Lobowolf

Strongly disagree with North's first pass, if 2♥ would be natural. If an immediate 2♥ would not have been natural, then I strongly disagree with the methods. I play 1NT as a weaker, shaplier (than double) takeout for the other 2 suits; however, some posts from another thread have me rethinking this, and I may try switching to 1NT natural.

Poker's a great game, too, but not as good as bridge, by a longshot (at least not inherently). Poker "needs" the gambling element to make it interesting; bridge thrives without the lure of prize money. Poker has a couple of inherent advantages -- it's easier to learn (and easier to follow along on TV), and you can see "regular guys" winning lots of money playing a game that you know how to play. People generally ascribe their wins to skill and their losses to bad luck, and the game blew up since they started televising it and marketing it aggressively. Yes, Virginia, people used to play games other than hold 'em. But without the lure of winning money, how many people would care enough about poker just as a game to spent any amount of time playing it? Would it support multiple clubs all over the same metropolitan area, they way bridge does? Would people compete in week-long tournaments for no prize money at all? Of course not. Yes, internet poker sites do offer "play money" tables and tournaments, but those are mostly populated by people trying to learn enough to make money at the real thing.

Hey, whom you calling a gentleman?! Occasionally, I elevate to sarcasm; however, in case you mean the Social Security comment, I assure you it was entirely genuine! Let's say you were unlucky enough to retire a month or two ago when the market was below 7,000. Let's further call you 65 years old as of that date, and assume you'd been working since you were 20. Take the payments you made into Social Security, starting in early '64, and put them into an index fun on a regular, periodic basis with dividends reinvested, and compare the value of that account to what you're going to get from our non-private Social Security system.

You're right; it's been far too long. There should be a provision for voluntary partial privatiziation of Social Security.

I've worked for both the ACBL and what was at one time the largest full-time chess facility in the country, and known many people who are good (say, 95th percentile or so) at both games. To a person, they prefer bridge. Most notably probably Woman's Grandmaster Irina Levitina. In the United States at least, serious bridge is far more popular than serious chess. The American Contract Bridge League has about twice the membership of the United States Chess Federation, more club games, and bigger tournaments. One year, I was the 8th most active member of the United States Chess Federation. Chess is a great game, and I still play some (mostly online). Bridge is better.

Jew's make matzoh using the blood of Christian children... Yeah, I know it isn't true, but so what ??? If it's not true, it should at least be funny. The NFL thing qualifies.

Too bad former President Bush (Jr.) didn't play bridge; it would have been good for his approval ratings and public criticism, at least among bridge players.

Of all of the casualties of the internet, I miss irony the most.

This thread is starting to remind me of Asimov's Foundation books. In another bulletin board I belong to, someone asked for help in calculating the odds of surviving the Titanic wreck, including a convoluted series of event including not only being aboard the ship, but also the odds on having been born.

They're not going to be replaced by the best and the brightest, either. If the idea of the bailout was to make it a continuing, viable, competitive company, this isn't the way to do it. Whoever the best and the brightest are, they're not going to work for TARP recipients if their compensation is up for grabs retroactively. 90% retroactive tax is a poor call based on political posturing and grandstanding.

I think there are two important factors that your post doesn't address: 1) The scoring is IMPs. At pairs, there might be a fair amount of difference between the +/+ scores, or it might be important to protect the 110 you might have gotten at spades against only 100, or some such consideration, but it's markedly less important here. I'm not saying the 1 & 2 IMP pickups are irrelevant; I'm saying they're less important than they would be at pairs. 2) If there are 17 total tricks, and one of the contracts makes, then the numbers are, clearly correct; however, there's also a decent chance that there AREN'T exactly 17 tricks. The next closest numbers are 16 and 18, and with balanced distribution of points, the most likely scenarios for those two totals would be: Both 3-level contracts are down 1, and both 3-level contracts are making, on the nose. As has been pointed out, there's a strong case to be made for downgrading the LTT analysis. 16 is a lot more likely than 18. Both contracts down 1 turns +100 into -50; you're risking 4 IMPs in that case for the 1 or 2 IMP pickups at issue if there are exactly 17 tricks. Of course, if there are 18 total tricks, the case for bidding is, inversely, even stronger than you present. I find that possibility very remote, however.

I have Louisville over Pittsburgh, with Memphis & N.C. rounding out the Final Four. Not going out on much of a limb, I know, but how often do the dark horses get THAT far. If I had to pick a big first round dog...North Dakota St. over Kansas. Small dog...maybe Utah St. over Marquette. Anyone else playing along at home?

This is fairly evident in other arenas, too... sports salaries may provide for bonuses if a player, for instance, makes the all-star team, hits 50 home runs, etc. It's not part of the "base salary," but it's legally enforceable if the conditions are met. Similarly, the "hours-based" bonuses based on how many billable hours an attorney makes. You'd THINK that it would pertain to profitability, in the business world, but...

It's not the point you were making, but it's a point, and I believe one very relevant to the discussion. Not all "good ideas" should be imposed on society via the legal system. I didn't see anyone suggesting that it it's not worthwhile because it can't be perfect. If the pro-ownership posts have a common thread, it's a completely different one -- outlawing gun ownership (i.e. strict possession laws) won't help. I certainly favor reasonable regulation, and I would include mandatory background checks and safety testing/training, and probably a (brief) waiting period, also.

This is how I play it, as well.

I answer that it's a poor analogy. You're comparing the personal choice to wear or not wear a seat belt with government coercion in the second case. Now, you might have compared gun control to government coercion forcing seat belt use, which is I am opposed to (although I agree that one should wear a seat belt; some people, however, die because they wore a seat belt).

The main cause was probably the although both bids have plusses and minuses, on balance, the largest minus is the rebid after opening 1M. I'm with Han; I probably upgrade a majority of my 17's, and open 1M on some hands that look irretrievably suit-oriented, but I'm mostly opening 1NT. I also play Puppet Stayman over 1NT to mitigate the downside, at least when responder has enough to game force. Partners I have who aren't as tied to "1NT when reasonably possible" as I am look at things like no doubleton in the other major, slow tricks, values in the short suits, etc.

Yes, matchpoint pair game. No contrary conventional agreements as to 2NT (e.g. good-bad, or anything like that).

♠AK ♥Jx ♦QJ9xx ♠KTxx Pairs, white on red, first seat. Club game today. The auction started: 1♦-(P)-1♥-(1♠) ?? I bid 1NT, and after (2♠) back around to me, I passed. The continuation of the auction was foreseeable; if I wasn't willing to bid 3♣ (or double; I've already denied 3 hearts by not making a support double) over 2♠, should I have bid 2♣ the second time, instead of 1NT? With a pretty balanced 14 and the opponents' suit double-stopped, 1NT seemed straightforward. But it seems like the best opportunity to do something better than defend 2♠ is if I mention both suits now. I suppose I should have made this a poll. 2-parter: A) 1NT or 2♣? :P If 1NT, do I act over 2♠ in the passout seat with favorable vulnerability at pairs?

I think I would have fudged it. I'm not a fan of opening wild two-suiters with an artificial 1C or 2C, too easy to get preempted out of being able to show both suits. I see the rationale (though I don't agree with it). I just had to point out with respect to "fudging it" my amusement at something you don't see every day...wanting to downgrade a 2-loser hand.

This is a premise I disagree with. I understand that it's a "preferred value judgment" question and not a "right or wrong" question. The premise (basing the decision on some large-scale utilitarianism) punishes the responsible, law-abiding gun owner, who has done nothing wrong, because the irresponsible or criminal gun owner (possibly) makes for a net negative. So the person who keeps his home defense gun locked up still has to turn it in or be a criminal. The woman who could successfully thwart her her rapist or murderous ex doesn't get that chance, because someone else on another side of town is going to leave his gun lying around and it's going to be stolen and used to kill 2 people, and 2 is bigger than 1. I understand that the premise of criminalizing risk creation has precedent (e.g. drunk driving); however, as a legal construct, I think it really has to be far down the line of tactics to resort to. If you mean a society with gun ownership vs. a society with no gun ownership, you might be right. I'm not completely convinced, but I could certainly see it. However, the idea presents a false dichotomy, at least with respect to the USA. The options aren't gun ownership vs. no gun ownership; the options are gun ownership in general vs. gun ownership except by law abiding citizens. Intuitively, I find it impossible to believe that the latter could be better, on balance. As an aside, as an animal rights supporter, I find the "exceptions for hunting" by the people generally more opposed to gun ownership amusing, and a bit perplexing. I do understand that handguns are easier to conceal, take into public, and do damage with, and maybe that's all it is -- as a practical matter, rifles are safer for society (Charles Whitman aside). But the notion that we have to do something about my girlfriend, who keeps her gun locked up at home and likes to shoot paper targets at the range, and not her brother in law, whose favorite recreational activity is to go out into the wilderness, find beautiful deer and such, and kill them...that strikes me as the most counter-intuitive of all.

When CAN we have a Congress bogged down with no spending bill signed, though? Sure, because of the current economy, it's probably particularly critical now, but even after this crisis is over, is Obama really going to hold up getting a spending bill passed until hundreds of representatives, with no term limits and accountable only to the voters in their own district, waive their earmarks? I can't see him winning that game of chicken. It's the prisoner's dilemma on a large scale. Would we all be better off if nobody did it? Probably. But if some do it and some don't, and the ones who do are better off, guess what's going to happen?

I do agree that Krugman advocates much more spending. I didn't realize that was one of your main points; I thought you were simply stating it to support the statement that the spending and earmarks are too small. Apparently, though, that was not one of your main points. I misunderstood. Similarly, I misread your comment about governors. If those were the points you intended to make, indeed we agree! As I am neither a governor nor Paul Krugman, however, I assumed that by the inclusion of "we all," you had something else in mind. Holders of credit card accounts can authorize other users on those accounts. I apologize if I was ambiguous by talking about the parents' cards, rather than their parents' accounts. Additional cards may be issued on the parents' accounts, in the children's names, even though the cards are being issued on the parents' credit rating and history, not the kids'. My primary point, though, was that the fact that the kids would fairly unanimously agree that those limits should extremely high, "we all" shouldn't similarly agree.

Ummmm...we can? The ones I've heard have been pretty clear that they mean by that not that we should spend all the money in the current bill, and also a bunch more, but rather that too little of the bill will actually result in economic stimulus. Of course they do. They can get credit for all the stuff their constituents get, and Congress can get the blame for whatever associated taxes or deficits attach. Most kids on their parents' credit cards think the limit should be higher, too. That doesn't mean it's a great idea.

Agreed; I was just emphasizing the starting point (or "a" starting point) of the discussion. Also agreed, but to the extent that we may have options and exist outside the box, it's beneficial to act as though we do.