Elianna

Those things would actually not serve "to help with a bad session" if you were planning on keeping your bridge partner. I will say that I used to to do the first, but entirely unintentionally, and when I started writing EVERYTHING in the minus column (I tend to always concentrate on what could have gone better), I stopped keeping score. That way I stop concentrating on the bad results, and don't carry them with me to the next board. Otherwise, I will let one bad result cause me to think that EVERYTHING was bad, and it will end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. So I just don't keep score anymore.

I think that it was Avivim. This was about 4 years ago, in summer.

Adding to Adam's post, I don't think that finding substitute directors was harder up here, but BEING ABLE to substitute direct seems harder. (I got into directing as a substitute director.) I also wanted to add about a poor club experience in Israel: One of the local clubs (in a small city, I won't mention it), seemed to have an advanced section, and a more beginners' section. That's all well and good, we have that here, but visitors HAD to play in the beginners' section (and I was playing with someone who represented Israel in international competition). This was rather silly, so when Adam and I were visiting my home village, I never suggested going to that club, even though it had A LOT of tables, and we stuck to the Tel Aviv clubs. I also played in my grandparent's club in Netanya. It was okay, and most people spoke English, but my grandparents liked playing in this beginner's game in the morning, so I can't really speak to the overall level of play in that club, either.

Not that I disagree with your other points, but that particular quote doesn't necessarily mean that you can't admit that there may be other gods, you just can't "have" (i.e. worship) another god in front of that one. So you don't need to necessarily deny that other gods exist if you follow that rule, you just have to assert that your god supersedes others. Then again, one could ask why you're so sure that your god supersedes others, but that's a slightly different point than existence.

I like to flatter myself that Helene and I usually gang up (as in "agree") with each other. I do agree with the sentiment that it's not "ganging up" if someone is trying to stir the pot, but I can also understand moderators not wanting that amount of stirring on their boards. I also agree that the most effective way of stopping this seems to be banning religious discussion, but I would find that sad because sometimes there are interesting discussions. For example, the thread in question as it started was very interesting (about the relationship between "moderates" and "non-moderates"). But then one person veered completely off-topic. Perhaps a solution would be deleting all the off-topic conversation (and that would require participants to flag it instead of reply, and continue veering off-topic). I agree with others that this does not seem to be the ideal way to solve the issue, but I understand where the moderators are coming from, and would hope that they are taking this reply (and others) as suggestions, not criticisms.

And yet again, I wish that BBF had a "funny" button, like my favorite forums. Downvoting would not be enough.

Exciting!

I'm beginning to think that the only way to BE anti-science is to know nothing about it. (i.e. "If you're anti science, then you know nothing about science" is a true statement, but it's converse may not necessarily be true.) Maybe this makes me a science fundamentalist?

We ate there, too, and quite enjoyed it.

Adam and I will also be there. He's playing in GNTs. I'm not. :)

Officially, you're only supposed to ask if it makes a difference. So in other words, if a pair plays different defences, and someone wants to bid over 1C announced as short, they have to ask before they bid, but if they weren't planning on bidding, they aren't supposed to ask. Clearly, you can see that there is potential for both UI, and for the 1C opening side to gain information about the opponents' hand due to them having to ask questions. From what I can tell, most people then take the policy of routinely asking about the first alerted bid in a sequence (whether they are planning on bidding or not), and waiting on subsequent bids until the auction is over. I am not sure if that's recommended or not by ACBL. I am feeling a bit sick, and leaving the research to others. :)

According the The ACBL Alert Procedures one's partner is supposed to announce "could be short" when one opens 1C if it could contain as few as 2 cards. This is also repeated on the Alert Chart. This is the same announcement one makes when opening 1C that could be 4441, etc. (i.e. still less than three cards, but not strong.) So the non-opening side still needs to ask to distinguish between announced openings that can only include 4432, and the announced openings that could include other shapes. This is especially annoying for pairs who would like to play a different defence to 1C "short" and 1C "standard", because the 4432, which is announced as "short", is actually defined as natural in the GCC. (BTW, just to be clear, I am not claiming that any of this is ideal. I am just answering your question and reporting on the facts in ACBL as I understand them from reading the charts.)

Yes, it is. All defenses to conventional calls are legal under the GCC. This is why certain people in ACBL have worked so hard to get a 1C opening that could contain 4432 counted as nonconventional. See the GCC under "Competitive" #7a

I agree with you, especially in the thought that there were many worse ways that things could go. I do however take exception to George Jacobs calling this a good day for bridge. A good day for bridge is when certain teams will play each other in an international or European round robin without "security issues", "missed flights", or "sudden illnesses". That would be an excellent day for bridge (in this issue), but I don't know that it would happen anytime soon.

My understanding was that the Israeli team would have to pay for travel arrangements for a few people from the Indonesian Federation to meet them at said travel hub, but otherwise, visas were obtainable.

Honestly, I'm not so sure this is purely a youth vs. age thing. I know that data is not the plural of anecdote, but the people playing this (that I encountered) were older than me by 10+ years at least. When we played against them last year, the directors ruled that it was not allowed, and they could not play it (they were also playing artificial responses over it, so it was very clearly not allowed). And I'm rather old for this forum. I will say that I'm not against alternate ideas about conventions, it's more that I'm in favor of rule-following. I had a very unpleasant interaction, where I was blamed for calling the director. I agree with others, though, that most of this would be avoided by better clarity in the rules on the account of ACBL. If we are all expected to follow the rules, it would be nice if the rules were clear, and if people were able to get consistant answers from the game's governing body in our region. I can't imagine that anyone enjoys that some people get one response, and others get another response.

I know I shouldn't engage, but sources please. Both that these were motivated by "science", and that it was done in the interests of slowing down/stopping desertification.

I am a product of LA public schools. Perhaps I was at school at the time you were talking about but perhaps not. My mother considered sending me to private schools, but we didn't like them, and so I went to public schools for both junior and senior high. I am actually really happy that I went to public schools. I had a chance to meet many different people, both from the same background as me, and who had very different life experiences. I firmly believe that this has had a huge impact on my life, for the better. I think that I've been more aware of the world around me, and better able to understand people who have a different life outlook than I do. I used to teach at a small all-girls Jewish school, and am currently a teacher at a charter school in San Jose, another district with students that some people look down upon, some of whom have been underserved by the educational establishment. I have found that, while there are obvious differences in culture, parents and students were basically the same in both situations: Parents want their children to be as successful as possible, and students want to learn something that they feel is useful. I find that my biggest task as a teacher is to convince students that they CAN learn, and that what they are learning will help them in life. I find that once I've convinced students of that, they are very enthusiastic and responsive. I really love my job, but it is exhausting (you may have noticed that there has definitely been a slow-down of posts by me [although perhaps not have cared]). As of now, I can't really imagine a better career, and feel incredibly lucky that I have a great source of support (emotionally and admittedly financially considering how underpaid teachers are) in my husband.

which suggests it is illegal to psych Flannery or a 1 minor bid that can be less than 2 cards or many other artificial or conventional calls. Heck, for that matter it would be illegal to psych a transfer over 1nt. This sounds like they are institutionalizing the "convention disruption" idea discussed in Jillybean's thread. Anyway, I believe that I heard someone else calling out this pair about their convention card, which may have actually said 9-14. I remember the director talking to them saying it's not legal to play it as low as nine, but not sure that they actually bid it. I don't remember what they alerted against us. (It was definitely after we played them, btw.)

I re-read the thread Mgoetze linked to about changes. I had some reactions: 1) Wow, I used to post more, but my typing/spelling was atrocious. I had to read one sentence twice to figure out what words I was trying to say. 2) I really liked what Barmar posted: "In the specific case of the Advanced versus B/I forums, we need to be very careful. If someone posts in the Advanced forum, and you claim it doesn't belong there, you're effectively insulting the poster's bridge expertise. This is very different from saying that a bridge-related question belongs in the General Bridge forum rather than Water Cooler, or that a BBO question belongs in the BBO Support Forum rather than General Bridge." I think that it is very nice of Mgoetze to greet people. I think that he was correct to flag a post (not that I've seen the post, as I really only read the water cooler semi-regularly), but I do think that it is rude for people to PUBLICLY comment on a post being in the wrong forum. It could lead to embarrassment, especially if the person is not a moderator. I think that we should let people have a few posts under their belt before we expect them to have coping mechanisms with our rudeness. I do think that non-mod could handle things by saying "you may get better/more responses if you post in XYZ forum" and that would be fine, and that would be a good way to avoid implying something about the poster's ability-level. I also don't understand: Good point, you are right. I thought dealing with it privately was better, but now I see why it is not such a good idea. I think that people should be able to tell that he's new, and shouldn't rip someone to shreds in general. I'd rather see 20 people reporting the thread as being in the wrong place, and choosing not to respond until it gets moved, then see 20 people excoriating the person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_cold_blood

You know, I took this and book 1 in stride (I felt they were kind of telegraphed). I can't say what it's a spoiler for, as that would spoil it, but if you're up-to-date with books you're fine

I predict that at least one of Adam or I will make it to day 2 of the Spingold. I'd even be willing to break my no gambling rule and bet on it. :)

That may be true in reality, but I think that it's not true in theory. What I mean is, I don't think that Kevin did anything wrong (although if I was his boss, I might offer to step in so that the situation doesn't become confrontational between two people who are basically colleagues) but that when he is on job interviews, he may want to have some of these answers of what to do hypothetically. One of my questions I like asking on interview panels goes something like "Have you ever had to deal with conflict with a colleague and what did you do to get past it?" I look for people who show some signs of reflection about what happened, and think that Kevin would ace this, as he's looking for ideas of how to deal with such a person in the future. I'm probably way too tired to be making sense, sorry.

I don't remember either because we were just bidding, and didn't actually play the hand. I do seem to remember that we had thought that 6 would make. I know that I initially didn't post your hand because I didn't want to hear about where we should be, but what I should have done.