Lobowolf

Tarrasch was ahead of his time, and one of the better players not to become world champion. How many atoms are in the universe, anyway?

I'll take a crack at the last one: No.

I just thought you were loose with the term "easy(ier)". B)

While I agree with the gist of this in principle, and while chess is obviously a finite system and a game of complete information, it's still nowhere near being solved. I think all 7-piece or possibly 8-piece endings have been solved, and each additional piece is a substantial order of magnitude; extrapolate to the fact that chess is, in essence, a 32-piece ending from the outset, and it's clear that it won't be "solved" any time soon.

Pretty good group effort, I think, to get to an unfavorable spot. Someone...maybe Kit Woolsey, maybe Jeff Rubens (probably someone else) made the point that in a competitive auction when one partner has shortness in the opponents' suit, and one partner his length, usually the partner with the length is better placed to make the final competitive decision. North has a singleton heart and knows that south has some hearth length, but doesn't know whether south's hearts are worthless cards or honors. In contrast, south with his heart length is perfectly capable of inferring north's shortness, and SOUTH also knows whether his own hearts are worthless, which will make the hand more offensively-oriented (along splinter principles), or honors, which will make the hand more defensively oriented. Just another consideration by which north might have preferred to let south make the decision over 3♥.

In my experience, because perceived or actual differences between groups has historically resulted in disparate treatment (sometimes to the point of atrocity), there is a large subset of society extremely unwilling to admit to the existence of any differences.

In the United States, at least, there's a reason. It's called the Equal Protection Clause, and it's found in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Huh? Any man has the right to marry one woman. Every woman has the right to marry one man. Where is this not equal? Nowadays nobody is allowed to marry more then one - equal rights to anybody. Nobody is allow to marry one of the same gender- equal rights again. Sorry this equal right stuff is a very important thing and I am very glad that we have it. In my opinion it just does not work here. If you allow gay marriage, you allow gay marriage to anybody- gay or straight- and you still have equal rights. IT simply does not matter. But I really enjoy the discussion. It's helpful (though perhaps not necessary) to have some knowledge of American constitutional law with respect to this discussion. The question isn't one of "equal rights" or even "equal protection" as one would define them from a variety of dictionary definitions; the (legal) question is one of "equal protection" as a term of art - a phrase defined very specifically within a certain discipline, and refined over 150 or so years of Supreme Court cases. The arguments you make here were, for all practical purposes, made (and rejected) long ago with respect to interracial marriage ("Everyone has the right to marry someone of his or her own sex.") Unfortuntely (for people who support gay marriage), "equal protection" means 3 different things, depending on the classification. Governmental bodies that discriminate against people based on sexual orientation get far more leeway than those that discriminate based on race. Gender discrimination is somewhere in the middle.

Takeout, because the doubler is in front of the bidder. 1NT-P-P-2♦ (natural); X would be penalty, conversely; opener in that case could have a decent stack of minor honors and quite a few outside quick tricks.

Yes, but these are mostly the same idiots that didn't believe that global cooling existed, when that hit Newsweek in the mid-70's. On a slightly less facetious note... Unfortunately, agree...but the tend toward acceptance, at least in California, is strong and fast based on the last 2 votes. I think the landscape will change faster than most people expected (and faster than I'd expected, before seeing how close Prop. 8 was to defeat).

In the United States, at least, there's a reason. It's called the Equal Protection Clause, and it's found in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Yes and yes. Playing the Queen gains only if LHO started with J10 while playing low gains when LHO started with either KJ or K10. If LHO was dealt a singleton J or 10 your play doesn't matter. Is the 9 coming off dummy the second time?

I'm in with the "clear-cut 2♠" group, and the reasons have been stated, but I think that this thread can be beneficial beyond the given hand, which is why I've chosen to chime in when everything's been said in triplicate. The original post stated: "I choose 1N due to the balanced hand with Queen and 8,9," In other words, he apparently chose to bid NT in the first place because the hand looked kind of notrumpy. If you look at most of replies, though, you see a recurring theme -- that before making the first bid, the possible continuations and auction as a whole have to be considered, e.g. "If I bid 1NT now, over a 2-level response, I'll have to bid either 3♠, showing a limit raise, or 2♠, showing either a doubleton or a super-minimum (or sub-minimum) response, and neither of those bids is appropriate." Or, I suppose, 2NT, which is a big overbid and continues to hide the fit. To the extent that the responses that show the "thinking ahead in the auction" thought process, I think the discussion can be much more useful to the B/I player reading the thread than the pedestrian "What do you do with a 4333 9-count?" question. Hopefully, this won't be taken to imply that CASCADE'S responses aren't thought out! I really do get the impression from the original post, though, that when the hand came up, the first bid was considered in isolation, whereas the expert responses virtually all indicate the importance of being aware of what the later bids will suggest.

Hmmm .... I consider myself a liberal, by which I mean that I would like to see the government's control of citizens reduced. I am aware that the word "liberal" has a different meaning in the US than elsewhere, but even in the US, a "liberal" would typically be in favor of less government control on issues like abortion, anti-terror laws, and what people do in their own bedrooms. Here's a private message I received from someone following the homosexuality/choice subthread that came up a few weeks back: "In Europe, if you say that being gay is a choice, you are correcly sued for being extremely discriminatory. It makes me sick that important politicians can speak out this opinion. " I can't vouch for the accuracy or lack thereof regarding European law in general, but certainly the notion that offering a general opinion that doesn't defame anyone or cause monetary damages could leave you open to civil liability, or that exercising free speech in way that hardly seems abusive, even if it's wrong, would make someone "sick," doesn't seem to comport with your notion of liberalism.

Hmmm .... I consider myself a liberal, by which I mean that I would like to see the government's control of citizens reduced. I am aware that the word "liberal" has a different meaning in the US than elsewhere, but even in the US, a "liberal" would typically be in favor of less government control on issues like abortion, anti-terror laws, and what people do in their own bedrooms. The word "liberal," at least in the United States, has morphed quite a bit from having a connotation akin to "libertarian" ("classical liberal," e.g. John Locke and others) to what we now think of as "progressive." With respect to certain issues, both sides emphasize a core value of liberty, and with respect to other issues, that emphasis is revealed, essentially to be a bunch of hypocritical crap. Both sides want a lot of government intervention on some issues, and both sides want minimal government intervention on other issues; it just depends what the issue is.

While I'm strongly in favor of gay marriage (to the point where I don't think states should be permitted to ban it), they were hardly "finally" put in the back of the bus, even in good ol' progressive California. The history of gay marriage in California, in a nutshell, is that was illegal forever, then it appeared on the ballot, and was OVERWHELMINGLY rejected by more than a 60-40 margin. It briefly became legal on the basis of a 1-vote majority at the Supreme Court level, before reappearing on the ballot (in a different legal form) and losing again, very narrowly. It's not like Californians in general were big fans of gay marriage before the Mormons came along and ruined it all.

Due to an error on his partner's part, Chuck Norris once found himself declaring a grand slam without the ace of trump. After briefly considering killing his partner, he instead intimidated his RHO, who had the ace of trump, and induced a revoke, thereby making 7; however, the director ruled that one trick did not restore equity to Chuck. So, lacking the ace of trump, Chuck Norris became the first player in recorded history to make an overtrick in a grand slam, scoring up 1540. Not 2240. Chuck Norris is NEVER vulnerable.

Don't worry about what the auction: 1♥ - 2♥; 3♣ means. 3♣ is natural. Chuck Norris never needs "help."

Chuck Norris once executed a non-simultaneous double squeeze simultaneously. Without a threat card in any of the suits.

Um, Chuck's partners never use key card. Chuck is always captain. My new favorite.

Thanks for confirming that vegans like me do exist. It appears that "Palindrones" -- people who will continue to put forth vacuous arguments about her qualifications vis-a-vis Biden exist too. You're welcome; I'm a vegan also, and I exist. I must have missed people putting forth vacuous arguments about Palin's qualifications vis-a-vis Biden's, but they probably exist, too.

Hey! Hey! Intellectual property infringement!

When Chuck Norris claims, he is NEVER "required" to state a line of play.

If you wanted to make the point that there are more important issues than gay rights, and that proposition 8 should take up less oxygen, then there would have been better ways to make it than - calling out gays as whiners, and - mixing in homophobic cliches on the go ("Gays are those that prefer anal sex"). It's also a false multichotomy(?) that there's some specified amount of energy and that it should (must?) be devoted to only the X most important issues. As an analogy, hopefully, despite the fact that murder is more serious, things like burglary and fraud will still be investigated and prosecuted. I guess you could also try it out on your girlfriend/wife/significant other, too... "Well, yes honey, I slept with your sister, but isn't that relatively insignificant compared to the economy and Iraq? I can't believe you'd bother spending energy as if this were a serious problem."

Sanctions for the next Bermuda Bowl team accepting its medals wearing T-shirts that say "We didn't vote for Obama."

I think it's generally a losing proposition to sell out in fear that the opponents have a making slam they've decided they don't have.