Lobowolf

It's a liberal board. Let's have all the Water Cooler regulars check in for Obama or McCain...what do you think we're going to do, approximate 52-46? REMOTELY approximate it? I'm not "blaming" anyone; I'm clarifying. I have conservative friends, and they're all against gay marriage, they're largely against abortion, most of them are Christian, and I assure you, they'd find the notion of my being a conservative as amusing as you'd find the notion of my being a liberal. One decent litmus test...of people whose votes I know, every liberal I know voted for Obama, and every conservative I know voted for McCain.

www.politicalcompass.org/test -0.75; -4.46

Go easy on him, he is a liberal after all! Wait, either that or he just likes posting only to disagree with someone. As Polonius said to Laertes, "Neither a liberal nor a conservative be." I can suck in my gut, flex my biceps, and try to convince all of you that I am Bruce Lee. But that doesn't make it true... Fortunately, I can pass for either a liberal or a conservative, depending on my company...all I have to do is hang out with conservatives or liberals, respectively. Nowadays, both sides do seem to have the same "If you're not one of us, you're one of them" mentality.

Jimi Hendrix drummer Mitch Mitchell died today, and I heard today that a tremendous magician and magic theorist, Nick Trost, died a couple of weeks ago. So...a new thread for anyone to post a shout-out regarding the passing of anyone whose work you've appreciated or been inspired by.

Go easy on him, he is a liberal after all! Wait, either that or he just likes posting only to disagree with someone. As Polonius said to Laertes, "Neither a liberal nor a conservative be."

Yeah, if you can't be inconsistent, at least come down on the right side of the issue! Right, raising some taxes and lowering others is inconsistent... I have to say, Wolf, your one-line replies don't quite measure up to the general level of your watercooler contributions :P lol...uhhh thanks?! I thought the implication (and complaint) was that he's not in favor of raising any taxes, ever.

Yeah, if you can't be inconsistent, at least come down on the right side of the issue!

"B Player" in the USA is roughly "intermediate to adv-." As opposed to "A Player" (advanced or better) or "C Player" (novice to intermediate -). These are very rough designations, as the actual classifications in American club and tournament play revolve around the number of masterpoints that a person has, so some C players are better than some A players. By and large, though, a B-player is an intermediate.

I think this is something of a red herring; you shouldn't really base your actions on the possibility that partner has done something a little unusual. If partner opened 1♦ with 45 in the minors, it was because he thought he could handle the auction. Or because he thought he couldn't handle the auction if he started with 1♣. If partner has a minimum hand, the false preference might very well get you to a 4-2 fit when you have a 5-3 club fit available. On balance, though, I think 2♦ solves more problems than it creates. Add the jack of hearts, though, and I'm bidding 2NT.

I don't like 2♠. Partner's advertising an unbalanced hand, and the short suit is probably spades; I'd expect a 3-card raise on a 3-1-4-5 or 3-1-5-4 hand. I agree with your comments respect to 2NT, but it'd still be my second choice. Instead, though, I'll take the false preference to 2♦; on a good day, partner has longer diamonds or the strength to take a third bid. If we're in a crummy fit, at least I have extra values to compensate.

http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/car/archi...08/car0904.html This month's Kiplinger's has a "Best Of" column, which I believe includes a hybrid recommendation, focused on the "How fast will it pay for itself?" angle, among other things. It's a good article in general regarding many of the other "Best Ofs" also.

You forgot to tell us which card RHO returned. I was starting to think it was just me.

How long ago? Did you have any classes with Austan Goolsbee?

I don't think it's the main reason bridge is better; I think that has to do with the mathematical element, the psychological element, the inference-drawing, and the partnership element that bridge have, in addition to having in some situations the sequential algorithmic challenge that chess has. But whatever the reason, I know a number of people who are good at both chess and bridge, and there's no contest as to which game they prefer.

One of the reasons bridge is a better game. You don't think bridge has any number of completely meaningless essentially impossible positions? No, I think that a vastly higher percentage of bridge situations are relevant. To further (?) clarify, the "diversity" of chess is often extolled, and is usually expressed as a function of the number of possible positions, which is truly astronomical. However, an overwhelming percentage of those positions aren't remotely interesting. For instance, there are more than 100,000 position with king and rook vs. king. But so what? Either the rook is subject to capture or the weaker side is stalemated, in which case the game is a draw; or neither of these situations in the case, in which case it's a pedestrian win to anyone beyond a rank beginner. Change the rook to a knight, and you have more than 100,000 new positions, all of which are meaningless; it's a draw. The "diversity" of bridge is usually expressed as a function of the number of possible deals; the vast majority of those deals ARE "interesting," either in the bidding, the play, or both.

One of the reasons bridge is a better game.

Ditto, but if it were just a little bit weaker on the same distribution... If partner bids and subsequently plays hearts, the 3-card heart suit is comprised of weak hearts and is in the hand with the singleton. If partner doesn't have hearts, he's guaranteed to have 4 diamonds (1♦ showing 4 except when 4432), and if partner bids 1♠ or 1NT, I have an easy 2♦ rebid. The only thing I hate is if partner raises hearts on 3-card support, which seems extremely unlikely here, and even then, we may defend spades or declare diamonds, rather than declaring hearts. extremely unlikely? what if partner has a singleton club? He'd have to have exactly 3 hearts to go with his singleton club, and he'd also have to have at most 3 spades. I assume he'd rebid a 7-card diamond suit, so he'd have to be precisely 3-3-6-1 and opt to raise hearts rather then rebid his 6-card diamond suit, which I imagine he'd do some of the time. This is pretty much the parlay I meant by "extremely unlikely." I think a very, very small minority of 1♦ openers will be 3-3-6-1 with cards such that a 2♥ rebid looks preferable to a 2♦ rebid. The overwehlming majority of 1♦ openers will have one of the following: 1) a 1♠ rebid 2) a 1NT rebid 3) a 2♣ rebid (also very unlikely, granted) 4) a 2♦ rebid 5) a 2♥ rebid based on a 4-card suit None of these responses bothers me at all. Neither does a 3♦ rebid, while I'm at it. If partner plays a 3-3 fit when he's 3-3-6-1, well...I have a nice partner.

Ditto, but if it were just a little bit weaker on the same distribution... If partner bids and subsequently plays hearts, the 3-card heart suit is comprised of weak hearts and is in the hand with the singleton. If partner doesn't have hearts, he's guaranteed to have 4 diamonds (1♦ showing 4 except when 4432), and if partner bids 1♠ or 1NT, I have an easy 2♦ rebid. The only thing I hate is if partner raises hearts on 3-card support, which seems extremely unlikely here, and even then, we may defend spades or declare diamonds, rather than declaring hearts.

P'rhaps RHO played an honor the second time...I see 7 played clubs.

This can be usefully applied to politics and art criticism as well.

4♦ 5♣ & lacking strength to reverse?! Or is that passe?

And why would he? He once dropped a doubleton king offside.

When Chuck signals, odd demands; even forbids. Chuck doesn't "encourage."

This is essentially correct (legally, in the US). There are 3 primary standards. For a regulation discriminating against certain groups (e.g. race-based) to be upheld, the regulation must be necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. This standard is almost impossible to meet, and in practice, almost any law that involves race-based discrimination will be struck down as unconstitutional. I believe there have been 2 exceptions in the last 70 years -- Korematsu (internment camps during WW2, largely regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history), and an affirmative action university admissions case. For regulations discriminating against a second set of groups (e.g. gender) to be upheld, the regulation must be substantially related to achieving an important government interest. These are usually unconstitutional, but not always. For regulations discriminating against a third set of groups (e.g. age) to be upheld, the regulation must be rationally related to achieving a legitimate government interest. These laws are almost always upheld, but there's a caveat: "Mere animus" is never a "legitimate" reason. It doesn't take much of a reason to discriminate against these "category 3" classes, but "because we just don't like you" doesn't qualify. The bottom line is that in principle, the government can absolutely discriminate against any group you want, BUT 1) There have to have a reason; and 2) The way in which you choose to discriminate has to be connected to that reason to a certain degree. Laws are struck down as unconstitutional on Equal Protection grounds either because the reason isn't good enough (3 different standards), or the law itself isn't closely enough tied to the reason (e.g. it includes people that don't need to be included, or it doesn't include people who should be included); in other words, there's a better way to do it. For example, a pure quota system for race-based college admissions could be justified on the grounds that there's a connection between race and poverty in America; however, the means (race-based quotas) would never survive the analysis - race-based quotas aren't "necessary," and they are both over-inclusive (they'd benefit rich minorities) and under-inclusive (they wouldn't benefit poor non-minorities).

(insert affirmative action spinoff here)