thepossum

I wouldn't waste your time. Stick to playing with people who can bid and play decent bridge Felicity

I considered ignoring this transfer for a few reasons. 1. They are new and seemingly rather useless. 2. I don't really like them and 3. I believe unlike major transfers ignoring them is ok. This proved very costly at MPs (and I don't mean missing an extra trick) [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|thepossum,~Mwest,~Mnorth,~Meast|md|4SAKT9HKJ6D843CAQ8,S52HQT74DKJT96C63,SQJ4H932D2CKT9542,S8763HA85DAQ75CJ7|sv|n|rh||ah|Board%202|mb|P|mb|1N|an|notrump%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20!C;%202-5%20!D;%202-5%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2015-17%20HCP;%2018-%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|2N!|an|Minor%20transfer%20--%206+%20!C|mb|P|mb|3C|an|Transfer%20completed%20--%202-5%20!C;%202-5%20!D;%202-5%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2015-17%20HCP;%2018-%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|S5|pc|SQ|pc|S3|pc|S9|pc|C2|pc|C7|pc|CQ|pc|C3|pc|CA|pc|C6|pc|C4|pc|CJ|pc|ST|pc|S2|pc|SJ|pc|S6|pc|S4|pc|S8|pc|SK|pc|D6|pc|SA|pc|H7|pc|D2|pc|S7|pc|D3|pc|D9|pc|CT|pc|D7|pc|C5|pc|H5|pc|C8|pc|DJ|pc|D4|pc|DT|pc|CK|pc|D5|pc|H9|pc|H8|pc|H6|pc|HT|pc|DK|pc|C9|pc|DA|pc|D8|pc|H2|pc|HA|pc|HJ|pc|HQ|pc|DQ|pc|HK|pc|H4|pc|H3|]600|400[/hv] And before anyone says that is the right contract, whatare you complaining about. Its because for some unfathomable reason West did not lead a diamond against those in 3nt (edited for clarification)

ok thanks Vampyr. As I said I don't know all the bids that GiB uses and the full system for each of them and often rely on checking the bidding tips to make a decision on an appropriate bid. will read up that system more

Thanks everyone. Sometimes in this a similar situations I am hoping partner will indicate they have things covered with a NT bid before me. Often I feel the bot doesn't want to bid NT first. In this case the bot has a really nice hand with AQ in our unbid suit. Surely an immediate 3NT trip would not be amiss - or is that too restrictive and not leaving enough options for exploration??

Hi Richard, thanks that makes sense. So my choice of bid after the force indicates enough to the forcing bidder on my holding as to whether to stay in NT or return to a suit bid I can't remember what I was thinking but maybe I thought four spades to the 6 was a partial stop

Hi Felicity Thankyou. I think the Bot is playing it as forcing in this case though - the note says forcing to 3NT which I assumes to keep bidding at least that far not necessarily as the final contract

Hi all Same preamble as for new minor forcing really "After originally learning basic Acol with very few bells and whistles, I sometimes find aspects of GiB 2/1 rather complex, unnecessarily so, and occasionally so highly constrained that some sequences can get me into trouble - and if I didn't have the tooltips would not have a clue what some bids/systems actually mean I'm not getting into really obscure ones but this one is one of the more commonly used forcing bids that occasionally causes me problems because we are looking at NT but it gives me no indication of Spade holding at all Eventually you just take the plunge and hope there isnt a gaping hole in your contract somewhere" - taking the plunge in NT without having a clue about partners spades in this case [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|thepossum,~~M639sx62,~~M84642l4,~~M869mhe7|md|4S6432HAK83DCA9642,ST75HJ2D865CQJ875,SAQHQ54DKQJT3CKT3,SKJ98HT976DA9742C|sv|n|rh||ah|Board%202|mb|P|mb|1C|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20!C;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|1D|an|One%20over%20one%20--%204+%20!D;%206+%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|1H|an|3+%20!C;%204+%20!H;%2011+%20HCP;%2012-18%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|1S!|an|Fourth%20suit%20forcing%20--%204+%20!D;%203-%20!S;%2012+%20HCP;%2013+%20total%20points;%20forcing%20to%203N%20|mb|P|mb|1N|an|3+%20!C;%204+%20!H;%202-3%20!S;%2011-14%20HCP;%2012+%20total%20points;%20partial%20stop%20in%20!S|mb|P|mb|3N|an|4+%20!D;%203-%20!S;%2014-20%20HCP%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|D5|pc|DQ|pc|D9|pc|C2|pc|H4|pc|H7|pc|HK|pc|H2|pc|H3|pc|HJ|pc|HQ|pc|H6|pc|DK|pc|DA|pc|C4|pc|D6|pc|HT|pc|H8|pc|C5|pc|H5|pc|D2|pc|S2|pc|D8|pc|DJ|pc|DT|pc|D7|pc|S3|pc|S5|pc|D3|pc|D4|pc|C6|pc|C8|pc|H9|pc|HA|pc|S7|pc|C3|pc|C9|pc|C7|pc|CK|pc|S9|pc|CT|pc|S8|pc|CA|pc|CJ|pc|S4|pc|ST|pc|SA|pc|SJ|pc|SQ|pc|SK|pc|S6|pc|CQ|]600|400[/hv] Note. Ran a quick Sim based on information at the point of fourth suit force Mean NT by south is approx 8.5 with standard deviation of 1.5 and range of 2 to 13 1NT and 2NT bids are fairly safe so maybe its not too bad

Hi all After originally learning basic Acol with very few bells and whistles, I sometimes find aspects of GiB 2/1 rather complex, unnecessarily so, and occasionally so highly constrained that some sequences can get me into trouble - and if I didn't have the tooltips would not have a clue what some bids/systems actually mean I'm not getting into really obscure ones but this one is one of the more commonly used forcing bids that occasionally causes me problems because we are looking at NT but it gives me no indication of Club holding at all Eventually you just take the plunge and hope there isnt a gaping hole in your contract somewhere [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|thepossum,~~M639sx62,~~M84642l4,~~M869mhe7|md|2SA4HAQJ5DKQJ32CQ6,SQ86H642D96CK9543,S97532HK97DA7CJ72,SKJTHT83DT854CAT8|sv|b|rh||ah|Board%204|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|mb|1D|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20!D;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|1S|an|One%20over%20one%20--%204+%20!S;%2011-%20HCP;%206-12%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|2N|an|Jump%20in%20notrump%20--%202-4%20!C;%203-5%20!D;%202-4%20!H;%202-3%20!S;%2018-19%20HCP;%2022-%20tot|mb|P|mb|3C!|an|New%20minor%20forcing%20--%205+%20!S;%2011-%20HCP;%207-12%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|3N|an|2-4%20!C;%203-5%20!D;%202-3%20!H;%202%20!S;%2018-19%20HCP;%2022-%20total%20points;%20partial%20st|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|H2|pc|HK|pc|H3|pc|H5|pc|D7|pc|D5|pc|DK|pc|D6|pc|HA|pc|H6|pc|H7|pc|H8|pc|HQ|pc|H4|pc|H9|pc|HT|pc|HJ|pc|C3|pc|S2|pc|C8|pc|D2|pc|D9|pc|DA|pc|DT|pc|C2|pc|CA|pc|C6|pc|C4|pc|SK|pc|S4|pc|S6|pc|S3|pc|CT|pc|CQ|pc|CK|pc|C7|pc|SQ|pc|S5|pc|SJ|pc|SA|pc|DQ|pc|C9|pc|S7|pc|D8|pc|DJ|pc|S8|pc|S9|pc|D4|pc|D3|pc|C5|pc|CJ|pc|ST|]600|400[/hv]

Early post deleted and being editted. Sorry

ok thankyou. I will look for the discussions.

What seriously concerns me about so many theories or models of mental illness is that many ignore the social and the cultural. I think it is ridiculous to even contemplate that it is possible. Without wnating to disrespect certain professions and their views and models on the world I think there needs to be a combination of the mechanistic biological type approaches and a genuine understanding of all the other factors (and associated disciplines) that can contribute towards its explanation. I wont list them all here but to me the list os very long indeed Sadly the same can be said about many issues where people take a very narrow almost mechanistic approach to very complex, partly constructed, and highly complex issues There are some delusions where I think almost 100% of people would agree in their unusualness or unbelievability. For many though it is a very complex area and highly philosphical and inexact on what constitutes a delusion and what type of delusion it is And as a final comment (I promise on this post) mental illness has been and I believe always will be highly politicised. We can never ignore the aspects of power and how the concept of mental illness has been abused to oppress people for millenia. With apologies to those who only look at the medical side of things. And I personally feel that hisotircal injustice (and ongoing injustice) need to be remembered and never forgotten or repeated. Sadly very few people (even those of us with mental illness) know the extent of the brutal oppression of the mentally ill and those politically deemed to be mentally ill through history - some of it within some people's living memory. Even as someone who has read about and experienced this stuff my whole life, some of those atrocities have only recently come to my attention

Dear Pilowsky I don't know if you can or want to comment on this but I am very interested in your views on the nature of Covid mortality risk and comorbities and the way they have all been reported as Covid deaths during the pandemic regards The Possum

I couldn't find any papers you have written in the subject. And as I said I see or feel evidence of someone trying to draw me in to a professional faux pas. But I am happy to debate delusions, hallucinations, psychotic illness and different philosophies and views on mental illness any time. People have very different views. They use all manner of questionnable to logic to move from certain models and some evidence to making a blanket statement with far too much certainty in my view. Its all well and good to say that it maybe entirely a biological or medical issue. But that doesnt get you very far in really explaining where it comes from and how to deal with it - unless the only solution on the table is chemicaltreatment or (more alrmingly) genomic analysis and approaches As an aside though, without getting myself into any trouble, I am hopeful one day of getting a legitimate script for MDMA or something the like. My days of trying to source unapproved drugs are well behind me Also I can tell from what you have written already in this thread but on other issues elsewhere that I often know a hell of a lot more about it than you. And I annoy going to be intimidated or bullied into silence or intimidated with irrelevant letters either. In your circles you may get away with that phony abuse of disrespect. They do not stack up in genuine debate or discussion. I respect what you are qualified in and treat every other statement on its merit Edited out auto-generated apostrophe. Some combination of phone or app doesn't understand it's and its. You type the latter and some ignoramus somewhere has it converted to it's Just as an aside. Part of my self-diagnosis on anxiety levels relates to whether these annoying cruel voices in the back of my head show up. One of the most annoying ones has been bugging me for the last hour thanks to this. But they are very faint, almost like a whisper, but very annoying. Same boring criticims every time, actually thats another disucssion where those voices come from, what they are etc. It still hurts. Usually I can ignore it. Maybe you have an explanation for me :) Sometimes I tell them to **** *** etc. Its a good indiciator anxiety levels

Sorry but you had previously discussed my identity having come up as a discussion point in one of your circles in Sydney. And as I said its a very small world. I wasnt having a go. Just trying to express a highly legitimate concern I have over being dragged into certain discussions, and even arguments on public forums. I am just explaining a reality of the world. Others have abused situations to undermine me personally and professionally thats all. And unfortunately you made some very questionable assertions and posted some challengeable material on an issue outside your area of expertise, despite you claiming some authority. And I feel obligated to challenge it. I am certainly not going to challenge any views you may have on obesity or related physiological conditions, say, but on this I claim every bit as much of not more authority to debate the issue. And if you do not understand the professional and personal complexity of such discussions on public forums I am surprised. If you can't understand my anxieties about even having to challenge you I am surprised. There is a thing called professional respect. There are people in many forums either deliberately or unintentionally provoking people into damaging statements due to the nature of the medium, provocation, anxiety etc

I have always had something of a personal issue with the cultural out on certain delusions. Its highly political and convenient but then again where would you get suggesting that any major relgious group was deluded. This issue goes to the very basis of what a delusion may or may not be and where they come from. Some are incredibly deeply engrained personally and cultural. It is when they go against cultural norms they become regarded as problematic. Which then begs the question how appropriate is is to pathologise abnormality in any way shape or form. Diagnostic criteria and the definition of illness have been highly political and socially and culturally contstructed. That is one alternative view to Dr Torrey's much more medical model view. I have concerns about any form of assessment that is so arbitrary to allow for very discretionary definition of normality and abnormaity at one end and even more cocnerns at anyone who thinks any complex psychological or psychiatric condition could be explained purely in medical terms While I am being very careful being drawn into any discussion about President Trump, I appreciate to many his style and what he says come across the way you may suggest. Having seen the President speak (online of course) or be interviewed in different situations he usually comes across as a mixture of reasonable, controversial, provocative, sometimes carefully scripted other times very off the cuff - all kinds of things. I'm not prepared to be drawn any further. I keep wanting to say more but it is wrong for me even to discuss an individual case in this way. I'm not prepared to be drawn any further. EDIT I will add though that many people react very differently in public situtations, or anxiety provoking situations. Sometimes many of us can come across as somewhat disorganised/confused for a while - thats the nature of certain situations and personalities. Whether something becomes a clinical issue or not is a totally different thing and can certainly not be assessed watching a 5 minute TV interview segment If I may offer a view on something I personally feel you are ill advised talking about anyone in this way. But maybe you dont have to be as personally and professionally cautious as some of us do. And depending on what you actually know about me I think I have some reasonable reasons to be extremely cautious beinng dragged into these discussions in this way. I am sorry but that is not an unreasonable anxiety EDIT I apologise to everyone for constant editing but often something needs clarifiying and everything I say is a highly informed personal view

Surely saying that a political opponent is influenced or controlled by dark or shadowy forces is not totally ridiculous rhetoric

Regarding delusions I will offer a reasonably informed but personal view that the majority are too readily dismissed without making an effort to understand the experiences and knowledge that an individual may have that lead to apparently strange or in some cases bizarre beliefs. Many I believe are quite easily analysed and explained both in terms of experience, culture, traumas, etc in combination with the way thoughts are encoded decoded and constructed. As you said most sufferers if delusions can observe and discuss them themselves. Even some that many would regard as bizarre may represent limited knowledge of the world by the person making the assessment. It's a highly subjective and arbitrary issue up for debate. As someone who has to be wary of such limited knowledge by some potential assessors you learn which are safe to discuss and which are not. Most people are not knowledgeable enough to make assessment. You learn firstly to assess the life experience, knowledge and attitudes of any potential assessor before you start divulging anything to them and keep stuff at their level of knowledge and understanding. And these days I even like to have some hard evidence to back them up just in case. One interesting thing I learned early in my experience or knowledge of psychosis are the very different ways people are assessed in the USA and other countries. There are professional differences in criteria for example. Many more people are diagnosed as having schizophrenia in the USA than are thought to actually have schizophrenia as would be diagnosed elsewhere. And as I said most diagnosis is limited by the experience and knowledge of assesors who it has to be said generally come from very different circles of life experience For example the belief that the whole world is against you is very reasonable belief for many And in my personal case it's not unreasonable for me to be anxious about my forum posts being scrutinized and used to attempt to diagnose my mental state :) which at the moment is understandably and obviously highly anxious. Hence the way my posts are constantly edited, fixed, added to etc.

I would rather not debate the Trump issue. As I said Dr Torrey's position is open for debate and challenge by those within the profession and those with other serious relevant knowledge and experience. You need to be careful about sources of material. They may be from somewhere seriously open to challenge but I will address the material you posted. I'm not a fan of ad hominem tactics to defend or attack a position. However in realtion toDr Torrey's position, from what I can see he is (like many psychiatrists) much more at the medical model end of the debate and does not give enough consideration to other aspects of serious mental illness. That is my understanding so far. But as far as I know there is considerably more and diverse knowledge about schizophrenia and psychosis since that excerpt was written. I may occasionally ask you to clarify certain physiological related issues. I would appreciate that input. I wasn't going to critique one of your opening anecdotes. But I think you have something of a statistical fallacy going on. Just because most people who have been fixated on or stalked royals had delusions does not mean that most people with psychosis have delusions about the royal family. As I said none of the errors in anything you say should be used to undermine any of your other statements but they dont help Apologies for edits. Often I cannot see them until after they are posted. I don't know why. I always need an third party editor. If I edit anything relating to any of your comments I will make it clear and not edit anything to undermine anything you say. In my defence of making typos or posts that need edits. I am involved in reading and rebutting so much information on so many platforms that I often write very quickly, often on my phone in tiny edit boxes and I don't always have time to review anything or everything and carefully write and structure every sentence.

Thanks for the post and the material requiring serious review and response. It will take me some time But one quick comment or observation on what has been happening too much recently but for a very long time. Far too many people offer a lot of opinions on people's mental health status without having a clue what they are talking about, they actually go against clinical practice by doing so, thinking you can diagnose someone without sitting in a room or at least spending a great deal of time getting to know someone. Im not going to get into hot water by expressing views on President Trump but what I see is some classic Trump rhetoric delivered in his regular style But what I really want to read and critique is all the other supporting information to your post and the people behind it and their various theories and positions on things. I could try and critique it word by word but don't really have the time or standing to offer as much authority as many of the people who would play Bridge on this site :) Just for starters I am concentrating on the theories of Dr(Professor?, Director? apologies) E F Torrey, since that is the source of the schizophrenia excerpt you put up. From a cursory glance Torrey is taking one end of a complex and long standing debate. As I said though there is a great deal to read before giving much comment in order to do justice to the theories. However as a few quick comments I do believe some of the reported philosophies he puts forward around causes of schizophrenia (eg opposition to or downplaying social contributing factors) and his reported views on violence and causes of stigma due to a minority of violent people are actually counterporductive to an understanding of the illness/condition/disorder/whatever and could actually arguably contribue towards stigmatisation. However I need to read more to make sure I am being fairr with that cursory view. And since you used anecdotes as part of your backing, I imagine you have no problem in anecdotes being included with review of published research to back me up Also, despite the tendency of some to unnecessarily use some kind of professional authority to back them up I think we can leave that out too. Its totally unnecessary and burdensome when engaging in intellgent debate. I could, if I felt like give you plenty of personal and professional backing but it is unnecessary. Lets stick to facts, words and points of view expressed on paper/online please. Howvere if necessay I am sure my backing and authority could easily outweigh the majority of people here including many with Dr/Professor attached to their names - depending of course on their field and how much they actually know, experienced, have studied or read on the subject at hand Note. I don't like to get too personal in critiques so I may actually even avoid challenging your personal family anecdotes about questionnable views/theories on schizophrenia. One thing I will say though is that its not really wise to start discussion on such a serious toppic which such easily challengeable views on so many things. I will obviously try my utmost to argue respectfully in every way. But please accept that respectful argument with a Doctor or Professor or even a Psychiatrist does include the legitimate statement or production of evidence to show that what they say or believe may be erroneous or at least open to substantial challenge. I am also hopeful based on some of our earlier interchanges and attempts to make reference to me personally that none of this is an attempt either to identify me, smear me, professionally attack me any way shape or form. One always has to be wary of such things in this climate. On that I am trusting you. Its a small world, small cirlces and sadly some of those circles can intersect in very unfortunate and personally damaging ways. Some of us have very legitimate reasons for using an alias (despite some knowing my identity). I would prefer to keep it that way. Its a very dirty world, especially for advocates against power. And. sorry for going on, some of us have very serious risks that could or have been used against us. You used the words "competent psychiatrist" in your opening. I am happy that I could easily sit in a room with anyone truly competent in the field and be fine. What worries me is those who lack competence getting involved. However, for starters on that score I have sat at conferences (while undergoing clinical and other post degree training) and argued issues of mental health and schizophrenia with some senior mental health professionals and their views and over-confident assertions certainly did not stack up against the research. It is rather concerning that some of those people are involved in care of and making policy about people with serious mental health concerns I did try, late in life, to become certified (professionally that is ;)) and research schizophrenia and psychotic illness and even influence policy and diagnostic criteria. That was a goal but sadly I embarked on it late in life and sometimes mental health can get in the way. But just for the record, at risk of identifying myself I have a lifetime experience of serious mental health issues including psychosis, a few spells in a psych ward and have been on the receiving end of stigma about violence by community, and professionals inside a ward. Just so you know some of my standing. I also have substantial professional, academic and some research knowledge and experience in the field too. I could confidently sit and critique most publications in the field except for the obvious specialist details on neurobiology etc, but at the general level I could happily debate that too.

Thx all for the interesting discussion. I'm relieved that my lack of confidence over my options was not misplaced. My logic was that I felt we could maybe defend the contract and I didn't want to risk any double however it was interpreted. I was also a bit nervous about 2NT even with 4 spades to the 10. Just a bit unfortunate that almost everyone else doubled and ended up in 4,5, or one table bid 6 clubs. EDIT correction. Many tables also allowed 3S to pass and make. A couple defended it the best scores I was looking at were in Clubs, especially game

It's amazing really. People without a business, investment, risk clue lecturing everyone over commercial production of a vaccine when many will fall by the way side losing all investment. Has to be given away for free without covering costs and a reasonable return on those who risk their capital. Expecting a corporation used to investment and medication risk to take all liability commercially when they are fast tracking everything for everyone's benefit. Seemingly those same people think money grows on trees and there are fairies at the bottom of gardens. EDIT I forgot. I imagine they think you can research develop and produce vaccines for 7.5 billion people for nothing

Thx Cyberyeti. Some tables indeed found 5C+1

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|thepossum,~Mwest,~Mnorth,~Meast|md|3ST743HAK64DTCAKQ2,SK62HQ9753DAK54C3,SH8DQ9863CJT87654,SAQJ985HJT2DJ72C9|sv|n|rh||ah|Board%205|mb|P|mb|2S|an|Weak%20two%20bid%20--%201-4%20!C;%201-3%20!D;%201-3%20!H;%206+%20!S;%2010-%20HCP;%207+%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|3S|an|The%20Law:%209%20trump%20-%3E%203%20level%20--%203+%20!S;%204-16%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|HK|pc|H3|pc|H8|pc|H2|pc|HA|pc|H5|pc|C4|pc|HT|pc|H4|pc|H9|pc|D3|pc|HJ|pc|S8|pc|S3|pc|SK|pc|C5|pc|S6|pc|C6|pc|SA|pc|S4|pc|SQ|pc|S7|pc|S2|pc|D6|pc|SJ|pc|ST|pc|D4|pc|C7|pc|D7|pc|DT|pc|DA|pc|D9|pc|HQ|pc|C8|pc|D2|pc|H6|pc|H7|pc|D8|pc|S9|pc|C2|pc|S5|pc|CQ|pc|C3|pc|DQ|pc|DJ|pc|CK|pc|DK|pc|CJ|pc|D5|pc|CT|pc|C9|pc|CA|]600|400[/hv] This was very costly in an MP tournamment. I considered a no trump overcall thinking maybe I had enough to risk overcalling 2S. I ruled out double because of shape. But every other table except two doubled 2S or 3S. Can anyone explain going against the usual takeout shape here please I often have problems bidding the system without a penalty double below game Note. It was made more costly by my defence. Thats not why I'm posting though

Interesting discussion. My sympathies are both ways. I would probably have bid a Soloway myslef but surely you cannot pass a game try suit when trumps have been agreed :)

Thx Stephen and for the link. I can imagine myself getting into some difficult 2C explanations occasionally :)