TimG

One thing it tells me is that the Democrats did a terrible, terrible, terrible job of selecting a candidate.

New Zealand???? Sydney used to be in Australia..... :P I didn't know he was in Australia, either. Could have sworn the original post mentioned NZ, but probably just a stupid mistake by me.

Of course it's met. (If you NEVER bid according to an "Agreement" or you only do so rarely, then you don't really HAVE an agreement, do you? But an occasional sputter doesn't nullify an agreement.) I think barmar meant that "you" to be plural. That is, if a partnership does not bid according to their stated agreements, full disclosure has not been met. If my partnership agrees to play transfer preempts, I forget and open 3H with hearts, and my partner also forgets and passes 3H (without a bunch of hearts of his own), then we've done something (lots of somethings) wrong. Even if the net effect is that the opponents think we have had a standard auction and that understanding meets our hands, we have not properly disclosed. (Yes, I'm aware that the fact that both of us forgot would be strong evidence that an agreement does not exist, but assume the agreement is well documented and we simply had highly unlikely coincidental forgets.)

I didn't know Bush was in NZ, but then I'm not much for mainstream media.

Was it really that simple?

I'm not sure how much more difficult 1S-1N is than 1S-P for the opponents. Passing 1S does not end the auction. And, this might be a hand where having the opponents in the auction will be useful. I'm not saying that passing 1N is correct, just that it's not the end of the auction.

I'm a bit confused by this thread. The "infraction" only amounts to anything if the opponents have been affected, correct? There is a 2D opening bid, intended as weak with diamonds, explained as multi. The opponents believe they have been damaged. Two cases possible: 1) Offending side claims the agreement was multi and there was a misbid. 2) Agreement was weak with diamonds, and there has been a mis-explanation. In case one, the non-offending side would not be entitle to any redress since the partnership agreement was properly disclosed. It's just unlucky that the 2D bidder forgot their agreement. In case two, the non-offending side is entitled to redress since the partnership agreement was not properly disclosed. In some jurisdiction, in any case where either a misbid or mis-explanation involving a convention has taken place, it is always determined to be a mis-explanation. It seems obvious that the Laws allow misbids and something of rub of the green. I guess no one is arguing that always applying case two is Lawful. Have I got it right?

Wouldn't opener rebid a quiet 2♠ with that hand?

Didn't Stayman require an alert until recently?

I don't know who Lieutenant Calley is. [Edit: I knew of the incident, just didn't recognize the name.] Not if you take into account legal versus illegal wars, i.e. it can (and, at least for one or more sides in any given conflict, always is) be a crime. I don't understand. Are you suggesting there are would-be tyrannical dictators out there that first considered that their actions would constitute war crimes and instead decided on more benevolent ways?

Ah, I see. You see no difference between: 1. On a small scale: Soldiers on opposing sides killing each other in battle, versus soldiers on one side going into a village inhabited by noncombatant citizens, rounding up everyone, including children, and killing all of them. 2. On a large scale: A war of conquest and domination, such as the Nazis in WW II, and a country fighting the invasion, as did the Allies. It all sorts of blurs together for you? Peter Genocide is wrong, not because it is against the rules of war, but because...well, it's wrong. I think it is silly to attempt to codify what are appropriate and inappropriate war actions. I also think that rules of war desensitize us to the realities of war. Being justified in action because the rules say it is OK lessens the consideration of the consequences.

I think Simon called these "tentative penalty doubles". I believe, you can find the relevant material in Why You Lose at Bridge. I have enjoyed some success with them. I don't believe that negative doubles get in the way of penalty doubles -- you just pass with those and pass again when partner reopens with a double. (If he doesn't reopen with a double, he might not have been sitting for the penalty double, anyway.) The real loss is in the inability to suggest defending.

Explain? It's war.

Isn't the idea of a war crime already something of an idiocy?

How is it that all we have is "mutual destruction" and "not millions of dead"?

Alternatively, you could win four tricks whenever the Queen is doubleton. Not that I'm suggesting you play for that, just pointing out that you don't "need" the Queen to be onside.

Apologized for being gay? For hiding it? For his anti-gay positions? For cheating on his wife?

Wasn't it actually: "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." And, I don't think it had anything to do with WWII.

Hyperbole aside, why would it be right for the US to reduce the entire country to radioactive slag? Iran has something like 70 million citizens. Would they all be responsible? Perhaps there is a good argument that they are all responsible. Sort of in the same way that all US citizens are responsible for the current military actions in the middle East. Those of us who are opposed to the actions, can voice our opinions, but when it comes right down to it, we are making the actions possible. And, must bear some of the responsibility.

I asked a similar question recently in this thread in the software suggests forum. Reading the second half of that thread should tell you how to load .lin files for partnership bidding practice. If you use a deal generator, like DEALER, chances are you can output in .lin format or find a tool, such as LinConverter, to convert the text output to .lin file. Tim

Who?

Having seen the other 39 cards (in three hands of 13), you should have a bit of knowledge regarding the final 13. When I was taught to count trumps, I was told to count every trump played, that is, when I drew the first round of trumps and everyone followed, I counted four; on the next round if everyone followed, I was up to eight. Subtract the total played from 13, then subtract the number you have left in your hand and dummy and you will know how many the opponents still hold. Then I read "Bid Better Play Better: How to Think at the Bridge Table" by Dorothy Truscott. In it she explained that if your side started with eight trumps, you only need count the five trumps that the opponents started with. No need to count to 13, only to 5! Sounds obvious now, but at the time it was a revelation. Someone once told me about a study done with chess experts. They were presented with a board position for a few seconds and then asked to recreate the position. When the pieces were arranged randomly, the experts were not very good at recreating the position. But, when the positions were the result of real game play, they could recreate the position at close to 100% accuracy. When my wife was starting to play and we would be discussing hands on the way home from a tournament, she would be amazed at my recall. But, the only reason I could recall hands was because of the bridge context, not because I have any special ability to recall spots. After a while, her recall was just as good. That just signaled a change in the way she was thinking about things -- she was now remembering the bridge context and using that to recreate the hands. Bridge players can often tell you about hands they played years ago for this same reason. Anyway, this is a long way of saying that it is bridge context that improves the memory. It is important to know which cards are important (the opponents' five trumps, not all thirteen of them; or the Queen of Club when your threat in that suit is the Jack) and to think about things in a bridge context (an opponent can be 5431, but not 6422). When an opponent signals by playing the five followed by the three, it is seldom important to know the exact spots, but rather it is sufficient to know that they petered and to know what that means -- it will help you complete the picture of their hand. It is also important to remember that the bidding often provides a partial picture of an opponent's hand. It's easy to forget something like an opponent being a passed hand. But, you should start the play of each hand by reviewing the bidding and noting any information that might give about your opponents' hands.

I don't think he was chosen by a majority of citizens. I don't recall writing this... Especially not if said event happened two days ago :P Sorry, that was part of the article you quoted.

I don't think he was chosen by a majority of citizens.

Why hasn't Richard told us that the right thing to do is open 1♠60% of the time, 2♠35% of the time and 1NT 5% of the time?