[gwnn]

a simple search yields that my nickname has been misspelled 5 times, although once on purpose by a funny Dutchman, that's probably a little more than people saying aquahombre although not by much.

[zheddh]

Jlall, on Nov 16 2009, 04:11 PM, said:

Anyways I would bid 2S with this hand, I don't want him to pass 2C when we make 4S.

Slight OT. http://grammartips.h...com/anyway.html

[Jlall]

zheddh, on Nov 16 2009, 11:49 PM, said:

Jlall, on Nov 16 2009, 04:11 PM, said:

Anyways I would bid 2S with this hand, I don't want him to pass 2C when we make 4S.

Slight OT. http://grammartips.h...com/anyway.html

No.

One of the great things about language is that it evolves. It is only as useful as how people use it. As such many words which did not exist before exist now. Anyways is a good example of this.

Right now anyways is accepted in the United States. No doubt it will eventually be recognized in England also.

Even if you only accept anyways as a colloquialism, treating the forums like a place where only formal speech should be used is silly. Not all writing is formal anymore, we have e-mail, instant messages, text messages, blogs, and facebooks, and forums these days also where we get together and talk and communicate informally with others. We use acronyms, and emoticons, and slang terms!

More importantly, it is really sad that you feel the need to attempt to correct someone when you know exactly what they're saying. Even if you had a legitimate grammar-nazi complaint, where does this urge come from? The point is communication. Just some friendly advice but going out of your way to point out what you perceive to be a grammar error makes you seem pretentious, pettifogging and persnickety, not well educated.

But good luck being stuck trying to defend against changes that are inevitable. I'm sure you freak out when you hear someone say pleaded instead of pled also.

FWIW you might want to look up descriptivism when it comes to language. It really annoys the prescriptivist curmudgeons though

[Jlall]

And FWIW here is a reference for anyways in the sense of anyway:

"Anyways, it could not be found there." --Conrad, Youth, 1902

Presumably you do not think Conrad was uneducated for his use of this word, more than 100 years ago, when it was far LESS popular/common.

Going back even further we have Mr. Dickens:

“Anyways,” said the damsel, “I am glad punishment followed, and I say so.” --Dickens, Our Mutual Friend, 1865

Admittedly that was in speech, so he could have been dumbing it down to the uneducated damsel's level. Still, it shows that people have been using it in this way for a long time. No doubt you have noticed that all hicks like myself use it now!

[zheddh]

Jlall, on Nov 17 2009, 12:13 AM, said:

Even if you only accept anyways as a colloquialism, treating the forums like a place where only formal speech should be used is silly. Not all writing is formal anymore, we have e-mail, instant messages, text messages, blogs, and facebooks, and forums these days also where we get together and talk and communicate informally with others. We use acronyms, and emoticons, and slang terms!

More importantly, it is really sad that you feel the need to attempt to correct someone when you know exactly what they're saying. Even if you had a legitimate grammar-nazi complaint, where does this urge come from? The point is communication. Just some friendly advice but going out of your way to point out what you perceive to be a grammar error makes you seem pretentious, pettifogging and persnickety, not well educated.

But good luck being stuck trying to defend against changes that are inevitable. I'm sure you freak out when you hear someone say pleaded instead of pled also.

FWIW you might want to look up descriptivism when it comes to language. It really annoys the prescriptivist curmudgeons though

Take it easy, dude. Apologize if you found that offensive. Not my intent to offend anyone here!

And no I am not trying to defend against changes. I don't care. I am not even a native English speaker! Just posted it here because I used to use "anyways" a lot earlier as well. And then i found out that it is not actually the "right" form.. so i started using "anyway".. thought this might benefit people if they didn't already know..

Sorry!

[gwnn]

I can't stop myself from linking to all these threads! help me.
http://forums.bridge...topic=24728&hl=

[hrothgar]

I'm torn on this one:

I think that I would bid 2♠. In my experience, Moysians play best when you have a good side suit as a source of tricks. However, I wouldn't complain if partner decided to bid 2♣ instead.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Nov 17 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

In my experience, Moysians play best when you have a good side suit as a source of tricks.  However, I wouldn't complain if partner decided to bid 2♣ instead.

You need to draw trumps before you can set up clubs, so either clubs must be running or you must afford to lose a tempo after having drawn trumps (and you may need ♦Q to be an entry). In both cases, 2♣ probably makes as well. And if p has a good hand with 4 spades you will probably end up in 3NT whatever you do.

[georgeac]

some p's i bid 2s others i bid 2c, with the majority i bid 2c

[andy_h]

With these cards my style is 2♠ for the game. But 2♣ if the hand was xxx x KQx AK109xx.

[Phil]

Jlall, on Nov 17 2009, 12:13 AM, said:

One of the great things about language is that it evolves.

eh, I could care less.

[helene_t]

Jlall, on Nov 17 2009, 06:55 AM, said:

"Anyways, it could not be found there." --Conrad, Youth, 1902
[....]
Going back even further we have Mr. Dickens:

“Anyways,” said the damsel, “I am glad punishment followed, and I say so.” --Dickens, Our Mutual Friend, 1865

Maybe those were not derived from "anyway" but from "anywise". Merriam-Webster's online dictionary has this to say:

Quote

Main Entry: any·ways
Pronunciation: \-ˌwāz\
Function: adverb
Date: 13th century

1 a archaic : anywise b dialect : to any degree at all
2 chiefly dialect : anyhow, anyway

Maybe "anyways" emerged as an alternative spelling mimicking a way of pronouncing "anywise", then later people skipped the s because it was perceived as being derived from "in any way". This could all be irrelevant to the modern use of "anyways" which I would think comes from "anyway" and not from "anywise". "Anyways" could have gotten its modern s from analogy with some other word, for example "always". I am just speculating.

[mikeh]

I would rebid 2♣, regardless of whether I was playing a weak notrump (in which case, in the style that I play, 2♠ promises 4 card support) or a more standard method, in which 3 card raises are permitted.

The clubs are strong enough that there at imps I'm not overly concerned about a 6-1 club fit with a 5-3 spade fit. If that is the situation, we may not do well in spades anyway... my clubs will be of limited use if partner is weak, since he probably can't draw trump and enjoy the clubs.

It would be useful to be playing Meckwell here, such that we would know that he isn't weak with 5-4+ in the majors. This knowledge would suggest that he has some values, since the opps, marked with at least one red fit, have not competed, and this, again, makes 2♣ better. The more he has, the better positioned we will be both for game and, importantly, for slam purposes.

While it is true that there will be some hands on which game can be bid, and often made, after a spade raise and would be missed after a 2♣ rebid, there will also be hands on which game is easier to reach after 2♣ then spades, because partner will infer the good/long clubs and distribution..... a 2♠ raise is often on a weak notrump hand, while rebidding clubs then spades shows more distributional power. I concede this is a minor factor.

However, given the opps' silence, there is some chance of slam and I think that 2♣ is a far superior call than 2♠ for those purposes. We can bid a quiet 2♣ and then become enthusiastic later.

Finally, while partner rates to hold 5 spades much of the time, he will also frequently hold only 4, and he may stretch to invite game and end at the 3-level on an inadequate fit.

I think it is very close, and I doubt that even running a simulation would provide clear guidance (if only because the further rounds of bidding will be so difficult to predict).