Lobowolf

Famous philosophy changes for $1000, Alex: After changing his name to Yusuf Islam, Cat Stevens got off the ol' Peace Train long enough to note that this author deserved to die -- and the Qur'an "makes it clear" that he must -- for writing his most famous book.

Seemed straightforward enough, but I don't remember it coming up in the recent past (other than Saturday, when I didn't like it) NV vs. NV, matchpoints. Partner deals and bids 1♦, then - (p) - 1♥ (1♠) X* (p) - ?? X = support double. ♠xx ♥KJ98 ♦JTx ♣KQJx Anyone have a bid he or she particularly likes? If not, what's least bad? Seems like kind of a bread & butter hand/auction, but struck me awkward.

If you liked Mad Max, I'd estimate there's about a 99% chance you'll like The Book of Eli. If you didn't, there's probably a 5% chance you'll like it.

Some of the people some of the time is now only 8%. This report is rather selective in its precision. They carefully state that it is roughly one-third of the Senate rather than 33/100 or 34/100, whichever it might be this year but they seem totally oblivious to how carelessly they frame the main point: Only 8 percent want their own congressman re-elected? Only 8% want any congressman anywhere to be re-elected? Only 8% think some undefined generic congressman that they cannot name should be re-elected? Somehow the extreme care taken with the number 1/3 and the total imprecision of the reporting of the actual results breaks me up. Most people (who know who their representatives are, anyway) have a favorable opinion of their own representative, and a very unfavorable opinion of Congress in general.

I just watched My Cousin Vinny again last night. "Sure I heard of grits. I've just never seen a grit." "What that guy just said is bullshit. Thank you." Best closing argument ever.

Nah, there are still 14 (not counting "privacy").

If you're not going to play 2♦ as a reverse, why not play 1♣-1♥; 2♦ as not promising extras, too? After all, the 1♥ bidder usually has one of the minors, or maybe a rebiddable heart suit. WTP?

I have to say the lyrics were a lot better in older rock: You got a lotta nerve To say you are my friend When I was down You just stood there grinning You got a lotta nerve To say you got a helping hand to lend You just want to be on The side that's winning I wish that for just one time You could stand inside my shoes And just for that one moment I could be you Yes, I wish that for just one time You could stand inside my shoes You'd know what a drag it is To see you No fair picking out Dylan to support the premise; there were also some reeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaalllllllly crappy lyrics back in the day.

I may be missing something or just living in the 20th century here, but three extra queens, after we bid 3♥ and not 4♥ at our second turn?

Oh, baby, say, we gotta go now. Me gotta go. Yeah yeah yeah yeah.

If you play the 1♥ relay (see, e.g. rd6789's post) then you don't need a "double negative." e.g.: 1♣*-1♦ ** 1♥*** - 1♠**** 1NT***** * 16+ ** 0-7 *** Either natural, or extras (19+) & balanced **** Almost forced; responder breaks relay with a few distributional hands, but if balanced, can be quite strong ***** 19-20 balanced Responder passes now with the 0-4 hand, because there's no reason to bid with it over a balanced 19-20, but with a good hand, responder still bids 1♠ at his second turn, and makes whatever bid is appropriate over opener's third bid.

Looks good to me.

Looking at it as a unified whole, it seems that you're making a further argument for why 2♦ is a reverse, by providing a minimum with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs and saying you'd open 1♦. You say in a later post that if the doubler only has 4 hearts, he "usually has clubs or diamonds," which puts you in agreement with most of us Americans - responder does NOT promise diamonds. So what's the disagreement about what the double means? Then in addition to the fact that responder doesn't promise diamonds (even if he "usually has" one of the minors), there's the further inference that with a minimum 4-5, you'd open 1♦. So when instead you open 1♣, we can rule that nice 2-2-4-5 13-count out - must have extras. But I suspect that I'm oversimplifying your minor suit opening choices and there must be some hands in between a 13-count and a reverse that you'd open 1♣ with 4-5 in the minors.

The Animals were underrated. The Kinks, also.

I loled Some jokes I just do for you.

I'll check back a year and a month from today.

Anyone else appreciate the symmetery of 2-2-10* yesterday? * (10 = binary for "2").

I think that for most tournament players (e.g. intermediate-ish level), the double shows hearts and says nothing about diamonds. The problem (for them) is that they haven't put much (any) thought into how this impacts auctions like the original post. A negative double, when there's one unbid major, shows that major. Period. The problems created when responder can't double to show a 4-card major far outweigh the problems created by doubling without having support for an unbid minor. Give most tournament players a random hand with 4 hearts and lacking 4 diamonds, and the overwhelming majority of them (in the USA, anyway) will double. And in the long run, I like their chances against players of the same skill level who are systemically prevented from doubling because they don't have diamonds. To the extent that this is true, 2♦ is a reverse for all of the reasons it's a reverse after 1♣-1♥.

Both 2♣ and 2NT are typically nonforcing... How can 3♣ now establish a game force? 2NT is non-forcing, but shows more than a minimum response, so opener could want to game force opposite a hand that was strong enough to rebid 2NT, even though he wasn't strong enough to jump shift over the initial 1♥ call, i.e. something like 16 would be consistent with making a NF bid over 1♥, but wanting to be in game over 2NT. I don't play it forcing myself; just saying it's not inherently inconsistent with the auction.

Definitely 2NT on the first one for me. Nothing good happens at matchpoints when you defend 2M not vulnerable and the opponents have a fit. I'd probably bid 2♦ on the second, but Justin has me reconsidering the double.

I have to confess, I kinda like the final contract. I'm guessing south's 14th card is a club.

Sorry; I'm articulating this badly. I think there is some "misunderstanding the question" or "mind is already made up" going on; otherwise, a bill that would reduce the deficit should be 100% agreed better than one that wouldn't. But it seems that the point being made is that an increase in awareness of the bill's selling points would lead to an increase in support for the bill. I'm sure that's true to some extent, but I think it's greatly reduced by suspicion as to the claims. Making 100% of people aware of the claims to be deficit-favorable will only increase support for the bill to the extent that people believe the claims, and to the extent that that factor is a tipping point.

My guess would be that some are ignorant of the claim that it will reduce the deficit, and other think it's more likely the bill increases the deficit regardless of what the CBO says. As a first point, regardless of whether they're right or wrong, I think it's certainly not a case of: 1) The CBO claims the bill will reduce the deficit. 2) People are in favor of a reduced deficit. 3) There isn't strong support of the bill. 4) Therefore, people just must not know what the bill is going to do. That presumes a "CBO said it, I believe it, that settles it" mentality. As a second point, I think it's nuts to believe that it's more likely than not that it would be deficit-neutral or better. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.

I want to meet the guy who says "I used to support the health care bill but then I found out that it would reduce the deficit so now I am opposed to it." This whole thing appears to be bizarre. Don't you find it a little suspicious that this bill purportedly is going to extend coverage to tens of millions of people, keep current insurance holders and Medicare recipients at the same level of coverage and reduce the deficit? Massachusetts is a left leaning state, but it also very recently witnessed the Big Dig, which took 3x as long and cost 10x as much as originally proposed. When the CBO started throwing out the deficit reduction talk when it came to this bill, they overreached. You'd be more likely to see a unicorn. In a moral sense, should an out of control government in terms of spending be siphoning money from the medical system to pay for its sins of the past (and future)? I hope that the real truth is that the American people are going to start demanding fiscal accountability from all levels of government and aren't going to let social issues wedge how we vote in elections. Yes, this is another good example. The assertion is that it will reduce the deficit; most people are in favor of deficit reduction, so the conclusion is that people just aren't well-informed about the bill. Alternate hypothesis: They don't believe it.

The analysis of sumo wrestling's being rigged in "Freakonomics" is really interesting.