Lobowolf

forcing "up to 90% of the time" means "non-forcing." Opener's natural forcing rebids are jump-shifts, and reverses. Simple rebids in lower ranking suits are NOT forcing. Very often, responder will have another call over 2♦, including a false preference to 2♥ on a doubleton, but that's not at all the same thing as saying 2♦ is remotely forcing. North doesn't jump-shift because he's not strong enough, and that means that with a minimum response and the appropriate distribution, responder can pass 2♦. North undervalued his hand, presumably by relying exclusively on point count. I think the takeaway lesson point is that not all 17-point hands are created equal... What are the other factors that go into hand evaluation? Aces (and to a lesser extent, kings) are undervalued by the 4321 point count system. Here, 14 of opener's 17 points are in aces and kings. Moreover, he has a 5-card suit with 3 honors. He'd open 1NT with a 17-count that doesn't have a 5-card suit and has a lot more queens and jacks. I'd draw up a number of different 17 point balanced hands, and have a discussion with the class about which ones were better, and why. As has been suggested, this one is worth treating as an 18-pointer. Opener should have rebid 2NT.

The next day, he had a fly buzzing around his head as he read the morning paper, but there were no cameras, so he just yelled, "Who left the *****in' screen door open?!"

I think you can't have 'em in the ACBL, because it would cost membership. Or at least active membership. The masterpoint system as is isn't great, but it's not costing membership. A lot of players who don't have great results can still say they're life masters, and some of them wouldn't play if a system that showed them to be below average came into being. You can always chalk any given 45% game up to bad luck. That happens to some extent in chess, though not too much. But there are players who hit expert level, or master level, and quit playing rated games, because they're one loss away from losing the ranking.

Something like that could certainly be done, similar to the system that chess organizations use. Strength of the field can be allowed for; e.g. if your rating is X, and the field's average rating is less than X, then you lose points for a 50% game, but if the field's average rating is more than X, then you'd gain points for a 50% game. You'd have to figure out the best way to allow for partnership strength as a whole, though; how do you rate a good player and a bad player against two decent players, etc. The reason it's not done isn't mathematical impracticability OR accuracy. You could, without too much difficulty, design a more accurate system. The downside is, quite simply, the players don't want it. Even if you don't play particularly well, you occasionally get some masterpoints, and that number only goes up...lots of milestones...club master, sectional master, etc. Keeps people coming around, for their .42 here and there, and they don't want to lose the quantifiable status that they've obtained. As long as some new players keep joining, the existing players' 150, or 85, or even 40 masterpoints keep them above some other players... puts them in Strat E, instead of Strat F. They don't want to lose that. I think the ideas been floated, and the conclusion was, they won't stand for it. Chess has a very good model for rating (thank you, Arpad Elo). It gives you a really good idea of the current strength of a player, and it doesn't matter whether the player's been playing 6 months or 30 years. Bridge players don't want any part of something similar.

Where's Living Color when you need them?! I'm the Cult of Personality...

I wonder if the guys from my old garage band ever learned how to play bridge... lost touch with all of them. I think a bridge team called "Savage Sausage" could really spark a renewed fever for the game.

I think that requiring declarer to keep "drawing" trump after both opponents show out goes well beyond careless and into irrational, particularly since the pause reveals that he's already figured out that transportation is an issue.

Yes.

I think that "constrained by the legislative process" and talk of existing laws is a cop-out. Regardless of what he's going to do (or not to) on the matter, however, I really would have liked to think that in his Justice Department, a U.S. Attorney wouldn't make the wholly specious argument that DOMA doesn't discriminate against homosexual couples.

ok, I have to break my general rule here. LOL

That would not be so easy as you might think. Did you hear the one about the plastic surgeon who hung himself? Was he a penile enlargement specialist trying to make himself hung? Well, if he were a suicidal type of dude, he'd've hanged himself. Or shot himself.

I'd take a shot, through the 4♠ route, but I've got a bit of the Barefoot Optimist in me.

That would not be so easy as you might think. Did you hear the one about the plastic surgeon who hung himself?

For purposes of this question, assume the circumference of the earth at the equator is 25,000 miles (132,000,000 feet). Now assume you have a 25,000-mile long piece of rope wrapped around the earth at the equator, fitting snugly. If you wanted to "float" the rope a foot above the earth (i.e. so that at every point around the globe, the rope was a foot off the ground, just sort of hovering there, like Saturn's rings), how much longer would you need to make the rope?

I'd definitely give him more than 10 seconds. Claims are generally encouraged, anyway, and it's saving time vs. the time he'd spend playing out 12 more tricks. While the clarification "should" be made at once, there's no penalty set forth if it's not. What's the alternative? Play can't resume; that much IS clear from the rules. Average minus? Make up a line of play on his behalf?

Neither you nor I work as wait staff or cooks That's true; however, I did have the same position at the time the smoking ban was passed in California, and at the time, I was a bartender in a restaurant that allowed smoking in the bar. The ban benefitted me tremendously from the standpoint of a desirable and healthy workplace. I was still opposed to it. I chose to work there. Interesting compromise idea. I wonder if a municipal tax break at a certain level would create a desirable mix of smoking and smoke-free restaurants. (I realize that current mix of 100% smoke-free is "desirable" to many; my definition is something more like both restaurants that permitted smoking and restaurants that prohibitted smoking exist in a reasonable proximity to residents).

Why should we bother? We have the votes. We're going to do what we want and this means that we're going to enjoy public space that aren't littered by cigarette smokers. If you want to smoke, you can do so in the comfort of your own house. (At least for a while... There are some interesting lawsuits coming down the pike involving apartment complexes and condo complexes that are banning smoking). There are also entire cities like Las Vegas that are dedicated to folks with addictive personalities. There's also the third world, which has a lot of catching up to do. However, if you want to live in the much of the developed world you're going to have to learn to live with the fact that smoking imposes significant external costs on people in the same surroundings. As such, society may very well chose to restrict your right to smoke in said locations. (Please note: I'm in favor of legalizing drugs. I'm certainly not in favor of a complete ban on tobacco products. However, I think that its completely appropriate to ban smoking in public places including bars, hotel rooms, and restaurants. I agree with a lot of this post, but I would disagree with respect to restaurants. If non-smokers (and I'm one of them) "have the votes," they also have the power to vote with their restaurant dollars. Let non-smoking restaurants open voluntarily, if there's such a demand for a smoke-free restaurant environment, and let each mixed group of diners decide whether the smokers want to refrain for an hour, or whether the non-smokers want to put up a restaurant that has a smoking section. A restaurant isn't a "public place" in the same sense that a beach or a sidewalk is. It's no skin off my nose to avoid smoky restaurants. It's a bit similar to term limits (to which I'm opposed, in case that isn't clear). If there's such an overwhelming desire that people who have been in office for a long time not continue to hold office, there's a remedy for that, and a pretty effective one, and term limits aren't needed - vote 'em out. And let the people who think that experience shouldn't necessarily disqualify someone from a job have the same chance you do - to vote for the candidate of their choosing.

Sorry but this comment shows a complete and utter lack of understanding about probability and statistics of any kind. It is equivalent to the following argument. You and I will both pick a card from each of 100 different decks and whoever picks more aces wins. However, if sometimes you pick first and sometimes I pick first then you can get way more aces than I get, which is not fair. Do you know what "random" means? Sorry but you'd be surprized of my understanding of probability. However I believe you forgot 1 important word in my sentence ("can") and my remark at the bottom of my post. I didn't say it's so in the long run (that would be foolish), and playing about 10 boards each time makes a huge difference since there's more variance. If I'd play 1000 boards I would have a better chance to reach the obvious average of 20HCP. Your example is completely not equivalent. The one with the coins however is a lot more relevant. I looked up my previous post where I used REAL data to show what I'm talking about: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=276799 You'll see that there a big difference between the average NS/EW and the average myside/oppsside in this session. Obviously, if you'd keep the seats fixed, you'll have sequences of boards where 1 side gets more HCP than the other side. So it won't change much. However, for me it's frustrating that you're sitting EW for a few hands and don't get much HCP, suddenly you switch sides and the HCP also switched sides so the series of bad boards continues. If you'd look at ALL the hands I've played in moneybridge (not just the ones in 1 session) I'll probably have around 20HCP each time (which is statistically correct), but the fun of one session can go away pretty quickly if your side keeps getting very few hcp. Since I play pretty short sessions, this factor is quite important for me. ok, but there's no difference in your expectation, for a session of any duration, whether you're N/S every time, E/W every time, alternate every hand, or play N/S twice followed by E/W seven times, then N/S twice again. Yes, the short-term swings can be quite disparate, but a priori, there's no seating sequence at all that would give you any different likelihood of getting more points, fewer points, or an average amount of points as compared with any other seating sequence.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20090617.html

"Play ceases" is black and white. There's no play after a claim. Regarding extra time, the claimant "should" make his clarification, which is fuzzier, and doesn't carry an inherent penalty. As an aside, while as defenders, we can obtain an advantage from seeing declarer's hand, sometimes an astute declarer can get an advantage on an aborted claim by drawing an inference based on which defender is objecting to the claim.

Among other people. "You Tube sensation"?! Oooooooh, the President swatted a fly. I gotta see that!!

Wish I could remember the story and source completely accurately, but my recollection is that it's something to the effect that someone told Barry Crane that when faced with a pure 2-way guess for a queen, he did it differently depending on whether a certain card was in dummy, or in his hand, or something, and wanted Crane's validation. Crane told him it didn't matter as long as he did it the same way each time. As I recall, neither the anecdote nor Crane's comment was presented as being ironic. I'll try to find the excerpt and reference it. It's like thinking that the long-term expectation on a coin flip depends on picking the same choice every time. Bizarre.

That's funny. Vuroth's sentimental favorite is you.

I'd rather have a non-best team get there through a "fair," even if imperfect (e.g. number of byes) competition rather than have any hint of political influence on the outcome via a subjective selection process. I'm ok with byes, and how many of them are suitable is a question worthy of good faith debate, but ultimately, it should be settled at the table. If you don't get past the Wonkenheimer team from Nebraska, I don't want to hear about how you were deprived of your chance to play the Italians or Norwegians. Come back next time.

Don't be too sure about that. Playing Cappaletti, with a moderate 5-4, if partner doesn't like your first suit, he's got to be willing to play at the 3-level, possibly on a 7-card fit.