finally17

ok, replacing with original, just a comment not on hand: Because the total points -> IMPS conversion is not a linear scale, this isn't really the right way to go about calculating EV. For instance, 145 points is 4 IMPS. But 790 being 13 and 500 being 11, your IMP result for this first calcution is really just 1, not 4. This of course does not take into account your teammates result.

Considering it further, I think I honestly believe that, without involving the woman, BBO should figure out who did this on their own and take action. A search of the recent chat logs for a couple of the key words would quickly turn up the relevant information (unless there's a heck of a lot more sex talk on BBO than I'm aware). The reason I think it's an important enough situation is that I can think of at least 3 people (2 women and 1 guy people thought was a woman) who have told me that they've been harassed by people because of their (apparent) sex and age. Granted this is all secondhand testimony (now thirdhand to you), but it seems like this is not an isolated instance, and steps should be taken to curb this behavior.

There really should be a tutorial on how to take a screen shot somewhere on BBOs webpages. This kind of behavior shouldn't have the names edited out. It should be screenshot and posted right here on the forums for all the world to see that the player is that kind of @$$hole. Star or not. But seriously, take a screenshot and email abuse. And keep emailing abuse until they do something about it. The standard "your complaint has been noted" response is not at all enough. At the very least they need to tell the perpetrated how they have handled it.

Chuck, you're smarter than this. This claim is just silly.

i didn't realize this was a discussion of what people want. I thought it was a discussion of what we believe to be right. This is irrespective of the will of the people.

And yet you have given no argument in support of it beyond naming people who you feel deserve it and trying to appeal to others' emotions about how terrible they are. I would also note it is not the same to say "X doesn't deserve to live" as it is to say "we or our government or anyone else has the right to kill X". Exactly. It's not a question of what a criminal might or might not deserve. Rather, "is it the right of the state, to enforce this punishment ever?" and furthermore, if you say yes, then a) "how can we legitimately and fairly determine that a person's crimes are worthy of this punishment?" and :) "how can we insure that we never enact this punishment on the innocent?" But many of us say no to the first for whatever reasons (many given), making the others somewhat moot.

In the U.S., many trials will include a "victim impact" portion during the sentencing phase of the trial, where the victim (in a non-murder trial) or the victim's family are allowed to state their feelings/sentiments regarding how their lives have been affected by the crime and the type of sentence they wish to see implemented. Many? I believe it's completely standard practice in the sentencing phase of any trial in the US.

If I had to guess without reading the experts ideas, I'd say that one of the key factors would be learned culturo-psychological response to negative stimuli.

I generally agree...but as Phil pointed out, being unsure of your memory using a complex system raises stress level, which will not be region specific, and so is going to tax the entire process.

I'm generally more strict in following rules regarding weak 2s than the vast majority of people...seems like a perfectly reasonable 2♠ to me.

I didn't have a good sense of how much of a pile of partner's hand might be...if she opened some of the third seat hands I'll open, I don't want to punish her for it...I was probably being very pessimistic though.

Or the weakest. I guess it's all just a matter of perspective. And you know, I always hold the Chinese government up as the gold standard.

Han, you're so provincial. Anyway, if I were bidding by myself I'd bid as Ken first suggested. But I wouldn't at all be surprised on BBO to see lots of 1N-3N.

I'm 100% against, for a variety of reasons. 1) I apparently stand with Phil on the sanctity of life, right down to the personally but not legally against abortion. 2) As long as they're alive, I don't believe anyone is beyond redemption (regardless of your stance on what redemption means). It's only when they're dead that they are irredeemable. 3) In the US anyway, our prisons are (supposedly) for: correction, prevention & public safety, deterrence, and punishment I think there's a fundamental conflict between the first two and the last. I know of nothing that demonstrates the the death penalty is effective for the third. i. When punishment is the goal, we end up valuing some lives over others (both among the victims and the perpetrators). That's unacceptable to me. ii. Argue that it's preventative all you want, I think you'd be wrong. We're very effective at locking up the most violent in a manner that prevents them from hurting their peers. The death penalty is purely punishment.

Oh c'mon now, the question is totally different.: This is not remotely similar to "books that affected the way you think or argue" and that helped form the person you are. Note that people (at least to start) posted fiction on that thread. Anyway, I thought it was a very difficult question too...Took me 3 or 4 days to decide on 2 to mention, actually. Then I posted it here.

3♠ 4 seems very unnecessary to me, and could yet be bid with little lost if they do come back with 4♥. As an added bonus, 3♠ is probably close to an order of magnitude more likely to succeed than 4.

I agree with that. Me too. This and that partner likely had exactly 3♠s and a rag of a hand was what I decided at the table... I thought about redoubling, but I don't have a ton of defense if opps can wake up and start bidding ♦s and outbid me to a good sac (4♦ over 3♠ for instance, and they might easily even make this). So I decided I didn't want them to have too easy a time discovering their fit. That left a decision between 2♠ and 3♠. I chose 2 but didn't feel strongly about it. RHO bid 3♦ and it passed back to me to bid and play 3♠. Never did get a peep out of partner. Of course, she came down with KJx in both the blacks (it wasn't nearly as raggish as it could have been: KJx K98xx Qx KJx) and with both Qs slotted 5 was a cinch. Roughly half the field was in 2/3 and half in 4 so apparently I was not the only one who couldn't decide where to go. The most common action was opening 2♠, which I am not a fan of.

Ok, I'll make my first post of a hand ever, cause I have a variety of questions. Playing a standard 2/1 you get dealt, in first seat: [hv=d=s&v=n&s=sat9763hd64ca8532]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] First off, is anyone so aggressive with 6-5 that they open this? Secondly, once you're forced to pass, and it continues (from the beginning): pass-(pass)-1♥-(pass) 1♠-(pass)-pass-(x)- What's your plan?

Third the current vote. Splinter

I read and argue in one other internet forum, so old it's not even web-based...Recently someone posted the following basenote there, and I thought it was a fascinating question, so I figured I'd post it here, see what y'all think. I think my answers would be "The Cost of Discipleship" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer and "A Severe Mercy" by Sheldon VanAuken. What say you?

its a lot easier to misclick on a computer than it is to misplay at a table. for instance, i switch to another window...normally i switch back with alt-tab, but sometimes i use my mouse, and some people exclusively do so. if i accidentally click on the pass button when switching back, it passes for me...nothing i can do about it. exactly the sort of person that would benefit from a ban on all undos and make you pay attention instead of doing two things at once and not being fair to people at your table WHATEVER. I don't ask for undos generally, unless it was a clear and obvious misclick and I feel it will affect the hand dramatically. Other people do. I'm just inclined to give them so leeway, which apparently you aren't. Anyway, usually if I switch windows I'm dummy. And should I quit playing because I get a phone call or someone walks into the room and asks a question? Again, WHATEVER. It's online bridge, and for me always in the MBC, sometimes a team match. So I'm not committing my full attention to the hand all of the time...Anyone who claims they are is lying.

its a lot easier to misclick on a computer than it is to misplay at a table. for instance, i switch to another window...normally i switch back with alt-tab, but sometimes i use my mouse, and some people exclusively do so. if i accidentally click on the pass button when switching back, it passes for me...nothing i can do about it. Yes there is! Dont surf if you are playing. :P I think the problem is that it is a lot easier to get distracted and multi task while playing online rather than it is easy to misclick. There are plenty of things one could be doing on one's computer, even as simple as changing music, that aren't surfing. And there are large large %ages of bbo users that you'll never convince to "not surf while playing." Nor should you be able to. If there were some enforceable regulation that read "don't let your multi-tasking include BBO," I'd quit playing in a heartbeat. Furthermore, there are plenty of other reasons people misclick... touchpads, slips of the hand right when clicking...that was just one example.

its a lot easier to misclick on a computer than it is to misplay at a table. for instance, i switch to another window...normally i switch back with alt-tab, but sometimes i use my mouse, and some people exclusively do so. if i accidentally click on the pass button when switching back, it passes for me...nothing i can do about it.

Given some of the couples I've known who play bridge together, I find it scary.

Clearly you haven't experienced the TRUE FLAVOR of microsoft. That paper clip was nothing compared to some things I could recount. Try for instance IE7 beta, which when removed, deleted some very very very necessary .dlls. IE wouldn't run without these .dlls, explorer wouldn't run without these .dlls, and worst yet, System Restore, the very program that's made to fix these sorts of problems, would not run without these .dlls. I know, relatively, a lot, and it took me several hours of serious frustration to fix something that Microsoft never should have let happen. Had I known just a little bit less, it would have required a full XP reinstall, and for plenty of folks who couldn't handle this, a couple hundred bucks and a couple of days at their local computer shop. All because an Internet Explorer uninstall deleted something that XP absolutely needed to run.