Lobowolf

Nice job by Mark Buehrle, joining the handful of pitchers who have thrown a perfect game. Nice job by manager Ozzie Guillen, too, putting Dewayne Wise in as a 9th inning defensive substitution...Wise made a very nice play to get the first out and save the perfecto (and the shutout, in fact).

Agree with just about all of this. Khan would be a great matchup for Hatton; I think Hatton would take him in the same way he handled Paul Malignaggi. I don't know if the Pacquiao loss made him reassess his career, or if he can't gear up for lesser guys know that he's had his shots against the best of the best. Maybe he's just regrouping.

Another vote for one long one.

I'm no boxing expert, but Hatton is 45-2 and with the two losses coming to Manny Pacqiao and Floyd Mayweather. Made to order? Stiffer competition? Sorry...you're quite correct. I should have said that Cotto has beaten much stiffer competition than Hatton has (in particular Shane Mosley). Hatton was made to order for Pacquiao in that he has very limited defense, and looked very bad against Mayweather, whose primary attribute is his phenomenal hand speed. Similarly, Pacquiao has great hand speed and throws tons of punches. Hatton pretty much has one direction -- forward. So he walked into a bunch of Pacquiao's punches. The trade-off for Hatton is that he has very good punching power. Since Pacquiao didn't get hurt by De La Hoya, who is one of the hardest hitting punchers at a higher weight, it was pretty unlikely that he'd get hurt by Hatton at 140. So Pacquiao had a guy who was going to come right to him, probably wouldn't be able to hurt him, didn't have much defense, and had trouble the previous time he faced a top fighter with good handspeed. Hatton is very good, but he matched up poorly with Pacquiao and played right into his strengths. Cotto plays a little defense, and he moves in other directions that forward.

Severe overlay on Cotto in the early action (he's about a 2-1 underdog). This is presumably due to a few factors: 1) Pacquiao is more well-known and more charismatic. The "publicity bias" often makes for a good anti-bet. If you'd bet $100 against Mike Tyson every time he fought, you'd have made several thousand dollars over the course of his career, even though he won 50 of his 56 fights. 2) Pacquiao's recent destruction of Ricky Hatton. Nice win, but Hatton was made to order for Pacqiao. Cotto is a natural welterweight who has fought much stiffer competition than Hatton. 3) Cotto's recent loss to Antonio Margarito. This can be discounted in light of the "plaster scandal" and Margarito's purportedly loaded gloves. The odds should probably drop to something more like 3-2 by fight time (November). Even at that price, I think Cotto would be an overlay. At 2-1, it's a no-brainer.

Yup, this is not a 3♠ bid in my book. Yeah, it's a nice suit, but it's a 15-count that includes a doubleton queen in an unbid suit, and we're already in a forcing auction. It's a NICE 2♠, in terms of HCP and the 6th spade, but it's still short of a 3♠ bid.

Of course, the double of clubs doesn't promise much in the way of diamonds nowadays, either.

Diversion is sort of an alternative deal for minor or first offenses where offenders, rather than serving criminal setences, do other things like enter treatment programs, perform community service, attend classes, etc., monitored by the court. If they successfully complete the program, they're cool. But if they fail a drug test, don't do their community service, don't attend classes, etc., then they're back to the more standard, punitive type of deal. The programs are designed to relieve overburdened systems and try to prevent "saveable" defendants from serving jail/prison sentences that may lead to their becoming hardened career criminals. Ken's rather lengthy fact pattern didn't say anything about his selling drugs to kids (though I imagine most drug dealers don't check I.D.).

With respect to the school zone deal, is there an express mens rea with respect to knowledge of the school zone? I know that Circuit Courts of Appeal have upheld (where the specific statute was silent on the mens rea) convictions of similar violations notwithstanding knowledge of where the school zone is. The mens rea for selling drugs is enough. This has been analogized to SCOTUS's upholding a conviction for assaulting a federal officer where the defendant did not know that the guy he assaulted was a federal officer. Other than that, thanks for making me happy that I didn't go into criminal law. Nice to get a little reminder now and then.

Not to mention, you're suggesting that 4♣ wouldn't be Gerber(!!)

That is a convincing argument: none of the others are. But it shows how badly written the Law is. If the only way to interpret a Law is to look at completely different laws to find out how the WBFLC interprets a word ... :angry: Actually, that's a common process in many forms of jurisprudence. Human languages are inherently ambiguous, and quite often the way to determine intent in lawbooks is to look for analogous uses and assume consistency. Another way is for the lawmakers to publish the discussions that led to adoption of a law, or a supplementary rationale. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Sorry, you were giving me Legislation and Statutory Interpretation flashbacks.

That doesn't strike me as too far removed from athletes who wouldn't lift weights but for the advantages it gives them on the playing field (at least with respect to legal substances that aren't prohibited by league rules).

1♦. Not a fan of the 1NT rebid with a singleton. Not because I'm worried about NT (singleton king in the declaring hand is fine), but because I want partner to habitually rebid spades with 5 of them. The 5-2 fits play about as well as 1NT, and the 5-3 fits play better. It's imperfect, but it keeps me from missing 5-3 fits, and it keeps me from finding 5-1 fits.

If your opponents are good, it shouldn't matter. If they're not, play to the other top honor; The opponent behind the Q is more likely to have taken the ace on the first round. If the honor combination is hidden in your hand, play to the king the first time; more likely the ace will be played on the king than the queen. If one of your opponents is good and the other isn't (e.g. pro/client pair), play for the pro to have the queen. He's more likely to have ducked the ace, from either side (and certainly more like to have ducked smoothly). All of which falls under Justin's suggestion to "go with psychology."

Gonna get my girlfriend the Rosetta Stone Russian series. She's interested in learning it.

i play frisbee golf, does that count? Me too. Have you played La Mirada?

What's the difference between an "implicit license" and an unwritten rule?

Because the literal interpretation is ridiculous in this instance? And because the first part of the same paragraph used 'or' to make the same point about a different bid, so you even have a comparison point? We all know you either can't or choose not to interpret anything differently from exactly how it is written even when that is obviously incorrect or ridiculous or false or open to interpretation, but for most of the rest of us it doesn't seem to be a problem. i dispute that it is ridiculous. Or does ridiculous just mean something that you don't agree with? You don't think, given that the rule sets forth constraints for people using conventional weak 2 bids, that it would be ridiculous to permit them if the weak-2 bid shows 4-10 HCP but could be made on a void?

Stayman, passing a red suit response, and raising spades to game.

It's not clear to me whether the director's statement that you were "too light" was in relation to your stated range or if it was meant to suggest that the minimum of your stated range was too low. If you have 3-11 as your HCP range for a weak two-bid, a director might think you weren't allowed any conventional responses after a 2♠ opening. If your stated range is 5-11 HCP and you routinely open with 3 HCP, it is my opinion that you shouldn't be allowed to play any conventional responses (under ACBL rules). If you intentionally try to get around this restriction by stating a 5-11 HCP range while routinely opening with 3 HCP, I think you could "face serious consequences". I don't mean to suggest that you were doing any of these things, just guessing at how a director might have been confused. * I bolded the "and" because I think the intent of ACBL is "or" and am assuming that is what the regulation is for the purpose of this post. Which again is meant merely as speculation on how the director might have been confused, not a judgment on the players or the regulation. I think it is strange how some people assume the laws and regulations mean something different from what they actually say. How on earth anyone with the inside knowledge is supposed to know that the regulation means something completely different than what is written I have no idea. So, you think they'd be allowed to play conventional responses to weak 2 bids that can by agreement be made on a singleton, as long as they keep to that 7-point range?

Condolences, Phil. I wasn't on the forums when this thread started; only saw it when it got kicked up again. I think you made the right call originally, and I'm glad that he (and your family) got another two good years. We never get nearly enough time with them.

I was kibbing this one, and I was going to post this hand, too.

She's not her mom, but I caught Mallory Lewis (and Lamb Chop) at the Magic Castle earlier this year, and I think her mom would have been proud.

Operating under your definition, with respect to Iraq/Afghanistan casualties, it seems perfectly fitting; surely, voluntarily enlistment in the military during wartime is exposing oneself to unnecessary risk. The only question, then, would be each one's primary motive for enlisting. In fact, given the risk that is inherent in the enlistment, I think your definition would apply to the non-casualties, as well - at least the ones motivated by a desire to benefit others.

Stallone!