[gnasher]

ArtK78, on Jul 9 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

You are arguing with a lawyer about the proper spelling of the word "judgment?"

I don't normally take an interest in arguments about spelling, but this excerpt may help:

New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary said:

Judgement n.  Also (the usual form in legal use) -dgm-

Perhaps this is just further evidence lawyers don't inhabit the same world as the rest of us?

Edit: the entry goes on to say that the word comes from the French "jugement", so it certainly had an 'e' at some point in its life. The dictionary also quotes the King James Bible (from the early 17th Century), which spellt it "iudgement".

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-July-09, 15:38

[ArtK78]

Try using the word "judgement" in a word processor and run the spell check. I know that mine changes it to "judgment."

[helene_t]

mikeh, on Jul 9 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

partner is NEVER pulling if we double.

This I find very weird. Apparently we have to make an unilateral decision - there is no way we can get partner involved. Is the 3♣ bid really that well-defined? Wayne said it could be as few as four clubs (although given my three spades he must have at least five) and that they play no Lebensohl. Partner could have 0-2 spades (with weaker opps and/or different vulnerability I suppose he could have 3 spades) and 5-6 clubs (I suppose 7 is unlikely). I would like to be able to ask partner to make a decision that could be different with 0-6 blacks from 2-5 blacks.

I would take double as suggesting a 2443 or 1453 shape. There is no way I would be bidding 5♣ with only three of them given that my double already "promised" three clubs. Now I happen to have four clubs but I have Kxx of spades so I would say the O-D is slightly lower than what partner would expect for a double.

I'd rather pass than bid 5♣ since I expect neither 4♠ nor 5♣ to make, unless p has extreme enough distribution to bid 5♣ on his own. If dbl is penalty then I pass.

[dake50]

Only vested interest grammarians and lawyers could possibly discuss spelling. Spelling: the massive waste of a grade schooler's time. Instead of letter-for-sound as originally intended letting written expression immediately follow the letters-for-sound and freeing school time for compositional thinking, let them suffer SPELLING.

Instead of lie detectors(maybe retesting) cutting massive expense from law enforcement and crime investigation, let lawyers hold their vested interest in arguing and paid for each argument. Smart people wasted on counter-productive lawyering.

[Cascade]

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 09:56 AM, said:

Try using the word "judgement" in a word processor and run the spell check. I know that mine changes it to "judgment."

I wrote "judgement" in Word and all it did was change the initial lowercase "j" for an uppercase "J".

Maybe you need to get an English spell checker rather than an American one.

[aguahombre]

Cascade, on Jul 9 2009, 05:23 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 09:56 AM, said:

Try using the word "judgement" in a word processor and run the spell check.  I know that mine changes it to "judgment."

I wrote "judgement" in Word and all it did was change the initial lowercase "j" for an uppercase "J".

Maybe you need to get an English spell checker rather than an American one.

Nor did it correct me in Word Perfect Corel, American. It only changed to Cap J because it was first word.

[cherdanno]

ArtK78, on Jul 9 2009, 04:56 PM, said:

Try using the word "judgement" in a word processor and run the spell check. I know that mine changes it to "judgment."

With that post you certainly deserve to lose the argument against Jdonn, no matter what he is going to say.

[jdonn]

cherdanno, on Jul 9 2009, 05:37 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 9 2009, 04:56 PM, said:

Try using the word "judgement" in a word processor and run the spell check.  I know that mine changes it to "judgment."

With that post you certainly deserve to lose the argument against Jdonn, no matter what he is going to say.

Something like "a spell checker and a lawyer against a dictionary and the King James bible......hmmmmmm......"

And yes, aside from the absurdity of the argument to begin with, obviously he hasn't been to another country to know that there are tons of other English spell checkers and the ones in America default to 'American English'.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Jul 10 2009, 10:04 AM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 9 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

partner is NEVER pulling if we double.

This I find very weird. Apparently we have to make an unilateral decision - there is no way we can get partner involved. Is the 3♣ bid really that well-defined? Wayne said it could be as few as four clubs (although given my three spades he must have at least five) and that they play no Lebensohl. Partner could have 0-2 spades (with weaker opps and/or different vulnerability I suppose he could have 3 spades) and 5-6 clubs (I suppose 7 is unlikely). I would like to be able to ask partner to make a decision that could be different with 0-6 blacks from 2-5 blacks.

I would take double as suggesting a 2443 or 1453 shape. There is no way I would be bidding 5♣ with only three of them given that my double already "promised" three clubs. Now I happen to have four clubs but I have Kxx of spades so I would say the O-D is slightly lower than what partner would expect for a double.

Couldn't double be 19 Balanced?

[helene_t]

Cascade, on Jul 9 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

Couldn't double be 19 Balanced?

You mean 19 balanced with a spade stopper? I suppose it is less frequent on this auction.

But even so, here we have a balanced hand with a spade stopper, and dbl is fine with me.

[the hog]

Cascade, on Jul 10 2009, 02:51 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 10 2009, 04:16 AM, said:

I meant to say "judgment" does not have an "e" directly after the "g."

Correct but "judgement" does and it is a valid word.

As Wayne correctly points out, the correct spelling is "judgement". Unfortunately, the Americans bastardised, (notice no "z"), the spelling of this word like so many others.
By the way, Wayne and I are certainly not British and would regard it as insulting to be thought so.

[the hog]

helene_t, on Jul 10 2009, 06:09 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 9 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

Couldn't double be 19 Balanced?

You mean 19 balanced with a spade stopper? I suppose it is less frequent on this auction.

But even so, here we have a balanced hand with a spade stopper, and dbl is fine with me.

You stated before that partner will pull the double if it is not correct, and I am afraid I was a bit rude about that answer, Helene.
As Justin quite correctly points out, partner will NEVER pull this double, right or wrong, that is if partner trusts with whom he is playing. If he doesn't, they should not be playing together. By the way, I think 4S has good chances of making if bid by sound opponents.

[gnasher]

The_Hog, on Jul 10 2009, 01:51 AM, said:

As Wayne correctly points out, the correct spelling is "judgement". Unfortunately, the Americans bastardised, (notice no "z"), the spelling of this word like so many others.

That sort of statement rarely turns out to be correct, because both written English and English-speaking settlements in North America existed long before anyone thought of trying to standardise English spelling. Usually one finds that both spellings have a good pedigree.

That's true in this case. The NSOED also quotes Coverdale's 16th Century translation of the 119th Psalm, which formed part of the Book of Common Prayer. He used the word "iudgmentes".

[Fluffy]

Cascade, on Jul 9 2009, 10:45 PM, said:

Couldn't double be 19 Balanced?

that's not a double, that's a DOUBLE!!!!

I think Ron is very right, we forgot to bid 1NT previous round for an unknown reason.


North bid 4♠ to make, somebody asked whee the hearts were, the real question is where the diamonds are, and I suspect it, North has a lot of them with his 2 suiter.


I disagree with mike that partner will never pull this double, when we doubled initially we were able to handle a 5 club jump from partner, we still are.

But double is a non fitting hand with extras (and defensive tricks). Doubling ith 4 card fit is terrible, so 5 clubs anyway, reverse the minors and we have a close decision between pass and double.


so who is to be the judge?

[the hog]

gnasher, on Jul 10 2009, 02:55 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 10 2009, 01:51 AM, said:

As Wayne correctly points out, the correct spelling is "judgement". Unfortunately, the Americans bastardised, (notice no "z"),  the spelling of this word like so many others.

That sort of statement rarely turns out to be correct, because both written English and English-speaking settlements in North America existed long before anyone thought of trying to standardise English spelling. Usually one finds that both spellings have a good pedigree.

That's true in this case. The NSOED also quotes Coverdale's 16th Century translation of the 119th Psalm, which formed part of the Book of Common Prayer. He used the word "iudgmentes".

Wasn't it Webster who attempted to standardise US spelling? ie changing "s" to "z" and removing what he thought were extraneous "e"s? I suspect that the English speaking settlements used British English and this continued until Webster came onto the scene.

[gnasher]

The_Hog, on Jul 10 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

Wasn't it Webster who attempted to standardise US spelling? ie changing "s" to "z" and removing what he thought were extraneous "e"s? I suspect that the English speaking settlements used British English and this continued until Webster came onto the scene.

Possibly, but if so all he was doing was substituting his own arbitrary rules for somebody else's arbitrary rules. If a spelling was acceptable in the 16th century, disallowed by an 18th Century English prescriptivist, and then permitted again by a 19th Century American, does that make the spelling wrong?

[Wackojack]

Agree with those that say that west must NEVER pull a double of 4S. 3C is a well defined bid compared with the initial double, so the final decision should be east's. Having said that, east's decision looks close to me. Unless north is known to be a crackpot, he is bidding to make 4S so has to have extreme distribution. Are there any nasty surprises for north in 4S? Yes the K♠ offside. Will this surprise be fatal to declarer? Possibly. Nevertheless, on balance I vote for 5C since this gives you 2 chances of being right againt one chance of being wrong.

[the hog]

gnasher, on Jul 10 2009, 08:39 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 10 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

Wasn't it Webster who attempted to standardise US spelling? ie changing "s" to "z" and removing what he thought were extraneous "e"s? I suspect that the English speaking settlements used British English and this continued until Webster came onto the scene.

Possibly, but if so all he was doing was substituting his own arbitrary rules for somebody else's arbitrary rules. If a spelling was acceptable in the 16th century, disallowed by an 18th Century English prescriptivist, and then permitted again by a 19th Century American, does that make the spelling wrong?

Fair comment. I must admit, as an Antipodean, however, i detest the vulgar Americanisms that are creeping into the English language. Most of these are garnered by our young from watching US TV shows.