FM75

If you are on a PC, or can manage to run in a PC emulation environment.

So what constitutes "near a border crossing"? When the 4th amendment was written the fastest form of human travel was horseback and a fast full day's travel across a border might get you 100 miles into the country. Of course in many areas, you might never be detected the first day. Today, if you fly in low enough to avoid radar (say a few hundred feet up), you could easily land 1000 miles from the border in a single engine small private plane. Yes, you would be violating the requirement to land at the nearest international airport with customs inspections. One day later, you could be anywhere (not including Hawaii.), including out of the country again.

Maybe at a teaching table with 4 confederates playing the hand. Then you might see the "GIB" play at each step. Keep in mind though, that you are watching double dummy play, which will often not be the best play. Skip this post. Fred has the authoritative and incredibly useful answer below! Thanks Fred!

You have a GF hand. Gadget.A hole in your partnership agreement. You don't have: An agreement for handling interference over your gadget.An agreement on whether partner expects you to double?An agreement on what partner's double would mean?An agreement on a pass by partner.Since this is in the Natural Bidding section, you are now on a guess. Any action you make needs to be consistent with whatever existing agreements you have. Is double by you penalty or takeout? If you made your conventional bid now, assuming it still exists, does it describe your hand? Do you have any agreements for dealing with 3 level preempts in non-competitive auctions? Are they available here?

ROFL Trust me, there are many people using newer browsers that do not know what a "Browser" is. The "HTML5, CSS3" stuff will be just more meaningless gibberish to them. Yes, that might include a majority of all bridge players. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif Links to the Google Chrome and Firefox download sites might be more effective.http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif

I would. We might have as little as a singleton diamond (technically even a void in our version) on a 1♦ opening bid, so if my next bid is 2♣ I am usually showing 5=4 in the minors 11-15. Partner can easily pass 1♦ with 8 points and support for either suit. Opening 1♣ will get me a decent count of partner's holding. If there is an overcall before he bids, pass shows 0-4, double 5-7 or bad 8, and any other bid shows 8+. He can also show a 4441 hand with conventional bids. Further, I expect opponents to overcall 1 ♦ almost certainly, and many will overcall 1♣ even with junk hoping to muck up the auction. In a competitive auction, with partner on low side, I am not concerned if he lebensohl's me into 3♣. On a positive response I can ask for a fit in diamonds, then have a choice of handing off control to partner with 2N if that is still available.

Poll tax?! Absolutely not. You did not read carefully. Voting would be free. Living in the US would not be (for anybody except minors). Voting by the poor would logically be expected to rise to keep their taxes affordable. And as a result, since they are a majority (more are below median income than above), government spending would be forced down to affordable levels - just like before 1913.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-17/republicans-and-democrats-actually-agree-on-facts.html The views (when yacking and blogging) may be different, but when it comes to agreeing on FACTS the two are quite close together if there is money on the line for them personally. Now if one were to couple the one person - one vote, with a system in which each individual was taxed at the same amount, then not only would voter participation increase, but voters would expect to hear pro-rata costs of programs espoused by the candidates - which would certainly slam the brakes on government spending.

:) Yup. Thanks.

http://linda.bridgeblogging.com/2013/01/04/ghoulie-rules-as-requested/ It is a little vague on the actual scoring, but it makes for a very interesting variant on the standard game - A good game for individuals of nearly equal skill since it is more of an individual game than a partnership one. It is rare that the game is played below the 5 level.

http://www.census.go...out/cpsdef.html Click on definition of family, family group, etc. The average household size in Md 2010 was 2.61 unchanged from 2000. 4 / 2.6 x 68 = 104.6! - A linear relationship. http://baltimore.cbs...ize-stabilized/ What I don't understand... You are a smart guy. You did not research this. Why would you then expect a reporter - likely an English major - on a deadline to do any better? Kudos to you for reading critically and intelligently. If only very many more did!

It looks like an error. At the time of GIB's discard, it is only a 4 (unknown) card ending. 12 possible hands. In none of those combinations is it advantageous to discard the club ace. That said, if GIB correctly decides that there is no difference between two discards, then there is clearly no reason to prefer the lower of two cards.

I am surprised that you did not browse around a bit - given that you wondered about the numbers, it would seem only logical to wonder how it was measured. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/about/index.html

3-2 = first basemen to catcher. Double play to end the inning. Seems simple enough - except the batter was safe at first. What went wrong?

Conditions of match? Seat? 3rd or 4th seat, bid the major then the minor. The hand is worth 2 bids. Earlier seat - You have a 4 LTC hand on a possible fit, and a hand with both offensive and defensive strength. But it is effectively a 12 hcp hand on a misfit. If your partner could overcall in one of your suits, it drops to a 3 LTC hand. as you said. You hate to pass this hand in an opening seat. What happens on a misfit after a reverse? Have you shown x4y5? x4y6? x5y6, x(45)y7? When your partner counts you for 16+, he is going to be disappointed to see an aceless hand. You can still bid after either or both opponents bid pointed suits, but you still hate to pass in 1st or 2nd seat. You can bid like crazy after an opening Pass and partner can't mistake you for having more than 12 hcp. How often will a pass lose? As I see it, only when the hand is passed out. How aggro are your opps, partner? P , 1♥ = 7 1♣ = 4 opponents might find double fit in the pointed suits before your rebid. Added: In first seat, partner will stretch to open. In second seat, he may be happy to pass. So here I think maybe P in 2nd seat would be only 2.

You bid the same values twice. Usually that is wrong.

http://pigpen.org.uk/BBO/index.php

1♠ (2♦) 3♦ GF in support of spades 3♥ 4♣ - control bidding 4♦ 7♠ Thinking if partner showed 1st round control of diamonds, instead of bidding 4 spades, he has A5th+ in spades, with AQ of hearts, we still see only 10 points to open. He could hold the ♦ A, and no club help, but then RHO overcalled on ? ? KTxxxx(x), QJx(x) - would he? RHO has to hold the ♦ AK A 4-0 trump split would almost certainly be offside and they have to have the QTxx to beat us.

Ah - thought this was going to be about outlawing the belly putting stroke.

Wow! The daughter left home at 8 years old on a bike! Maybe the title of the poem could be better. Then again, maybe she was trying to escape an over-protective single parent and already knew at age 8, with all of her friends masters of two wheels... [ok, unlikely...] Did she ride successfully to her father's house, and the court based on that and things unsaid, alter the custody arrangement? Thought provoking, if you take the title seriously. :)

EW - 100% on all bids. South pass - 0, X = 10, 3N 8 With 7 top tricks in your own hand, LHO passed, RHO preempted, AQJx of trump, partner is not doubling. Sure double by you would be take-out, but you need partner to bid. If he does not, your best score is going to be about 250. You are odds on to make 600. North 4♣ - bold, but do the math. LHO has 10-, you have 7, and RHO has 11-. Partner has 12+ and passed. Do you have a WTF agreement? X = 8, 2m = 4 Let partner decide - it has to be takeout. If he has a hand and ♠, you would have heard about it. If he had a hand with a minor - well what would 3N mean? If it means pick a minor, 9. South 5♣ - Huh? what could he be bidding 4♣ on - Jxx x KQxx(x) QJxxxx(x) ? 6♣ 10 5♣ 6 4♥ 8

Bridge is a zero-sum game, whether head to head, or in a "tournament"There are 3 distinct forms of competition, individual, pairs, and teams.There are different rules for scoring - MPs, IMPs, Total Points on BBO My Hands. Rubber bridge (on people's hard drives - maybe) and others.There are different rules for contests - set by various associations.BBO even has games where one player is known to have at least equal to the best handThere are aberrations - perhaps 4 people were just practicing bidding - and making claims that made no sense.There is luck involved - which "in the long run" should net to zero (if all hands are included).The transitivity property is not valid. If A > B and B > C, one can't correctly infer that A > C.Players compete in divisions - just like in college or pro sports. Interdivisional play occurs, but it is not especially common. Most of the above contribute to the fact that BBO, with vastly more data than you used, has not established a player skill rating system, or a partnership skill rating system, or a team rating system. One could argue that even if they could, they might not, for business reasons. I think taking a small sample (selected or not) is not likely to lead to useful new knowledge. Throwing out the small scores seems inherently wrong. For example, you could select Sabine Auken and Roy Welland matches and collect up a ton of swing boards. Suppose they broke roughly even. Would you rate them as average players? Or their team as an average team? What would you learn from the scores? You can be sure that the matches that they play on BBO are against "Division 1" opponents. Even if they came out even... or on the short end of the stick in your sample... :)

The following list includes actual sovereign defaults and debt restructuring of independent countries from 1800 till 2012:[16] Africa Algeria (1991)Angola (1976,[17] 1985, 1992-2002[17])Cameroon (2004)[17]Central African Republic (1981, 1983)Congo (Kinshasa) (1979)[17]Côte d'Ivoire (1983, 2000)Gabon (1999–2005)[17]Ghana (1979, 1982)[17]Liberia (1989–2006)[17]Madagascar (2002)[17]Mozambique (1980)[17]Rwanda (1995)[17]Sierra Leone (1997–1998)[17]Sudan (1991)[17]Tunisia (1867)Egypt (1876, 1984)Kenya (1994, 2000)Morocco (1983, 1994, 2000)Nigeria (1982, 1986, 1992, 2001, 2004)South Africa (1985, 1989, 1993)Zambia (1983)Zimbabwe (1965, 2000, 2006[17] (see Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe)Americas Antigua and Barbuda (1998–2005)[17]Argentina (1827, 1890, 1951, 1956, 1982, 1989, 2002-2005[17] (see Argentine debt restructuring))Bolivia (1875, 1927,[17] 1931, 1980, 1986, 1989)Brazil (1898, 1902, 1914, 1931, 1937, 1961, 1964, 1983, 1986–1987,[17] 1990[17])Canada (Alberta) (1935)[17]Chile (1826, 1880, 1931, 1961, 1963, 1966, 1972, 1974, 1983)Colombia (1826, 1850, 1873, 1880, 1900, 1932, 1935)Costa Rica (1828, 1874, 1895, 1901, 1932, 1962, 1981, 1983, 1984)Dominica (2003–2005)[17]Dominican Republic (1872, 1892, 1897, 1899, 1931, 1975-2001[17] (see Latin American debt crisis), 2005)Ecuador (1826, 1868, 1894, 1906, 1909, 1914, 1929, 1982, 1984, 2000, 2008)El Salvador (1828, 1876, 1894, 1899, 1921, 1932, 1938, 1981-1996[17])Grenada (2004–2005)[17]Guatemala (1933, 1986, 1989)Guyana (1982)Honduras (1828, 1873, 1981)Jamaica (1978)Mexico (1827, 1833, 1844, 1850,[17] 1866, 1898, 1914, 1928-1930s, 1982)Nicaragua (1828, 1894, 1911, 1915, 1932, 1979)Panama (1932, 1983, 1983, 1987, 1988-1989[17])Paraguay (1874, 1892, 1920, 1932, 1986, 2003)Peru (1826, 1850,[17] 1876, 1931, 1969, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1984)Surinam (2001–2002)[17]Trinidad and Tobago (1989)United States (1779 (devaluation of Continental Dollar), 1790, 1798 (see The Quasi-war), 1862,[18] 1933 (see Executive Order 6102),[17] 1971 (Nixon Shock)9 states (1841–1842)[17]10 states and many local governments (1873-83 or 1884)[17]Orange County, California (1994) [19][*]Uruguay (1876, 1891, 1915, 1933, 1937,[17] 1983, 1987, 1990)[*]Venezuela (1826, 1848, 1860, 1865, 1892, 1898, 1982, 1990, 1995–1997,[17] 1998,[17] 2004) Asia China (1921, 1932,[17] 1939)Japan (1942, 1946-1952[17])India (1958, 1969[citation needed], 1972)Indonesia (1966, 1998, 2000, 2002)Iran (1992)Iraq (1990)Jordan (1989)Kuwait (1990–1991)[17]Myanmar (1984,[17] 1987,[17] 2002)Mongolia (1997–2000)[17]The Philippines (1983)Solomon Islands (1995–2004)[17]Sri Lanka (1980, 1982, 1996[17])Vietnam (1975)[17]Europe Albania (1990)Austria-Hungary (1796, 1802, 1805, 1811, 1816, 1868)Austria (1938, 1940, 1945[17])Bulgaria (1932[citation needed], 1990)Croatia (1993–1996)[17]Denmark (1813)[17] (see Danish state bankruptcy of 1813)France (1812)Germany (1932, 1939, 1948[17])Hesse (1814)Prussia (1807, 1813)Schleswig-Holstein (1850)Westphalia (1812)[*]Greece (external debt: 1826-1842, 1843-1859, 1860-1878, 1894-1897, 1932-1964, 2010-present;[20][21][22] domestic debt: 1932-1951[20])[*]Hungary (1932, 1941)[*]The Netherlands (1814)[*]Poland (1936, 1940, 1981)[*]Portugal (1828, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1852, 1890)[*]Romania (1933)[*]Russia (1839, 1885, 1918, 1947,[17] 1957,[17] 1991, 1998)[*]Spain (1809, 1820, 1831, 1834, 1851, 1867, 1872, 1882, 1936-1939[17])[*]Sweden (1812)[*]Turkey (1876, 1915, 1931, 1940, 1978, 1982)[*]Ukraine (1998–2000)[17][*]United Kingdom (1822, 1834, 1888–89, 1932)[17][*]Yugoslavia (1983)

It is fair for you to make your "means" statement, but in fact completely inconsistent with how our budgets, deficits, and entitlements programs are being run. Ask the kids in college today if they think it is fair. Some of them are already learning that the "Ponzi scheme" (kick the can down the road, or whatever you like to call it) will fall on their backs, crushingly. Families can run a deficit for a while because a bankrupt estate has no claim on the survivors. The government can only resort to things like devaluation of currency and other really bad things. In Europe they seemed to believe what you believe - and some still do. Per your flat rate question - Well, if I had been brain-washed/educated (and never questioned it) in school to believe that the Robin Hood approach to taxes was fair, then I would likely agree with you. But if you believe that, then why would you not argue that when you take a train, bus, etc, you should pay some portion of your income, not some portion of what it cost the provider? For you the beer is a buck, for him $100. The real point here is that this government is ours as a nation. And if people voted as if the money being spent was theirs - as they should be thinking - the behavior of the government and its spending would change to meet what it could get and what its people thought was worthwhile. Right now politicians have the electorate - as a whole - addicted to OPiuM (Other People's Money). Sure spend money on this, that and the other thing - and tax like you are Jesse James, just don't take my money. In a true sense, they can't escape behaving that way. The system is fixed for them, too. They have to go along to get elected whether they believe in it or not. Why does this work? First, we have been "educated" to believe that it is fair to tax this way - even though it is a relatively recent idea. Second, we feel entitled to be taxed less if we earn less. We think nothing of taking by force money from others as long as they are doing better than we. There is just something morally repugnant to that idea. Hey, the insurance company is huge, a few thousand in false claims won't hurt them much. That is a transference - people like that prefer not to think of taking money from their neighbors or real people, just people that they don't know (and perhaps envy). At the end of the day - we have taxation without representation. Kids that can't vote, or have not even been born, will be paying taxes to pay for what our government has promised us, (or emigrate?)! Of course, it is not possible to instantly "balance" the budget, and eliminate the deficit, or the future shortfalls, by an immediate extraction - pro-rata - or any other way. But the system is broken, and when we continue to fail to repair it, we guarantee that it will not only stay broken but get worse.

Correct. Passing that amendment was a prelude to prohibition. Before that the US government derived hefty revenues from a tax on alcohol. The income was relatively minimal, but did not go away, or get reduced when the 21st Amendment was passed. Since then the "loopholes" have served many purposes, not the least of which is to buy votes through indirect payments (graduated income taxes) as a perfect example. For that matter, even a percentage tax is inequitable, if you consider that we should all share equally in the country's defense and those things which the framers of the Constitution intended for the Federal government. "Before the modern personal income tax in 1913, Uncle Sam relied mainly on customs duties and liquor taxation. From 1870 through 1912 receipts from these two taxes alone accounted for more than two-thirds of federal revenues (and in many years accounted for more than 75 percent). Liquor taxes trailed only customs duties as the largest single source of revenue during the half-century preceding the modern income tax, with liquor taxes accounting for about a third of federal revenues. Yes, we were able to maintain both a standing army and a standing navy at the time! What was Al Capone's conviction? Yes, that would be right - tax evasion - he did not report the income on the illegal imports of alchohol which could no longer be taxed. A flat (not flat rate) tax would get my vote. Divide up the budget by the population and send everyone a bill for a proportional share. Then when a politician runs and advocates a program, people would know how much money it was actually going to cost them. Set the income tax rate for corporations at 0%. That will bring not only the money home, which could then be invested here, but would bring jobs as well. If the business needs regulation, charge a direct fee suitable to the level of money spent to regulate it. User fees could replace things that the government wants to do for the benefit of the few.