OleBerg

Why? The "D" could be misinterpreted as a bid of 0♦, accepted by next hands 2♥ bid.

"Therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."

Winner of the 2009 "Best Euphemism" award.

At my home pc, I use the browser "Firefox". It has an in-built spell-checker, that works with this sites software.

North 112%.

Voted "Something else", without really knowing what. best guess would be a good 5♦ hand.

5♥. Not really confident it is right, but the oppononts has good spades, and might take the push.

Hypothetically they do.

What if hypothetical situations didn't exist?

Well, strangely enough, many countries (mainly those occupied by darker skinned people) doesn't appreciate the military "aid" US provides.

Being in a mischievious mood: 2♠ = Show stopper/ask for stopper = Advanced. 2♠ = Shows extras = Expert. Our objective in these sequences is not to get to 2NT; it is to figure out whether to stay in 3♣, or go to 3NT. Or the occasional 5m. So our first objective is to find out, whether we have the playing strength to go past 3♣. For that, 2♠ is used. If it is concluded that the needed strength is present, 3♥ and 3♠ is used to check for stoppers.

Double. Doesn't really speculate how often I'll beat it. I simply sacrifice a few points to get what is probably the right lead.

2♠. Only cue beneath 3♣. Simply shows extras. Edit: Should partner bid 2NT, I'll go back to 3♣. I have already shown that game is possible facing a passed hand. If partner has a hand suited for it, he will bid game.

I echo Gnome.

I'll go for Rexfords 3♦. Had I been red, 3NT would be a wtp. (For me).

Double. Should show something like this.

1) Unless I have some obscure agreement, Pass is wtp?. (If partner claims "We play constructive on destructive bids, you need a talk.) 2) Pass. Mostly because I don't wanna give them a free forcing pass. 3) X. I'm probably overbidding again. 4) 4♠. Does not set up a force. 5) Tough. Anything can look silly. I see no evil, and bid 3NT. 6) Pass wtp?

Reminds me of an old anecdote: Newspapers claimed that it was Nancy Reagan's fortune-teller that effectively made all the foreign policy decisions during the Reagan administration. One of Reagan's harshest critics was asked to comment on this, and replied that he was relieved. He had feared that Reagen himself made the decisions.

You could argue that saving the life of an innocent child is more important than many of the things our taxes are used for. But opposing state-funded healthcare and also opposing abortion is hard to justify. Sometimes tax-money is used to save the life of an innocent child. I know I am in a minority position, but if you actually believe (I do, no kidding) that many tax-money are well-spent, your argument diminishes considerably.

As always.

For those it might interest, Law 41C1: C. Deviation from System and Psychic Action 1. A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.

Hard to discuss without discussing abortion in general. The best solution would be to make a world, where a pregnancy is always a happy occasion. That has unfortunately not been done so far. So we weigh the pro's and con's, and some, like me, come to the pro-choice conclusion. From this follows also, that I believe discussions about abortions should be pragmatic. Nothing is provably right or wrong. We have to rely on our morals end ethics. So what criterions should be set for choice. In my opinion no other that the girl/woman is in a normal state of mind, and that she does it of her own free will. And this one is even more obvious, like Helene noted; If you disallowed it, it would be so simple to circumvent, that people would do it any way. Furthermore, it would muddy the water for women who were sincerely in doubt, and needed counseling.

Some people, me included, think there is a problem (the loop). The proposed changes are meant to solve that problem. Yes, but for most of us the cure is worse than the disease. Most of us never psyche 1NT openings. Nevertheless, we would have to deal with opps playing two different defenses to our 1NT opening and we would have to agree on defenses to both. Having to make a defense vs a penalty double of 1NT doesn't seem like a tough job to me.

Not really. To me it seems impossible to prove that a pair invoked the loop (if it exists), and didn't psyche 1NT on a hand they'd normally have psyched on. Or the reverse.

LOL. Have you read the thread?