DrTodd13

Todd I am not quite sure what you intend to tell here. I am quite sure we are fairly at the same line here. Basic in pass systems is an improved construction regarding basics of bridge - MAJORs and frequency(8-12). 0-7 opening is high risk zone - you want to get out of the frying pann cheapest possible. The best way is to invite cheap overcalls from opponents. Therefore it is 1♦(Moscito/Tres Boof 1♥). If it is placed higher the risk is higher and you bypass some attrative options about majors. Therefore such tends to be misconstructions. Placing it as 1♠ is silly bypassing both of the most attractive options. Certainly preempts are used, 5-7HcP, 6+cards is a bad and poor preempt in any system and therefore in pass systems too. I doubt anybody will see 5-7HcP, balanced as an attractive bid. Even the well known Meckwell mini-NT(9-12) is fairly un-attractive depending a bit of the keycards to be held. Claus, you can't tell us one minute you don't know what a FERT is and then the next minute claim to be some kind of expert in what is good in a forcing pass system. If the alternative is to open the FERT then a weak 2 with 5-7 points is generally a more appealing option.

From: http://www.bridgehands.com/F/ Fert - To open with a weak opening hand (7 points or less) at the one-level. Fert calls are normally associated with partners who play a Strong Pass system. The term Fert is actually a colloquial term, derived from the term "fertilizer". Thank you very much for your kind help. I now understand the word - but I need some more time to figure out the exact meaning in bridge. Fert = 0-7HcP, any distribution? Fert = 0-7HcP + info about holding? English is a very strange language for a dane. Claus, generally, forcing pass players will preempt if they can. The point requirements vary but, for example, with a 6+ card suit and 5-7 points they would generally preempt rather than bid the fert. Some also play two-suited weak bids so you may get some preempts with the 5-4+ hands as well. So, the fert becomes something like: 0-4 absolutely any shape OR 5-7, bal or semi-bal.

Cascade is right on all counts. Like The_Hog says, the problem is totally one of unfamiliarity. I think FP has done well enough in its rare appearances in international competition to merit its inclusion with other system styles as constructive/competitive systems. The winners and losers in this category of systems should be determined at the table and not by the C&C or the BoD. Jan. For five years I've played a forcing pass system with a 1♥ FERT on BBO. We give the opps a very simple defense that is largely natural. When both opps read the defense and agree to it and apply it with basic bridge sense they do fine and no one has ever complained that the defense was woefully inadequate or too complicated. Thus, I have to disagree strongly with you that a naturalistic defense to a FERT is laughable. On the contrary, it is wholly adequate for most levels of bridge play. Not adequate for international competition but I didn't think that is what we were discussing here. Finally, I wonder historically when the authority for SO's to regulate conventions was added to the laws of bridge? Barring that authority, the laws would seem to value effective systems in whatever variety they may come. With that authority however, the decision goes to the SO's who are not making the decision based on some notion of bridge purity but on other factors like keeping the bulk of the players happy. Player happiness is based on, among other things, the complexity of the game. We can't tell people they should prefer a very very complicated game instead of just a regular complicated game or vice versa. Therefore, all this arguing seems pretty pointless. We all have our preferences and trying to change other people's innate preferences is probably futile.

Maybe Fred could add an option to right-click on chat text (like you can do now to copy it) and use the google translation tools to translate from the source language to whatever target language you desire. Barring that, you can copy the text and use the translation tools yourself. It is a quick way to get some idea of what they are saying. The translation won't be perfect but it is generally good enough to figure out if the comments are innocent or potential misconduct.

Have you ever played a weak-opening system or played against one? Unless you've had many hands worth of experience then I don't think that you are in any position to talk about practical advantages or disadvantages. From the theoretical standpoint, some analysis has been done comparing many different systems for how accurately they describe hands and forcing pass systems either win or come very close to the winner. If you think that preempting with a long suit is an advantageous and ethical strategy then I think you should consider that a FERT has similar advantages. It robs bidding space from the opponents and generally gets them into less accurate defensive bidding. The only question that remains is, is the FERT as "sound" as a long-suit preempt? In my years of playing one forcing pass system or another, I have to say that at least when non-vul the answer is yes. If doubled you can generally scramble and find a fit at worst at the two level and it is a rare hand that doubling said bid and setting it results in a better score than the opponents have by playing the contract themselves. If you have experience then do tell us about it, otherwise, uninformed opinion is meaningless.

From what I have heard about the committee, my perception is that the level of goodness required for a defense to be approved by them is much much too high. It seems like they want perfection. Jan complained about how insufficient the two approved multi defenses are. To me, the purpose of an approved defense should be to allow play to continue in some reasonable way the vast majority of the time. For most people, even the simple multi approved defense is sufficient for this purpose. Sure, it isn't perfect but people should be rewarded for figuring out a better defense just as people should be rewarded for figuring out a better convention.

So what do you explain? "Non-forcing, doesn't promise spades or any particular suit"? Are you suggesting that they mention the percentage? First of all, do the players actually keep track of how often they make this psyche, so that the percentage is really accurate? And even if it is, is it meaningful to the opponents? Unless they also know how many times you've made the bid recently, they can't judge how likely it is this time. This is a general paradox that frequent psyches run into. By a strict interpretation of the definition, they're not psyches, they're implicit understandings. But unless they show something specific, there's no way to disclose what they mean. Ken gave a reasonable suggestion. If you always always bid ♠ with the short ♠ and easy rebid type of hand then the percentage is not necessary. If you probabilistically pick whether to bid ♠ with this hand type then I'd say the percentage is needed.

You don't alert psyches. You alert agreements. If 40% of the time you bid 2♠ non-forcing with ♠ shortness then you should alert and say exactly that.

OK, then I can plot you on the compass. If you "disagree strongly" with everything you get exactly 0 for economics and something like -3.9 for lib/aut. How does a pacifist anarchist answer the question about military actions outside international law? If you say no then you seem to support international law and if you say yes then you imply that some war is justifiable. The question also fails to differentiate offensive from defensive actions but I assume they mean offensive because I'm not aware of any "international law" that forbids you from defending yourself. Also, there are some questions that have nothing to do with economics or the use of the force of law. How can such questions affect economic and authoritarian scores? Does simply believing that something like sex outside marriage is immoral make one an authoritarian? To me, you can hold any view you wish but if you try to force it upon others you are the authoritarian. I also don't think of that question as a left/right issue. Anyway, I would prefer not to have a data for me in the graph guessing at how I would have answered. All I do know is that I am about as anti-authoritarian as you can get so I should be the minimum on that axis.

Written by someone with some blinders on for sure. I would have taken the test but it is impossible to complete when there are multiple choice questions where I don't agree with any of the possible answers.

What Helene is describing is called Condorcet voting. The theorem that all systems of voting (except dictatorship) violate some basic desirable principle of elections is called Arrow's Theorem. In practice, while it is theoretically possible to not vote your true preference and have that influence the election (under Condorcet), the information necessary to determine how to manipulate is extremely difficult to get and even if most people had it they couldn't figure out how to use it. The stupid approach of putting Obama first and McCain last with super-whackos in the middle is not guaranteed to increase Obama's chance of winning. In this sense, it is good that the obvious tactic will often fail. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to combine Condorcet with an electoral college. For it to be really useful I think you'd want to have it a unified national vote rather than spread out via states. Plurality voting (you get one vote among tens or hundreds of candidates) is close to the dumbest possible voting system. A revolution is a necessary but insufficient condition for Condorcet to be instituted because as long as they are in power the two party duopoly have no interest in allowing people to express their true preferences. There are several good and justifiable mechanisms to use should there not be a clear Condorcet winner.

I was careful to say "I believe the stereotypical differences between men and women are largely the result of society perpetuating those stereotypes rather than inherent differences in the emotional makeup of men and women." I don't believe that there are no differences between the sexes. But, I believe the inherent differences are minuscule when compared to the learned differences or differences perpetuated by society. There was some research I saw a few months back that showed that gender stereotypes were actually magnified by egalitarian societies rather than minimized. So, it makes logical sense that the more primitive the society the more gender stereotypes they would have but despite how much sense it seems to make it turns out to be incorrect.

IMO, the pharmacy question is much more complicated than that. The personal freedoms enjoyed individuals are (and must be) different from those granted to the corporation. For example, in a state where the all pharmacies are owned by a single chain, should all people be denied the access to contraception because of the whims of its owner? What if the owner of such a pharmacy took a shine to the idea that some life saving medication was against a religious belief? The government has no right to challenge the owner's belief, but it has every right to insist that the pharmacy carry a certain brand of drugs in the interests of public and health and well being. I don't believe in corporations either. Those are fictional pseudo-persons created by the state so that owners can shirk responsibility. Ultimately, however, businesses are owned by people and those people don't lose their rights just by selling something. Show me where in the constitution I lose my rights to choose with whom I will associate just because I open a store front. Laws can say I can't do it but that doesn't make it right. If all the pharmacies in the world were owned by one person who was against birth control then it would still be wrong to force that person to sell it. Of course, anybody who would make such a rule then surely competitors would spring up who would sell contraception or whatever life saving medication the first person found objectionable. But I think I'll stop with this argument now because it just does come down to unsubstantiatable opinions of what the ultimate good is. Just don't kid yourself and think of yourself as a freedom and peace loving because in the end if the majority public good (as defined by the public themselves) is your mantra then that is only achievable via control of the populace through the use or threat of violence.

Should Domino's be able to refuse to serve you for whatever reason they desire? If you believe so, then you are more enlightened than I thought. Those with an agenda matter because they drive public policy. It isn't just some fringe group or if it is they are having a high impact per member because society is moving in that direction. They and legislators seem incapable of differentiating between good/bad for government and punishable/tolerable for everyone else. In my opinion, both gay marriage and the pharmacy topics are interesting to discuss because they reveal what is considered the ultimate good by the parties involved. The pharmacy question is easy for me because I consider personal freedom the ultimate good and therefore a private business should not be required to do anything. Most people are in a sense of the word communists because they consider the communal good superior to the individual. They might reject that statement but their actions and their other positions reveal their true beliefs whether they are willing to acknowledge it to themselves or not. But what is the communal good? There being no objective way to compare the pain caused to gays by not being able to marry and the discomfort of a present or future society in which gays could marry to those who oppose such marriage then we've sunk to the ridiculous approach of having to assume that said discomfort is equal on both sides and just counting the individuals involved.

Well, given your response the discussion is far from clear. I am saying nothing about whether gay marriage should exist or not. I am saying there are groups with an agenda and that agenda is to make gay marriage legal AND then to punish ANYONE (religious or otherwise so long as the context is non-religious) who would discriminate against those of the same gender who say they are married. Sure, they may allow churches to refuse to perform gay ceremonies or allow churches to refuse membership to gays. Outside of a religious context however, they are plenty happy to push their notions of right and wrong on everyone. If a religious person opposed to gay marriage ran a wedding cake shop and wanted to refuse service to a gay couple, the people with this agenda would be all bent out of shape. Whether their agenda is good or bad is a wholly separate question but it seems a bit disingenuous to suggest that groups with this agenda don't exist or that they are less inclined to use authority to enforce their unfounded notions of morality than the religious are. (To be fair, I will say that the basis of religious morality is just as unfounded in fact.)

There are many organizations now that advocate for acceptance of gay marriage just like there were many organization in the 60s who advocate for racial equality. It is one thing to lobby to make the government completely neutral with respect to race. It is something wholly different to lobby to use government force to punish individuals who in private dealings wish to discriminate. You can debate the merits all you like, whether that is good or bad is not my point. The point is that surely these advocates desire to impose their will that one should not discriminate on the basis of race or sexual orientation on everyone else. We've come to an agreement in this country not to use the government to force the trappings of religion or atheism on each other. However, people still have beliefs about right or wrong and so long as these beliefs aren't overtly religious we've adopted a system whereby the majority can enforce those beliefs on the minority. W.r.t. prop 8, IIRC, around 20% of people who self-identified as not being religious voted for it. Therefore, there must be some non-religious reason these people are voting for it and given that that reason exists, it is impossible to separate whether the religious are voting based on religion or based on the aforementioned non-religious reason.

i think in the case of abortion and marriage, liberals would want the choice to be PERSONAL, not a choice made by any sort of random government, religious or social organization. it really is none of your business if a woman chooses to have an abortion or if two people of the same gender want to live together and be entitled to the same legal protections as people of the same gender. what gives YOU the right to dictate how others are to lead their lives? I find it absolutely amazing that the religious right imposes its own morals and ideals on everyone. When will you realize, that if you are right about the existence of your particular deity (whichever one it is that you might believe in) then you don't NEED to do anything about other people on Earth as your own belief (usually) spells out that the deity will punish the non-believers. why can't you just let others live happy and fulfilling lives? Well said Matmat -- pretty much echoes my own views. The godless impose their beliefs on people just like the religious. The only difference is what those beliefs are. The religious are mocked for having a system of morality backed by a book which their antagonists would claim is mystic hogwash. This is the pot calling the kettle black. Several attempts at "objective" systems of morality have been tried but in my opinion all fail because they all have the mystical belief at their core that humans matter. There's no proof or reason to believe that humans matter. Humans have an interest in believing that they matter though so they go on believing something for which there is no proof. Even the admittedly morally relativistic position that most non-religious take is based on the same mystic premise that humans matter. Why can't the religious leave other people alone? The same reason the non-religious don't leave other people alone. People seem to be born with a desire to tell other people what to do when given the chance.

To a great degree, I think that health care is a triangle. One side is cost. One side is time. The last side is amount. You can force any two sides to any value that you desire but then you're helpless to accept the natural value of the third side. You can't legislate away market forces even under communism. Try to force the third side to the value you desire and like whack-a-mole one of the other sides will change regardless of laws to the contrary. You obviously can't hide the time and amount aspect from the consumers but you can try to hide the cost. People are gullible and will believe that health care is cheap but won't connect the increase in taxation or the devaluation of the currency to the government providing that for them. For all you liberal uber-rationalists who think people need to be controlled like cattle, check out the following video and see if you want to rethink the wisdom in universal health care.

I voted for 10, so I wouldn't pass with 10. And I gave an example hand with which I would pass with 9. And it had a fit. What would you bid with it? 3♣ seems pretty normal there. Realistically opener will have 12-14 most of the time. If you want him to accept with good 14, you should have more than 5-6, no? Let's turn the table now. You open with xx-Kx-AQxxx-KQxx. If it goes 1♦-1♠-2♣-2NT do you pass now because you expect as little as 7 points or less? I think that 2N should show more strength than a preference to one of opener's minors. Maybe with a very weak hand one should bid 2♦ (with at least 2♦) even with 4+♣ to give opener another chance. Personally, I think if my system presented me with this problem then I wouldn't play that system given there are other systems that don't have nearly as huge a hole in it. Still, when in doubt, overbid. With a terrible misfit I'd look to get out as cheap as possible but if I have any kind of a fit I'd strive to bid again. True, we might end up at 3♣ with 18 points but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I voted for 10, so I wouldn't pass with 10. And I gave an example hand with which I would pass with 9. And it had a fit. What would you bid with it? 3♣ seems pretty normal there.

3♣ (a jump shift by opener) is 100% game forcing. You wouldn't game force with 18 opposite 5 would you? You admit 2♣ could be 17 so why would you ever pass with 10 or even 8?

In some horrible misfit perhaps but if it isn't a misfit would you ever pass a 7 point hand when partner could have 18?

Playing standard american, partner opens 1♦ and you respond 1♠. Partner bids 2♣. I had a discussion the other day with someone and we wondered how well beginners and intermediates know standard american. If you're a beginner or intermediate please answer this poll with the least number of points you would generally have and find a pass of 2♣ unacceptable?

As far as tables in the Main Bridge Club go... In principle it is certainly possible. In practice it is not possible that you will see a change like this any time soon (or probably ever - sorry). It would be too much work for too little gain and there are many other ways that we can spend our programming hours improving the software that I believe represent better uses of our time. I am not saying that I think this is a bad idea. We might include something along these lines when we try to make it possible team matches to spontaneously start without the host having to specify all 8 players. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com The correct way would be to have two people form a partnership and then issue a request to sit down at a table jointly. The host of the table may still want to reject one or both of these people (e.g., on the enemy list). Not only that but the partner of the host has an interest as well. What if one of the opponents are on his enemy list? So, I think the right way is for two partnership to be formed first and then one to challenge the other and all 4 players then have to agree before play can commence.

By continuations of stayman, do you mean opener's responses or responder's responses to opener's response? If the latter, then virtually everyone would be at level 0!