nigel_k

Lots of crap being talked about this, as you would expect given the subject matter. There is really no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. Terms like 'military style' or 'assault weapon' are just rhetorical devices used to provoke an emotional rather than reasoned response. There are automatic weapons that fire multiple rounds when the trigger is held down, semi-automatic weapons that fire one round per trigger pull, and weapons that require a manual reload after every shot. Those are the relevant distinctions. The gun used in this case was semi-automatic. It is doubtful it would have even been covered under the 'assault weapons' ban that expired in 2004. Whether for self-defence or hunting, a semi-automatic is what you want. In a self-defence situation, if the first shot doesn't do it, there won't be another chance. A bolt action is ok for deer hunting but not if charged by a pig. So a ban on semi-automatics would heavily impact normal use of a gun and is certainly unconstitutional. A ban on certain types of semi-automatics (which is what is usually contained in a ban on 'assault weapons') leaves other equally deadly types available. The previous ban was based more on what the gun looked like than its function. I kid you not. A typical police-issue 15 round Glock 9mm would have been at least as deadly at close range against small children. I definitely agree with smaller and non-detachable magazines. Lanza had extra guns with him that he didn't use at all, but if he had to discard each gun or refill the magazine after every six shots, I expect he would have killed fewer people (but still a lot). Though he might have just brought more guns. And the guns already out there won't disappear because Congress writes something on paper and votes for it. To be honest, the only simple and practical step that would likely have made a difference in these school shootings would be a group of teachers having access to guns and knowing how to use them. As far as 'root causes', of course mass murderers will have previous odd behaviour. I would hate for every kid who seems a bit wierd to be regarded as a potential murderer, but that will happen now because the public are not going to let a logical fallacy put them off. Nor do I blame video games. There have always been violent pastimes, going back to war comics or cowboys and indians. People who want to do something bad will often look for a pretext or role model and can generally find one. And there have been guns in homes for a long time as well. I think the most relevant changes in the last 20-30 years are probably to do with the amount of time parents spend with their kids, and the standards of behaviour that parents set and enforce.

I assume from the auction given that E/W are not particularly strong. In that case, N/S being allowed to play 4♦ is very possible. I would suggest 60% 4♦ making and 40% 5♦X-1. Maybe you could include some probability of 4♥ making or -1 but I doubt N/S would let E/W play there very often.

I don't want to post a spoiler but does anyone else think the suggested play for AJ43 opposite KT762 is incorrect?

I would say North 65%. North's double is a bit of a view but not as bad as people are suggesting. The hand appears to be a misfit and there could easily be no game. A 500 penalty seems likely and 800 may be possible. South should definitely have led ♠A as partner will have a spade shortage very often, and need not have a trump stack.

I am happy to play in clubs but not sure of the level. It could easily be a hand where nobody makes anything. I'm not sure what it means when you say we're playing 2/1 and weak jump shifts. If 2♣ then 3♣ can be passed I will do that. Otherwise 1NT I suppose though I strongly dislike a method where I have to bid 1NT on this hand.

[hv=pc=n&s=s943ht83daj83ckt4&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=3dppdppp]133|200[/hv] IMPS, if that matters.

The right tends to be more united than the left in most countries I have observed. There are more ways to spend other people's money than there are to not spend it.

Isn't it easier to just GF relay with the 2♣ response and keep 1NT for other hands? Especially if you don't even save a step by using 1NT because responder has to skip one step later on.

It look to me like they are down 2 and you do not make 5♦, but 5♣ is probably ok if trumps break and they don't lead one.

Possession of basic decency and morals could be one fairly obvious difference. Pretty hard to draw conclusions about what someone should do by looking at what Bill Clinton actually did.

In order for the defender to think his hand was good, he would need to have failed to notice not only that the ace of diamonds was still out, but also the queen and jack and every other card higher than his x. I don't think it is being too generous to say this crosses the line into irrational rather than careless.

Prefer 3♠ if not forcing and would double 6♦. We're not in a force and I have an ace. Plus it's matchpoints so an extra 50 could be worth something. Next time wait more than 15 minutes before posting the spoiler.

1♥ then double. I don't like having a void because partner will choose to defend quite often. Even though my double doesn't promise any diamonds, he will hope for more than zero. But the rest of my hand is ok defensively and the other choices are unattractive. I certainly don't want to sell out to 2♦.

1. I would definitely not cancel a board that has been started. They can finish it at the end. If this is not possible for some reason, they can continue and still probably catch up before long even if a whole board behind. Though it may be hard for you to facilitate this if you are also playing. 2. Assuming the defender who claimed was on lead, I think it is irrational to lead the king. Not only is it impossible for it to ever be correct, it is also contrary to the instincts of anyone who has played more than a few sessions. 3. Definitely adjust to 3♠X. There is no requirement to protect yourself by asking about an unalerted call when the non-alertable meaning is quite common and perfectly plausible in context.

It's fine to say you chose not to bid because of the UI. It's not an accusation. Sometimes it's correct to pass after tanking, even though that it may create an ethical issue for partner. Why deny the obvious?

Here is some things I would do with the US budget: I am going to disregard political feasibility, which makes the whole thing pure fantasy, but I don't think there is a politically feasible solution. Voters would rather bankrupt the country in 20 years than accept the necessary changes now. I'm also going to disregard whether things need to be done at federal or state level. The debt level as such is not the problem. After all, my personal debt is around 500% of my income and I'm doing fine because I have the money invested and producing greater returns than the interest I'm paying. The problem in the US is spending levels. The claims that economic growth alone cannot fix it are true, but only if growth is restricted by continuing to consume so much rather than investing. Medicare and Social Security should not dominate the discussion as much as they do. They have to be dealt with, but there is now a mindset that there's really no point in looking too hard at other spending because we can't balance the budget with that alone. All those small and medium items put together add up to some real money. Some more specific actions: 1. Raise revenue through taxes on land and consumption (i.e sales tax). These do the least to discourage productive activity. Don't increase income taxes. Measures that reduce investment will also reduce growth which we don't want. 2. Increase the retirement age and don't do it gradually. Current retirees have benefited from the years of government spending in excess of taxation so they should not be immune from having to pay for it. It's just not fair to pass the debt entirely to future generations. 3. Reduce social security benefits. This I would do gradually and not impact current retirees. In the long term leading to a system where the government pays a subsistence level benefit and people are expected to also have private arrangements. 4. Single payer healthcare for for significant health issues only, e.g. by having a high deductible. You're taken care of if you get cancer, but other people will not be forced to pay for your contraceptives and you can't choose to go to the doctor when you stub your toe just because someone else is paying. 5. Minimum wages will have to go and unions should not have a different legal status than any other private society. People are just going to have to get used to a lower standard of living. 6. Wealth redistribution should only be done directly, i.e. if your income is low you get money paid directly into your bank account. No food stamps or any other income-based benefit or service of any kind. Otherwise it becomes impossible to even track the cost or whether help is actually reaching the intended recipients. Also for reasons of basic dignity and because people need to act responsibly. If they don't, we won't fix it by eliminating the consequences. 7. Don't pay for higher education except for scholarships targeted at the top 5% or so. The benefits just don't exceed the cost of the education itself plus the cost of having people out of the workforce for four years. It should be normal to start work at 18 or earlier. Technology has made degrees less useful, not more useful, as you can find answers more easily in other ways. 8. Defense spending should be for actual defending, which will obviously be a lot cheaper than what it has been used for. In cases like Iraq or Kosovo, I doubt that I could sit around and do nothing, so probably I would just put a generous bounty on the head of the political leader responsible. 9. There needs to be a lot more drilling for oil. There are plenty of beautiful places that don't have oil under them.

Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought all money bills must originate in the House and the people recently voted for a Republican majority there. Maybe it should be Obama letting the people have what they voted for. You are correct that the Republicans will be blamed. When Democrats blocked the appointment of federal judges, this was the constitutional system of checks and balances working correctly. If Republicans do a similar thing, it is irresponsible and undemocratic obstructionism. But this is a function of the media, not the election result, and Republicans cannot avoid it except by not doing anything, ever.

Over all possible hands, unsuccessful actions are more likely to be considered or chosen by a bad player than by a good player. This follows directly from the definition of the words 'good' and 'bad'. So having different logical alternatives depending on the strength of the player is going to benefit stronger players in a clear majority of cases.

4♠ I suspect there is a better spot though, if I bid, I have to guess what it is. If he is 4612 I want to be in spades, e.g. AKxx AKxxxx x Ax. If he is 3613 I want to be in clubs, e.g. AKx AKxxxx x AKx. Spades seems better because he doesn't need such a good hand for it to make and he probably has four spades about as often as he has three clubs. With a better hand I might stick it out in 4♥. But I really don't like our chances when my hand is as bad as this.

Sorry, I somehow left out 'is not' from what I posted (now fixed). Hopefully the context makes it clear. Here is the relevant section of the laws: 16B1(b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. There just isn't a way to read this so that the thought process of the actual player is taken into account. We look at what the class of similar players would do or consider doing, and nothing more. We might use the given player's statement as evidence in deciding what similar players would do. But the assumption of Josh's example was that the pass was a logical alternative for the class of player in question.

No, they don't. The laws define what is a logical alternative and the thought process actually used by the player *is not* a relevant factor. The strength of the player's justification of their choice, or whether we buy it or not, is just not a factor. We only consider what other players would do. In Josh's example the expert may legally raise to 7NT and the novice may not. Even if the novice has a perfectly valid reason for thinking that pass is illogical, he still is legally required to pass.

I don't disagree with the reasoning here. But I just attach a higher value to the principle that two players facing the same situation should have the same options legally available to them. To me this is much more important than restoring equity. Also, I don't believe the laws mention equity at all except when providing rectification after an infraction. What we are discussing will determine whether an infraction occurs at all. So to use 'restoring equity' as an argument here is an extension the laws, not an application of them.

I would not bother with inverted forcing pass. It can help when you intend to pass and pull partner's double to make a slam try because it's more likely that partner will actually double, as your pass is usually based on a hand that wants to defend. However, the converse is that if your pass is encouraging and partner does something, you have useful information that his hand is more suitable for going on. If your pass was discouraging and partner doubled, you would not have that information. Why add complexity when it's hard to even figure out if the extra complexity gains anything? Also, if you ever have a disagreement about whether a sequence is forcing, and just about everybody does from time to time, pass-double inversion is likely to make it worse.

I don't agree with the advantage rule example. That allows the better side to gain more benefit from the penalty, rather like having Ronaldo taking your free kick. But it doesn't mean that some actions are allowed for one side but not the other. The penalty try rule is closer, but usually these are awarded when a try would be scored without the violation, unless the attacking team screwed up pretty badly. So I think it would be very rare that the ability of the side involved would determine whether they get a penalty try, or just a normal penalty.

This is just semantics. The stage of the process where the class of player is taken into account does not change the practical effect of doing so, which is that there are options legally available to a strong player that are not legally available to a weak player. I am not aware of any other game where the rules provide for something like this. It seems plainly unfair.