BunnyGo

Yes! good point.

Run the nine, then run the 8. I think. This picks up any 4-1 split (3-2s we pick up for free).

I have a hard time understanding that when I point out that I personally know 5 rabbis in one synagogue in Boston who are agnostic or atheist you counter by saying that they are not believers in Judaism. It's true I conflated the issue at the start of the post, but I addressed it in the next two sentences. It's also true that the modern "black hat Jews" are a new phenomena in Judaism--they are not "traditional Jews". The tradition is one where one of the most quoted ones in the Talmud is God telling the world, "I've created the world, here are some laws, I'm outta here...interpret the laws as you wish." Which is not completely unlike the definition of "Deist" discussed earlier in this thread.

I take exception to your statement that "Especially in the J-C-I tradition, the acceptance of dogma is required as is the practice of praying to this divine, but fortunately for us, probably imaginary entity." This is far from true. Among Jews, a majority are atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism#Jewish_theology this does not have the stats, but I couldn't quickly find them). The religion (until the late 17th century) was more a legalistic philosophy (that did and does refer to a God) than a belief based requirement. It's not just "lapsed Jews" who are atheists either; among one of the best educated congregations in Boston (4-5 rabbis as members, several other members who know more about Judaism than most rabbis) a majority of the weekly attending members are agnostic or atheist--this is not an uncommon position among religiously observant Jews (but I expect it is no longer a majority of us).

I'm simply discussing the inference that if the thought of reward can turn a person's good deeds and actions to no longer matter, then perhaps thought is sinful (or at least matters--if not as much as actions, then enough to affect things).

Can one sin through thought? I (and I'm not alone) think not. I think that having evil intentions, but mistakingly doing good is one thing. On the other hand, if one consistently does good in word and deed (and not by accident), then I do not think their thoughts should be condemned.

There is a truth in stories. However, these same chapters of the bible warn against extending the stories to apply to things they shouldn't. That's not to mean they cannot answer questions or provide knowledge to the situations which they do apply to. What is the story of the snake and Eve? The snake comes to Eve and asks about the tree. Eve says that God told them not to touch the fruit. This is in error, because God only told them not to eat the fruit. Eve made the mistake of expanding the truth of God from an area where it was true to an area where it was not true. When the snake then demonstrates that there is no problem touching the fruit (since there wasn't), Eve decides that there's no problem eating the fruit either (another danger of forgetting the original purposes of these stories and only remembering their noncorrect expansions).

F troop was on reruns when I was growing up. Not many classic westerns were still around then.

My condolences for your loss. Since you asked, I'll second all the previous responses that I doubt any reasonable person would laugh. My grandfather died about a year ago. I do not recall any spiritual feelings at the time, but his death had been coming for over a decade, and mentally he had passed many years prior. I too have experienced the "how does this affect me" feelings during times of strife, or grief. I too have felt badly about this.

Indeed, he's new, but writes really well. At first I thought it was Phil trying on a different nom again.

Thank you for your continued professionalism.

ah yes, didn't notice.

http://www.bridge.is/files/Partnership%20Bidding%20at%20Bridge_2054397795.pdf I'm no expert, so I go to the source when I have competitive bidding questions :)

Stories have a type of truth to them. Sadly, it's a different truth than the one most of think of when discussing reality.

All that despite the fact that the bible describes many gods--just one god you're supposed to worship.

Or Dante. I'm likely wrong, but I think his comments on people he did and didn't like in Italian society are largely influential of modern societal views on hell.

I had a teacher growing up who would invite the JW in to lecture them about the bible--it helps when you can quote it in the original and 1000 years of commentary and philosophical debate about it. He used to come to class afterwards and teach us about their discussion...needless to say the JW used to run away from him, which is a change.

Am I in 3NT or 6♦?

Some other ideas: 1) Game bidding should be aggressive when they have a part score, when it's all even see part 2 2) Getting a 60 partial is generally worth 200-300 in expected points (them competing to stop you next hand, and you getting a game) 3) Don't stretch to bid slams--it gives up on the game if it goes down 4) When you have a partial, 2S means anything :) (this rule is not true, but gets some of the idea of the advantage across)

I also like that East throws the Queen of clubs under the King and under the ruff.

Whenever I've had these issues, it's turned out to be my internet connection.

I agree with Art--I don't see what attacking hearts doesn't do that attacking a black suit does. It seems we can fall back on a black suit hook or 3-3 clubs later.

Yes. If 5!c is working, then either partner has a spade stop, or has EVERYTHING else you need. Also, it seems they'll be leading diamonds.

no hand is perfect :)

It seems like North knows there's a big diamond fit and shouldn't rush to 3NT (unlike the later hand when S blasted 5C instead of 3NT with 8 top tricks and stoppers).