RichMor

Please add another vote against this change. IMO, it would be better to disable the 'Back' button until a hand is completed RichM

Should be a takeout of Spades with the approximate strength of an immediate takeout double. RichM

Yes, that's what I think. But that's not an agreement about agreements. It's an agreement whose scope is general rather than specific. None of the examples given so far in this thread are agreements about agreements. These are examples of what I would consider a meta-agreement: - "If it's not written down, we don't play it." - "Agreements are freely transferrable from one auction to another related one." - "If two agreements conflict, the more natural applies." - "If it's not clear what an opponent's bid means, for the purpose of determining what our methods are, we assume that they play the same as we do." I suspect that I'm not going to get very far with this argument. There just aren't enough pedants around. Andy, I think your definition of 'meta-agreements' and the examples make sense. Maybe we want 2 terms; meta agreements and default agreements. Default agreements are things like: 'An undiscussed bid is assumed to be natural', 'In a constructive auction, it is forcing', 'In a competetive auction, it is non forcing' (These are paraphrases of Jeff Rubens comments in the Bridge World.) Meta agreements follow your examples. Here are some additional possibles: 'Conventions and treatments remain in force regardless of vulnerability or table position', 'Conventions and treatments generally remain in force after pass' RichM

Mike, While I agree with the main thrust of your post, the phrase 'all men are created equal' does not appear in the US Constitution. It does appear in the Declaration of Independence. So it is a little inaccurate to assert that some behaviors of the US government and citizens are inconsistent with the US Constitution. RichM

2NT, crude but so what ?

I don't really like case-sensitivity but have learned to put up with it. Same for semicolons. Old VB with keyword begin/end pairs was better IMO

Sounds cynical to me, but that doesn't mean it is not true. And just imagine if people could find jobs in addition to affordable health care. Bad news for the all-volunteer Army. RichM

Small Club looks best. We hope to develop a trick in that suit to go along with a Spade, a Diamond, and something else. The Diamond Ace could work out if pard can give me a ruff. But if pard has the Diamond King then we might take a Club, a Spade and 2 Diamonds. RichM

Pass. Expect that 2♠ will fail but it's too close for a double. Bidding 3♦ is OK too, but I'm going chicken. RichM

Expect pard to hold at least 2 Spades so the LAW sez double. If pard has fewer than 2 Spades then expect pard to pull the double. RichM

Fred, Good idea. What about a check box for 'BBO Basic' and 'BBO Advanced'? Select one and then be able to view it as needed ? This would also encourage unfamiliar partners to use a common system. RichM

Yes, all these issues must be addressed, and more. But there is a lot of waste - not fraudulent waste, but legal waste - built into the current Medicare system as well. That needs to be fixed. Yes, I agree that non-fraud waste in built in to Medicare/Medicaid. That is what I meant by 'efficient payment for services'. I've seen and read several comments about the 'perverse incentives' of current programs. Link This link goes to a good article. RichM

I agree with what you wrote but, I also think we need to categorize federal expenditures for health care in more ways that simple binary good versus fraud/abuse. I chased some Google links and found a few articles that quote the Medicare/Medicaid improper payment rate at between 3 and 4 percent. Because of the size of these programs the real money is a huge amount. But 3 to 4% wasted spending isn't huge. I would not be at all surprised to learn that private health care plans make improper payments at a similar rate. Whould you ? It is certainly a good idea to reduce outright fraud, but that's not enough to fund a public plan that would cover millions of currently uninsured. I think we should also look at cost control from the perpectives of: efficiencies of scale - covering X% more people while limiting administration cost increase to something less that X%, efficient use of current resources - treat people in clinics instead of emergency rooms, efficient payment for services - paying for results and not for test, procedures, etc. Sound like good business to me. RichM

Mattie, What you quoted from the SAYC booklet came from the section about opener's rebids after a major suit opening. The line in the booklet about rebids after minor suit openings says: Responses and later bidding generally follow the ideas set down in the previous section. So I can see why you thought 3♦ was stronger and natural. The booklet is incomplete in this area. :huh: As the other posters said, a reverse after a minor suit opening and partner's 1-level response is forcing and pretty much umlimited. RichM

[hv=d=w&v=e&n=skjt6hj96dkqj96c6&w=sq9843hq7543dt5c4&e=sa72hada842ca8753&s=s5hkt82d73ckqjt92]399|300|Scoring: MP P 1♦ 2♣ P P 2♦ P 2♥ P P P down 1, 42% MPs.[/hv] Top scores were 3NTS=, and 2CE-4. I really, really thought we were going to get 2CEX-3 at least. errrr, does North know about negative and reopening doubles?

Ken, I think 2-way game tries have been around for some time. As you suggest after 1♠ - 2♠ opener can rebid a new suit as a help-suit or stuff game try or rebid 2NT as a puppet to a short suit game try. Responder relays with 3♣ and opener rebids 3♦ = short Diamonds 3♥ = short Hearts 3♠ = short Clubs (the relay suit) After 1♥ - 2♥ opener rebids 2♠ as the start of the puppet SSGT and opener rebids 2NT as a suit game try showing Spades. RichM

Good analysis, but I disagree with some basic concepts. First, the shipping thing. This is classic insurance history stuff, but the origin is simpler. Several ships left England empty, sailed to the East and bought goods. The captains would distribute their goods among the ships for the return voyage. If one or more ships were lost, everybody lost some of thier goods but nobody lost everything (unless all the ships were lost) So the basic concept of insurance is loss sharing. Everyone accepts a likely small loss in order to avoid a total loss. The original insurance syndicates shared the liability for a shipping loss. Modern insurance organizations still reinsure. Second, the betting thing. Health insurance is not a large series of binary 'bets' that the insured will or will not require medical treatment any more then life insurance is a bet that the insured will or will not die. Nobody gets out of this world alive. So I don't agree that insurance companies try to 'hedge' an individual bet. They just try to balance their expected losses (claims) with expected gains (premium plus investement earnings). RichM

If you car about the writings of Any Rand, then you need a hobby. :)

Can't disagree with that. Let me try and post something constructive and useful instead of the usual snarky drivel. I have worked for a few insurance companies (as a software developer) over many years (I'm old). I don't have any direct experience with policy but I do know a bit about low-level operations and corporate culture. Insurance, as an industry, was reliable and dull for many years. Money comes in as premiums and goes out as claims paid. As long as claims paid were not greater than premiums collected, an insurance company could survive and thrive. The profits came from interest earned on the money between the time the premiums came and the time the claims were paid. Successful insurance companies emphasized efficient internal operations, sound underwriting, and prudent investment of funds held. And it's a volume business. If an insurance company earns a small yearly profit for each policy holder but has millions of policy holders, that's good. The corporate culture I rememeber was honest, thirifty, and careful (and deadly dull). The company didn't have to screw policy holders in order to make a profit. But times change. The classic insurance companies I worked for aren't around any more. The new breed of mega health companies(I work for one now) are out there competeing for investor money along with Starbucks, Sears, and Wal Mart. So if you want to refer to 'the powerful self-serving insurance companies', that's OK with me. But realize that the Mother Teresa Health Companies will probably be taken over by Snidely Whiplash Associates - a subsidiary of Martha Stewart International. A taxpayer funded public insurance plan won't be as motivated to achieve efficiency as an investor funded plan. But since a public plan won't have to show growing profits or die by the roadside, the public plan won't need to be 'self serving'. RichM

Sorry I can't join you and Fidel and Che at the barricades :rolleyes: The sad truth is that the old Devil 'Wallstreet' will always be with us. All the widows and orphans, school teachers and firefighters, moms and pops, who have their retirement savings invested in the stock market want to get their money back with interest. So the invisible hand will always be squeezing some company in its tender parts. IMO a public health plan, insurance or direct care, will happen. The latest attempt might not get it done but I think the general mood of the public worries Big Insurance and Big Pharma enough to get them on board. Let's just give Harry and Louise a little more time. RichM

This is an excerpt from a PBS Bill Moyers page: Moyers link The Moyers broadcast got a lot of response and PBS replayed it a few weeks later. I think the qoute presents a powerful case for a 'public option' health insurance plan. Even if the leadership of private for-profit insurance plans are willing to reduce premiums and increase coverage, investor demands for ever increasing profits will drive the 'good Samaritans' out business. RichM

But we consumers enable this by choosing "news" outlets that spew foolishness. Note the popularity of the Fox network. It seems that all of this reflects the on-going "dumbing down" of the US, not just the reporters and news readers. On the other hand, thoughtful people will draw the appropriate conclusion from the fact that healthcare opponents attack with phony arguments: they'd attack with substantive arguments if they could. Yup, dead on. What seems to be happening these days is: 1. Talking head on cable news (or AM radio) senses need for attention. Maybe its ratings are down. 2. The head makes some outrageous claim or uses some incendiary language. 3. Other pack members start barking, running in circles, peeing on themselves. 4. Mainstream media reports on this 'controversy'. 5. The head is invited to appear on weekend 'serious' talk shows. 6. Senators see talk show, repeat whatever head said. 7. Other 'serious' media repeats what the Senator said the head said. After a few days the story gets cold and the cycle resumes at step 1. I think this all true by am not Sure. I read the sports, the comics and the bridge column. I watch Moyers on Friday and Comedy Central the rest of the time. RichM

I believe we ALL underestimate how much the FCM (Fawning Corporate Media) has changed over time into nothing more than a propaganda machine. Winston, I fear that you have fallen in to the trap again. :P It's the curse of your rationality to see motive and reason where there is only general dumbness and laziness. It's not a 'machine', just a pack of blow-dried barking dogs. RichM

Adam, Sounds like Edgar Kaplan, and that's a good thing. RichM

That's exactly how I would play it. A pure penalty double is unlikely when the opps are sane. A pure takeout double is more likely but not that useful, opener can just bid something. RichM