FM75

Because you did not understand the difference between a body and a species, you did not understand the statement at all. A body does not evolve to eat certain kinds of food. A body's genetic content is fixed. It matures from an embryonic state to a fertile state with luck and good environmental conditions. That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is what takes place over tens (at a minimum) to hundreds of generations in the population of a species as the genetic content of the population changes.

Back to the "dividing line" between facts and beliefs. Your body has not evolved to handle food. Evolution (of a species) has only to do with its success at reproducing. - reaching the age of fertility. That is a function of environments long passed.Current evolution is now governed by the fact that modern medicine actually allows a higher percentage of any population to reproduce - even in less developed parts of the world - we have wiped out certain diseases, for example. As to knowing the "genetic heritage" of what you eat? Seriously?! Realistically, you know (or could know) more about the genetically modified food, because the modifications are known exactly and can be read in the patent office or online.

I think the hands must be reversed (or the bidding).

Or the corollary, if growing organic food were cheaper and more productive, wouldn't we be paying less for it - given that the "informed" farmers were doing so. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

Funny - The quoted example is full of examples of the differences between facts and opinion. "They simply wouldn't exist. We won't have an unemployment rate," said Ken Prewitt.... No, professor. We would still have an unemployment rate. What we would not have is an official government measurement of it. If you counted a tail as a leg, how many legs would a cow have? (Most people will answer "4", but in fact, the cow would still be standing on the only 4 legs that it had.)

My comment about innumeracy was not just about the poster that did not comprehend the difference between a half a trillion and a half a billion. (Being off by 3 decimal orders of magnitude is pretty inexcusable for earthly things - IMO - half a deck of cards should be about 26 cards, not 26,000) It was a comment about all people for whom that is a problem. The inability to understand large numbers is one reason why far too many do not understand things like a national budget, or gross domestic product, or think that converting an automobile engine to run on cooking oil is scalable to a population. Numeracy is like literacy. There are degrees. It is not the same as counting or arithmetic. If someone posted a story about getting a cheeseburger at the local fast food joint for only $5000, almost everybody (adults) familiar with the value of a dollar - and a cheeseburger - (but not people for whom that currency is totally foreign) would immediately think the poster was nuts (not innumerate - since that is not usually considered). Yet, this difference was completely like the discussion of tanks. To be numerate, one must understand that large numbers are not innately understood. They need to be scaled in some fashion to differentiate - to something on a scale that is meaningful. Perhaps it would involve a per capita computation - dividing a large number by another large number, and seeing if the result was credible. 90 factorial is an interesting number. It is simple to understand that it is the number of ways that 90 things could be ordered. You can "google" it to see a good approximation of it. But to truly understand the number you probably have to imagine something like needing all possible orderings. The estimated number of atoms in the universe is something on the order of 10 to the 78 to 80th power ( :) 3 orders of magnitude), and imagine that each one could independently generate orderings in a microsecond. Then figure out how many years it would take all of the atoms of the universe to work out the possibilities.

Firstly, it is not clear that they are marketing to minors. It seems that they are marketing to the parents of minors (follow the money). Even so, tobacco is bad for you when you use it as it is intended. Alcohol is as well for kids since they are not full sized. Guns are only dangerous when used incorrectly, or when used correctly against dangerous people. I won't disagree though on the parents. Somehow there are a lot out there that forget that there kids need their protection and they are not "small adults". I have seen parents bragging about 6 year old climbers leading a route. Sure they can follow safely, but leading involves all sorts of decision making that they are not smart enough to understand. Same with guns. Some things should only be allowed while supervised.

Innumeracy is so sad.

I continually find it hard to believe that the human induced GCC supporters fail to recognize that if they are correct, that the singular most important cause of the problem - far and away - is the size of the human population! (alas - no, not the growth) Governmental policies to restrict energy usage address the second order factor, instead of the first. Can religion/philosophy catch up with a couple of millennia of scientific progress? To paraphrase the Bill Clinton slogan... It's the population, stupid!

Get good competition "regularly scheduled" weekday evenings US ET and I can probably commit for a pair. Not Monday. Tennis. Prefer not Friday same reason, but it is summer. Can play afternoons instead of paying to play doubles. :)

If you want to do it badly enough, just use the online hand generator and tell it to "produce" the same number of each type. Then cut and paste the output into a file and write a script or spreadsheet function to convert it into a lin file. You can randomly shuffle the deals if you want. Upload it to BBO and you are done. You will need to control the dealer

I agree with the above. Also, I am probably reiterating here, but on an iPad, the native "powerdown" options need to be shut-off. Horribly irritating, for example, to keep having the iPad shutdown while kibbing Vanderbilt- This falls into the "are you kidding me" category. I have to keep touching my screen??!!

I would not think of the oceans as being a sink for fresh water. Roughly 80% of the earth's surface is ocean today, and if the ocean level increases by inches :) it will still be about 80%. So the oceans should not be considered a sink, since the bulk of water dropped on land was originally salt-water. As to the human population, I do consider that, but not with respect to the water cycle. Humans are NOT a water sink. All the water that comes in goes out. Respiration and urination keep it in balance no matter what the total population. The human population plays a key role in the arguments about atmospheric CO2. But you won't see the lawyers and politicians that write up the finding of the climate change proceedings admitting that human population is even one of the driving variables in the models. (it is not politically palatable to suggest that the solution to GCC is a REDUCTION of the human population. ROFL.) Even normal wars are not sufficient to drive down the population. Historically, only disease has been capable of that. Scientifically, we have reached the point where disease invention could be a GCC "solution". For sure, we now have the military capability to reduce the human population. Will we some day need to reach that point philosophically and religiously. Those two do seem to be lagging science by a few millennia. :) Our "faith" in science to solve our problems might exceed our scientific ability to solve our problems with "faith". ;) Or we might recognize that the models predicting our demise suffer from a problem most clearly stated by the famous Yogi Berra. "Predictions are hard, especially about the future." The corollary to that is that they are especially hard, the farther into the future you make them! 125 years ago, (before cars) "scientists" worried about the climate could rightly have been worried about our civilization being buried in horse manure - if they had bothered to notice the trends in population and transportation.

One might read a lot about water supply, shortages, etc. Let's think about this within the closed system of the planet. 1) Is this reasonable? - Yes, the earth is not losing hydrogen or oxygen to space. 2) If we can accept 1, then we know that the potential quantity of water on earth is constant. - The potential quantity of water molecules is then limited to the minimum of half of the number hydrogen atoms and the number of oxygen atoms. 3) 2 is irrefutable (ignoring fission and fusion - neither of which is significant for the two atoms in question on earth). So the supply of water boils down to the chemistry. 4) When we talk about water, we are usually concerned with its quantity in the liquid state. To be sure, if we are concerned about shortages, ice might be an issue. Let's agree that nobody is concerned that the geographic quantity of ice is increasing (in the near term). The limit of atmospheric water is pretty limited unless you reach temperatures that are well beyond those that support life - The earth is not a high pressure boiler. 5) So now we are concerned only with the normal chemistry of water - which brings us to the water cycle that is taught in elementary science books. If the quantity of water is to change substantially, the normal equilibrium of transitions to H20 and from H20, or H2 and O2 must have a driving force causing an increase in some other hydrides and oxides. 6) Absent a demonstration of that globally - all water discussions become "local", not geographic. So if there is a water shortage, it must be accompanied somewhere else by a water surplus. In this argument, I am not considering whether there is enough water to support an increasing human population.

Show the payoff schedule during bidding instead of in a dialog box that disappears.

Maybe because you are vulnerable? Swap minors with dummy. What bid looks best by your partner now? What is GIB's PA on overcalling at the 2 level? Does GIB expect a double from you on some minimum holding and short spades?

I just want to know what Ben would do if we took away his PC and gave him a Mac. Hey, I could have been meaner and just given him a Google Chrome "appliance". :)

That is pretty much true, though with a long suit needing just a little help, you can rebid 4♣. On balance, I think the pluses of the structure out-weigh this negative.

We probably play a ladder match at least once per week in IAC. We agree on a fixed number of games in advance. At the end, often the score is close enough, or enough hands have not yet played at the other 15 tables that it is not clear who has won. It would be nice to have a button that would show a "win-loss' score, with a total in each column at the bottom. For example, if one is playing a 16 board match, then there will be 240 "hands" played. 120.5 will be enough to win.

My partner and I play against weak two's as follows. Intervener is expected to have opening strength hand, for us 11-15. Advancer's options are: With < 9 hcp, signoff with a transfer 2N -> 3♣, 3♣ -> 3♦, etc.9-12, invite by going through 2N (lebensohl) 13+, Transfer as in 1) but bid on. Game forcing. A fast transfer into opener's major suit is a GF cue bid, showing 4+ cards in the other major, but no stop in opener's suit. A slow transfer into opener's major suit shows a stop. A transfer into opener's minor suit shows no interest in a major (would have transferred to the major). A slow 3NT promises a stop. A fast 3N is pretty much unnecessary - I suppose it could be given some artificial meaning, perhaps some sort of 55? Bidding this way, intervener has a fairly well defined picture of advancer's strength and can make a reasonable informed decision of prospects for the hand. With some unusual hand, intervener might elect not to complete a transfer. I can't remember that happening, but it is a possibility. On the hand shown, we have invitational strength, so 2N-3♣-3♦ shows diamond suit and 9-12. With diamonds this weak, and hearts under opener I would also consider just a direct transfer.

Of course, call the Director. It can't hurt you. It may be awkward... Your wife saw the 5!C bid. Only she knows how she took it, but it is unlikely that she took it as accidental. It is weird that she would pass it, since it sounds slam invitational. That said, who knows, the director might likely determine that you had no partnership agreement and...?? Nothing to lose, as I see it. It is like a free option. It can only improve.

You and your partner (who dreaded the idea of playing live duplicate in a club) move to about the tenth table. You greet your opponents just like the first nine, as recommended by the TD, "Hi. (introduction). This is our first time playing." Everyone at the first 9 tables has been kind. One pair had an interesting discussion with each other after going down doubled on a convention misunderstanding. One precision pair kindly complimented you after getting set. Everyone you have met must be retired. You are only there because you had a day off from work, and the club starts play at noon. Approximate bidding... 1♠ (p) 2♣ (p) 2♠ ... "Is that forcing?", your partner asks. "You can't ask that, by RHO" A white-haired lady, playing with another WHL. You can see tears welling in partner's eyes. What is your response?

LOL - Really just kidding here. But if BBO rewrote GIB in javascript it could run on the web user's computer - except that they use flash instead of javascript. Really, really, really, just kidding!! Rewrite GIB in ActionScript - so that it runs on the user's computer. One problem facing BBO is harder. For the long term, should they bet on the local platform as we have looked at it up to now (mainly PC, or Mac/linux with a browser) continuing? Or should they be planning for tablets, phones, etc. and the GP personal computer simply vanishing? Regardless of their longer term projection, should they try to webify so that it meets tablet/phone/computer platforms?

Clearly you missed my point. GIBs first choice is the one you originally dispute. GIB bids based on what is the most likely and profitable outcome. Bidding systems are designed that way as well. It is normal to bid the longest of the other 3 suits in response to a takeout double. Some will bid a shorter major over a takeout of a minor, or shorter spades over takeout of hearts. It conserves space to do so, and does not sacrifice much in the way of points scored. It also reduces by one, the tricks needed to make the contract. That was not the situation on your deal. 1) You are most likely, as a pair, to hold a tad over 20 points as a partnership at GIB's first chance to bid. 2) You are most likely to be looking for the best part score at that time. 3) If you are 2=5=3=3, or longer hearts, you would most likely have bid hearts. 4) If you are 2=3=x=y, you will find at least an 8 card minor fit. 5) If you are 2=4=x=y, and you rebid hearts, then you should have a hand close to what you have. GIB has not lost the chance to bid a heart game, and you usually would have 5 hearts for the strong X and heart rebid. 6) You could also be bidding 1=x=y=z hands, though these are less likely than the ones mentioned (and a few others). All of the above support the 3 club choice. But don't take my word for it. Don't wait to hear the opinions of experts. Opinions are like noses, everybody has one. Instead, do the science. Program GIB's hand, and the auction prior to his bid in dealer. Your hand should be random and meeting the normal definition of a takeout double of 2 spades. (The "Syntax" link on the dealer page describes how to do it.) The West hand should be suitable for a pass - which is not very limiting, when the takeout double has raised opponents to a vulnerable game. See what the results show. I guarantee you that if you do it well, a club fit is your most probable fit. You can extend it to GIBs second bid if you like, similarly. That is the second problem that you have raised. *** Added I think GIBs description show what is normal for the auction. They can't describe the route by which it arrived at the bid. You probably realize that.

Hmm. Probably not so much. Most ammonia is likely manufactured using the Haber process.