Lobowolf

California (my home state) breaks down libel depending upon its explicitness. There's a category in which damages don't have to be proven (libel per se), and one in which they do. I don't know what the majority rule is in the USA. Good catch; I should have mentioned the distinction.

looks like all 32 breaks handle fairly easily by A and low. However this is played like this to handle some of the 41 breaks where the singleton is either the K or T. You usually bite the dust against KTxx vs x. Sure you can pick it up on your left by finessing the 9 but you increase your 32 losses when RHO has Tx Which is where knowing your customers comes into play. There are players (LHO) against whom you don't have to worry about losing 2 tricks to Kxx --- Tx, because with Kxx, they'll always grab the king or fidget. Against a typical B/I club player, I like the practical odds of leading low to dummy.

The question is, what about when her bid is 6♦, THAT contract is cold, and 6♥ goes down on a heart ruff at trick one. :) <----Best smiley I could find to indicate a 3/4-facetious post.

With respect to the legal ramifications, there are a couple of issues upon which some of the legal questions hinge. First, the basic elements of defamation of character as a legal claim: A. Statement is false and defamatory (harmful to one's reputation) B. Statement went to a third party (or parties. In other words, if I confront someone and say something that would otherwise defame him, but it's just the two of us, there's no case. This ties into (A) - his reputation isn't hurt, because nobody else heard the statement). C. Damage to the Plaintiff. In other words, the Plaintiff must demonstrate how he was harmed, e.g. sales at my store dropped 25% after someone sent out 10 million E-mails saying I smoke crack while driving without a seat belt and talking on my cell phone. Now the "extras": 1. IF the defamation is a matter of public concern, then and only then must the Plaintiff prove at least negligence. 2. IF the person allegedly defamed is a "public figure," then and only then, he is required to prove an additional element of his case - malice (this goes to Adam's comment). Actual knowledge is not required; only a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement. And if the Plaintiff is not a public figure, this element is not required. A false, defamatory statement to a third party that causes damages is enough. 3. IF the statement causes harm to one's *professional* reputation, then damages are presumed, and do not have to be proven by the Plaintiff. 3. is one category (of four) of "defamation per se." Another category is allegations that a person committed a crime of moral turpitude. Again, in that case, the Plaintiff would not have to prove actual damages. The public figure distinction makes it harder for celebrities to win lawsuits for defamation than for "ordinary people," and results in more unsuccessful lawsuits in the high profile cases (which tend to involve celebrities). Nothing in this post should be taken as constituting legal advice, or should be relied on by anyone involved in, or contemplating, legal action.

+1 I raise with 3-card support with a singleton or void, but usually avoid it with a small doubleton. With 2 top honors in my 3-card suit, I'm not inclined to want to ruff more than one heart with them if it's a 4-3 fit (and if not for ruffing hearts, why prefer spades?). More ideal for a 3-card raise, if not a stiff heart, would be Hxx of spades and another big card in the minors.

Still love the Kindle, but my mom picked up a Nook (Barnes & Noble's digital reader) a couple of weeks ago, and she loves it, too. It's at least worth a look from anyone who's just getting into the market.

Bring it!

I think it's outstanding. Nothing in this post should be construed as a waiver of the undersigned's right to object to scoring in any subsequent round, or an endorsement of any rounds yet to be scored.

Caught "The Invention of Lying" on cable. Very funny.

means that opener can't have a singleton, I would bid on any hand where I had a five-card sut, unless it was a scattered 9-10 count in a 5332 shape. On this auction it means there is no singleton, although after 1♣-1♥-1NT I suppose 3-1-4-5 is still possible. Would that affect your decision after starting with 1♣? 3-1-4-5 minimum is a 1♦ opener for me.

With my regular partners, we never rebid 1NT with a stiff or void, and I always rebid 2M with 5. Like everything else, it's imperfect, but I never miss a 5-3 fit, and I never play a 5-1. Once upon a time, I ran simulations that showed that the 5-2 fits were about as good as 1NT on par, and the 5-3 fits were better by somewhere in between 1/2-trick and 3/4 trick, as I recall.

Apart from "obscure" variations, though (at chess), you could pick reasonable variations to take your opponent out of his comfort level, e.g. a drawish opening line if your opponent needs a win, or a variation that locks the center if your opponent likes wide open piece play (or vice versa). Or for reverse psychology purposes, you could even go the other way, as when Lasker, needing a win, played the "drawish" exchange Ruy Lopez against Capablanca, one of the toughest players to beat...and won! You're not going to see the Latvian Gambit in a top-flight tournament, but you see lines that aren't considered "best" all the time, and lines that aren't the favorite of the player. I think this has a slight bridge analog in terms of matters of judgment against non-top-flight competition. For example, against a pair that plays a big club but handles competition poorly, I might throw in an overcall on a hand that I would normally think doesn't warrant it. Or against a pair that overbids in competitive situations, I might compete higher than I would against a random pair, expect them to wrongly take the push. In chess, the distinction is called "playing the board" vs. "playing the player." It "should" be more prevalent at bridge, as a game of incomplete information. It's probably more prevalent in the play of the hand - the 60% line vs. the 55% line that becomes a 65% line against a player who always covers an honor with an honor, or doesn't duck smoothly enough.

Please! The "Orangutan." Long live Susan!

Who is this "Morse" character, and why is he trying to hijack the JLall show?

Did you see Lackey's bizarre no-decision last night?! Took a no-hitter and a 5-run lead into the 9th inning, gave up a couple of hits, relievers couldn't close it out, and they go into extra innings where the Red Sox re-win the game in 13 innings.

I think you have this backwards; there's no need for a large sample to convince anyone that he's a winning player, but a sample of one million hands is too small to convince someone that he's a losing player. All poker players win because they're good, and lose because they're unlucky.

Silly book. Give me the slightest of money odds and a watch with a second hand... Just kidding about needing the watch. I could base my selection on the digits of pi, the letters in the states in the union, or any other random-ish series and bust Phil Ivey at 1.01 to 1 odds.

I guess his medical care wasn't all that bad...almost a year after getting his compassionate release, he's not only out of the slammer, he's out of the hospital and living at his family villa.

If you use this live, I hope you provide a written defense!

I thought it might be interesting to see what systems people are using in this thing. So, for those who agree and/or are willing to share, I created this thread. If anyone wants to share a brief summary, please add on. Bob and I use a Precision + 2/1 hybrid with variable NT and transfer positives.

In the beginning, poker is a game of luck more than skill; in the end, it is a game of skill more than luck. Or to put it another way, metaphorically, the lucky players are ahead at the end of the day, but the good players are ahead at the end of the year.

How about when they have more than half the deck? I open most 12s and a fair number of 11s when I have a 6-card major, and my partners respond on most 6s, so...

I have to confess, it wouldn't occur to me (well, not for more than a 1/2-second) to bid anything other than 2♥. In my defense, in general, the less creative I am, the better my results tend to be.

Please cc me on any responses. I've got some crap I can sell to raise $ to back Justin and (insert anyone Justin feels comfortable playing with for this kind of money here ).

Thanks for the recommendation. Irving wrote the best novel I've read - "A Prayer for Owen Meany."