Lobowolf

You could change it until the laws were recently changed, but you couldn't get a score better than average-minus. Now there's not provision for deliberate change of call.

First choice, Indian. Second choice, Indian. Third choice, Indian.

Yes...darn you pap....all or almost all your fault people die....... or 2) zero fault.....zero.....or close to zero..... 2. wtp?

No, because you can be 4432 and surprise them with a third-round ruff. (generously leaving space for someone's follow-up 4441 comment)

Didn't we all?

Double R.I.P. today.

If they play it's always 6, then what they're probably doing is always rebidding their distribution naturally, e.g. 1♥-2♦; 3♣ on a minimum hand with something like 3-5-1-4 distribution. This is not an uncommon treatment at the novice/intermediate level, and it's mentioned as an alternative in Max Hardy's 2/1 (yellow) book, from back in the day; however, it's overwhelmingly been rejected in modern expert practice. The huge consensus (I hesitate to say unanimous, but picture a word that pretty much means the same thing) is that in the given auction, 3♣ would promise extra values. In the absence of those extra values, the correct rebid is 2♥. It's definitely worth discussion with a non-expert partner, because not only might you have misunderstandings about the length after 1M-2m; 2M, you'll also have misunderstandings about 1M-2♦; 3♣. When you're the opener, your partner might not understand that you have extras. When he's the opener, you might be mistaken if you assume he has extras.

Yes. (Not that I'm Helene). This key distinction is entirely standard in 2/1. The short reason is that the 1NT response lets you bid a 3-card minor (or a 2-card minor, when you're 4-5-2-2 and not strong enough to reverse), so the 2M rebid can be kept "pure" (6-card length). Since any 2m response eats up the 2♣ rebid (and the 2♦ response eats up the 2♦ rebid, too), there's more pressure on opener's rebid. That pressure is relieved by expanding 2M to include 5-card suits in the auction 1M-2m. The alternatives would be for opener to rebid 2NT on unbalanced hands, or for opener to rebid at the 3-level on a minimum. The overwhelming consensus is that the best way to handle it is to make the 2M rebid in a 2/1 auction a catchall, including 5-card suits.

I'm not sure I'm taking your point here. Once you opt to open 1♦ (OP condition) granted, you have to downgrade to rebid 1NT, and as you suggest, that's not hard to do. But the downgrade question seems to call into question the first bid, not the second; both 1♦-1♠; 1NT and 1♦-1♠; 2♣ are sequences that would encompass a 14 point hand. It's about whether (and in what circumstances, e.g. stiff honor) you rebid 1NT with the stiff (or what lengths you're willing to go to in order to avoid it). The whether-to-downgrade question is sort of a question for a different OP, or at least one with an additional answer choice: "I would have opened 1NT"

Hopefully people who participate in armed robberies will have the same notion.

It could be that the ruling isn't an order, per se, but a bail condition. The judge doesn't have to grant bail. So it's not that he can't be around guns, per se; it's that if he doesn't agree not to be around guns, he can wait in jail until his trial. Letting him out with conditions isn't an undue restriction on his rights when it's at the judge's discretion whether he be let out at all.

Not my toe dear, your foot is knee deep in your mouth. Perfectly sociable people might not enjoy any or all of those things, obviously. LOL i suppose you consider yourself sociable? Yeah, more than you at least. "If your level of maturity is at or below that of Matmat's you might not care about that, but fortunately most bridge players are at least beginning to approach adulthood." heh. wow. you know, most people, when they quote, have the decency to attribute to quote to an author. Maybe he aspires to be Vice President one day. Hey now!!

That you, Max?

2♣ for me. Twice in the last 10 years I've played in a 3-3 club fit instead of a 4-4 heart fit because of taking this action. The upside is, my partners can always rebid 5-card spade suits without worrying about a singleton. So we don't miss 5-3 spade fits, and we don't play 5-1 spade misfits. Back in the day, I asked Max Hardy about a similar hand (unfortunately, one of those 3-3 club fits occurred while playing with my girlfriend), when we were standing in line for a drink at the Vegas Regional during a break between rounds. His response was, "2 clubs. That's an easy one." Granted, we're all in the 21st century now, and Max was codifying a system developed long before the yellow book laid it all out, but all things considered, I still like 2♣ here. Having partners who take false preferences in the minors helps mitigate the downside (though, it admittedly, it does create other downside for those 4-diamond, 5-club hands I open 1♦, but that's for another thread.

THAT'S a project I wouldn't dream of taking on. I mean, the Bible part, but the SAYC part too, now that I think of it. But isolated parts (of each) can make some sense. 5-card majors? Sure. Murder is either always wrong or so close that you could say always, for all practical purposes. Killing, yeah, almost always, too, but a lot less certain. I would add voluntary euthanasia to the list of killing that is not immoral.

I always thought that that among the ten commandments was: "You shall not kill" But it seems that some pettifogger changed that to "You shall not murder" Since the Bible wasn't written in English, back in the day, the word used was neither "kill" nor "murder." I've heard the assertion that "murder" is a more accurate translation, and it certainly strikes me as credible. Most cultures permit killing in self-defense, or in defense of others. And others permit capital punishment (and certainly did so in the Old Testament world). So I'm certainly inclined to believe that "murder" is the correct translation, and a more desirable one, certainly, with respect to things like self-defense when confronted with deadly force. Not all killing is wrong. A blanket proscription on murder makes more sense.

Is this one of them Y2K kinda thingumees?

"I need you to let this guy off with a warning." "A WARNING?! What kind of warning?" "A stern warning." -Crash

Anyone accused of a crime COULD beat the charge. From the sounds of things, he won't if the system is working properly (there may be an issue as to what he is, or could be, convicted of, however). As for the other part of the equation, I'm ok with felony-murder, in principle. Let's say a guy is robbing a bank, and a cop shows up. The guy says, "I'm going to kill the security guard just so you know I mean business." He draws his gun, pulls back the hammer, and an undercover detective fires a couple of shots at him. The first shot hits him, almost killing him and dropping him to the floor, and the second shot misses him (maybe because the first shot moved him), goes through a window, and kills a passerby. I wouldn't call the passerby's death an accident, and I wouldn't lay it on the detective, either. You could certainly make the argument that the robber didn't "hurt anyone," but he made a deliberate decision to accost people with a gun while committing a felony, and someone died as a result. I'm fine with his taking all the consequences of a murder rap, whether he hurt anyone or not. I don't have any problem with this line of reasoning, either, provided there is no charge of first degree murder; after all, there was no premeditation to kill anyone. not sure but I think felony murder and first degree murder have other elements......in any case the prison term, death penalty for both is severe. Well spotted, Mike. Here is a description of the Oklahoma law: Without looking, I guarantee that armed robbery is on the list of predicate felonies for Oklahoma's first degree felony murder statute. Having said that, I can certainy see your opposition to having a first degree felony murder statute in the first place. My criminal law professor was opposed to felony murder in general.

Anyone accused of a crime COULD beat the charge. From the sounds of things, he won't if the system is working properly (there may be an issue as to what he is, or could be, convicted of, however). As for the other part of the equation, I'm ok with felony-murder, in principle. Let's say a guy is robbing a bank, and a cop shows up. The guy says, "I'm going to kill the security guard just so you know I mean business." He draws his gun, pulls back the hammer, and an undercover detective fires a couple of shots at him. The first shot hits him, almost killing him and dropping him to the floor, and the second shot misses him (maybe because the first shot moved him), goes through a window, and kills a passerby. I wouldn't call the passerby's death an accident, and I wouldn't lay it on the detective, either. You could certainly make the argument that the robber didn't "hurt anyone," but he made a deliberate decision to accost people with a gun while committing a felony, and someone died as a result. I'm fine with his taking all the consequences of a murder rap, whether he hurt anyone or not.

See also: Battered Woman's Syndrome and the "cultural defense."

I don't remember whether the felony-murder rule applies to criminals working in concert. My recollection is that it does, but I don't practice criminal law. The gist of the rule is that even if you didn't kill someone yourself, if you're involved in an inherently dangerous felony (armed robbery certainly qualifies) during the course of which someone dies, you're on the hook for murder. For instance, if the if the robber who got away had killed the pharmacist, the unarmed robber could be charged with murder. The upshot it, unless there's an exception when it's a "non-innocent" party who dies, the robber who got away could be charged with murder here, too. There may be an exception, though, based on a rationale that the one who was shot put himself in danger by going in on an armed robbery.

He's guilty of something, for sure. The question is whether it is murder or a lesser offense. The other five shots are not "ok" per American law, but there may be a question as to whether they constitute murder. With respect to Gerben's post, the state of mind of the pharmacist will be a jury question.

Bizarre story...he's already got a loaded gun; why switch guns to shoot the guy after the first shot?

That inconvenient ol' First Amendment!