pilowsky

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|sucker,opp1,~~M24002,opp2|md|1S75HKQ7DA653CKQ97,SQJ3HT9642D842CA5,SAK982HAJ5DKCJT42,ST64H83DQJT97C863|sv|o|rh||ah|Board%2011|mb|1D!|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20!D;%2011-21%20HCP;|mb|P|mb|1S|an|One%20over%20one%20--%204+%20!S;%206+%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|1N!|an|2-5%20!C;%204-5%20!D;%202-4%20!H;%202-3%20!S;%2012-14%20H|mb|P|mb|2C!|an|New%20minor%20forcing%20--%204+%20!S;%2012+%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|3N!|an|No%20support%20nor%20new%20major%20--%202-5%20!C;%204-5|mb|P|mb|4C|an|4+%20!C;%204+%20!S;%2012+%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|6C!|an|4-5%20!C;%204-5%20!D;%202-4%20!H;%202-3%20!S;%2014-%20HCP|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|DQ|pc|D5|pc|D2|pc|DK|pc|C2|pc|C3|pc|C9|pc|C5|pc|DA|pc|D4|pc|H5|pc|D7|pc|D6|pc|D8|pc|CT|pc|D9|pc|HA|pc|H3|pc|H7|pc|H2|pc|SA|pc|S6|pc|S7|pc|S3|pc|HJ|pc|H8|pc|HK|pc|H4|pc|D3|pc|H6|pc|C4|pc|DT|pc|CJ|pc|C6|pc|C7|pc|CA|pc|HT|pc|S8|pc|C8|pc|HQ|pc|ST|pc|S5|pc|SJ|pc|SK|pc|S2|pc|S4|pc|CK|pc|SQ|pc|CQ|pc|H9|pc|S9|pc|DJ|]300|300| "Good" is an excellent description.[/hv]

I'm guessing that 2♣ and 3♣ are free bids and that 4♣ is a splinter.

You might as well try to have a rational discussion with a sheep. The answer is always the same: but I want my gun. And yes, they should take away his little piece of nickel plated NAZI memorabilia.

Why say things that are manifestly wrong. What do you gain from it?

What does IME mean?

There's a saying that I hear often - most commonly from Americans: "It is what it is." What is this thing that 'is'? Is it a cousin of the one thing that often leads to another? Of all the possible things that a society of nearly 400 million people could maintain is a absolutely fundamental to its existence why choose religion as number one and the right to own a lethal weapon as number two. How about the right not have someone else decide your reproductive affairs? Or the right to form a lifelong partnership with any other person you choose? Why is the right to not be prosecuted less important than the right to not have government quarter troops in your home?

You've discovered a key flaw in Bridge - bad judgement often gets rewarded..

What was wrong with 2♠ - 4♠?

I just read that Raffensberger narrowly succeeded in being re-elected but that his victory was likely due to tactical voting. I believe that a similar phenomenon happened in Australia at the last election with many Labor voters backing in 'moderate' independent candidates (Liberal = Conservative - just to confuse non-Australians). You will be delighted to know that the main reason the Conservative government was booted was because large numbers of Conservatives were concerned about climate change. Is tactical voting a common in the USA? Could it be the way forward for de-Trumping of the Republican party?

A friend of mine - a successful politician - told me that LBJ once asked his aide to tell the media that his opponent "F***ked pigs". The aide was horrified - "Nobody will believe it!" he said. LBJ replied "Yeah but he'll have to deny it."

I've lived most of my adult life in Australia. The Murdoch family have been doing exactly the same thing for more than 100 years. In WW1 Rupert's dad tried to denigrate and destroy John Monash. When Rupert took over we endured two decades of conservative rule and then climate change denialism. The ironically named "News corporation" is the fifth horseman of the apocalypse, nourishing itself on war, famine, pestilence and death.

I've been playing some challenges vs robot with "best hand" turned off. These are "basic robots" if it makes a difference. [hv=pc=n&w=sa542hqj8daq965ct&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1n2s(4%2B%20Spades%20and%20a%20minor)2n(forces%203C)p3cppp]133|200|What do you recommend West leads here?[/hv] The full deal

The quote below comes from "Critical Race Theory, Methodology, and Semiotics: The Analytical Utility of a "Race" Conscious Approach for Visual Qualitative Research" Stefan Lawrence, Kevin Hylton (2022) Cultural Studies - Critical Methodologies 22(3), pp. 255-265 I suspect the discussion here is being sidelined by the use of the term theory in the sense that a mathematician might understand it as opposed to the intended meaning (outlined in the quote). An example related to pain (just for you Ken!) was also published recently: Application of Critical Race Theory in Palliative Care Research: A Scoping Review (2022) Marcewicz, L., Kunihiro, S.K., Curseen, K.A., Johnson, K., Kavalieratos, D. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 63(6), pp. e667-e684. I think they are concluding that not thinking about something doesn't mean it isn't there.

Here's a common example of the problem in tournaments with a spread of ability. This was generated randomly.[hv=pc=n&s=st7654hq3dqcakqj4&w=sqj2ht87daj95c532&n=sak3h954dt843ct76&e=s98hakj62dk762c98&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp1h1s2h2s3h3s]399|300| In the average field hands like this generate all kinds of outcomes. [/hv] The "winner" will most likely be the NS pair in 4S=. Other tables in the optimum contract of 4HX-1 will "lose". Results like this suggest that the scoring system fails to truly reflect the best outcome of the game. This unfair element of luck based on what other people do suggests that the current tournament scoring structure is fundamentally flawed. I don't know what the solution is but a tournament structure that rewards luck instead of judgement seems wrong.

The unusual thing about Bridge scoring is that it is unrelated to the optimal result of the game. In most other equilibrium games where each player/pair starts from a set position there is an optimal result depending on the scoring method. In chess it's simple: you score 1 if you checkmate your opponent or make their life so difficult that they use up all their time. Bridge is an untimed game, for no obvious reason, so it is possible to end up with an adjudicated result - often to the detriment of the pair that was ahead. Unlike most other games that are similar to Bridge (go, chess, chequers, backgammon etc etc) there is an optimal result that can be known from the start (if you knew where all the cards are). Given that this is the case, and setting aside the untimed problem, I believe that an optimal scoring system in Bridge is one that rewards the pair that bids (and plays obviously) as close as possible to equilibrium point of the hand. Bridge in its current form is a very new game. The 'not broke don't fix it' argument is not applicable. The fossil-fuel powered motor car has been around slightly longer; it's definitely broken and it's breaking everything else around it.

The problems come from the "race" not the critical theory part. The philosophical concept of critical theory has been around - uncontroversially - to "the masses" for many decades. It sees a problem in a social realm and seeks to change it as opposed to the usual sociology blather of "understanding". In this case How can we reduce the amount of racism (or sexism/ignorance/interest in football etc etc). Imagine if we had critical education theory. Then people might start asking "how can we improve learning/knowledge in the community" (a post-structuralist approach) rather than saying "Why are people ignorant" (a structuralist approach). Well, we do, there's vast tracts of scholarly stuff written about CET - there's even whole Journals devoted to it. The response from Dr Strangelove in Texas to mass shootings is a case in point. America would surely benefit from some "critical gun theory". Instead of a steadfast belief in "inalienable rights" - invented by a bunch of violent, self-serving, slave-owning, agrarian socialist, hoons, hundreds of years ago. A bit more talking to children and a bit less staring at mobile phones/television might be a good start.

Very much so, although the relationship between conceding that he lost the election and 'sanity' might be a bit of a stretch considering his pentecostal proclivities. From the Guardian:

From the ACBL post-Goren and pre-2/1. You can waste 9.99 on a book about it. Most of the information about it seems to be copied from the Wikipedia entry; Bridge players appear to be shameless about plagiarism and copyright violation - so much for a game of full disclosure and integrity. Do any Bridge clubs anywhere recommend it?

There is a certain structural insanity about a society that believes it is an inalienable right to punctuate everyday discourse by waving around a lethal weapon. Some ideas are stupid on their face.

A lecture from the University of Chicago entitled: I think it probably applies in other countries as well.

You chose a good source - The Guardian (Australian Edition) is an excellent addition to our fourth estate - although I commonly find myself in the fifth estate. Here's a quote from them: Opinions differ on the matter of SM.

Which of these players has COVID, is non-english speaking and had to play online? Or is the implication that Kevin and Enid, playing in Sydney, doesn't understand English? It seems that possible that SB is the one with English problems (and difficulty with anger management) since he identifies Enid from Sydney - playing North - as male - . OTOH - many people have difficulty with English. Given that there is no comprehensive list of acceptable statements laid down in the laws to inform opponents about the meaning of bids and calls, doesn't this imply that a player is entitled to make an explanation that believe is sufficient to convey meaning and that if the opponent still believes there is room for doubt that the onus is on them to seek clarification? It is very easy to make post hoc statements along the lines "If only they had told me that (insert rationalisation here) then I would obviously have done (insert beneficial action here). In this case the situation is even more bizarre because the plaintiff is saying, post hoc, that if a particular statement was made (in response to their question) then another person would have taken an action that is more to their liking. In fact it seems that SB clearly understood the meaning of Q since he asserted to RR that "I would have...". Is RR the only Qless person here.

Australian election Saturday - wish us luck.

Que?

A new game for the whole family: 'Guess the news source'