DrTodd13

On the layout we are concerned with, playing 3 rounds of ♣ and then a ♠ establishes a ♣ for the guy who has ♠s. It sure does take the guess away because the next time you're in you have the 5 last top tricks down 1.

I would tend to not believe RHO is 2236 if he chose as his first discard a ♦ instead of a ♣.

You need to look at the ♦ return because that is the problematic one.

♥ or ♦ from dummy and ♣ from your hand. You have a decision to make, either play for 3-3♣ or a ♥♦ squeeze against east. From what I can tell, you can't combine your chances since you need ♥J for transportation and third♦ in hand as a threat. With the club pitches and the fact that you're posting this as a problem, I'll assume the ♣ aren't splitting.

So you think you can avoid responsibility for what is done by your country merely by saying, "It wasn't me, I only happen to live here?" Lots of us abhor the immoral and stupid actions of our government. My feeling is that we have let our countrymen down by permitting the dumbing down of the electorate to the extent that people with neither skills nor principles can actually gain the highest positions of political power. As to your vision of a land with no legitimate government authority, that's a just pipe dream. Saying something doesn't make it true but in essence, if you did just happen to live somewhere and didn't encourage the system in any way then you aren't responsible for it. A lot of people trying to use this argument would be bogus because they are enabling the government of their free will in ways they don't understand. While it may be laudable to fight evil even at your own peril, it isn't immoral not to do so. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense to be evil in the pursuit in eliminating evil. Going around deciding which activities should be disallowed because they dumb down the electorate is certainly evil. At least I'm advocating a system in which there is no systemic evil. You're advocating for the perpetuation of a system that has always led to evil.

That's a crock. Chiquita bears no moral responsibility for what the rebels did with the money they extorted. Likewise, we bear no moral responsibility for what the government does with the money it extorts from us. However, if you provide any non-coerced support, even moral support, to the government then I think you are partly responsible. To even say that the government has legitimate authority to act on our behalf is sufficient to be culpable.

I originally stopped saying the pledge because I thought it was hypocritical to call yourself one nation under God but then to exclude Him from everything else government related. Today, I would refuse to say the pledge because it is patently ridiculous and only the brainwashed can say it with a straight face. Really? You're pledging allegiance to a flag...like if the flag suddenly grew a mouth and told you to kill all the <insert group of people we currently love to hate>, you would. It is just designed to get kids to practice blind obedience to the state. You want to see anger? Maybe it would be less these days I don't know but one girl I hardly knew wrote me this scathing letter in high school about how miserable of a person I was for not standing and saying the pledge. We're all for free speech but all of our "accept everyone" charade goes out the door when an American says "America is evil." I saw a guy on 60 Minutes last night say that the executives of Chiquita were morally culpable for the murderers committed by an anti-communist gang in Columbia they were extorted into paying protection money to. "If you give money to an organization, whether it is coerced or not, you are partly responsible for its crimes." Uh huh...I guess Mr.HighAndMighty doesn't realize he just condemned himself because he willing pays taxes to an organization that commits crimes across the globe.

In Oregon and Kentucky I've only ever seen +1, not +5. The inconsistency between +5 and -1 would drive me crazy.

IMHO, BUM RAP is a better starting point than Milton. A=4.5, K=3, Q=1.5, J=0.75, T=0.25. Still the same total points in each hand. You quickly learn how to add this up almost as fast as Milton. The same modifiers apply as you would with Milton like deducting for doubleton honors and adding for concentrated values and nice combinations of honors. For those relayers, it also have the nice property of decreasing the frequency with which you have to lie about point count because you don't have the required number of controls.

I got a ♥ lead. A♠ and another with west winning. Small club lead east putting in the Q. Take club hook, pitching ♦, trump, ruff ♦, ruff ♠, ♦ ruff, pull trump.

Yes, the 2♠ has pretty strange timing. I'm wondering if she thought the X was for majors. If she thought that, she should have alerted. I suspect she might have thought that because she had less length that you might expect in ♠. Out of curiosity, if it goes 1N (15-17) and you hold this hand, do you think out of 7 tables you aren't going to get anybody in 4♥? How many tables would you think are going to transfer to 2 and not even invite?

The result was 3♥ making 6 for a near bottom. Most of the field was in 4 making. Are they all insane to be in 4 or is there some wisdom in it that most people here seem to be missing? I don't think that 2/1 or SA is any better at sorting these hands out so I think this is more of a judgement issue rather than a systemic issue.

How can it be forcing when both players are limited? North showed a 3-card limit raise, and South make a re-game try with 3♥. Oh no, North showed an invitational hand, and South showed an acceptance with 3♥, offering a choice of games. Do you play 2♥ as non-forcing? I think a 3-card limit raise would have been 3♠ after 2♠. After 2♥, his only real options are pass, 2♠, and 2N. 2N seems unwise given the ♦ weakness. 2♠ keeps the bidding alive and takes a preference to playing the 5-2 versus the 4-3. We don't play 2♥ as forcing so pass is an option but not the best I think.

Yeah, we play 2♥ as minimum non-forcing. 3♥ after 2♣ is 5-5 max, still not forcing. :)

Why lose the ability to differentiate 4-6 versus 7-8?

More details on the system. We open all unbalanced 11 counts and all balanced 12 counts. Responses to major openings are SAYC style, drury is available.

How can it be forcing when both players are limited?

Immediate 2♥ would have been 9+ with 4♠ and 5+♦.

We were playing leb so 3♥ is game forcing but presumably not sure ♥ is the trump suit or looking for something more than game but that is hard to imagine given lack of opener's XX and responder 0-8.

Double was showing ♦. 1N is some non-minimum NT shape with a ♦ stop. We have XX available to show 19+. So, I expected 1N is 17 or 18.

If this hand isn't enough then what north hand consistent with 2♣ followed by 2♠ would ever accept a 3♥ invite? Put the ♦Q in a major instead?

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sktxhjt9xxxdcxxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] North opens a 15+, artificial 1♣. You bid 1♦, 0-8. West doubles. North bids 1N. East bids 2♠. Your call?

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sxxhaxxdqxxcatxxx&s=saxxxxhkqxxxdxckx]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] Playing strong club, 15+. Bidding proceeds 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠-3♥-pass. Rate the goodness/badness of each call.

If guilt by association really mattered then you'd think that Hitler's socialism would have been repudiated by the western world. Instead, they have embraced it. I have to run now as Godwin is chasing me down.

This post is nearly so incomprehensible that I don't know what you are trying to say. The use of the word "many" in conjunction with "fert" surely has to be an exaggeration. In both absolute and relative terms, most bridge players around the world probably couldn't even tell you what a fert is. Far fewer sit around trying to figure out how to defend it. Why should they? It has largely been banned all that time. Anybody into bridge enough to have learned what a fert is and to discuss defenses against it is surely not going to leave bridge, particularly paid bridge. You won't face it in competition anyway so why would paying members quit because of it?