finally17

Plenty of weak players don't open nice 12 counts. If I had to guess, I'd say it's more a function of age and ability than strictly ability. Younger weak players tend to overbid and older weak players tend to underbid. Anyway, I'm passing. Opps have somewhere between 18 and 24 HCP and they have the majority of the spades most of the time (sometimes a strong majority). It's their hand and bidding is just opening the door for them to play and make 2+S. Regardless of how weak they are as players, I see nothing in my hand to indicate good chances of beating it. Partner's passed hand would need to provide 3.5 tricks.

One could also have a decaying points system for tournaments. Give the TDs a short list of unacceptable behavior (not completing a tournament, not alerting bids, unacceptable language, excessive slowness). Then allow TDs to give a single point to anyone in their tournament who commits one of these infractions. Now have the points decay at a rate of, say, one per day. Once the player reaches a pre-determined # of points, they are banned from all free tourney play until their points decay to under that value. The system could be made more complex for repeat offenders, etc. It sounds a bit complicated but I think it wouldn't be that hard to develop a fair system that would make a lot of people's lives a lot easier. And make it a lot more likely that people such as I would sign up for the free tourneys. As it is, I haven't even looked at the tourney list offerings in over a year. In conjunction with Cherdano's suggestion you now would have a system that automatically rejects problem offenders while making it very difficult for them to slip through the cracks again.

This wouldn't work because it would involve the subjective judgement of the recorder of whether the smile was controlled or not. Sure it would. You tell them to smile and record that. Then you try 4 or 5 jokes telling them only to smile if they mean it. No judgement. If I don't find something funny (amusing, makes me happy, whatever) I don't smile unless there's some kind of social expectation to...I'm rather certain that that's how most people are. Whatever...

I vastly prefer keyboard entry...but this is the problem I have with it...and this problem only exists (no offense to whoever did it) because it's implemented poorly. There are plenty of ways it could have been implemented that wouldn't cause this.

A few have. And I believe more are moving towards it. However, I think Federal input is very necessary for it to be effective, and as such it's my understanding that the results have not been stellar. I really don't know any details to share. More states are moving towards guaranteed health care for children anyway. Seems to me that only the most cold-hearted of people would be opposed to this; they can't be blamed for the world they were born into and as of yet have no power to affect.

Yes. High school math teams as well.

I would not mind an "are you sure" prompt about bids in particular, for a variety of reasons, and it wouldn't waste so much time. This could be made an optional user chosen preference The solution I would like to see for cardplay (and for bidding actually) is an improved keyboard entry system. I sincerely doubt anyone (basically) uses the system as it exists, even the most die-hard of mouse avoiders (and I can be close at times). But it doesn't seem like it would be hard to develop a more workable system. One possible implementation would be similar to how key-command directed chat is implemented, have the user define suit by typing ctrl-(c/d/h/s), which would open a "cardplay" box similar to the chat box, and then define value by entering 2-9, etc into this box. Note: while related to the misclicks question, I really want the improved keyboard entry just for its own sake.

40 years later, a different election, but not without relevance: For the full text of this speech, see here. I don't know much about Bobby, wasn't around back then. But I'd pick the man who delivered and meant this speech over any of the options we have offered this year in a heartbeat.

I'm sure some people love the BBO sounds...but I'm not one of them. I have very very few enabled, and even so most of the time I leave those off. It's not at all uncommon that I sit "kibbing" a room while I'm actually reading something in a web browser or something else...with the sounds off, I have no way of determining if I get a pm (which happens often) without switching back and forth from my browswer to the BBO window...I'd love a dual monitor system, which would handle this with ease, but I don't really have the room for it. What would be quite nice is if the software could be modified to blink the BBO taskbar tab when a user receives a private message, as it already does when it's the users turn to bid or play. I can't imagine this change would take more than a couple of minutes to implement and I can't see any reason people would be opposed to it.

You mean you want to have the "user's name" field filled in for you by default? If that's what you mean, I'm pretty sure you could force your computer to do it for you, but I'm certain that it's not at all worth the effort to have the BBO program do it, nor is it necessarily desirable.

I'm basically done with this discussion, partly because I've lost interest, partly because it's lost focus, partly because my understanding was very incomplete (demonstrated below), partly because well.... But the question was raised about Manuel Noriega, so I thought I'd post the more educated information I gathered, in case anyone else was interested in my finding out more. I happen to know a man who headed up this competition: Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition for several years and someone who worked directly under him, so I sent them the following question: "What enabled the US to try, convict, sentence, and hold Manuel Noriega as a criminal." I received the following answers...I can inquire for more detail if anyone is interested: From the underling: "I think, by the way, that the answer is he was convicted of crimes under US domestic law that reached into the US, and that the US didn't recognize him as the leader of Panama, so he didn't have immunity to prosecution." Response: "That's not really international law though, is it? I mean, it's just domestic law in a red suit and fake white beard." From the director-dude: "Well it's international law to the extent that international law (conflicts of law, in this case) permits the US to extend its jurisdiction to acts which occurred outside of the US but have effects within the US (so-called "objective territoriality.") But yeah, the actual substantive law involved is US criminal law, pure and simple." More from the director-dude: "1) In order for a State to try a criminal for a crime, it must have jurisdiction over the person and over the crime. 2) Jurisdiction over the person is typically had by seizing the person. That being said, jurisdictional immunities (like Head of State) may apply. In this case, we argued against the immunity on some basis. 3) Jurisdiction over the crime must come from domestic statute that gives notice to criminals that their acts are subject to US law. In order to be consistent with international law, such jurisdiction must be consistent with one of the recognized bases of national jurisdiction, to wit: i) territorial (the act occurred in your territory ii) protective (the act harmed one of your nationals) iii) nationality (the perpetrator is a citizen of your State) iv) universal (the crime is one of very very few over which intl law obviates a better link with the State -- eg genocide) The US also recognizes (though it is controversial) so-called "effects" (or "objective territorial") jurisdiction -- an act which, though occurring outside the US, has effects within the US." There's some educated and expert detail, if anyone is interested.

Whoa, totally wrong thread. Thought I was in another. Again I wish I could delete my own response. Oh well.

I have no idea what you mean by a violation of sovereignty. I don't believe it's a legal concept. We have treaties with other nations, and those have a power equal to the Constitution. If we don't have a treaty with another nation, there is no legal concept of 'sovereignty'. We couldn't care less if you violate their laws or not, and we don't care if our agents violate their laws. Pretty much, we expect that our laws extend to the entire planet where we don't have a treaty to indicate otherwise, and we also expect other nations to feel the same way. Here's a simple example: Piracy. An American ship gets attacked by pirates in international waters. Do you think that no American law has been broken? Do you think those pirates cannot be tried in an Amercian court? The history of trying and hanging pirates predates the Constitution, and any semblence of international law. The concept that laws extend past borders is a pretty old one. Sovereignty See specifically the section in the middle "sovereignty in international law." Your example is completely meaningless, the open seas are an ungoverned region. I don't know the specifics of trying and punishing of pirates, today or 300 years ago, but to do so would not violate any other nation's sovereignty. If you really believe our treaties hold the same power as the Constitution, you're fooling yourself. Whether they are supposed to, legally, or not, I can not say, but I doubt sincerely.

For all its inaccuracies, Wikipedia is better than Brittanica ever was.

True dat.

If by that you mean that agents of the U.S. government must grant Constitutional rights to those people in their custody regardless of location, I agree with you. If what you're saying is that only agents of the U.S. government can be tried in the U.S. for actions not performed on U.S. soil, then I disagree. Just a question of what you mean by 'law', I guess. I'm loath to say without careful individual consideration that ALL constitutional rights should be extended to those in the custody of agents of the US. "Cruel and unusual punishment," yes, it extends from a view of basic rights of humanity; "self-recrimination" yes, which at least serves to prevent torture; "habeas corpus" yes--but this clearly needs careful definition dependent upon situation. To quote from wiki "a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons ... demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person." What constitutes proof and lawful authority can not possibly be equal in all situations. ...Off the top of my head I'm not sure what else in the Constitution speaks to the particular issues of the thread. But there might be other things that I'm unwilling to extend, and I'm not going to do a careful study of the amendments to check... As for the second part, I'm definitely saying "should," ie only agents of the government should be tried in the US for actions outside of the US ... and I believe it is the case that it is "can" (note that I submitted that Noriega was tried for crimes on US soil whether he was here or not...). Anything else is a violation of sovereignty I believe. But IANAL to know and understand the legal tricks the State Dept. actually pulls.

I know. It was just a random example of the argument that "our laws are applicable here, their's there." Noriega was convicted of drug-trafficking and racketeering, crimes that I am sure happened on our soil whether he was here or not. I don't know the particulars that allowed the State Dept. to believe it was our right to try him. As for Padilla, I know absolutely no particulars either, except that I note that he was in fact arrested on US soil. If nothing else, he is lawfully a prisoner of war as well (this is supposedly his official status if net sources can be believed), having declared war against the US and having ordered acts of warfare. Anyway, as for the important part, we seem to agree. You appear to believe that the government and agents of the government, when acting as said agents, must be bound by US law wherever they are. I basically said that in my last paragraph.

As far as I can tell, they died out because someone managed to convince the US public that they need to own everything they use, that sharing things you have only one-time or limited use for is dirty because used things are dirty...something to that effect. Unfortunately, my local library spends a huge %age of its funds buying DVDs these days, rather than books. The new book selection has dropped rather dramatically and noticeably since that happened. It is nice however that they have a large selection (if not large quantities) of movies. If I know I want to watch something specific a week or two in advance, I can reserve and watch it, pay no rental fees, and keep it for a week. At my current diminished desire to watch movies this suits me perfectly. Thankfully they are good at ordering books specifically requested by patrons, but there are serious drawbacks to that, specifically 1+ month waits. I do it only if it's a costly book that I wouldn't want to keep but that I am relatively certain would have some reasonable demand. As for the used book store, it is useful...but annoyingly enough, these days most of them anywhere near me charge half the cover price, which is 4 bucks for a paper back now. Again that's an awful lot when it's something I have no intention of keeping and I can take your first suggestion. Rather, I use used bookstores for things I would want to keep for the long term but do not care if they're in pristine condition when I acquire them.

That makes sense. The US does not have referenda for Federal situations. Ever. Our Federal laws are written and passed by Congress (ok, presented and passed, not always written), okayed by the President, and if challenged, determined Constitutional or not by the Supreme Court. The people's only say is in whom to elect for these positions. That's "representative democracy" for you. Some states, such as Illinois, the one I live in, do not even have a state referendum system (others do, I am not certain how common this is). Unless you mean by "referendum" something other than how it is used in the US (to my understanding).

While you're right, it is worth noting that while the Declaration attempts to argue for a natural authority and certain greater truths, it has never had any legal authority. Perhaps unfortunately, no US legal document has ever made this concept the law of the land. (we act like it is, but there are all kinds of legal limitations: age, citizenship status, commission of felonious acts, etc)

No originalist is going to care whose soil it's on. There is nothing in the Constitution (again, possibly excluding the 3rd Amendment) which states or implies anything is based on where the person happens to be at the moment. For example, if you're an American citizen, you can still vote even if at the moment you happen to be visiting foreign soil. You've said it twice now, but I disagree with your argument. The preamble reads: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Ie this is the law of the land for this land. Furthermore, there's a perfectly reasonable assumption that when you cross over into some other sovereign region, you are subject to their laws. So obvious that 200+ years later it's the way all nations treat each other and no one bothered to put it in the Constitution. And in fact, this is exactly how the State Department deals with issues of American citizens breaking laws in other lands. You go to Singapore and throw a gum-wrapper, or whatever it was that kid did, you get caned. Maybe if the punishment is, from a "human rights" perspective, extreme, they do some lobbying of your case, but they don't knock down the doors and rescue you. We don't respect other nation's laws being enforced on our soil, and we don't enforce our laws on another's soil. These would be denials of sovereignty, regardless of who is doing the law-breaking. Your voting example is not germane. When you travel, you place yourself under the laws of whatever region you're in, but you don't give up citizenship. Heck, this is even the way we act inside the US, when traveling or moving from one municipality or state to another. HOWEVER, these are situations of private citizens traveling abroad (even sailors, on shore leave, qualify as such). I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that when one travels abroad acting under the authority of the United States government (be he sailor or soldier or CIA agent), one should be subject to the same laws that authority is subject to, an argument that was already made above. But this is the relevant argument, not the one you're making, that the Constitution doesn't bother to specify.

Why can't it be as simple as 1) told to smile on cue, as opposed to 2) told something humorous that elicits a smile? We've certainly all experienced both of these. There's no reason they can't try four or five things until they get an uncontrolled smile and use the tape of that one.

this and a prayer

With bad hands he will pass regardless of his spades. I know. I wasn't very clear, I think because at the time I hadn't bothered to note that the rest of the bidding indicated partner's 3 or so HCP--whatever--

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care. I love you han. I will take this moment to agree with jdonn, and probably bow out of this discussion. Han's post is full of win.