Lobowolf

ok, but unless the revised laws book contains a definition of "damage" (the previous one did not), my intuitive sense of the term is that a pair that got a 100% board was not "damaged."

No, you just store it in there gradually and have a guy waiting 'round the clock get it burning when a plane hits the building. Wait, or is theory also that a plane didn't hit the building?

I would only do that if it didn't mean I was wrong, too. That'll teach me to make up my own definition of "Damage." I have to confess, though, I wouldn't adjust a -620 to a -170 in a pair game if everyone else with the same cards was -800.

What happened at the other tables is relevant (if not necessary, even) to the determination of whether there was damage. No it isn't. The actual and expected results at the table where the infraction occurred have absolutely nothing to do with what happened at other tables, and everything to do with the lie of the cards in the four hands and the level of expertise of the players at this table. I didn't say that the actual or the expected result have anything to do with what happens at the other tables; I said that the determination of whether there was damage does. As you yourself pointed out (check back one page): Results score "big fat zeroes" when compared to the other tables.

I'll go with my favorite wrong answer, then; club x for me.

But how do you, personally, determine what sources are credible, given your well-emphasized distrust of both politicians and the media? I believe if you look closely you will find your paraphrase about my beliefs to be incorrect. I have never said I do not trust politicians; nor have I ever stated I mistrust the media. What I have said is that politicians are unduly influenced by the money that helps them finance their elections and re-elections, and the mainstream media is overtly biased. That leaves a wide world of views to evaluate when defining a belief. Apologies if I've mischaracterized your position.

What happened at the other tables is relevant (if not necessary, even) to the determination of whether there was damage.

The absense of logical alternatives sort of removes the "doubt" to give you the benefit of. Example: Let's say 4th seat gets to the table later than everyone else, so is sorting his hand, and the auction goes: P-P-P. Now his partner says something, "Oh my God, I didn't mean to pass." 4th seat then opens an 11-count with 4-spades, and says, "I always open when I have 15 Pearson points (HCP + # of spades)." Not everyone opens all 11-counts with 4 spades; there's doubt, and the UI suggested a logical alternative -- pass. So if the Non-Offending Side is damaged by the fact that pass was not chosen, they're entitled to protection. Same situation, same comment, but now 4th seat has a 13 HCP hand with 5-1-3-4 distribution, and opens a spade. Not really a logical alternative to opening a spade, so when he does so, there's not really any "doubt" to give the opponents the benefit of. If they get to a good contract and make it, they're entitled (assuming that 4th seat's subsequent bids are above reproach, as well).

I wouldn't even say he "knowingly disregarded" anything. Much more likely that it was just an instinctive, polite reaction. Disagree about the lesser hassle. Americans generally don't care all that much about screw-ups (especially minor ones), but care more about cover-ups (not that it's a "cover-up" per se, but I put it in the same sort of category).

I'd pass, and I don't think it's a particularly close call.

But how do you, personally, determine what sources are credible, given your well-emphasized distrust of both politicians and the media?

Many uneducated parents realize that their lack of an education is severely harming their economic status and opportunities, and they try to impart that knowledge to their children. I strongly suspect that a lot fewer uneducated people recognize the importance of an education than do educated people. In fact if that weren't the case it would be something of a paradox. If what you say is correct, wouldn't there be something of a pattern of alternating generations within families attending college? I guess it depends what you mean by many. 10 million people out of a group of 100 million isn't many imo. In every family someone was the first to go to college. I don't see what you knowing some of those people really shows. I definitely agree that a lot fewer uneducated people recognize the importance of an education than do educated people, and I didn't intend to suggest otherwise. I also agree about "many." As a raw number, 10 million is "many." As a percentage of 100 million people, it's not many. I wasn't sure entirely how you intended "How would an uneducated child with uneducated parents either figure out or be taught that logic?" My post was in response to the idea that the notion your intent was hypothetical, i.e. "That can't happen." It can happen, and it does happen. A lot. But much more often than a lot, it doesn't happen. If you meant to suggest that it's relatively unlikely in any given case, I agree. How do you reach the other 90 million (or however many it is)? I don't know, but I think it's the biggest key to the problem. Maybe you ask the 10% what worked for them. I think money can HELP. It can encourage better teachers, or smaller classroom sizes, pay for public service announcements, or a number of other things. But I don't think it gets you most of the way to answering the question, "How do you convince kids (or their families) who don't otherwise know it that their education (or their children's education) is important?" If you want to improve education, I think that's the most important question there is.

Many uneducated parents realize that their lack of an education is severely harming their economic status and opportunities, and they try to impart that knowledge to their children. That's probably the first and best chance. I know friends or parents of friends, and secondary family (cousins, etc.) members who were the first in their families to go to college. The fact that their parents and other relatives were not college educated, and in some cases were quite UNeducated didn't stop them from recognizing the importance of education and imparting that importance to their children, and getting their children to take advantage of opportunities they didn't have. There's always the public service announcement "Stay in School" stuff, but probably actual personal appearances by celebrity role models giving talks about the importance of education would be better, along those lines. Truly inspirational teachers are good for that, too, but they're generally few and far between, and not nearly as high on the influence scale as family, friends, or celebrities. Underfunded schools are certainly a problem, but there are also problems that are incidental to money. I'd put my money on a motivated student in a bad school ahead of an unmotivated student in a mediocre school. Some teenagers recognize the worth and importance of their cars, and take good care of them; some trash them. Giving the ones who trash them better cars isn't the answer.

Hopefully, the recognition that it's important to get an education.

I probably could have captured 80% of my idea with 10% of the verbiage -- The best player isn't always right, but you can bet he's wrong a lot less often than most lesser players think he is.

Nor do I. I do know, however, that they have access to more information than I do. Given your distrust of both the media and politicians, I'm curious as to the source of apparently firm conviction that a notion like "The surge worked" is nonsense.

I am calling "Obama is so smart he must know what he is doing"-bias. Which advisors to listen to are among the most consequential decisions a president makes, and thus should be should be subject to criticism when he gets them wrong. I'll go on record as saying he is extremely smart, and that has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with any particular policy. In fact it tends to be the second thing that even his detractors usually compliment him on after "he is charismatic / he speaks extremely well" before they launch into the negatives. So which part do you disagree with, that he is very smart or that a very smart person is more likely to know who they should receive advice from than a less smart person (such as Winston or myself) who has never even met the potential advisors? Let's pretend that Meckstroth is a better bridge player than Jdonn. Even if this were true, Jdonn would still be able to spot mistakes by Meckstroth while he is kibitzing him on Vuegraph (especially if Jdonn is doing the analysis back at home while writing an unusually long BBF post). Further, when Jdonn points out Meckstroth's mistake in a BBF post, it is not a very helpful counter argument to say "but Meckstroth is a better bridge player than Jdonn". Obama is very smart, but he does make mistakes, and criticizing his mistakes is important. This analogy has merit, but it's also got flaws. When kibitzing, JDonn would have access to more information than Meckstroth. The President pretty much always has access to more information than his critics (and his supplicants). Additionally, bridge is a wonderfully complex game, but it's still a closed system. Computer programs can tell you how many tricks can be made by either side in any strain, and we can see, quite clearly, what would have happened had another course been chosen. Global politics is inherently rife with speculation, and when many courses are chosen, you can't "unchoose" them. We won't know exactly what would have happened had stimulus bill X failed. Whatever course(s) Obama chooses in the Middle East, we won't know exactly what would have happened had he chosen alternate possibilities, and we'll always had less information than he had when he makes his choices. This is certainly not to say that he's not above reproach, or that no criticism can ever be justified, but it certainly has to be borne in mind. Criticism that policy does not match one's value judgments (e.g. war is always wrong; rewarding illegal immigration is wrong; position X regarding tax policy is more fair than position Y) is generally more reasonable than criticism about understanding, efficacy, etc. To return to the analogy, JDonn is a great bridge player, but if he's looking at 26 cards and Meckstroth is looking at 52, and he disagrees with something Meckstroth does, "Meckstroth sees something JDonn doesn't see" (sorry Josh), or even "Meckstroth has different values than JDonn" (e.g. all 23-point hands should be bid to game) is probably a safer bet than "Meckstroth just doesn't get it."

I think it's rather sad and not really funny that some cannot distinguish opinion from presumption. Well, let's see...one of the definitions for "presume" (in fact, the first one) includes "suppose" (to be complete, it's "to take for granted, assume, OR suppose") Then under "suppose," we have: "to think or hold as an opinion." So, I guess based on those definitions, I'm one of those who doesn't, in this case certainly, distinguish between the two. But I suppose it's not the case that I "cannot," so I hope that doesn't make you sad.

I think it's particularly audacious, and a little bit funny, when people presume to know better than the President which advisors he should be paying to, and to what extent. He's a former Senator, a Harvard Law School graduate (to say the least), and as the president, he's been given briefings and access to information that nobody on this board has any idea about. It's like listening to int-adv players explaining why the bids and plays of Bermuda Bowl champions are wrong, except at least when that happens, the kibitzer has seen all 52 cards.

This is how the conservatives in USA like to work. They make stupid allegations about futile points. Then they start negative campaigning on your responses. They use filthy tactics, it is all so obvious even on this side of the ocean. Worst of all, this kind of "politics" is rewarded by voters. Psssst. It's how the liberals like to work, too. Oh, and it's not "worst of all" like it's some kind of unfortunate byproduct. It's done specifically BECAUSE it works.

I'm genuinely curious as to why you are wondering. As a litmus test question, I think it would be right up there with the Noah's Ark thread. Maybe we could do a poll. It would actually do BETTER, because nobody alive today was around to the alleged ark.

I guess it's like playing "Gerber when obvious" -- What's obvious to some isn't obvious to others.

As with any president, on some level, there's a lot of rush to attack him from hardcore political opponents, and very often they reach to find any little thing to give the other guy crap over. Most of it has no bearing on the lives of any of us; it's just partisan b.s. But I'm now upset with our latest president, over something meaningful and signficant. He offered Kal "Kumar" Penn a job, and got him removed from the cast of House!!!! This is beyond problematic. Is there a statute of limitations on recalls?

lol I had the TRS-80 from Radio Shack, complete with cassette memory and an artificial intelligence program (Eliza, anyone?) that knew about 6 sentence constructions.

Denying the bow is mindlessly parroting the left talking points d'jour. Or at least the White House's talking points. So he bowed...what's the problem?