debrose

"On Bridgewinners, Michael Rosenberg criticised Eric Rodwell for playing out 6N, where he had 12 winners but no sensible prospect of a thirteenth. Some argued that Eric was justified, in theory and practice, when exasperated opponents misdefended to give jim an overtrick." This is backwards. It was Michael Rosenberg who played the hand out as declarer, and Eric Rodwell who was one of the defenders. Edit: Just saw that Michael Bodell beat me to this.

Justin, The solution you describe above didn't address how you handle the unbalanced 5-card spade hand when partner bids 3H instead of 3D. Presumably, you must bid 3S (either 5 spades unbalanced or artificial heart slam try?), so this system does have the drawback of wrong-siding spades sometimes.

Correction - Michael-Zia don't (didn't) make an exception when leading partner's suit in their partnership, and Michael doesn't with other partners. The exception would only be the obvious - when having already denied a doubleton, one leads high. There is no case where Michael, playing MUD leads, would lead low from xxx. When I first played with Michael, it took a while for him to convince me to give MUD a try. Since then I played it for years in two other regular expert partnerships, and have become very comfortable with it (though one of those partners did insist on low in partner's unsupported suit, the exception suggested in the above quote and by others). Edited: Here's a link to a Bridgewinners article where Michael made a few comments on why he prefers 4th best w/ MUD to 3rd/5th: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-basic-why-question/ I'm pretty sure he's written more about this elsewhere, including the falsecarding potential with MUD, but can't say where right now.

Sounds like a blast. Wish I were going to be in St. Louis........... oh yes, and that I were still eligible. Have fun!

Hmm, now I appear to have done the same thing again, but perhaps you added the btw after I quoted the first line this time? Very sorry if that's not the case. I realize you didn't direct your comments to anyone, but given the effort mikeh has put into detailing some of the many complaints about religion, your comment hit a nerve with me. As I said, maybe I am missing something, and I again apologize for taking the one line out of context initially.

This statement strikes me, amongst other shortcomings, as rather dismissive of mikeh's posts. Note: Attempted to edit my original post to include full quote, but couldn't figure out how, so started again. My "this statement" refers to the first sentence.

My apologies. I obviously missed, and am still missing, how the first sentence related to the rest of the post. I'm often unsure how much of things to quote. I'll try to edit my post if I can.

This statement strikes me, amongst other shortcomings, as rather dismissive of mikeh's posts. Sorry for failed attempt to edit. Redid post below.

Penalty, presumably with four trumps, is completely standard in a forcing auction

Sam Harris, one of the most outspoken (and in my opinion well-spoken) atheists of our time, tried in his first book, "The End of Faith" to downplay the term atheist. He made similar points to yours above. However, I don't think non-belief in God is comparable to any of your examples above. The simple reason is that I live in a society where nobody assumes I am an airline pilot, that I play the piano, or that I speak Swahili. Almost nobody would have a problem with the fact that I do none of those things. Yet the majority of the U.S. population not only believes in the Judeo-Christian God, they assume others do. Our currency says "In God We Trust." Schoolchildren recite a pledge of allegiance to a flag, which include the words, "One nation, Under God" There is a consensus that professed belief in God is a prerequisite to any high elected office (certainly the presidency). People who recognize my name as Jewish have often made assumptions, such as what holidays I'd be celebrating, or that my son would have a "Bar Mitzvah". My son has often been asked what his religion is, with an implication that he is part of one. When on occasion he told kids in school that he didn't believe in God, he heard things such as "You will go to hell." Nobody says that about not playing the piano (well, perhaps a few music teachers have) This is true even though I've spent my life in very liberal parts of the country. I know enough to easily imagine what an outcast I would be in most of the U.S. Non-belief in God is a big deal to many, whether we atheists want it to be or not. If some people want to devote much of their lives to working towards eventually changing this, perhaps they indeed need to act in ways that cause others to consider them "fanatic atheists"

Helene, When I lived in NY, I attended several meetings of NYC Atheists. There were some lectures and discussions I found quite interesting. Their mission statement is as follows: NYC Atheists Inc. is a non-profit, non-partisan, educational association with the purposes/goals: To promote total and absolute separation of church and state. To educate and inform the public about atheism. To provide a forum for examination and discussion about atheism. To develop and engage in educational, cultural, charitable, and social activities that are beneficial to the members of NYC Atheists Inc., the atheist community, and the community at large. If you'd like to know more about what they do, check out: http://www.nyc-atheists.org/drupal5/

I am an atheist, and I am also anti-religious. When I read fluffy’s post, I thought it was silly and ill-informed, but I wasn’t personally offended. I fully support Mikeh’s reply, even though I did not share his angry reaction. However, I disagree with the accusations of bigotry made by Cthulhu D and MBodell, and their suggested “substitutions” to demonstrate why Fluffy’s statement was bigotry. I do not equate atheism with race or sexual identity. Saying that I am an atheist describes a choice I have made. It says something about how I think, and perhaps even implies a greater than average degree of rationality. That said, ascribing characteristics to an individual, simply because they are part of a group in which such characteristics are prevalent, is not something I approve of. As a rule, I abhor all stereotypes and generalizations. Still, some of them make more sense than others do, and not all are bigotry.. To me, Fluffy’s assertion is actually plausible on the surface. After all, isn’t one of the main reasons men invented gods to get people to “behave?” If there were not so much evidence to the contrary, it might seem logical to accept that people who don’t believe in any god, are less likely to “behave.” Fortunately, there is indeed much evidence to the contrary. Edit: As a mother and a human, I find it unbearable to focus on what actually happened. So debating the semantics of the use of the word bigotry is a distraction, but now strikes me as unseemly. Please forgive the insensitivity of implying that what happened was a failure of someone to "behave." I wasn't thinking.

I'm wondering if it's primarily just the handful of us who post about this on the internet who care whether or not ACBL CC regulations are improved and enforced. While I'm pretty sure most top level players don't care, I don't have any sense of the percentage of players overall. Perhaps the ACBL could conduct a poll, and act accordingly. If the membership doesn't want this, then stop the "Daily Waste of Ink" at the Nationals, and the occasional penalties. I'd much rather see CC requirements scrapped altogether than the status quo. The status quo is too annoying. Even when the opps have a legible card, it's so often proven inaccurate in the past, that I usually need to ask (about carding) to clarify anyway. The current card lacks much of the info one would want, and has tons opps don't care about. If the card is intended primarily as an aid to forming partnership agreements, let's stop pretending it's even theoretically for the opponents' benefit. It never has been, in my almost 30 years of ACBL bridge.

Perhaps pairs that are likely victims of such theft will know themselves well enough to carry extra copies.