jjbrr

Not a Star Trek fan? I'm inclined to believe that its Prime Directive was a good idea. I'm not really, but I wiki'd the Prime Directive and it is pretty interesting. This seems to mirror jlall's apprehensions.

I read this quickly and thought it said "frisbees" and thought you were really onto something. Happiness is a floating disc.

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3867/cooljesus.jpg

Serious risk that they'd kill you if you did stuff like this, although I guess it depends how far back you go. I guess you could claim to be sent by god, but they might think youre a warlock or something. Well obviously there's the risk that going back in time and interacting with people would be dangerous because they'd think you're some sort of Dumbledore or something. But passing on the information to smart, rational people who would use the information for scientific purposes is more interesting to think about.

I could offer them astronomy, I suppose. To build a crude telescope isn't so challenging and I'm sure telling them how old the Earth is and theories about the Universe and what not would do a lot to avoid all those geocentric ideas that people believed.

Also, before the nits get me, I realize some of the things I listed are more than a couple hundred years old. But you get the idea of what I'm trying to say. I think I agree that general science would go a long, long way. Presumably you could find the smartest people from X years ago, clue them in on the stuff we've discovered and let them get the ball rolling from there. The idea to teach them whatever it was they discovered naturally on their own is interesting. But how much do you personally know about growing grains, Helene? About making bronze? I wouldn't be much help there. I don't think I'd be much help anywhere.

dbl

A thread on a different forum got me thinking: if you were to go back in time, say, a couple hundred years, to what extent would you be able to dramatically change society by giving them new technologies, given how much you know about these technologies? For example, I might be able to construct a crude electromagnet or something, but then I really wouldn't know what to do with it. I certainly couldn't give them radios or electricity or computers or anything we use on a daily basis. I'm not certain I could give them steam engines or anything related to medicine. I could give them Pasteurization, I suppose. Is it common not to know very much at all about the things I use on a daily basis? What could you recreate for people of the past? Would you affect their technology more by giving general descriptions of lots of things, much like a prophet, or would it require a very specific, expert understanding of one single thing, like how to build cars, to actually generate any change?

Whenever the opponents do something ridiculous and it works out for them, you have to realize that they also could have had a disaster by getting to a contract with clubs as trumps because one player expected the other to have longer clubs. The best thing you can do is to learn how to play correctly and to ignore things like this when they happen.

This guy was looking for a partner at a regional I attended recently. If you'd like, I'll pass on your contact info to him. http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2429/robotv.jpg

It may be a language issue, but I interpreted "what bid south?" to mean "what bid south?" which is the question I and others provided an answer for. I, personally, hoped that my failure to address what 3♣ should be would imply that 3♣ is not what I think OP should bid, and therefore shouldn't be a concern. If OP wanted to know what 3♣ should mean, it seems more effective to not give a hand that shouldn't bid 3♣, or to use the handy search feature to find other threads that deal with the topic.

OK 3♥ then to see if p cues ♠ But if slam is on then i prefer in ♦ rather than in ♥. I can't figure out why you're so focused on getting to slam. I'm much more concerned with getting to the right game first, which is why I'm supporting ♥ now in case it's right to play in ♥. If we have slam, we can cross that bridge when we get to it, but we're not there yet.

Ya I'd just bid 2♦. I have lots of spades that make my hand not so great.

3NT

should be easy. right.

Seems like opener has a heart stopper but no spade stopper or he has a good hand for the minors. Yes pass is forcing.

Not sure what you argue for or against. This 3S is common in any 2/1 style. It is standard in 2/1 Hardy style. Sorry. I'll take the negatives out of this statement, since two of them cancel out, to make it easier for people to understand. What I meant to say is, "I think 3♠ is both common and standard. I would argue quite the opposite (of what Ken said in the post before mine)." Better?

2♥. 3♥ is not game, ergo it cannot be passed.

I don't think this 3♠ is not common or standard. I would argue quite the opposite.

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1297/kimmya.jpg GIBbbbbler

kenrexford for mod!

Can you out the gimmick, Inquiry?

So... how bout them Mets?

Partner hasn't promised 5♦ nor has he denied 6♥ you realize?

kenberg, please promise all of us you won't ever sign up for any applications with "mafia" or "farm" in the title. you can thank me later.