Lobowolf

So when my regular p opens a SA 1♦ and opps (who play a similar natural system but don't know the specifics of SA, let alone our style) ask what it means, I have to tell them immediately that: - it denies a balanced 15-17, by which we evaluate the hand as 75% the strength in notrumps plus 25% the strength in a suit contract, and are slightly more likely to downgrade than upgrade. - 6322 would be opened 1NT if the suit is weaker than AQT9xx or if we have positional stoppers in two sidesuits. Same for 2254 and 4252. 2452 also, and also if evaluates to less than an average 17. Also 4=4=4=1 and 1=4=4=4 if the singleton is an ace or a king, unless the diamonds contain 3 of the top 4 honours. - Could include a 5-card major only if it has 6+ diamonds, and not if 5-6 reds with less than GF strength opposite a positive response if the hearts are better than the diamonds. - etc etc (in total some 300 lines of text) I'm not sure that anyone is suggesting that. It seems to me the camps are those who (when asked about 1♦ by someone knowing nothing about SA) would say something like, "Generally 11-21 HCPs and at least 4 diamonds, 3 if specifically 4-4-3-2" and those who would say something like, "It's non-forcing."

I see obvious advantages to "could be a bunch of different types of hands" as compared to a much more convoluted explanation (as in Lebensohl). I don't see the advantage when the full explanation "any weak 1-suiter" is more brief than the vague one.

Disagree. This is deliberately hiding information from the opponents. I also disagree with Josh who seems to think that you need to wait for the opponents to ask subsequent questions before giving them all of the information. The laws require all information in response to the initial question. I agree with this in principle, and with respect to the 1NT-(X)-XX auction, I think the response should be that it's a relay to 2♣, showing a weak one-suited hand with any suit (if that's what it is, of course). But if the bid were a 2NT Lebensohl call, after, say, 1NT-(2♥), I'd say that it's a relay to 3♣, and shows a wide variety of hands, and ask if they wanted to know, or wait for me to explain the next bid. I think it invites confusion to say that it could be intending to pass 3♣, or bid a new suit, which would be weak if diamonds, but invitational if spades, or perhaps to show 4 spades with a heart stopper, or to show values for 3NT, but deny a spade suit and show a heart stopper...you get the idea. But "Weak 1-suiter with any suit"? You know it, it's fast and simple to explain, and you should tell the opponents. They already asked. It's not what the bid asks partner to do; it's what the bid reveals about the bidder's hand, and his partner should let the opponents in on it.

I dunno...the way Biden talked, you'd have almost thought that he and Obama had a different position on gay marriage than Palin and McCain.

I mentioned chess. Didn't mention Scrabble, but I also play that (though no longer an NSA member). In my experience, people who are good at both chess and bridge overwhelmingly prefer bridge (which isn't to say that chess isn't a great game, too). Scrabble is no fun when you're married to the #2 player in the world. Even if you do win she then sulks for two weeks. Mr. Gipson, I presume?

While I agree, I have never heard anyone (even allowing for your exageration/hyperbole) claim anything like big government is the best solution to all problems. At least I have never heard that in America. Interestingly enough (or maybe not) when I was writing the quote above I couldn't think of a person to illustrate the hard left position that would equal the hard right position of those like Rush Limbaugh - this doesn't mean they aren't out there but they are much harder to find. I can't remember anyone (including Rush Limbaugh) ever taking the opposite position. I'd be surpised if he favored privatizing national defense, for instance. The hard right position isn't that "all big government is wrong." It's that money shouldn't be taken from citizens to pay for the federal government to do things that aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

I mentioned chess. Didn't mention Scrabble, but I also play that (though no longer an NSA member). In my experience, people who are good at both chess and bridge overwhelmingly prefer bridge (which isn't to say that chess isn't a great game, too).

This sounds like the wrong end of a chicken and egg question. If private clinics are so incredibly profitable, perhaps that suggests that the all-public system wasn't so great after all. If you pass a law that nobody's allowed to sell steak, you could probably convince people that the government-provided hamburger is the best thing they could possibly have. (Godawful analogy for a vegan, I know). "Everything was awesome, until there were alternatives."

Confess?! Follett has some GREAT stuff. Particularly, IMO, The Man from St. Petersburg (and Pillars of the Earth, of course).

I'm a magician. Do you have a trick that is your favorite to perform or that you think is the most exciting/intriguing? I do mostly close-up card magic. There are some tricks I like to perform more than others. You might find someone doing them on You Tube. Matrix, Reset, Jazz Aces... I've always been intrigued by the "Any Card at Any Number" plot, which is pretty much what it sounds like...a spectator names a card and a number from 1-52. I also like something I invented, which is on a compilation DVD for teaching some different tricks to magicians. I'm not much of a creator, magicially. I generally add my own presentation to other people's effects. So I'm probably disproportionately pleased with this one.

I'm a magician. Also read a lot, write a lot...also play chess, poker, backgammon. And I'm a hack at piano/guitar, but still enjoy both.

It might be support for the idea even if it wasn't "every bit as good." The notion is to make sure that everyone gets a decent level of care. I went to a highly regarded law school, and more than a few of the people I went to school with became public defenders, including some good students and the winner of my year's Moot Court competition. These are people who turned down $150K a year straight out of school to do something they believed in. It may be the case that the same thing would happen with medical students.

Depending on whether the change makes being a doctor significantly less attractive. If there are a more opportunities, but the jobs pay a lot less, then more people might choose to be things other than doctors (or choose to be doctors in other places). I wonder if there are parallels to be drawn from the legal profession, where, at least for criminal law, everyone gets a lawyer. You can get a private lawyer, if you want to pay for one, but the government will provide a public one. There are some significant differences (you can go your whole life and not need a criminal lawyer; there hasn't been a huge changeover from an all-private system in recent history), but maybe there are enough similarities to shine some light.

Anyone know what your average doctor in Canada makes?

In Canada: 1. My girlfriend had a ski accident at 8:30 PM. We arrived at the closest hospital ( 100 km from home) at 9:30PM, some doctor saw her and told us there was an ACL tear. He said we should wait for an X-ray because that's the procedure, although ligament damages does not show at X-ray's. At midnight we were told that the radiologist is in surgery and we would have to wait 3-4 more hours. We left for home. In the end it turned out the bone was broken and valuable time has passed by. 2. I went to family doctor trying to get an appointment to an urologist, I had to wait 3.5 month for it. It didn't seem to be an urgent case at first, but it became after a few months. 3. I had myself an ACL and meniscus tear, the reconstruction surgery was done 6 month after. In the United States: I had gallstones and an infected gall bladder, while uninsured. I went to the hospital (St. Jude, in Fullerton, CA), was seen in a couple of hours, and surgery was performed the next day. I had a pretty hefty bill (low-mid five figures), but I was they bonehead who blew off getting the insurance after getting out of school (previously, I was covered through a student plan). The hospital had a program that covered some of the costs, and I able to arrange a reasonable payment schedule on the balance. I'm curious about the specifics of the "we'll save money on the back end" argument, based on present value considerations. My impression is that a huge reason insurance companies are profitable is due to the "float," i.e. the use of the money they receive up front. Yeah, you can save money by not having to pay more later, but paying later in general IS cheaper, so it's not a given.

Are the results available online? (Yes, I've searched and come up empty.) Not sure...I was there the day after the event and saw the results on the wall, but I don't know how they're doing (or what they're planning on doing) as far as posting results.

Adam - Now I see why you were promoting the Calcutta...you planned on winning the thing! Nice job.

I don't think he would have had a problem saying it if Laver weren't standing right there. I think that Sampras probably felt that it was Laver's place to make that declaration.

In that small percentage of hands in which the 1♦ opener is 4=4=3=2, the auction often clarifies immediately by not supporting responder's major, e.g.: 1♦-1♠; 1NT Opener doesn't have 4 spades, so he's got at least 4 diamonds. 1♣ isn't 100% pure, but a 1♣ opener promising 3 usually has 4 clubs, and has 5 clubs more often than it has 3.

Guess I jinxed him.

14-14 in the 5th set, and Roddick hasn't had his service broken yet?!

Reminds me of No Country for Old Men (the book). Moss picks up a teenage hitch-hiker, and at one point she says, "You don't seem 37." He replies, "Yeah, it kinda snuck up on me, too."

I would have estimated something more like 3%. Maybe 10-20% is an overbid, but it is certainly a lot more than 0.4%. The point of the previous posts is that the 0.4% figure (if it's accurate) isn't the percentage of all 1♦ openers (as Helms stated), but the percentage of all hands. (that are specifically 4=4=3=2 and open 1♦). That is, 1.8% of the time you're dealt ANY hand, you'll be 4=4=3=2. That 1.8% breaks down as follows: 1.4%: You're either too weak to open, or you have a 1NT opener, or you have a 2♣ opener. 0.4% You have a 1♦ opener. But if you just look at how many 1♦ openers you have, then a much higher percentage of them are 4=4=3=2 (for the reasons given by others, above).

I'm just taking the flip side of the 99.56% figure in the original post (rounding down from 0.44%).

How about objective measures like infant death rates? Is there any disagreement about what "better" means? Clearly not, with respect to that one factor. Are there objective healthcare measurements upon which there is a disagreement about what "better" means? I'm seriously interested in some examples. I didn't mean to imply that there is disagreement as to what better means with respect to any given objective measure. The question is as to what "better" means as a whole when a huge variety of factors is considered. For example, a country in which everyone had insurance through their employer vs. one where that's not the case, but there's a lower unemployment rate because some employers in the first company can't afford mandatory coverage. And/or give one of them a .05% lower infant mortality rate and the other a 20% lower cost per capita. And/or give one of them cheaper care, but the other less wait time or more access to optional services. And/or give one of them lower costs, but lower pay to doctors, sending some best-and-brightest to other fields. Or the pros and cons of tort reform, malpractice suits, etc.