joshs

Dear Mike, Well I would dispute one major basic "fact." That there was a clear rule/condition that the VCT broke. I don't know much about canadian law, but in the US when laws or contract provisions are so vague that it is not obvious what actions are in fact prohibited, the laws or clauses of a contract are typically found to be invalid. So maybe I have just missed what you think is the rule that they agreed to follow when they accepted funding and then broke.... Also, even private organizations have some limitations on what they can and can't do. Some of them are not completely manditory ( for instance you might not have to do something unless you want to be treated under the tax laws as a charitiable organization). Others involve the organization not breaking a law. Others limitations are things which can be put in a contract (such as "can't sell this property to a member of a particular minority") whose contract terms just can't be enforced through the courts. Most of the discussion in the thread has not been about if the VCT team broke a rule. Its been about a. is what they did wrong/inappropriate by some measure b. should the USBF make a rule that prohibits what they did (this is where the free speech discussion comes in) I think implicit in the fact there there were 35 pages arguing about b, is that there isn't currently a rule that they actually broke...

You hold AQTxx AT K9xx Ax Imps, All White Strong partner, but no established partnership. You open 1S in first chair. LHO bids 1N Partner x's RHO bids 2D You x LHO bids 3C Partner bids 4S RHO Passes Now what? 1S-1N-x-2D x-3C-4S-P ? LHO appears to have psyched (or maybe just a semi-bluff like a 13 count with 6 clubs). But that doesn't mean that partner has the missing points, and not either one of the opps.... Now what? If you care its a $5/Imp team game.

I just read that Paul Soloway has passed away. He was a great player and a gentleman, always willing to give advice and encouragement. He will be missed.

Well you certainly can include table feel in your analysis: Suppose you feel that with A9 defender will hesitate q% of the time before playing the 9, and with Q9 the defender will hesitate z% of the time before playing which ever card he plays, which again we are assuming he plays the Q with probability p.. Now your information is: Case 1: Played the 9 and hitched Case 2: Played the 9 and didn't hitch Again we apply Bayes rule. Lets say we want the optimal play in case 1: Probability of him having the A9 given he played the 9 and hitched is = (Prob of playing the 9 and hitching given the holding of A9)*(Prob having the A9)/ (Prob playing the 9 and hitching) Probability of playing the 9 and hitching given the holding of A9=q Prob of having the A9=1/2 Prob of playing the 9 and hitching=1/2*q+1/2*(1-p)*z So our answer is: (q/2)/(q/2+z/2-pz/2) Let try this with some real numbers: a. p=1/2 q=1/10 z=1/5 P(A9 Given the hitch and the play of the 9)=(1/20)/(1/20+1/10-1/20)=1/2 So its a even money guess. b. p=3/4 q=1/10 z=1/2 P(a9 Given the hitch and the play of the 9)=(1/20)/(1/20+1/4- 3/16)=4/9 So you should run the J and so on. I will leave it as an excercise to the reader that if you make the symplifying assumption that p=1/2 then you should run it, given a hestiation, whenever z>2q. In general you should run the J whenever z-pz>q (For the record, I do not beleive p=1/2 here, if the expert defender is sure you have at least 6 cards, but might have 7, p<1/2. If the expert defender is sure you have at most 6 cards, but might have 5 p>1/2) Finally note that you as declarer should feel free to hitch while doing this calculation :)

Helene, Did you use the designer of Florida's election ballets by any chance?

Damn I lost my ballet. The sad thing is that I put a nice proof on the back....

Fine: We'll take it a step higher: "Bridge - Classic and Modern Conventions" describes extended BART on page 231-232 of V1. Here's the rebid schedule after 1♠ - 1N 2♣ - 2♦ 2♥ = three hearts or a strong doubleton 2♠ = minimum hand lesser Hearts 2NT = Game invitational with heart shortness 3♣ = 5-5 in the black suits 3♦ = artificial, strong with 3 Hearts 2♦ does not force 2♥. Therefore, 2♦ is not a puppet. Well I would assume, In the description of the convention you are quoting from the bid of 2D SHOWED 5 hearts and isn't even remotely a relay.... (Actually judging from the response structure its possible that 2D was 5H OR 6D and very weak, hence the paradox response of 3D which shows a bad hand for diamonds or a great hand for hearts) Like we have all said there are a lot of versions of BART. None of them that I have ever seen are relays. According to the notes, the 2♦ is described an artificial bid. It can be made on any number of hand types I agree that people don't normally refer to the 2♦ as a relay (probably because they don't want to run afoul of system regulations). However, it is functionally identical to a relay... 2♦ is an artificial bid that asks partner to describe their hand. Yes, there are some negative inferences available, but this holds equally true of other relays. If 2D was truely an ART bid that did not describe there hand but requests for partner to describe his hand (which is not the way anyone I know plays it), and if 1N was also an ART bid that did not describe their hand (again if 1N was limited to below game force values you might claim it did describe the point range if not shape) then I would agree that this is a relay sequence. Of course no one plays it this way....

Fine: We'll take it a step higher: "Bridge - Classic and Modern Conventions" describes extended BART on page 231-232 of V1. Here's the rebid schedule after 1♠ - 1N 2♣ - 2♦ 2♥ = three hearts or a strong doubleton 2♠ = minimum hand lesser Hearts 2NT = Game invitational with heart shortness 3♣ = 5-5 in the black suits 3♦ = artificial, strong with 3 Hearts 2♦ does not force 2♥. Therefore, 2♦ is not a puppet. Well I would assume, In the description of the convention you are quoting from the bid of 2D SHOWED 5 hearts and isn't even remotely a relay.... (Actually judging from the response structure its possible that 2D was 5H OR 6D and very weak, hence the paradox response of 3D which shows a bad hand for diamonds or a great hand for hearts) Like we have all said there are a lot of versions of BART. None of them that I have ever seen are relays.

Yeah Bart is a complicated example. I had actually had a discussion of Bart in my original post in this thread but then took it out before posting because of the complexities. In addition to what I talk about below, I must note that bart when 1N was unlimited is vastly different then the convention actually played which assumes 1N was 5-12ish: In "Standard Bart", 2D shows 5H and a flexible hand (2S or 3C) OR 2S and about 9-10 OR 4+ clubs and 2N values or 6D and INV (its also possible to include 3S, limit raise values with a club fit). Here its normal to bid over the 2D bid as if partner has 5 hearts and a relatively weak hand since all the other meanings promise extra strength. Some play the 2H bid as showing 3H, which is great for exploring game in hearts, but is pretty bad when the hands are: a: 5233 vs 1543 (you probably end up in 3 clubs) b: when responder has the 2 spades and 9-10 what do you do next if opener bids 2S instead of 2H? You have to guess if you should overbid with 2N or pass 2S either way you have a problem. Furthermore the 2N bid next is also completely ambiguous as to hand type, shape, and range, as is the 3C bid next (was it a preference or was it a strong raise?) Consequently, if you play the 2H bid as showing 3 hearts, you need to take some of the hand types out of the 2D bid to get this to work. For instance if 2D actually SHOWED 5 hearts, its neither a puppet nor a relay. Its just an ART bid that showed something about a different suit. As I have noted here, whenever opener doesn't bid 2H, responder is slightly screwed in that he can no longer show his hand, and his next bids becomes much wider ranged. Consequequently another varient swaps the heart hands in the 2D bid and the 2H bid whereby 2H is 5H and flexible AND limited (6-9ish) and the 6 hearts hands go into 2D. This makes opener able to bid 2H much more often to find out what responder has. As to my preferences what matters most is how wide ranging opener is. When openers range is 11-18ish (like in standard) he can't afford to bid 2H on the really good hands no matter how many hearts partner might have, so will break the marionette much more often. In particular, with 5 hearts and 9-12 you can't show the 5 hearts at all if the heart hand in 2D is typically 6+ hearts. On the other hand in standard bart with 9-10 and 2 spades and 5 hearts you at least have a chance of partner bidding 3H over 2D. If he instead bids 2H, you can bid 2S to show the 9-10 and a doubleton hand. But some chance of finding the 5-3 heart fit is better then no chance. So in this situation I am indifferent between the two methods. On the other hand, opposite a limited opener, say 11-15, they almost never have a hand good enough to jump to 3H over 2D, so there is much less benefit of playing it this way and having 2D typically show 6H (or a good hand) is much better.

I just looked things up in the Bridge Worlds glossary, and apparently I didn't get the difference between a puppet and a marrionette exactly right: Puppet: Next Bid is forced (after which you show your hand) Marrionette: Like a puppet except partner is allowed to bid other things with special hands So all my puppet examples were in fact marrionettes In my "Anti-Bart" article some years ago Jeff replaced the word "puppet" with something along the lines of "marrionette (a special kind of puppet)" and I guess I slightly misunderstood the distinction he was trying to draw.

1. Yes 2. Yes 3. No. This is really close to the expected range for this bid. Note playing strong and forcing 2 bids are unusual these days, but I am not sure if they are alerts. I think they should be since no one expects strong....

Josh: I don't think that you are using the expression "puppet" correctly. My understanding is that a puppet forces partner to make a specific bid (typically the next step). For example, consider the following Lebensohl sequence: 1N - (2♠) - 2N 2NT is a puppet to 3♣. Barring further interference, the 1NT opener is required to bid 3♣. Let's consider a couple of your examples: 1♠ - 3N as a (10 -12 HCP) splinter in an unknown suit: As you yourself note opener isn't required to bid 4♣ as an asking bid. He has the option to bid 4♠ immediately. He has the option to bid 4 of a red suit. And, if he wants, he has the option to ask with 4♣. I'd say that this is a case where 3NT shows a specific hand type and opener has the option of following up with a relay. In a similar vein, consider a BART auction 1♠ - 1N 2♣ - ??? 2♣ does not qualify as a puppert to 2♦ because the 1N responder has the option to bid 2♥+ (typically showing 6+ Hearts). If responder only has 5 Hearts then he typically prefers to bid 2♦ and ask rather than show. 2♣ can't be construed as a puppet to 2♦. However, 2♦ does appear to be a relay asking bid. I readily admit, in the BART case, the choice to make a 2♦ relay shows specific information about opener's hand. However, the same can be said for any well designed relay system. Case in point: I have a thorough set of relay breaks defined when playing MOSCITO. Just as the BART 2♦ bid typically denies 6+ Hearts, not relay breaking playing MOSCITO denies a hand suitable for a given break. For example, in an auction like 1♣ - 1♦ 1♥ the choice to relay with 1♥ denies an unbalanced hand with 15 -17 HCP In an auciton like 1♣ - 1♦ 1♥ - 1♠ 1N the choice to relay with 1N denies an unbalanced hand with 0-1 Spades. The specific set of information being conveyed will obviously differ from case to case, but the core principles are the same. Dude in BART 1S-1N-2C. 2C is not a puppet. 2C is a non forcing call. 2D over 2C is a puppet. A puppet is a multi meaning bid that is to be clarified later. The puppet might force partner to ask for clarification, or it might not. If partner asks one of the options might be to pass, or it might not be an option. Lehbensohl 2N is a puppet. There are 4 different lehbensohl auctions (more if you count good-bad). 2M-x-2N-P 2N is a puppet (of the marionette variety since 3C can be passed). The doubler does not have to bid 3C, he just does on all normal takeout x's. Similarly over reverses, opener only "follows instructions" with nothing special to say. 1N-2S-2N-P Here opener almost always bids 3C but I have seen other bids made. I think its inane to bid 3C if you hold xxxx AK Ax KQxxx since you can make 5C opposite a lot of hands that just wanted to play 3C and you are safe in 4C if partner has clubs in any case (so I think the correct bid with this hand is 3D which lets you play 3red opposite those suits, but forces you to 3N+ opposite clubs). Others who like to open 1N with 6 solid diamonds think that 3D over 2N shows 6D and 2 clubs. If you play Leb over a precision 2C, 2C-x-2N not only is forcing it shows values here. Depending on the treatment it is either 3N with doubt, or can be used to distinguised INV with 4 cards or Invitational with 5 cards hands, or distinguish INV hands with COG forcing hands. Again the xer does not have to bid 3C he just usually does. Another puppet sequence is the so called Kokish relay: 2C(strong)-2D-2H(puppet bid, multi-meaning)-2S(a relay: what do you got?). Responder does not have to bid 2S in this sequence its just the normal bid. For instance many partnerships who have actually discussed this auction will bid 3m on a 6 card minor and moderate values instead of 2S. Another puppet sequence is in 2 way game tries: 1S-P-2S-P 2N(A puppet: multi meaning, a short suit game try somewhere)-P-? Normally responder bids 3C to ask for the shortage, but responder can bid 3S to reject all game tries, and bid 4S to accept all game tries, and he can make other bids describing his hand.

Josh: I agree that this is a logical interpretation of the regulations, however, it can't be reconciled with current ACBL practice: If the sequence that I describe is considered illegal because its a relay system, then the same regulation would ban any number of popular treatments such as BART. Playing BART, the 2♦ rebid in the auction 1♠ - 1N 2♣ - 2♦ would constitute a sequence of relays and therefore create a relay system. In a similar vein, consider the following auction 1♠ - 1N 2♠ - 2N I know any number of player who use this as an artificial ask. I'm perfectly happy if the ACBL decides to ban each and every artificial advance after the auction 1M - 1N (forcing) Foo - ??? In the absence of such a ruling, I can only conclude that the initial forcing NT response is (in some mysterious way) not relay. In retrospect, it would probably be useful to get a ruling from the ACBL on just this subject. Which auction do you think I should ask about 1S - 1N 2S - 2N or 1S - 1N 2C - 2D Wouldn't want to run into any trouble from the tournament directors... Hey Richard, One of the reasons that the rules are so confusing is that no one seems to use bridge vocabulary correctly. Relay- A bid that asks partner to describe HIS hand but doesn't describe yours Puppet- A bid thats asks partner to bid the next step (a Relay) so that you can show YOUR hand Marrionette (Jeff Rueben's term)- A Kind of Puppet where one of the possible responses to partner's requested relay is PASS When you puppet, you have just a limited number of hand types ( since there are a limited number of response you can make next round), so partner can take that into account and bid something other then the relay. For Marrionette's its much for frequent for responder to not relay, and as a result, by inference, bidding the relay actually shows something about your hand. The sequence 1S-3N(10-12 with an unspecified splinter) is a puppet. if openers wants to know which signleton he relays. In Walsh Relays 2D (over 1N) is a puppet (technically a marrionette), 2H is a relay, 2S is again a puppet (showing some minor), 2N is a relay, and then finally responder shows what he has.... In Bart, 1S-1N-2C-2D is a puppet (technically a marrionette) not a relay. The relay is the 2H response to 2D. Since its a marrionette, opener only relays if he is willing to be passed there. Again, as far as I understand the prohibitions on a sequence of relays, are with 1 player taking captaincy and repeatidly relaying and not describing his own hand at all (no bids that make any suggestion of strain or level). I don't think there being relay bids by different players in the course of an auction is a relay sequence. As to your other auction, If you play that 1H-1N-2H-2N is truely a relay and does not suggest strain or level, so that sequences such as 1H-1N-2H-2N-3D-6S are truely possible then you have in fact described a relay system which is prohibited. The more common treatments are: a. 2N is a heart raise, although might have only 1 or 2 hearts and is trying to decide if they should play NT instead. I.E. 2N does make a strain suggestion b. 2N is explicitly offering a choice between NT and hearts c. 2N explicity denies 3 hearts and is natural and forcing, but perhaps the responses are ART I also think there is a big difference between a 1N response thats say 6-11ish (the way most people play 2/1) and a 1N bid thats unlimited and one thats both unlimited and where almost every combination of shapes and points are possible. But this is another can of worms that I didn't really want to get into...

So either you will have to add some less than invitational hands into your 1NT response or you will run afoul of the GCC. If you have some less than invitational hands in there, it seems like it's going to be quite a challenge to sort out all the possible hand types in there. Sorry, not trying to rain on your parade. Just trying to figure out what you had in mind so that the rest of us aspiring system developers can consider it. A 1NT response over 1M shows one of three hand types 1. ~ 6 - 10 HCP balanced/semi balanced (The same hand type that would normally respond 1NT) 2. Game invitational hands (typically denies a fit for opener's major) 3. Game forcing hand After 1♠ - 1N, opener will rebid one of the following: 2♠ showing a maximum with 6+ Spades 2♥ showing a minimum with 5+ Spades and 4 Hearts 2♦ showing a 2 suiter with Diamonds and Spades 2♣ showing a 2 suiter with Clubs and Spades If opener has the weak balanced hand, he can pass any of these bids If opener has the game invitational hand, he can show a suit or rebid in NT If opener has the game forcing hand, he can start relays (relays are legal after opener's rebid). The only really awkward sequence is 1♠ - 1N - 2♥. I'm still debating whether this should promise extra strength so that responder can relay with 2♠... Richard, a forcing NT bid is a relay. (A relay is a forcing call that didn't describe their own hand but asked partner to describe his hand. While its not well defined, I have always interpreted "didn't describe their own hand" as a. didn't show any particular suits or features b. didn't just show a point count (or control count) range ), So if you bid 1N and then continue with relays you are in a relay sequence that started prior to openers rebid.... Relays are legal at your first bid, just not relay sequences starting then (and just over 1 of a suit openings, its fine over 1N or 2 level openings).

Ok I will speak up as a math guy. We all agree that if RHO plays the 7 we should run the J. This play works just as well on the 2-2's and picks up 1 3-1 (stiff 9 on your left). Playing the K picks up no 3-1's (you still have 2 losers if there is a stiff Q on your left). If RHO plays the 9, assuming no stupidity, the only relevent holdings are Q9 and A9 and A97 (playing the 9 from AQ9 is stupidity). Let us first assume that the defender never plays the 9 from A97, and plays the Q with probability p where 1>p>0 with Q9 and always plays the 9 from A9. Here the conditional probability of the defender having the A9 given the play of the 9 is greater than the probability of him having the Q9 given the play of the 9 (how much greater depends on the value of p). Hence the K is the better play. If you include the A97 as a possible holding you again are comparing the probability that the defender has A9 OR A97 given the play of the 9, with Q9 given the play of the 9. Since P(A9)>P(Q9) we conclude that P(A9 OR A97) >P(Q9) since the OR only makes the probablity greater. so the K is still the right play. Finally, since on optimal play the play of the 9 from A97 never gains and sometimes loses (declarer would have gone wrong here, but instead went right if you played the 9), we also conclude that playing the 9 from A97 is stupid, although my partners have been known to do that play in the desire to give suit preference...). If you want the exact odds here, given a value for p, we apply Bayes rule to the relevent cases: Q9 and A9 are equally likely The 9 is played 100% of the time from A9 The 9 is played 1-p% of the time from Q9 Let X=A9 holding Let Y=the 9 is played P(X Given Y)=P(Y Given X) * P(X)/P(Y) P(Y Given X)=1 P(X)=0.5 P(Y)=1/2 *1 +1/2*(1-p)=1-p/2 Hence P(X Given Y)=0.5/(1-p/2)>0.5 since P>0 If P=1/2 (Q and 9 plays are equally likely) then we get 0.5/0.75=2/3 that most people assume in restricted choice situations. But the inequallity doesn't change no matter what p is as long as neither the Q nor the 9 play occurs 100% of the time. Similarly in standard restricted choice where you can play the Q or J from QJ doubleton, playing the player for the singleton is more liekly then the QJ doubleton no matter what frequency you play each card as long as its not 0 or 100%. Josh

I can't imagine why this would be forcing. One player has boxed in his range (shown an INV hand), the other made a game try (he could have higher asperations), and then stopped at the next cheapist level. Just beaucse you have some extras (enough to make 3N or 4D) doesn't mean you can take 2 extra tricks and make 5D. Also a slam try interpretation here makes no sense. Responder has shown hearts and diamonds. INV values, either lacking a stopper for 3N, or the INV was based purely on shape and is not close to having enough high cards to make 3N. Responder has also bid 4C rather then 4D, so that seems to show a promising hand for suit play. Why would you ever want to transfer captaincy to that hand? You know so much more about his hand then he does about yours....

Hey Fred, I was not even aware of BBO's rule about no political statements. I have certainly seen political statements, at least relatively innocuous statements that are basically along the same lines of Debbie's sign. Usually these have led to friendly conversations, sometimes to heated debates, but I certainly have gotten to know others better as a result. I personally think that what someone puts in their profile is analagous to putting something on a sign in a public place (like outside a supermarket) which can be seen by one's community (which is now virtual more than physical) and that message really has nothing what so ever to do with the supermarket or the web site and they are not responsible in any way for the content. In fact the area outside a supermarket is considered a public place in US law, where constitutional free speech guarantees apply. The store owner can't regulate the speech made there. As its been 15 years since I studied constutional law in school (and I do not do this stuff professionally), I have no idea what the status of the law is in terms of defining "virtual public places" and what the implications are for speech on internet sites. Anyway, as I have said before I do think a society or organization can regulate themselves. I just think there are conflicting goals and values at play. I also think that the goals for the WBF and the USBF may not be the same as for BBO (and as BBO is owned by you and a few other people, the rest of us really get a lot less say in what the policies are). Let me try to explain this by first talking about the olympics. The stated purpose of the olympics is to promote world peace through the activity of sports. The idea is to get people together with different backgrounds, political ideologies, religions and so on, and let them interact. This lets the athletes learn about each other and learn that despite their differences they all share a common love of sport and sportsmanship (fair play, etc.). Hopefully this will forge friendships, but at the very least it will promote understanding and tolerance for other ways of life, by both understanding that people are different but share commonalities at the same time. Without the ability to express one's self freely, the players can not get to know each others values, and half the purpose of them interacting has disappeared. My understanding, was that one of the WBF's goals was for bridge to become an olympic sport, and that even if it doesn't become an olympic sport it shared the values that the olympics were trying to promote. That is, lets get to know each other and learn to trust each other, while doing something we all love, and while demonstrating the highest standards of ethics/sportsmanship in the process. I don't think supressing speech builds trust or promotes understanding or aids this goal in any way. Obviously you disagree on this next point, but I also do not think that public political speech is fundamentally different than public religious expression. Both send a message to the world about who you are and what your values are. They may be motivated by different things, or they may even be motiviated by the same thing ( for instance see The Bible's commandment "Justice, Justice, Shall you Pursue"). This expression of one's self is fundamental to some people's identity. I for instance, would walk through a mob and get myself beaten up to go to Yom Kippur services, and would not take a job for any salary that required me to violate the values and practices that are central to the jewish faith. While I do not wear a Kippah, others do. This is how they express their values and beliefs to the world and would undergo great hardships in order to keep expressing themselves. Some other people feel the same way about expressing their core values, which may come from a religion or may come from a political movement/ideology or wherever. I really think censorship is basically an evil... Josh

I believe a "no signs" rule would harm nobody. I believe it would be only a matter of time until a "some signs" rule would harm everybody. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Well I completely disagree. I think a no sign policy harms me, harms debby rosenberg, and harms anyone who would normally wear a political button, a yankee cap, an end the genocide in darfur sign, or a get well soon paul soloway sign. I think only people who would not normally have such a sign, who doesn't derive pleasure from having such a sign, thinks that outlawing something that gives someone else pleasure doesn't cause harm. Outlawing something always causes harm. If it didn't, you would not have needed to outlaw it in the first place. This does not mean you shouldn't outlaw it, but you need to recognize that you are causing harm and weigh the costs and benefits (to different people) of such a policy. When we ban smoking at the table we are harming you (or did you give up smoking recently?), and benefiting me. I think there is a good reason to make such a rule, but I would never claim it didn't harm you. Josh No offense intended, but I find this to be laughable. Do you honestly believe that poor Debbie Rosenberg would be harmed if the USBF made it clear that they did not want people making overt political statements at THEIR tournaments? How about if the USBF made it clear that they did not want THEIR respresentatives to do the same thing? Give me a break. IMO it does zero harm to Debbie to ask her to respect the wishes of her hosts and the organization that chose her team and paid for their trip to Shanghai. If she really feels she needs to tell the world how she feels about politics, there are plenty of ways she can do that when the tournament is over. And even if you really believe she will have been harmed in the process (which is hard for me to imagine but I will take your word for it), I cannot believe that you think that the degree of harm is even if the same league as the harm that will inevitably result if the WBF/USBF says "some signs are OK" or says nothing at all (which has the same effect). I am not trying to single out Debbie even though she is the one who was actually holding the sign. You are the one who mentioned her name and I found it convenient to use a specific name in this post. It turns out that I have liked Debbie very much since the time that we were both Junior players (her USA team beat my Canadian team in the finals of the 1991 World Junior Championships and IMO Debbie was the star of that match). This incident has not changed that. I sincerely hope that the feeling is mutual and that my strong disapproval of her actions will not impact our friendship as far as she is concerned either. Debbie is a fantastic bridge player. It would be a real shame if, as a result of this incident, she was unwilling or not allowed to play in some future World Championship(s) for the USA. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Well Fred we will just have to live with finding each others position laughable. I think the position that a. someone was harmed by the sign but b. Censoring signs harms no one Is completely inane. I can understand the position that neither a or b harms anyone (although I completely disagree with it,) and the position that both policies harm someone so we just have to figure out which harm is most severe (my position is that censorship causes much more harm), but your actual position, well I just think you have no respect for other people having different values then you have. People throughout time have been beaten up, arrested, or even killed in order to speak freely, and such a person, who knows that they may be physically harmed, clearly thinks that the physical harm is not a severe as being silenced. I have no idea how much Debbie cares about her ability to speak out, or about her message, but many people certainly do care a great deal about their political beliefs.

Let's not define "harm" ridiculously broadly please. "I don't like it" is not the same as "I am harmed by it". So there is a slippery slope of where "I don't like it" ends and "harm" begins? Who are you to say where harm is, and who is hurt by what? Obviously someone has claimed they were harmed by Debbie holding up her sign (otherwise there would be no ruckus here). They are not claiming they were harmed as badly as if they were run over by a car (at least I don't think the claim about the level of harm is that high). But there is a claim of harm. While I think being harmed by the sign is silly, certainly a lot of people here feel harmed by it. I think its rediculous to say that the sign (especially a statement of fact!) can harm someone but being told you can't have a sign can't.

I believe a "no signs" rule would harm nobody. I believe it would be only a matter of time until a "some signs" rule would harm everybody. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Well I completely disagree. I think a no sign policy harms me, harms debby rosenberg, and harms anyone who would normally wear a political button, a yankee cap, an end the genocide in darfur sign, or a get well soon paul soloway sign. I think only people who would not normally have such a sign, who doesn't derive pleasure from having such a sign, thinks that outlawing something that gives someone else pleasure doesn't cause harm. Outlawing something always causes harm. If it didn't, you would not have needed to outlaw it in the first place. This does not mean you shouldn't outlaw it, but you need to recognize that you are causing harm and weigh the costs and benefits (to different people) of such a policy. When we ban smoking at the table we are harming you (or did you give up smoking recently?), and benefiting me. I think there is a good reason to make such a rule, but I would never claim it didn't harm you. Josh

Hey Fred, Now I always thought you had a libertarian streak (maybe I misread that). I guess the responsibility of managing a virtual communiity (BBO) changes that. :) First, let me dispute your claim that there no rule that can solve the hesitation problem. Here is rule A: All bids and plays must be made in between 7 and 10 seconds (with something like a chess clock used, and time officially starts and ends when the clock button is pressed). This is a uniform rule, where bidding too fast or too slow are equally sanctionable, and involves no discussion of whether the slowness or fastness indicates any action by partner. The point is, that this rule, just as the current rules, or no rules has consequences. Some players will benefit and some will be harmed, and it will make the game worse in some respects (you can't take the time to solve an interesting logic problem), but make it better in some other respects. I am not saying I am in favour of this rule. I am merely saying that there can be "enforcable rules" other then no rules at all in these situations. Similiarly, on the matter of signs there are enforcable rules. Whether or not people like those rules is another matter. Now as to the other matter, there seems to be some sentiment that "no signs" is a neutral position (same effect on all). This is not true. There was recently an incident where a girl was forbidden from playing soccer while wearing an islamic head dress (the league overruled the ref at halftime thankfully). A league's decision that there is no headgear allowed does not have a uniform effect on everyone. There are some people who wears headgear as an expression of who they are. Others do not wear headgear as an expression of who they are. I personally do not think that religious expression is fundamentally different then political expression. Both are personal expressions of who someone is. Perhaps they indicate what group they consider themseleves a part of, perhaps they indicate an idea they believe in, or whatever. If you pass a dress code, the people who like to dress that way benefit, and people who do not are harmed. Similiarly if you prevent speech or other forms of self expression. Those rules benefit some and harm some. This is not to say there should never be rules or restrictions, but lets not pretend that these are neutral. I don't think my wearing a yamulkah (a jewish head covering) is any different then someone wearing a Fred Thompson for President button or is any different then a I didn't vote for Bush sign. If you outlaw signs, people who do not like to make public statements or those who likes presenting the view that everyone agrees on all issues benefits, and people who have some thing to say are harmed. Its as simple as that. One of the main things a society struggles with is that values conflict with each other and interests conflict with each other. For instance maybe someone's religious expression involes screaming lord save us at the top of their lungs while burning a dead skunk. This expression harms others, so its up to the society to figure out how to balance those competing harms/interests. There is no one correct answer, and much of political philosophy involes an argument about how should a society make such a decision. Josh

Dear Fred, I voted some. (At least regard to the word appropriate) First, the word appropriate does not mean "in accordance with rules" and inapporiate does not mean "sanctionable behavior". The question if there should be rules that outlawed some signs is a different question. I for one, think its inappropriate to show up at someone's house unannounced at dinner time. Its a far cry from saying that someone should be punished for it. "In Bad taste" is partially a subjective opinion and the community doesn't have to agree on this. I know one restuarant that posts "men must not wear hats inside." I will not go in that resturant, since jews in fact keep there head covered inside, and the custom of taking one's hat off inside (originally just in churchs) in the west (for christians) came from differentiating christians from jews (ok there is some historical debate about the origin of this custom). So to me, the sign (and custom) says "jews not allowed" even though I am sure most people have no idea where any of these customs come from. The point is that not everyone has the same idea of what is appropriate... Anyway, let me get on to the question about if the position that "some signs should be disallowed" is in itself absurb (I think that was the question you were really interested in). I think your implicit argument is the "slippery slope" argument that its impossible to have rules that cover all cases, and besides where exactly is the boundary between an allowable sign and a non-allowable sign. If you were in fact making a different argument, I am sorry I missed it, so you will have to let me know what it was. Let me site two examples of slippery slope rules in other contexts: 1. US constitutional law 2. Laws of Contract Bridge 1. One of the key factors in a law being valid is if the law is clear enough so that you know if some action you are doing is illegal. As an example of some supreme court decisions that dealt with such an issue there were a sequence of court decisions Roth vs the US to Jacobellis v. Ohio to Miller vs California from the 50's-70's addressing the constitutionality of obsenity laws. The opinion of the members of the court ranged from the absolutist (everything is speech and protected under the first amendment) to the other camp which felt that despite the lack of a clear boundary between something obscene and something which is protected free speech, it is clear when something went way over the line, and those are the enforcable cases. No matter which camp you are in, I would not call the other position absurb. Both sides might call the other side absurb, but when there is this significant of a disagreement between a siginificant number of intellegent subject matter experts, I think the word absurb is a major overbid... 2. Rules regading Breaks in tempo in an auction do not have any hard and fast rules. There is not a cut of point which is "if its your 2'rd bid in a competative auction, and the opps bid 3C over 2H then a hesitation of 7.4 seconds is ok, but 7.45 seconds is not." The rules are subjective, but again follow the main principle that its clear when someone had a SIGNIFICANTLY longer hestitation then there was a break in tempo. When its close to the not well defined boundary, it is not classified as a break in tempo. As to what kind of rules someone might want to put in place regarding signs (or speech in general), the normal rules would be: No libelous (statements that are harmful to the person, as well as blantantly false) insults. Or no libelous insults of someone at the event. Or don't insult our host. Or... There are lots of possible rules which achieve a social end that at least most of us favour, is narrow in scope, and its clear if someone stepped way over the line. Josh

Woah Nelly, I didn't notice what happened in Shanghei or this thread until now, but I have quite a few things to say. First is this preposterous claim that the players are representing the US. As far as I know the people of the US did not select them, and neither did anyone the people of the US did select (aka representatives). They were not delegated any power by the US. I went to dictionary.com and looked up "represent": 1. to serve to express, designate, stand for, or denote, as a word, symbol, or the like does; symbolize: In this painting the cat represents evil and the bird, good. 2. to express or designate by some term, character, symbol, or the like: to represent musical sounds by notes. 3. to stand or act in the place of, as a substitute, proxy, or agent does: He represents the company in Boston. 4. to speak and act for by delegated authority: to represent one's government in a foreign country. 5. to act for or in behalf of (a constituency, state, etc.) by deputed right in exercising a voice in legislation or government: He represents Chicago's third Congressional district. 6. to portray or depict; present the likeness of, as a picture does: The painting represents him as a man 22 years old. 7. to present or picture to the mind. 8. to present in words; set forth; describe; state. 9. to set forth or describe as having a particular character (usually fol. by as, to be, etc.): The article represented the dictator as a benevolent despot. 10. to set forth clearly or earnestly with a view to influencing opinion or action or making protest. 11. to present, produce, or perform, as on a stage. 12. to impersonate, as in acting. 13. to serve as an example or specimen of; exemplify: a genus represented by two species. 14. to be the equivalent of; correspond to: The llama of the New World represents the camel of the Old World. –verb (used without object) 15. to protest; make representations against. 16. Slang. to use or display a secret handshake, sign, gesture, etc., for purposes of identification: The gang members always represent when they see one another. The one claim that can posibly be made is is definitions 1 or 13 hold, that is the players symbolize america or serve as typical examples of americans. This claim would be purely in their own minds, since american bridge players are hardly representative, in any sense, of the american population, and some of them are not even US citizens. If the National Rifle Association, The American Civil Liberty Organization, The American Nazi party, or any other association in america went abroad they would not be representing america, despite any pretentions they might have. So if we want to claim that these players are representing something, they are representing the USBF, which was the organization that did designate them and collected money to send them. I still find this representation idea funny, since it really just means in this case, that according to the rules set forth by the USBF they earned the right to play in the world championships that is reserved for a team from the USBF. This is no different then the colorado rockies winning the national league and being able to play in the world series as a result. Its a bit unusual for an organization have one set of conduct rules for its members (at least during an event sponsored by the organization), and another set of conduct rules for those who happen to win, but I suppose that an organization in advance can make whatever rules it wants for its members. In the case of other sports, the rules that apply to players in the championship event are not different then the other players in the league. Now to prefice my next comment I want to relate a story. In around 1988 or 1989, the communist mayor of Leningrad (now St. Petersburgh) was running unopposed. The rules required everyone to vote, and he needed 50% of the vote to win. In one of the final actions in the soviet union, more then 50% of the people showed up to vote but left they ballot blank, which did not allow him to get re-elected. The point here is while voting is a political act, so is the decision to not vote. And while speaking out about politics carries political content, so does not speaking out. Were the people in germany during the Nazis who did not speak out against discriminatory laws. imprisonment, and genocide towards the jews (and gays and gypsies) free from responsibility for what happened there? If a bunch of americans show up abroad, and never say a word about american politics this actually carries some subtle messages: a. there is tacit support for current american policies from these people b. there lacks serious diversity of ideas in america and these influence how we, as a country, are viewed by those who come into contact with. That is a lack of a sign influences how we are viewed as does the presence of a sign does. Did they do this to claim that all americans all the USBF all have one opinion? In fact, the sign itself was making the claim for there being a diversity of ideas within america. This articulation of diversity, almost by its nature, rejects the idea that this idea comes from a large organization. Instead it implicity carries the disclaimer "the ideas presented here are my own personal ideas, and do not come from the USBF or the US government or any other organization". Was this sign a good idea? I don't know. I think it achieved its ends of announcing US diversity of political opinion and at the same time caused a bit of a ruckus and shifted our discussion from about bridge (which unites us) to some stuff which divides us. Should there be rules against such a sign? There is a fine line between forcing conformity from the participants, and making rules so that others are not offended (I personally, am offended by most instances of enforced conformity unless there is a clear harm that the rules are preventing). When we pass rules that say there is no smoking at the table, there is one group (the smokers) who are disadvantaged, and others (the non-smokers, especially folks like me who are allergic to the smoke and would not be able to play if the rooms were like they used to be) that benefit. Both rules and lack of rules have there benefits and costs. I just think an organization should step very carefully when it attempts to pass rules that have nothing to do with what unifies its membership, which in our case is the game of bridge. Josh P.S. I am still outraged by how the protesting athletes in the 1968 olympics were treated....

Having worked for years in the field of Quantitative Risk Analysis (a field that grew out of risk/safety modeling for the nuclear industry). I have lots to say about this subject, even though I never did an assessment of a nuclear plant (I worked mostly on terrorism risks and on NASA projects). First of all, I basically agree with Gerben in that: a. In terms of operational/safety risk at nuclear plants, these are well understood after decades of research and modeling, and substantial improvements have been made which makes serious accidents into very rare events. Since I have not worked on nuclear plants, I am not certain of the exact order of magnitude of "rare" here, but I trust that its really quite low. The harmful enviromental effects of using Oil and Coal, on the other hand, are also quite serious, and are much more likely. The big difference is that the effects occur over years, rather then all at once, which seems to effect peoples perceptions of the relative risks. Solar, Wind, etc carry much less risk, but are nowhere near ready to satisfy anything close to our current energy demand. I do think they have serious potential, and much more R&D funding is required... b. The main current hangup is disposal (and transport to the disposal site) and the associated risks. I think Gerben understated these risks somewhat, but I do think they are managable. In addition to making storage tanks that can last 10,000 years, there are issues with exposure of underground water to high energy particle emissions, since underground water can travel a great distance without significant dilution. I still think we have not really solved these problems completely, but we are far enough along to store waste for the short term (100 years) while improving our ability to store it for the long hawl. Avoiding a traffic accident on the way to the dump, on the other hand.... c. The issue Gerber didn't mention is terrorism. While Nuclear plants (and waste disposal sites, and waste transport vehicles) have many many safety precausions that prevent serious accidents, its really hard to protect ourselves from "delibrate accidents" so its best if we can control the consequences of such an accident. And the consequences here can be quite serious. Having said that, other types of facilities are also at risk of a terrorist attack. For instance see my Op-Ed piece about Chemical Plants I wrote a few years ago: http://hungryblues.net/2005/02/19/bad-chemistry/ All in all, I think Nuclear is a much better alternative to Coal and Oil but there are still some issues...

I find partner's KQ. :)