Lobowolf

I don't know if there's a point to stating the obvious, but there's a benefit to it that only crops up infrequently, i.e. when people deny the obvious.

It's both. Studies of twins separated at birth have suggested strongly that there's an inherited component entirely separate from inculcation.

"The textbooks" (at least all of the ones I've seen, although those are primarily (though not exclusively) American ones) do NOT say that the double promises diamonds. BI's who play 5-card majors and 15-17 no trump and follow the textbooks know only that their partner has promised hearts. Hopefully, they wouldn't bid TWO diamonds without extras after 1♣-1♥, let alone THREE on the given auction. BI's without specialized agreements who have both minors should open 1♦, unless their clubs are long and/or strong enough to open and rebid clubs, in which case that's what they should go on the given auction.

My recollection is that there's strong evidence that religious affiliation is, to a surprising extent, inherited. The correlational studies of identical twins separated at birth suggest as much. I think this post is more misleading than the video. What's the suggestion? That those choices are random, and completely independent of the religious beliefs of the parents? I'm going to go out on a limb and posit that most of the world's, say, Jehovah's Witnesses didn't have Muslim parents. THe countries that were predominantly Christian a generation ago are still predominantly Christian, and the ones that were predominantly Muslim are still predominantly Muslim. The "choices" of the new generation didn't change that. Obviously, not everyone adopts the religious beliefs of his or her parents. Equally obviously, there's a strong correlation.

www.acbl.org has an "alert chart." I may be outdated on this, but I believe that it's proper, per ACBL procedures, to announce the range of all 1NT opening bids. However, in club games, there's some discretion, and many clubs set "house rules" about things like not announcing the 1NT range if it's "standard." This is generally misguided, as it stems from complaints by the NT openers, who either don't want to be bothered to announce their standard range, or don't want to "get in trouble" for forgetting to. What the 1NT openers generally don't realize is that the "announce all 1NT bids" guideline is for their benefit, to protect against defenders who convey unauthorized information by (intentionally or not) passing an unannounced 1NT with a bad hand, and asking about the range with a decent hand. The prevalent attitude when I ran club games was "Why do have to announce it if it's standard?", not realizing that announing the range was a safety precaution for them.

1NT-2C 2D-3D is forcing and shows diamonds and a 4-card major, in modern standard methods.

"shouldn't" is an interesting word in this context. My rule of thumb would be that the owner/operator of the service, and his agents, "should" do whatever they want to provide the atmosphere of their choosing.

Just be glad you're not a Republican president. You'd be hearing for decades about how you're so stupid, you didn't know the U.S. was a country.

LMAO.... Really. :P but ben, he was being serious (it just *seemed* like a joke) Once again the religous right is 100% wrong - maybe that's because they can't bear to poke fun at their own imperfections? lol

I hadn't heard until recently that Alan LeBendig passed away a few weeks ago. Long-time personality in the Los Angeles bridge scene as a player (Grand Life Master), operator of the Barrington club, district director, and teacher/lecturer. Not a guy I knew really well, but a good player, and one I found to be nice guy, both when directing and when playing against him. And one who loved the game, kept a sense of humor, and showed great courage in the face of a rapidly progressing disease (MS).

Generally, obituaries are submitted and run as written. I'm sure if this were a staff-generated article, he would have been properly identified as a murderer of innocents and an oppressor of foreign nationals under the imperialist agenda of the American military.

If you lied (or taken a position), stick to your story. Don't try make up for it or correct later, e.g. by passing a forcing bid or claiming to have one fewer ace. If you're going to preempt, pop it to what you think is the correct level the first time, then hope they guessed wrong. Don't give them a second chance to do the right thing after exchanging information. Don't think about the last hand while playing this one. Try not to let partner think about the last hand while playing this one (particularly, e.g. if he's screwed up. A well-placed "Don't worry about it" saves tricks).

I think you misunderstood...it's "censored by BBO" not because you don't like it, but because it doesn't comport with the way that BBO wishes to present its site or the atmosphere it wishes to provide for its members. Fred seems like a reasonable guy, though; my guess would be if you wanted to provide a free bridge server for everyone, and set different standards for content, I don't think he'd go to court to seek an injunction or anything.

One heart. Not a particularly close call for me. Among the reasons - *Strong preference for a heart lead. *Worthless doubleton in a suit where I have no reason to think partner has anything. *Only one stopper in opponent's suit. *Likelihood of losing the heart suit if I don't bid them now.

Didn't see the movie. Good book.

I think intermediate/novice players should certainly learn about negative doubles. Per BWS and American authors/authorities, and in the absence of other agreements or gadgets, 1♣ - (1♦) - X promises both majors; 1♦ - (2♣) -X does not. This is because there's a simple alternative over 1♣-(1♦) when you only have one major -- bid it! Bidding a 4-card major at the 2-level on moderate values, however, is not a sane option; so the double covers that hand. Are you more likely to be better positioned if you have both majors? Of course. But there is no good alternative if you only have one, so double is it.

"A negative double at the one level or when there is exactly one unbid major guarantees at least four cards in any unbid major...; otherwise, that requirement is only tentative..." -Bridge World Standard.

Must be different on your side of the pond. 100% Standard in the USA is that the double shows one unbid major (in those auctions where there is an unbid major), except specifically in the auction 1♣-(1♦)-X, where it shows both majors. If responder has exactly one 4 card major in the given auction [1♦-(2♣)-X], he's stuck if he can't double (which is, presumably, why the double doesn't promise both). I'm not sure what textbooks you're referring to when you say both majors is the "textbook answer," but perhaps they're British. I know what the American ones say.

A dash of nano-thermite to make the story plausible.

My girlfriend is working in the Big Easy for a few months. I'll be taking an extended Memorial Day Weekend to see her. One thing I really enjoy doing when I travel is going to bridge clubs in other cities, and meeting other ACBL members (I know, I have to get out more. I think it comes from having owned a club). She'll be at work the Tuesday after Memorial Day. If anyone knows of a decent morning and/or afternoon game, and/or is free for a session, let me know. She may have to work Memorial Day, too, but I don't know that a club would be open.

Thanks for the link, very helpful :) However, this is Beginner/Intermediate and I think I made it clear that I was referring to methods suitable for them to use The actual example I quoted was from a very well respected text book, altho I doubt that the author uses these recomended methods in high level money games Trying to give advanced methods to novices is a bit like handing a live hand grenade to a child :lol: Tony Negative doubles show at least one unbid major except specifically over 1♣-(1♦). That's a standard (in the USA, anyway) treatment, and I don't see why it would be unsuitable for novice/intermediate players. What bid would you have them make with ♠xx ♥AJxx ♦KTxx ♣Qxx over 1♦-(2♣)?

I don't know how specific the CBA is on particular drugs, but I do know that drug testing and consequences are certainly discussed at great length in the negotiations. My guess would be that he wouldn't be voluntarily taking a 50-game suspension if he a legitimate grievance.

Strongly disagree. Unless you have a better bid than double to show the hand of moderate strength that has one 4-card major.

I don't find that conceivable at all, it wouldn't even occur to me nor does it sound at all plausible now. But I guess that's where we differ. "Implausible" is, to me, a gross underbid. That's like a cop writing a speeding ticket to a guy parked in a Porsche because people in Porsches often speed, THEN the judge sentencing him, THEN the guy not putting up a stink about it.

Unlikely, from what I remember from my Sports Law class (which is at its heart a way of making Labor Law interesting). The leagues' (MLB, but also NFL, NBA, etc.) drug policies stem from collective bargaining agreements, and are given a great deal of deference by courts, and to a lesser extent legislators, at least as long as they're made in good faith. The parties are expected to work out their issues between themselves. To the extent that an element of a CBA appears unfavorable to one side, it's generally assumed that it was a concession as part of an arm's-length negotiation as a result of which that party received an offsetting benefit of some sort. That being said, Labor Law is not my speciality.