TimG

I know I shouldn't ask, but if there is a beginning and this beginning was brought about by intelligent design, who designed the designer? And, where was this designer of the designer before the beginning? Wasn't there nothing before the beginning?

I changed the action on the default script to 'print(north)' and the output was: 1. 2. 3. 4. K Q 7 2 A Q 6 2 A 9 8 5 A Q 6 A T 9 9 2 J 9 J 4 3 J 8 A 9 4 2 A K J 3 A K Q K J 7 5 A Q 3 T 5 4 A K Q 7 5. A Q 8 2 K 6 A 6 5 2 9 3 2 Looks like the spaces that dealer generates are not hard spaces. Frequency charts suffer from the same space issue.

I think either would be Super Chart. You would need an approved defense to use the method in a mid-chart event. Kind of strange that you can use 2D (or 1D) to show either of these hand types in a GCC event, but not 1S in anything but a Super Chart event. Go figure.

You may be right, but something about instant replay in bridge strikes me as wrong.

Perhaps, but at the cost of requiring the boards to be properly duplicated in specific time periods. I would imagine that most duplicating should go on prior to the event. Just imagine the annoyance of a 15 minute delay in the Just In Time duplicating compared to the problem of a 15 minute delay in boards that were prepared hours ahead of time. Besides, we all deal with playing boards in odd orders and/or playing the same number board multiple times during an ACBL Swiss event. I think it would be far harder to get used to the color coding than to get used to playing 1-16 followed by playing 1-16 again in a barometer pair event. Heck, the board could even be numbered 1-17, 2-18, 3-19, etc.

In theory. replacement costs shouldn't be more than they are now, should they? If you have to replace a deck of cards after 1000 uses, that something like 75 sessions if the board is played 13 times each session. But, it is about 1000 sessions if it is only played once each session. So, while you need 13 times as many decks, they are used 1/13 as often. This is not meant to suggest that the other costs you list don't make this prohibitively expensive in ACBL.

No, because a hesitation that might be a BIT in one instance won't be in another; it's not nearly as simple as 8 seconds is not a BIT while 9 seconds is a BIT.

Unfortunately, surely they can't (or at least surely they won't), and that's why it will not happen. I have been told by someone who knows that that is a fact. There are other logistical problems as well. For example, after the round, instead of everyone passing the board down 1 table, the caddies/directors have to replace every board in the (very large) room. I've never played in such an event, but isn't it the case that there is generally a complete set of boards at the table and north takes out the appropriate ones for the round to be played?

Yes, the value of the stories is in the lessons one can draw from them, not their literal truth. Is this true of the stories of Jesus, too? Well sure. Doesn't it break down if you do not believe in the literal truth to some of the stories? Like the virgin birth and the resurrection? To the issue of who is and is not saved, it is my understanding that many Christians believe along the lines of John 3:18 "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Which seems pretty clear that the only path to salvation is through a belief in Jesus. Unlucky are those that are born into an environment where they never learn of Jesus.

Yes, the value of the stories is in the lessons one can draw from them, not their literal truth. Is this true of the stories of Jesus, too?

jimmy believes the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed for a purpose there is insufficient evidence to support this belief so it would be wise to check his other beliefs I think that many of us believe: B ) A preponderance of the evidence refutes Jimmy's belief (intelligent design). And: C) If, based upon all the evidence, Jimmy can come to the wrong conclusion in this matter, he is likely to come to the wrong conclusion in other matters. For me, C) is especially true when "other matters" involve religion. I likely would not question your bridge opinions based upon your "error" when it comes to intelligent design. That's fine, although I'd ask if you'd say the same about anyone who believed that the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed. I think I would say the same about anyone who claimed that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the universe was intelligently designed. I will readily admit that there are many signs that could easily (perhaps reasonably or understandably) be misread as indicating an intelligently designed universe. But, seeing these signs is far different from coming to a studied conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed.

Even if EW had a "clear understanding" they would likely be on different pages based upon the differences in explanations given by North and South. But, beyond that, it seems wrong to me to force players to have agreements. What players must do is fully disclose the agreements that do have. Perhaps West should have said: "If double is strong we play X; if double is weak we play Y." But, I don't think having this "unclear understanding" is a violation of any rules. And, west's interpretation of the partnership's rules for this situation were reasonable (in my opinion). Which player did the committee deem had given the "wrong explanation"? The only person that we know gave a wrong explanation is North. If EW is hit with a procedural penalty, I can't see how north gets off without one.

jimmy believes the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed for a purpose there is insufficient evidence to support this belief so it would be wise to check his other beliefs I think that many of us believe: B ) A preponderance of the evidence refutes Jimmy's belief (intelligent design). And: C) If, based upon all the evidence, Jimmy can come to the wrong conclusion in this matter, he is likely to come to the wrong conclusion in other matters. For me, C) is especially true when "other matters" involve religion. I likely would not question your bridge opinions based upon your "error" when it comes to intelligent design.

It seems to me from the facts that there was a mis-bid rather than an incorrect explanation, so west is not entitled to any adjustment. I like the process by which the EW and NS players are called separately. It strikes me as less likely to result in exaggeration by either side. For instance, if there is a difference of opinion regarding length of hesitation and both sides are present, if the first side says it was 5 seconds then the second side (who thinks it was 10 seconds) might be prone to claim it was 15 seconds so that the average will be something like what they really felt. In short, I think the separate testimony will likely lead to a less confrontational atmosphere and less exaggeration. Most undocumented claims by NS will be seen as self-serving, so I do not think there is any need to question separately. Also, between the time of the play of the hand and the appeal, the partnership will usually have had plenty of time to discuss and settle the matter (so that they should be able to provide consistent testimony whether done together or separately). Given this, it seems wrong to give more weight to separate testimony. And thus, the separate testimony would serve little or no purpose.

Aren't mood, anxiety, appetite and substance abuse symptoms?

Maybe Mikeh can make a post on the first of every month stating his position in opposition to Luke_Warm's and anyone who wants to can add a "me, too, wtp" post.

I have no problem with encouraging abstinence. I do have a problem with abstinence only programs. Abstinence is superior when it comes to the possible transmission of disease and pregnancy, but I'm not sure it is a superior moral choice. And, I would not like it if sex education was taught with that slant. Abstinence good, intercourse evil, isn't what sex education should be about, in my opinion, regardless of whether condoms are being handed out.

But, Richard seems to have started this thread with the primary purpose of engaging luke_warm.

Not my claims. The claims made in the article which I posted a portion of and a link to. The portion which I quoted included "have had little impact in Africa". But, that is just coincidental, I included the quote so that people could get an idea of what the linked article was about -- I dislike when people post links to articles with no explanation. That's also why I wrote "Seems teaching abstinence might be more effective that distributing condoms." Though I guess I would have been better off if I had also included "Africa" in that. Anyway, I found the link to the article on a friend's facebook page. Someone had commented that "this information is good to have for school programs" which is what really grabbed my attention (in a head shaking, disbelieving sort of way).

It is convenient to isolate one aspect of the information and make it appear to support a presupposition - this is the Straussians' method. However, when you read the work in its entirety you find it in no way supports the isolated conclusion claimed. You cut your quote of the article off just before: Which I found a bt amusing given your "it is convenient to isolate one aspect" comment.

I think it depends what you mean by "beliefs." Certainly, beliefs themselves shouldn't be imposed on people; but laws based on those beliefs are a different thing. Laws are based on people's moral ideals. I don't see a substantive difference between murder's being illegal because atheists and/or agnostics thinking it's "wrong" (or "undesirable" on a utilitarian basis), and its being legal because Christians believe it's wrong because of the Biblical commandment. We vote our morality, whether it's from the Bible, a philosophical text, or just the Golden Rule. The source of one's moral beliefs doesn't disqualify him or her from political participation. If a majority of Americans believed that working on the Sabbath was immoral, you'd be OK with laws that make it illegal to work on Sundays?

The following quote is from an article that can be found here. Seems teaching abstinence might be more effective that distributing condoms.

One reason this is very different is that it carries over multiple events. Dumping to your friends in THIS event will not help you win THIS event. Dumping during a round robin may increase your odds of winning the event in which the dumping takes place. I think better than Josh's example of resting a pair in the second half of a KO is resting a pair in later stages of a round robin after the team has already clinched qualification. If this results in your 3rd pair playing more than the minimum number of boards, has the team violated the spirit of the contest by not putting forth the best effort possible?

Can happen in a KO that has 3-ways with 2 survivors, especially if the event is seeded (so that a middle seeded team can dump to the lower seeded team to increase the chances of the higher seeded team is eliminated and the middle seeded team then takes over the higher seed). I know of such an occurrence that happened about 20 years ago. A committee was convened to investigate. The team that dumped was quite forthcoming about what they had done and how they had done it. This was before the rule cited in the opening post had been established. There was some rule about "playing to win every trick" or some such that the committee was able to use to impose some sort of sanction on the dumping team. Though as Richard points out, the rule they cited would also make things like a hold up play illegal. The team that was dumped to (the team that survived as a result of the dumping) was very offended by the whole thing. One of them has refused to play in an ACBL event since, I believe. The team that was the victim of the dumping (the team that was eliminated) thought that congratulations were in order for the team that pulled off the dumping. Anyway, this has been a hot topic many times since the 70s. And, seems to be one of those topics where people have strong opinions and do not change their minds. The Bridge World position has always been that the fault is with the conditions of contest which make dumping possibly advantageous. Seems right to me.

Subtly?