means by "actual infinite", the mathematical construct. Jimmy's "potential infinite" is the real world's "unimaginably large". If you keep adding one grain of sand to your collection, the collection will get very large, but can always be described by a finite number. Jimmy's view of "always", "forever" and "eternal" are as real world concepts of time and thus are "potential infinite" -- that is they can be a very long time, but no matter how far backwards (or forward) you go, the amount of time will be measurably finite. (I'm not offering an opinion regarding these concepts, just trying to simplify the definitions in order to make the discussion more understandable.) How'd I do, Jimmy? pretty damn good... this should show why a successive addition of temporal events isn't possible if space/time were an actual infinite... if there were a starting point however (i.e. a beginning), we can so add What temporal events must be added?

I think this is what Jimmy means by "actual infinite", the mathematical construct. Jimmy's "potential infinite" is the real world's "unimaginably large". If you keep adding one grain of sand to your collection, the collection will get very large, but can always be described by a finite number. Jimmy's view of "always", "forever" and "eternal" are as real world concepts of time and thus are "potential infinite" -- that is they can be a very long time, but no matter how far backwards (or forward) you go, the amount of time will be measurably finite. (I'm not offering an opinion regarding these concepts, just trying to simplify the definitions in order to make the discussion more understandable.) How'd I do, Jimmy?

IMPs, both vul, 2nd seat I held ♠Txxx ♥Kx ♦Axxx ♣QJx and was reminded of this thread. RHO opened 1♥ and I doubled even though I thought that was crossing a line. A teammate suggested she thought it would be a popular choice amongst experts. I wonder what you think.

I believe that someone else has mentioned that the dealer cannot be assigned, so I suspect it is not something you are doing wrong. A work around that shouldn't be too bothersome is to write your script such that either east or west has an opening preempt and skip every other deal (when north or south is the dealer).

Point taken.

Richard, I don't quite understand the point. I can't see anything close to universal agreement on how to script a 15-17 NT precisely, and even if we could script one that satisfies a significant majority, what would be the purpose? Perhaps it would be useful to have a few example scripts so that people unfamiliar with Dealer could see how things work. But, the scripting itself is pretty easy once you become familiar and probably would take less time than searching through available scripts in a large library.

So, if there is intelligent life out there somewhere, does it have access to salvation? That requires belief in Jesus Christ, right?

Must not have agreed with Justin! :-)

From the ACBL Super Chart: While the defenses must be in writing, and in some cases submitted a day ahead, nothing in the above says that the defenses must go through the same approval process as required for mid-chart methods. It is my belief that no approval process exists for Super Chart methods.