BunnyGo

Yes, at the table I was thinking along Kfay's line (perhaps because we talked before he posted). I usually don't pass with an Ace, but with 4 spades and partner bidding hearts, I wasn't concerned that partner could bid 2H if he wanted to on his own. When they bid 3 spades, I thought that we'd have stolen the contract in 2H if only I'd bid 1S, so I doubled. I thought it might be a matchpoint double to protect our 2H score, but I wanted to see what the forum thought. It appears I made a unique (read: bad) decision. We did end up setting in 2 tricks so it was good in this case. Here's the whole hand: [hv=pc=n&s=sak7h853dkq4cq953&w=s9864h62da532ct84&n=sqjt32hj9dt97ck62&e=s5hakqt74dj86caj7&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1hpp1s2h3hp3spp(tank)dppp]399|300[/hv]

You hold as West: 9864, 62, A532, T84 EW vulnerable, partner deals: 1H-(P)-P-(1S) 2H-(3H)-P-(3S) P-(P*)-?? Do you agree with the first two passes? What do you do now? *this pass had a looong tank, if that affects your decision. edit: correct the auction to correctly display 1S instead of 2S.

yes. 2♥ was forcing to game, but that was the auction as it happened (I was west).

Yes, thank you, the double negative got me!

One of the main points is that the couple which is not being discriminated against is *not* allowed to adopt children. The couple given all the same legal standing as any heterosexual couple *can* adopt children. If you think that they will corrupt children simply by showing them such a lifestyle, then I can understand you not wanting to give them the same legal standing.

Actually, at my table the opps didn't just bid 1♦. The auction was: 1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(P) 1NT-(P)-2♥-(3♦) 3NT-(P)-4NT-AP

Everyone who doubled got *really* lucky this time. Next time partner will bid 3 or 4 ♣. 2♥ is the only reasonable bid.

I realized that someone else had made the O'Reilly reference (didn't realize I'd misspelled the name), but I thought it was appropriate to address it, since it was directly related to what I was saying (same concept of conflation of two things, different solution). And yes, based on Dante (*not* a Catholic reference, but somehow became at least popular doctrine for Hell--which is amusing as it was intended as a political smear against everyone he didn't like) I think my religion alone gets me to the 7th level.

I am quite aware of these. We just had a 1 week conference here in May. That said, I'm largely unimpressed by most of the so called "science" and analysis being presented. It is sloppy statistics, anecdotal evidence, and frequently they'll present clear evidence that the new techniques take more effort from the teachers and produce the same or worse results, and declare that these new pet techniques are amazing. There is some occasional good research and studies done, but in general they get drowned out by lots of garbage. Granted, most of the talks and research I've seen are done at the college level, but honestly this "college level" is really "high school" level mathematics (as in, was "standard" for high school, and not just for the "green" students only 10 years ago). In short, we are not amused. P.S. I am not discussing special ed. That is an entirely different beast. I'm discussing educational techniques "for the masses".

Based on all of your writing it strikes me that you have a two clear positions: 1) Marriage is sacred and should be defined as by the Church. 2) It is acceptable (and even desirable) to have legal protections in a secular state (like the USA) where homosexuals can have legal recognitions and protections of their unions. These protections can (and should) be equal to the legal protections of marriage. It strikes me that your whole problem then (based on these positions that I've gleaned from your previous writings) is a conflation of civil and religious ceremony. I was married last summer. For health care reasons, my spouse and I nearly had a civil ceremony a year prior (it ended up not being necessary). However, I would not have been married in the eyes of my religion, and I would not have considered myself married in any religious sense. This word "marriage" is overloaded, and I think any *serious* religious argument should realize this fact--furthermore unlike what Mr. O'Reily suggests, it should not be necessary to unwind the word (simpler for the simple minded...but hardly necessary). There are millions of people (like me for example) whom the Catholic Church would not considered "married" but the State would. See....these are two different concepts that magically use the same word. There are lots of other examples of this in the English language (and in Law--both religious and civil) where words are overloaded. It should not cause this much confusion. If however, you have misrepresented (or I have misread) your position, then I think you are quite wrong. The State need not pay any heed to any one religion. Otherwise, I'd still not be married (nor would I ever be). In short, "marriage" in the eyes of the US gov't and "marriage" in the eyes of any religion *ARE* different. Furthermore, as the US gov't is not beholden to any religion (thankfully, as no two religions would be able to agree on what it is otherwise) the legal and civil protections you suggest are provided by the gov't in something called "marriage" that is amazingly *not* a Catholic marriage. Sincerely, Ben I edited to put in the quotes whereby I surmised these two positions that I ascribed to you: I read this as saying that you think the State *should* give some amount of civil rights (perhaps even ALL the civil rights) to two people living together that are not religiously married. This is called marriage. The case you present is called "common law marriage" in states like New York now (previously a man and woman living together for 7+ years would be married in the eyes of the State for various legal purposes...this now would also apply to two men living together). This seems to be *exactly* my statement with the brilliantly added words "civil" and "actual" to the word "marriage" to help people realize that these are different. Amazing.

Playing puppet stayman, we have the following sequence: 2N-3C (puppet) 3D (1+ 4 card major) - 3H (4+ Spades 3- hearts) 4X (cuebid in support of spades) - 4H ?? Is it a retransfer? Is it last train? Something else? Thanks for the thoughts.

I've sent a message to inquiry asking that this be moved to "Suggestions for the Software"

#1 I agree with aguahombre...I never get these right either, Heart Queen. #2 I'll pass. Might be too aggressive, but I like my six hearts to the A, probably ten (at least 9) card fit. Where can his points be? Worst case is KQJ of hearts, and he still has 13 points in diamonds and clubs. I'll at least try for more.

Thanks, those seem reasonable. We had: 1♥-1♠ 3♦-3NT 4NT-AP I wasn't thrilled with the final 4 calls.

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj92h64dajt8cj42&n=sk5hakt83dkq74ca8]133|200[/hv] Thanks.

Yes, my new partner is having me play 2S as invitational.

interesting treatment. What do you do with INV? bid 1S and then some NMF (or NMF-like) bid?

Did the contract make? Or did they take their Ace and have the Kx offsides?

Why don't you like this convention?

I play reverse flannery for M/m. What it is: 1m-2H is 5+Sp and 4+ He and constructive values 1m-2S is 5+Sp 4+He and limit raise 1m-1S; blah-2H is now game forcing with 5+ Sp and 4+ He. I don't do anything fancy with 1H-2S. Just a weak jump shift. We do play: P-1H 2S as an anonymous splinter. Maybe we should play it that way in all seats... Edit: Like Timo, I play support jump shift by passed hand for every jump except 1H-2S (and 1H-2NT is our spade jump shift).

Partner's hand was: J864, QT863, T7, 94

strange. When I played an ACBL robot matchpoint game, 3NT was "hover alerted" as a balanced game choice.

Yeah, at the table I doubled. As soon as I did, I was sure it was wrong. Partner had 4=5=2=2. He bid 3H. I then (in the grave I had dug myself) decided to continue digging and bid 3NT. Partner then left it in. All in all, I was hoping to not share how badly I bid this hand, but wanted to make sure I knew what to do next time so that my hand didn't stray towards the red card.

Thank you all for your (virtually unanimous) suggestions. That's about what I thought it should be, but I wanted to make sure.

Sorry, I thought GIB ran simulations and then took the line that worked in the most simulations. If *any* of those simulations had a 4-0 split onside, that would make GIB take the safety play (that's the meaning of safety play). And as I said above, I don't know how many simulations GIB runs (or even if my understanding of how GIB works is correct), but if I'm right and GIB runs 100 simulations (say) then it will almost surely encounter a 4-0 onside split.