Lobowolf

Hopefully, people will learn the same truth about religious doctrines, too. huh? I was referring to this: That hopefully mankind will learn that religious doctrines are... yeah, but ... why? Taliban, al-Qaeda, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Crusades, Inquisition... ahh... ok, now i see the link between the thread subject and this... i suppose it should have been obvious Jimmy, The reason I originally used quotation was to respond to the poster's thoughts. Isn't that a proper method? I think the original thread is rather interesting, but I cannot contribute to it in any meaningful way - however, I thought I should be allowed to point out a different take on his someone else's view. I didn't construe your original response to my post as a "different take."

http://www.spike.com/event/scream2009/?sic...lkdes=NET_spike Fantasy, Sci-Fi, and Horror...great stuff. Lots of wins for True Blood, one of my favorite shows, and a Best Supporting win for Jennifer Carpenter of Dexter. Presentations by Morgan Freeman and Harrison Ford, appearances by Stan Lee and George Romero, and a "Most Memorable Mutilation" category. Best awards show ever.

I think it'd have to improve to get to "bad."

Cuebid

Ain'tcha missing an oxygen atom?

4♥, and no further action. Guess first, and guess once.

It means a few more people might realize that the pronounements of scientists are not unassailable truths, but the best explanations available at the time.

And more than a few Democrats, too.

RONF is SAYC, so new suits are forcing.

Did I miss one? I hadn't heard anything about Irv passing away. Sorry to hear if this is true.

That's like saying (but with 3 fewer HCP) that you should open 1NT with a singleton regularly, with the benefit that partner will stop transferring into unsupported 5-card spade suits. Are you deliberately trolling? Obviously, if your 1NT openings never have 4 or 5 spades, and if they can only have 3 spades in a hand that would not raise partner's 1♠ response, then your comparison would be valid. But what does that have to do with anything? There is a difference between auctions where partner has denied primary spade support, and those where he has not. You may believe that rebidding spades with 5 is better than passing 1NT, but I still don't see why that should cause you to miss the distinction. Your original post to which I replied is certainly, to an extent, circular. The point that a "benefit" of rebidding 1NT with a singleton is that partner won't rebid spades with 5 is somewhat specious, because rebidding a 5-card spade suit is, for the most part, primarily a problem because you might have a singleton. If you didn't rebid 1NT with a singleton, you'd WANT partner to rebid his 5-card major suits with a weak hand. None of which is to dispute the other benefits of the 1NT rebid, which have been enumerated in other posts on this thread. I agree that my analogy is imperfect in degree, because the 1NT opener may have 4 spades, while the 1NT rebidder does not, and the 1NT rebidder may have raised spades directly with 3 (though depending on your methods, the direct raise with 3 is comparatively rare). However, I have in the past run simulations comparing 1NT and 2♠ contracts where opener has a balanced hand with 2 or 3 spades, and found the 2♠ contract to be superior. You may believe that passing 1NT is better than rebidding spades with 5, but I don't see why that should cause you to miss the distinction between the set of hands those where the 1NT rebids contain 2 or 3 spades, and those where the 1NT rebids contain 1, 2, or 3 spades.

About the only comment of yours with which I concur is your final one. If it's true, it's a shame that it was only a rumor, and not conclusive proof known to everyone. Why SHOULDN'T there be a pall over a mammoth reign that came about by cheating? It's only a shame if it's false.

That's like saying (but with 3 fewer HCP) that you should open 1NT with a singleton regularly, with the benefit that partner will stop transferring into unsupported 5-card spade suits.

I think it is much easier to predict the effect of the stimulus on the unemployment numbers, than to predict the actual unemployment numbers. So no, it's not useful for that either. But is it easier to predict the unemployment numbers this year or the fiscal impact of (pick your favorite health care reform bill) in 10 years?

I think as support for the position "The stimulus failed," it's specious and meaningless. As relevant information about how much guesswork is involved in ascertaining the consequences of huge economic decisions, I think it's very good information. The figure of 9.8% is about 25% higher than the projection of under 8%. This is less than a year later. I think that's EXTREMELY useful information to have available when evaluating the claims of anyone, pro or con, who tells you what the economic impact of anyone's healthcare bill will be in 9 years.

73. D. Variations in Tempo or Manner 1. Inadvertent Variations It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. I'd assume those are decent examples (particularly the eyesight example) of why it's not "always required." Surely, it's the gratuitous variations that are ethically "undesirable."

If true, it has bearing on the question of their guilt or innocence even if it doesn't provide a basis for anyone to conviction. Certainly, the question of whether they were doing anything "dodgy" with their hands has bearing on whether not the cheated, and if Rex-Taylor was telling the truth, then there was an admission that they did something dodgy with their hands. It's not proof, but it is evidence.

I, for one, see nothing wrong with it. The comment about Truscott was made, because there are many who believe Truscott had an agenda. Are you aware that the late Tim Seres publicly challenged Truscott in the Australian Bridge Magazine to a 10,000 pound bet, ( a lot of money in those days), to prove cheating allegations? The bet was never taken up. What, in theory, would constitute proof after the fact?

The degree to which the R-S supporters are going to defend even the "varying hand positions are fine" subpoint reflects pretty badly on the tenability of the overall position, IMO. If the Reese comment was "stupid," what was the Truscott comment? I just found it hilarious that in a thread about a dispute between Reese and, well, ANYONE, that someone would throw in an aside about the "anyone" being particularly unpleasant. I have to call a time-out just for a second, because I can't help feeling that I'm being "Punked," or that the thread's sideline here is some sort of practical joke. Are people (let alone people who comment vehemently on other threads specific to ethics) REALLY taking the position that it's perfectly fine to knowingly hold your cards differently from hand to hand? Poses no ethical problems whatsoever? I mean, I guess if I see it enough times, I'll start to believe that some people might actually have that position, but I'm not quite there yet.

Corrolary: People don't see what they don't want to see. In contrast to the cuddly Reese, who was often analogized to a teddy bear.

Doing it knowing and differently from hand to hand against the same opponents is moronic, at best, and unethical. My recollection (might be wrong; don't have the book in front of me) is that in The Bridge Bum, Sontag mentions a complaint made by one of his opponents in a major tournament that Sontag folded up his cards on one hand, but didn't always do it. The complaint was that he should do it the same way every time, and Sontag notes in the book that the complainant was correct.

Reminds me of one of my favorite Dilbert cartoon strips: Dilbert: Here's a poem I wrote. What do you think? Dogbert: It's been said that a hundred monkeys typing on a hundred typewriters for a hundred million years would eventually produce the complete works of William Shakespeare. Dilbert: Yes, but what about MY poem? Dogbert: Two monkeys, eight minutes.

There's good reason it's "desirable" to maintain an "unvarying manner."

Is the general consensus on Rex-Taylor (from the "innocent" camp) that he just made up the explanation to get attention?

They are trying to set a maximum energy consumption level. Just like there are maximum or minimum standards for gas mileage in cars, lead in paint, nicotine in cigarettes (I think?), and probably lots of other things. It's not like this is unheard of is all I'm saying. Agreed; I'm just saying that unlike a sin tax, they're not charging a prohibitive amount to discourage the purchase of certain items, or to offset the societal costs associated with them; they're prohibiting their sale outright.