phil_20686

Its quite common in these situations, if you havent discussed ad infinitum, that a new suit at the 3 level is GF, or at the very least forcing 1. I guess that is what Hurd thought they were playing, then a 4C bid can only be a splinter for spades since any natural hand with clubs can bid 3C. In fact that is probably what mossop thought too, and thus that his 3D bid was forcing, as it would be after 1d-1M-3C for most people. 3D is a huge underbid if you think the north hand is typical, and obviously north did or he would have bid more. Its pretty clear that both pairs had misunderstandings about either whether bids were forcing or what strength they were showing. It happens.

I'd double now, and would regard this dble as GF, so if your partner responds 4d that is forcing. If partner bids something other than 4d I am going to drive a slam. If he bids 4d I will bid 4S and give up.

THis is why I dislike responding 1S here. How much easier would this auction be if you could have shown clubs initially and followed up with spades or diamonds, and partner would know for sure that when you bid spades then clubs you will be 5S4c. Now when you bid clubs partner is going to struggle to guess whether you are playing in spades or clubs.

I think that we should be able to cater to layouts with Txx club and the diamond k onside when spades are 4-1. To do that, I think you need to cash two spades and then play a club if the spades are 4-1. I think that your line of playing one top spade then a club broke up your communications in an unhelpful way. 4c 3s 3h and 2d will see you home, and you should work to cater for that chance.

Yes for me.

If you duck can east not switch to a club? That will beat you on many reasonable layouts right? I mean, you pretty much rho to have the heart k. Otherwise you will have a loser in every suit. If you rise and table the heart Q, you will win pretty much whenever lho has a singleton diamond, or when rho has the heart k right? I think the diamond ruff is a mirage, the danger is a club switch. I think you should rise.

There is no point asking foreign policy questions like that, as people will not answer them, for good and quite persuasive reasons, like, detailing the strategy you will follow seriously crimps your strategic options if you actually win an election. Or because criticising the foreign policy of a sitting US policy is not a great idea generally, and any idea that's new gets painted that way by the press. I would ask: 1) What's next for Obama care? Is this a project complete or is it the first step on a journey? What is the goal and what is the next steps that you would like to take? 2) What do you think about the SC decision effectively taking the definition of marriage away from democratically elected institutions? 3) What steps would you take on gun control if you had a super majority in both houses - e.g. would you like to see a constitutional amendment or reinterpretation of the right to bear arms? 4) Do you think that the Federal Reserve is adequately fulfilling its mandate, and what steps would you like the government and/or the Fed take to improve the economy? - I really like how this question generally exposes a candidates economic competences as it touches on so many topics.

I also came aross this in today's procrastination. Truly incredible. And not in the good way.

Original article - warning this quote is a long way down! Dutch study shows rampant sexism in scientific community. Dutch establishment promises reforms, says they will push "gender awareness" on everyone involved. Outside observers point out basic statistical error, actual results show no gender bias at all. Original authors say it doesn't matter and the Dutch scientific community is still sexist because grant review forms use "gendered language" like the word "excellent" which is apparently "male-coded". Dutch establishment says reform and gender awareness programs are "still a good idea, regardless of the paper's quality", and vow to push ahead. Why are we even bothering to do science anymore? Why don't we just write the only acceptable conclusion on a piece of paper beforehand and save however much it cost to do the study?

Is no one else worried that you might just be cold for game? Qxx AKxxx x jxxx or something? I think 3H is pretty normal, I would not be (very) worried about going off in 3H.

So BZ is the pair which have been accused according to proper WBF protocol. As far as I know, none of the evidence that BB presented to the WBF has been made public, but when they were dis-invited people went looking for evidence. BB has only released evidence about 3 pairs FN, FS, and PS, and they all look obviously guilty. If you don't like what has happened with BZ, surely that means that you are being critical of the WBF, not the "lynch mob"? I took the "lynch mob" to refer to BB et al, but perhaps they were referring specifically to the people looking for evidence about BZ, in which case their statement was terribly worded. I assume the other thing is the Polish pair, which I will not try to spell, who have an auction under review after England complained about a possible UI, but that isn't really the kind of cheating anyone was talking about. There is quite often UI type things in bridge, and the director has to make a ruling, and I do not think its anything remotely similar to what others are accused of. If what DG says in his BW interview is correct then it looks like some kind of mistake might have been made by a TD but that isn't really anything new or particularly noteworthy in sport!

I think the comments in this thread are way too focused on the "how likely are we to make game question" and not focused enough on the "how likely are we to pressure the opponents into a bad decision" question. 4S seems routine for me because of the second question. If I knew for sure that the opponents werent going to bid then I wouldn't bid 4S, but this is one of those auctions where your first priority should be to give opponents the last guess. xxxx xxx xxxx Ax just makes game totally trivially. xxx JT9x QT98 Qx might go for 500 on a bad day. You cannot make a club game try, which is the one that might really help you, but with a stiff diamond you really might give either east or west a really tough decision, that a 3H or 3S bid just makes really easy. Also, they could be cold for 4H and a 3H bid gives west an easy way to get that into the auction, that is really a huge problem with a game try approach on this particular hand. I think you just bid 4S on this hand and I think its completely clear.

I would pass in first or second playing 2/1, but opening these hands is more of a style thing than anything else. Its not a clear error to open these. But this hand is very bad. I'd count it as a 10 count. Its just so soft. Its an auto opener in third seat. In fourth seat its an auto opener at MP. At imps I might well pass, then again, I might not. Its borderline.

Sure, but using a problem that we don't have to justify inaction about a problem which we do have is pretty silly. Its not as if we have accusations flying everywhere, there are a small number of accused pairs, all of whom seem to be obviously guilty. As far as I can see none of these cases are close to marginal. I understand that people should have the right to defend themselves, but sometimes people are just obviously guilty. I mean, if FS get off without a lifetime ban, then that just means that the WBF are failing even more egregiously than we thought! Ultimately of course, the WBF only has legitimacy if the community of bridge players believes that it does. It is for ultimately for us to police the game ourselves, and we might delegate that to some communal authority such as an NBO, or the WBF, in order to try to obtain fairer and better procedures, but there is no requirement that we do so. Ultimately, the community of players is free just to refuse to play with certain people en masse. If we as a community believe that the WBF/our NBO has failed to adequately police our game, then we as a community are absolutely free to take policing the game back into our own hands. BB is ultimately just the whistle-blower/figrehead, he seems to have had broad support from essentially all of his peers. The question is now, where to we go from here? I think that there is broad appetite for hearings to be open and transparent, so that we have visibility of who is being investigated, by whom, and for what. It should be routine for top level games to be video-taped, and the video's provided to the public. With widespread interest from top players it will become much much harder to cheat.

That's not the main problem. The CO2, and the atmosphere generally, accounts for substantially all the reason that the earth does not approach the temperature of space at night time. Thats about 300 degrees kelvin colder than the average temperature of the earth, so changing that knob by 4% is pretty f****** huge. Obviously, its not linear etc etc, but the idea that "we only account for a small amount therefore can't be important" is pretty inane. I mean, the Russian's only accounted for a small amount of the food that Alexander Litvinenko ate, but it was terminal none the less!

This seems pretty tone-deaf to me. Anyone who looks at this as if its the method of bringing cheaters to justice which is the primary problem seems pretty deluded. Surely the main problem is that people have been cheating for decades with complete impunity. The WBF seems not to be taking any responsibility at all for its failures.

I'd pass but I would have bid 2C before. Pretty worried about it going dble 3h 3s or something.

Lol for passing over 2H with this? There is literally no way that with both minors and a hard 6 count you should pass here. The 2H is a limited bid so you know partner has options. What you actually bid here is up to you but I would bid 2N to show both minors.

There is a strictly quantitative question here too. If Europe and the US really did open their boarders, how many people would actually come? And what does one mean by "open boarders". America seems to believe that approximately the whole population of Mexico is desperate to relocate to america, but I imagine that not even nearly true. I expect that it would follow the pattern of the European Union Enlargement, where, it was feared, a large number of eastern europeans would sweep into richer states. In fact, less than 2% of the population took advantage, and they were disproportionately young highly skilled graduates or tradesmen. It has created something of a stereotype of the Polish Plumber in the UK, but at the time, which many people forget, good plumbers where in short supply in the UK and were earning a lot of money (there were reports of university lecturers quitting to become plumbers). And then, in a little reported phenomenon, many of them returned to Poland after doing 3-7 years in the UK. Its hard to permanently settle down in a new culture, and most people don't want to. Its different when a country is war torn and people are desperate to leave, but its not the norm. Even during the Irish Potato Famine, less than 10% of the population emigrated over a 7 year period, which is probably the largest mass migration in European history. Now, Poland is a much more comfortable country than some, but I think that probably only around 5% of the population of the world would seriously consider emigrating. I know an almost endless stream of UK PhD graduates who walked away from academia rather than face a post doctoral placement in a European country, people just don't want the hassle of a new language, a new culture, making new friends, etc. Never mind the fact that your romantic partner might not want you to go. That means that there might be as many as 400 million persons in the world who would emigrate given the chance, and what fraction would come to the US? Maybe half? So your absolute worst case estimate is maybe 200 million. Now that is too many, the US could not absorb 200 million without serious problems, so maybe you don't do that, maybe you expand a free movement zone a bit at a time. Suppose the US struck a trade deal with Mexico that included free movement between the US and Mexico for Mexican citizens, in return for which mexico would secure its southern border. That is a totally reasonable. That is just the same as the EU did with eastern Europe, and it was not a problem. You could legitimise all your illegal Mexican immigrants, and those who come to the US return to mexico exporting US culture and creating a strong regional ally - nothing breeds peaceful coexistence quite as well as an exchange of culture. The US could, as part of its free trade agreements, steadily widen its free movement zone, maybe signing one with the European Union, and then, some successful southern american countries. This is what most practical and political people mean when they say "opening the boarders". In time, a free movement zone including the EU, US Mexico, Japan, Australia and South Korea would be a model that other countries would want to join, and, like joining the EU, you could let countries in in return for government reforms that helps the west obtain their strategic goals. You could practically write a minimal constitution for it: Democracy, Free Media, and independent judiciary. It would be the highest form of a free trade partnership, and everyone would want in. It would be the absolute best way to use soft power and cultural exports to bind countries together strategically. I mean, open boarders has challenges, but its not like anyone is saying just let absolutely everyone in the world come immediately. But I think free movement is the natural extension of free trade, allowing people to share culture, education, and technical skills learned in "the west" and binding countries together. How long before Russia and China wanted to join up? Better cultural exchange would erode barriers and reduce tensions between cultures that are very different and often seem to be talking past each other.

This kinda problem is too hard for me. I would do what broze suggested if I was 100% sure that it would be understood that way...but I am not. I just haven't discussed this sequence with any partners. Think I would just bang down 6h and hope for the best.

Given the heart card of the 6 at the second round its basically impossible for lho not to have the club K, and almost certainly the J as well. Unless you think lho is just messing with you. He cannot have neither black K and most likely has both, but with stuff in both why not signal for a spade in the unlikely event of partner getting in? Can declarer ever make if he cannot cash the clubs, why bother signalling for one? I honestly don't see what else i can do except play west for kx club given the carding. So I have to table the club 9 and see what happens. If it runs round to the J or T I will play ace of clubs and hope that the K drops.

I think the general consensus about republicans is very, even dangerously wrong. 1) People do not vote in their narrow self interest This is well known. There have been a ton of surveys done on it in the UK. The why is more interesting - most people see their country as more than a vehicle for their individual prosperity. It is some slightly anthropomorphic entity, and they want the country to do well. People have very different views on what that means and how to do it. I think the line of argument that "Republicans vote for policies which make them poorer they must be stupid lol" is both wrong and insulting. They vote for a republic party despite the fact that it makes them poorer because they think that the republicans will make America great again. 2) Polarisation arises when a polity has a substantial difference of opinion about the goals of policy, rather than the means. If you want to understand why the American nation is so divided, start asking people what the ideal American looks like. Dollars to donuts if you start asking that dems will give some variation of a college educated, secular, career orientated professional. Republicans will give you something along the lines of the second Bush - a ranch owning, gun toting, self sufficient Christian. Republicans see the ideal American as the kind of 'get up and go' that characterised the Old West, where people made fortunes of the sweat of their own brow. This is really at the heart of Republican's indifference to education generally - their idol's didn't need it. 3) Conservative electorates view the Supreme Court as engaging in significant judicial overreach. And they are right. What every student of political science learns is that divisive political issues require a political settlement with buy in from all segments of society. That's why, in Poland and Ireland abortions are Illegal, and yet they are still signatories of the Human Rights convention. Europeans understand that any attempt to force them into line with the rest of Europe is more likely to force them out the EU than it is to force them to comply. Multiple times in the last fifty years the Supreme Court has short circuited the democratic process, and that is a terribly dangerous system, because westerners broadly buy into the idea of democratic solutions. If abortion rights in the US had been decided at the ballot box, then there would not be the same level of vitriol that there is now in the US. Just compare to the UK? We have an equally large and vocal pro-life movement, but our politics are largely free of any stigma about it because everyone understands that if you want to change policy you have to get a majority of the people onside. If you can get the majority to change their minds then you should be able to change the law. There is no such understanding about supreme court decisions. 4) People tend to regard history as having a certain amount of inevitablity, whereas in reality it was often balanced on a knife edge. This is basically a commentary on how democrats seem to view supreme court decisions. That because these decisions have repeatedly gone in a liberal direction, that was inevitable and really the only logical outcome. But that just isn't true. For example, european courts under very similar legal frameworks to US courts have sometimes/often taken a different view. For example, in the Gay Marriage case, the ECJ decided that the European Bill Of rights Article 12 - the one about marriage - did not apply to same-sex marriage because that isn't what the framers meant by marriage. So the ECJ took a different view and accepted as valid an argument which the supreme court of America specifically rejected as invalid. The supreme court could easily have decided, with echos of Roe vs Wade, that it wasn't for the Supreme Court to decide what marriage meant, and turfed it back to the states/federal government. Alternatively, the SC could have decided that actually they did have the authority to decide when life begins (which seems no less woolly a question than what marriage means!) and decided in 1960 that every conceived person was entitled to legal protections, then it would be the democratic party who would be rabid single issue voters. As soon as you short circuit the democratic process you end up with a system that lacks buy in from all segments of society. If your courts repeatedly decide things that are better decided at the ballot box then a polarised society is the inevitable result - just as much as if an autocratic leader keeps deciding things contrary to the will of the people, his government will be seen as illegitimate (which is how any number of european monarchs ended up with their heads on the chopping block!).

I think this is unduly pessimistic? I would make some kind of slam investigation.

Why cant he have Q97 or Q87 and switch to the 7? In most of your constructions partner has 5 or 6 card diamond support and a 5 count. xx xx Kxxxx QTxx is not really consistent with the auction imo. At favourable that is just a routine 3D bid for most people.

Sometimes you are allowed to be maximum for your bid. Stiff Q is not worth that much in a suit contract. And that's what you are aiming at really.Regarding the east hand, while its absolutely not the case that you should bid with every 8 count, you should definitely bid 3N here. The risk reward is just sweked so heavily in your favour. I can even imagine hands where you can make 3N but not 3H! All those slow value sjust scream that NT will play as well if not better than 3H.