HeavyDluxe

Congrats on the result, G... I know it's not what you were hoping for, but it's still impressive for us mere mortals. :)

2♦ should be a reverse here, and seems to describe my hand.

Weird and sexy ? Could be. It is the standard BWS meaning for this sequence. Standard meanings *are* weird for Ken.... :P

Happy Birthday.

Can I just get the ball rolling on page 1?

What Matt said... Thanks so much for these wonderful, fun resources for us. Happy Birthday.

Not a better hand, but one of my favorites was holding this in 3rd seat: ♠ J72 ♥ AKQ ♦ AK ♣ AKJT7 ... and having partner open 1♠ in first.

Sorry... asked and answered.

Are you running the BBO Client under WINE, or using the new BBO flash client when you're booted into Ubunutu? If the latter, I'm using Ubuntu 8.04 with Firefox and I'm able to get to tables in the WP club without a hitch. If you can clarify, I'm happy to offer whatever (limited) help I can.

The first bridge book I ever read assumed 4/4 or 4/3 major fits were what you bid for (yes, it was from the 40s). So, I never realized the big deal about moysians until I realized no one else thought that way. :) Not that I played them particularly well, mind you.

3NT

Peachy's right... By the Holy Writ of SAYC, 1♥-3♦ is strong. But, playing 'SAYC' on BBO it seems to usually be weak. ;)

1♥ - 3♦ <-- weak jump shift 1♥ - 4♦ <-- splinter I suppose there's probably a contingent of ppl who still play 1♥-3♦ as a strong jump shift, too.

Happy Birthday! Thanks for contributing here!

If anyone's planning on reading _Mere Christianity_, may I also suggest Tim Keller's _Reason for God_. Keller's a very thoughtful guy, who writes with a very respectful tone. As an admirer of Lewis, his book was intended (in some small way) to be an update to _Mere Christianity_. Both are philosophical works, rather than scientific ones, obv. Couple related resources... Keller presented some summary material from the book at Google and UCal:

The more I fiddle with this little gadget, the more I like it. My only suggestion (and this holds for the rawkin' flash client as well): It'd be for learners like me to be able to focus on one hand and 'blank' out the others, a la the 'kibitz N' command in the Win client. Thanks Fred and team for the great site and the great toys.

Mike, Based on your comments, you seem to say it is impossible for a rational person to interact (objectively) with scientific evidence and come to a 'faith-based' position on origins. Perhaps that's true, though I would at least claim there should be room for a rational mind to reach different conclusion. To be sure, one is right and the other is wrong - at least as ultimate explanations of origins. No room for an "in my opinion" there? Is that really an absolute fact? That's the point I've been trying to make all along. The difference is that I see an equally 'faith-based' position in much of evolutionary biology today. Like I've said, two sides, same error. There's no way I can respond to that, you know. If I claim that I've considered (and will continue to consider) the "verifiable" evidence and still don't buy in, either I'm ignorant or I'm letting faith trump my reason. So, I'll just let you take your pick which one you think applies. I really wasn't trying to make this a ID/Creation/Evolution debate. My original point was, at least loosely, on topic with Winston's post. In presenting evolution as the 'absolutely right' framework for processing all biological inquiry, scientists are guilty of the same error they claim "IDers" are trying to introduce into the classroom. So, with that in mind: (Macro)Evolutionary theory - as an explanation for ultimate origin - is no more experimentally verifiable than so-called 'intelligent design'. That natural selection occurs or that particular mechanisms have 'evolved' is something I'm willing to concede. But I'm unwilling to state that this means taking evolutionary logic as our default paradigm is a good move. Let me loop to where we started. You asked for examples, but already said above that they've been "resoundingly rebuffed". Perhaps, "A[n evolutionary theory] believer starts with the proposition that the world and all of its manifestations have to accord with the [theory]." Maybe we're not that different, despite your fervent arguments to the contrary.

One other thing... I should apologize for the ongoing threadjack, too. Sorry! :)

I agree both sides are showing some hubris. I do not agree that both sides are conducting science. I was trying to be courteous. I think both sides risk failing to conduct science at all. Part of this is my scientific training. A old mentor (and not friendly to the ID/Creationist viewpoint) hammered into my head that science must be careful not to blindly omit possible explanations. Instead, research must be willing to consider all options - disproving the 'wrong' ones clearly to leave the best explanation standing. I think both sides are guilty of shoehorning results into a predefined framework. Evolution is the way it is, so any inferences of design must be explained away through evolutionary means (no matter how improbable). Intelligent design is the way it is, so any inferences of macro-evolutionary processes must have fundamental flaws if I just look hard enough. *That's* my problem. I'll admit to having a horse in the race re: how life came into being (I'm even more radical than the IDer, FTR), but my primary concern in this thread is the way both sides stab each other for the same sin. BTW, thanks for believing that I've read/considered a few things, even if I'm not bright enough to get it right. :)

Wow... If you read the post I was responding to, you'll see that Mike asked if I'd read anything by Dawkins, Gould, etc. I was trying to say that I had, including a book ("The God Delusion") that even the author would admit is not a scientific book but a philosophical one. I read that particular book for my own edification - not because it's required for anything else I do. I have read, critically and open-mindedly, many major books from the last 15 years of the evolution/creationism debate. I, because of my profession, interact with journal articles written from an evolutionary standpoint regular. In so far as any of us are truly able to empty ourselves of bias, I've given all of these a fair shake. EDIT: Quoting Mike: What I am certain of is that both sides are conducting science with an incredible amount of hubris.

If I had known that would come back to bite me in this thread, I never would've said it. :P

I actually meant that posting our CVs seems like the intellectual equivalent of a pissing match and isn't going to convince anyone one way or the other. No, never. You caught me. I'm just mouthing off without any idea about anything. *sigh* Yes, I have, Mike... I read "God Delusion" too, just for kicks. And Miller, and Dennett (not a scientist), and others. I only recently read Diamond's "Third Chimpanzee", and I admit to not having read any of his other books. However, I've read other journal articles by people who don't hit the bestseller list as part of my job. I'll be going to a "Darwin Day" lecture by a prof here that will bash ID... I've done, and continue to do, my primary source work. Let me underscore my point, again. I'm not arguing - for the sake of this thread, anyway - the particulars of evolutionary or 'intelligent design' science. I *am* saying that there are some (IMHO) no-so-scientific presuppositions that both sides bring to the table which compromise the objectivity of the science behind them. I think both camps would be better served to own up to those.

No, that's not the reason, Josh. As far as my 'effort at learning' - I doubt you'd accept any evidence to the contrary, right? If I state that I have considered the evidence, you'll either label me an ignoramus or tell me that I should buy better books (preferably ones with words rather than pictures written by scientists rather than zealots). If I present some sort of academic or professional cred, you'd dismiss that too. So, I won't try. I still stand by my statement. The very 'religious' sentiments that are often argued against are equally present in some corners of science today. I don't have a problem with that - I just wish we could call it what it is. Anyway, I gave everyone their chuckles. Now let's get back to talking about bridge - another subject where my ignorance astounds. ;)

At the risk of getting LOLed at, these discussions irk me. Evolution and Creationism are both *philosophical* positions. Neither can be proven nor disproven through scientific inquiry. While one may have, in ppl's opinion, the bulk of the evidence in its favor that only makes it a hypothetical until more data is gathered. These discussion would be helped greatly if people would focus on true science, rather that swedging psuedo-scientific and religious dogma into the conversation. Why not present the the issue as follows: "We have a fossil record, it would seem to indicate X. However, there is a decided lack of evidence for the incremental, transitional species we would expect to see if X were true. What do you make of that? What are possible explanations for the things we observe? Are there things that can be studied to rule out possible explanations?" In that case, we'd actually be teaching science (and the scientific method) rather than ideology wrapped in lab coats or pulpit robes.

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/index.php Think is the same link... But search for some of your hands, and click the MOVIE link next to the hand record. The new viewer pops up 'automagically', I think. Maybe if you have the Win client installed it defaults to that. I can't test that now, since I'm on my linux box. (ed. By the way, big thanks to Fred and company!)