finally17

Looks like a good road trip game. I was of course joking, trying to elicit amusing responses of this "dissociation" type that you mention. No one took my bait. As an aside, I wish American television had some of the panel type shows that I've seen from the BBC. I absolutely love QI, and I was also highly amused by "Never Mind the Full Stops," although it seems that perhaps British viewers weren't so amused, as it seems to have run only 5 episodes in 2 years. I think we'd be hard pressed to find a good panel for a show like QI though, unfortunately.

2♥ for the first, for the second: What are the odds that partner is going to come up with 3♣ if I double? On the vast vast majority of partner's hands, our ♣ fit will be better than our ♥/♠ fit, usually significantly so (even playing it a level higher), and we're never going to play it if we double. Personally I think 3♣ is a no-brainer.

Not that Josh needs my support, but "good idea too far" is a good description.

I try and completely ignore it as well. It is so often clearly meaningless that it becomes quickly impossible to tell. I seriously think that anyone who thinks differently and lets hitches affect them is just fooling themselves. But regardless, people say often "I did X because he hesitated to play at Y." The only time it's reasonably highly likely to be indicative is when a card is played exceedingly fast and this is out of character.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING! (as good or evil, there is obviously such a thing as too many reruns of Monty Python, it needs no argument)

Unrelated to the particulars of the discussion, here's an interesting news story. It sounds like something straight out of ABC's The Practice, and I can't imagine how the plaintiff's lawyers expect to have a shot at even a token settlement (but then, I am not a lawyer): Alaskan town sues big oil, coal and power companies, etc for $400 million over effects of global warming on town.

Ignoring the question of how one would make a dictionary out of them, I'm very interested in exploring further the concept of "unrelated words." Do such things exist? Examples please. Bonus points for making me (fine, Helene, it's her thread) laugh.

I used to do the 1♦-2♣ thing, and a while back decided it was silly. I do 1♣-1N/2♣ depending on the hand now. I've been told several times however (but only once by someone I respect) "2♣ promises 6!!" People definitely seem to have this idea.

Why not 3N gambling? It's not going to hold, so I can safely bid 4N/5N (maybe) when it gets back to me, and partner will get the idea I think (is there something illegal about this re: psyches that I'm not clear on?). And if partner has a hand where he thinks he can determine my minor and bid 5m, that's fine too. In the meantime I've given opps the most trouble I can possibly give them, and at the same time I've probably conveyed my hand quite well. If it does pass out, I'll take -450.

Maybe y'all should rethink your votes, because I agree with all of you.

I think the problem is not that people, including I, missed your point. I think the problem is that you missed mine. I don't have any strong sense of which suggestions get implemented, or how quickly. Or how related they have to be to actual play issues. The further you get from the primary things BBO is concerned about offering, the longer it's going to take for these suggestions to get implemented, I would think. And sound is most likely NOT a primary issue. Therefore, my suggestion was "here are a variety of quick fix options for your issue, because at the very least it's going to be a while before what you want happens." So this way, if Fred sees your suggestion and thinks "wow, that's a great idea, I should have thought of it," well, it still might take two years for it to get put in. But meanwhile, you won't have to deal with it.

As a simple fix you could use a different login (rogerclee1) for when you kib.

the 60-70 year old lady also generally doesn't have the problem, i bet. she isn't listening to music on her computer while playing. so she can turn her computer volume down and her cd player volume up, if it's an issue. i hate to disappoint you, but 60-70 year old ladies DO listen to music, including when they play. you dont stop enjoying music with age! No disappointment here. If the older generations weren't still listening to music, us younger ones probably wouldn't have any appreciation for Sinatra et al. I just doubt too many people 60+ have an MP3 collection.

You can just open the saved hand (.lin file) in the NetBridgeVu.exe and choose the same option as when you're kibbing (GIB -> Show double dummy analysis). However, this only shows the analysis for the hand as it was played. If you want to see a different line, you can load the .lin into a teaching table and play the hand out how you want, doing the same thing.

No, they're not. If all of human behavior is explainable with science, as Winston very clearly tried to argue, then yeah, they pretty much are. They require something "extra-scientific," at the very least the belief that humanity or the soul are some sort of emergent property. These are pretty religious in nature.

I would hope partner is very max for "a good heart raise" if he's got lots of minor suit cards. If you can trust him to have his bid, even with some wasted ♦ values I'd think it's a good gamble. Where do y'all draw the line between 3♣ and 3♥? Strictly a game invitational hand or what?

How exactly do these particular hands "quite often" go -1? Certainly there being a spade void and the opps actually getting the ruff isn't enough to be called "quite often" since the opening leader would be the voided one. And I don't see another remotely possible path. I guess your definition is broader than mine, but it's certainly worth bidding.

A fellow BBOer recommended reading some Andre Dubus to me some time ago. He wrote the short story that became the noted Marisa Tomei movie "In the Bedroom." Well, I checked out a collection of essays he wrote entitled "Meditations from a Moveable Chair;" very well-written, thought-provoking, and at times heart-wrenching. But a couple stand out, in particular: "A Country Road Song," which offers a beautifully written perspective on being grateful in the face of personal suffering (he spent the last several years of his life a paraplegic from a car accident). In particular, the final paragraph:

I voted other, but that's just cause if I knew my opps, with some I'd bid 3.

The reason I think it is not acceptable, is it does not seem to work, I can assure you if sending someone to jail worked, I would not feel a need to want the death penalty There's a lot of other stuff to wade through and I'll get to it eventually, but what's your standard for "work" if "life imprisonment with no possibility of parole" doesn't work? We put a guy in jail for the rest of his life, no one else is killed, how is this not successful?

You don't. Not even close. My post wasn't remotely complete nonsense. Go ahead and defend your friend, that's perfectly laudable. And I'm sure you have good reason to do so. But take care you don't do many of the things of which you accuse me. 1) I brought up the Catholic Church as rebuttal to the idea of "largest," that's it. I then said I am not Catholic so that it was clear (If I was believed) that I have nothing to gain from defense of the Catholic Church. You name good issues, for the most part. 2) I didn't say that Mr. Gates shouldn't be forgiven. But people bring him up as though the money he donates and the time he spends is so impressive. That's a very small-minded view, which doesn't consider what he has to give. I said "It's easy to give away boatloads of ill-gotten gains, especially when you retain boatloads." Maybe you object to the word "ill-gotten" but surely you don't object to the rest of the concept? It doesn't make him better than anyone else. Perhaps I should have also included "it doesn't make him worse than anyone else." I was refuting the praise, so that wasn't germane. I suppose it was a mistake to leave it out anyway. 3) I present as fact issues of illegality, which is based upon lawsuits by the DOJ and several states, which were won. You know this I am sure, and yet you call my statement opinions. Perhaps you were referring to my claim of "unethical practices." To start with, the legal issues were ethical ones. I could name a host of other ethical issues I have with Microsoft, but I couldn't find "proof" beyond "newspaper X prints Y about Microsoft enforcing issue Z on school district A," which you wouldn't accept despite the countless examples that exist. You also wouldn't accept that if there are enough of these types of "rumors" and "stories," from around the entire country, they probably aren't all false. 4) As for being a member of BBO, he's also a public figure. He's being praised on this thread as a public figure. Not as a bridge player, not as a bridge promoter, but as a public figure. You take an interesting view if you allow a public figure to be praised, but condemn the mention of the flaws. That's what happens when you put yourself in the spotlight, and I for one am not going to sit back and watch someone in that big a spotlight be mindlessly praised without at least presenting the other side. Let me make this clear: I did not make a personal attack. I made claims backed up by court findings about the actions of a company headed by the very public figure of Mr. Gates. I then said that giving away money does not make a person good. 5) As far as his being "my host" is concerned, well I guess I made it clear recently in another thread we both know you read that I wasn't aware of this until a day or two ago. But I anticipated a mention of the fact, and have no rebuttal for it, except to say that if you honestly expect people to stay mum about a PUBLIC FIGURE they have issues with on a forum like this, you're only fooling yourself, regardless of who is hosting it. I presented NO LIES, I have NOTHING to gain, and I said what I said fully aware that you might respond by cutting me off from BBO. That would be your over-reaction. The fact that he is host isn't going to keep me from rebutting mindless praise. 6) I am not going to fall at someone's feet just because they like the same game I do, and they have money to invest in it's promotion. I care more about the poverty-stricken anywhere, and I'm clearly not falling at his feet over charity work. 7) It's nice to know that you're just as good as most of the rest of us at the following: i) jumping to conclusions based on evidence that isn't there, ii) completely misreading the intent of comments (such as my ones about the Church), iii) mocking a large group of people based on religious belief (if "brainwashing" and your little comment about "forgiveness" isn't mockery I don't know what is), iv) rude and crude language (spewing vomit on my keyboard?), v) implicit accusation of lies. And I'm sure there are other things I'm missing. And for the record: If my post is to be evaluated as a personal attack on Mr. Gates the public figure, then there is no way yours isn't a personal attack on me. I don't think you have the high ground.

the 60-70 year old lady also generally doesn't have the problem, i bet. she isn't listening to music on her computer while playing. so she can turn her computer volume down and her cd player volume up, if it's an issue. my suggested workarounds were just given as "in the mean time" ideas, which will serve both "in the mean time" and longer if your desire is never fulfilled.

It doesn't seem like an emotional rant to me. It's a very valid question with a very valid example. But since we already have, at least in the US, life imprisonment with no possibility of parole," I don't understand why that's not an acceptable alternative when your problem is: "we must make sure this perpetrator doesn't do this again." This was said early on in the thread, and people said "well, he might not be able to do it to an innocent, but this guy could still kill other guards, or other inmates, perhaps ones whose only crime is theft." To which I say "what's wrong with life imprisonment with essentially solitary confinement?" Personally I think this option should only be for extreme cases where the criminal has also severely harmed/killed after imprisonment, or serial killers, etc. As for calling the guy a sick bastard, or even an evil bastard, go ahead, I won't disagree. [edit due to your last post] I say essentially solitary because these prisoners still see guards, still receive medical attention, and still must have access to their lawyers. Also, they get 30 minutes or an hour each day for physical activity. As well, I don't believe it's like movie portrayed solitary, they still have books and the like (heavily screened) I think. But this type of imprisonment actually happens. If you think that's a worse punishment than death, I can definitely see that opinion...I just don't agree.

In order to even begin to respond to this, it's necessary for me to understand what you think is wrong with: life imprisonment in essentially solitary confinement as an example. The US government has a variety of these, known as SuperMax prisons. See: Supermax. Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, and the guy who set off a bomb and the Atlanta Olympics, Eric Rudolph, are both held in such facilities.

The top part is the part I don't like. I have all sorts of bad words for people who hold this view in combination with a refusal to do anything more than cite emotional example, when its on any subject. I'm going to withhold them, but they're there. So, you are saying that a sane and rational person should think that committing crimes such as this is acceptable behavior? Or somehow, not evil? (Feel free to substitute bad, wicked or whatever other adjective you see fit, if you do not believe in evil.) ... At the same time, to make the claim of "I have all sorts of bad words for people who hold this view in combination with a refusal to do anything more than cite emotional example, when its on any subject." is simply refusing to address the subject at hand. It's not an emotional example, its a factual case. You can say no death penalty ever, if you wish. I say in some cases, the punishment fits the crime. These cases are examples of those that would qualify, imo. No, I am saying that a sane, rational person should never declare "this is what all sane, rational people should think," almost completely regardless of the question being discussed. "Almost" just because there are obvious exceptions ("a heart rate between 50-85 bpm is generally good," "the sun is hot" for example). But the statement "the death penalty is useful and necessary" is not one of these cases. This is made obvious, proven, by the fact that so many sane, rational people on this thread disagree with you. QED If you don't accept that argument as proof that your statement is bad, you are saying that the people on this thread who disagree with you are "insane" or "irrational" or both. And later you use the word "normal," thereby also applying "abnormal" to us. It's an implicit accusation, but it is absolutely there nonetheless. It's not the view that the death penalty is acceptable and necessary that I said those words about, it's the view that you ever have a right to declare what "all sane, rational people should think." Feel free to think the death penalty is acceptable, or even good. I disagree, but I said much earlier in this thread that I don't think the view is silly. It's the way you're arguing it that's silly.