Impact

i don't think that it is arguable that the direct cue-bid over a weak two is well utilised as Michaels (IMHO it should be a DAB asking for a stop initially but could be the first move with a huge singlesuiter which is NOT solid). However the generic sequences are relevant, and IF one was compelled to play such methods, the issue fo responding to 2 suiters at this level arises in many competitve circumstances. regards

Although you will occasionally get the hand that wants to play in 3NT, I prefer a generic style whereby NT ALWAYS asks for the 2nd suit and bids of the other suits above the lowest level of NT agree the known suit (in this instance S). THe advantages of the method I use is:- a) showing fits (double fits) early B) indicating fragments/leads c) allowing for better invitational auctions (eg a level lower) d) rarely for me - simplicity!! I doubt that such methods are standard - and in hte absence of specific agreement a 3NT would be assumed to be to play....so I'm with Marlowe. regards

The key to the hand is clearly the location of both missing D controls opposite the otherwise running D suit -AND from responder's point of view his relatively poor hand (only one control - and a singleton K at that) which tends to militate against responder making a slam-try. I suggest that the fallacy of standard methods in locating this type of slam is the concentration (not unreasonably) on game before slam - and hence the tendency to locate the Major fit but not complete shape (if opener knew that responder was 4-1-6-2 he could value his hand much better for slam). Firstly, relay systems win out here because they have that information as to shape (but lose out in circumstances where the key is solidity of internal suit or a fitting singleton lesser honour), but parity in this Puppet Stayman auction at least can be restored by using the 3S rebid by responder as strong and allowing for a relay to disclose shape (the scheme should be consistent with the internal style of the remainder of the system eg 4C as long C, 4D as long D, 4H as last train balanced say and 4S both minors perhaps) . That works because the trump suit is S, but if you switch both Majors in the 2 hands, the room is insufficient unless one hand takes a position or responder shows his long minor regardless of fit and you either scramble for trumps or sort out a mechanism. All bidding systems require some compromises - which is part of the fascination of the game.

Mike, 1) of your numbered points, I don't accept the first but like the way it is couched The whole argument to me reflects what I would describe as a disease of American expert bidding: always make the most flexible bid to find out information from partner because good things could happen and then I (emphasis on the first person nominative singular) will be in a better position to make a, or the , decision. This style gets its come-uppance when two practitioners sit down: each KNOWS that HE will make the right decision if only partner will provide the information....it is not dialogue at all. If you play a system which is mainly dialogue (as opposed to interrogation) therein lies madness - and indeed counters the point of the system. I subscribe to a contrary position (unless playing with a client): that if I can describe a significant feature of my hand I should. To treat a 65 hand as if it was balanced (the typical hand for which he would play me) seems bizarre to me- but I understand your position if not its rectitude. Nothing comes with guarantees but at least I won't be writing in -460 against our making game..... The 4th point is unanswerable but I will take my plus (the pre-empt has done its work, and the difference between best result possible and best possible result) as opposed to risking the disaster... We shall have to agree to differ - but as I said I think it comes down to philosophical differences in approach, and shows part of the flaw in making assumptions of "standard". BTW I think your approach is most common in US, would have some support in Oz but very divided, and relatively little support in say UK which has been more influenced by Acol. This latter point has nothing to do with what is right, but notes geographic attitudes.

Indeed I mean standard. I'm not asking what it means when playing negative free bids. As a follow-up, what do you do with the alternate hands if you play the bids as NF? When I used NFB we played:- double and then cue= balanced without stop double and then new suit= single-suited GF immediate cue= 2-suiter GF!! the reasoning is to separate the hands which are competitive/Invit ie negative double with 4unbid Major typically from the GF hands. It is hard for traditionalists to get their heads round the concept as it decreases some flexibility in auctions but provides far greater certainty in many more auctions. Although it worked well I have switched (for 5 years) to transfers where the intervention does not exceed 3D - which have significant advantages... regards

People who double with 65s and wilder distribution deserve what they get.... lucky sometimes but also missing 9card fits and double-fits believing they have defensive values.... When you make a double at less than stratospheric level partenr has the right to treat it as negative or informative - but the concept that you have 2 good suits to bid, and negligible defence does not augur well. 3D - and hope to survive (albeit I have some sympathy for 3H followed by D, much more than for the double!)

USP suggests that you should differentiate between the auctions by virtue of whether it is Single-raise plus1 (ie over 1S response) or single-raise plus 2. In any partnership which focuses on natural (as opposed to relay) bidding, the single-raise plus 1 (SR+1) is just too useful for multi-meaning bids to ascribe to it the one relatively rare hand that anyone has stipulated to date. Not only can you solve the BWS nightmare but you can also incorporate (via next suit puppet) a range of hands. In a different context using relays (where 1H is relay over 1D rather than natural) I stipulated:- 1D (multi 10-15) - 1S (nat nf) 2NT= a) minor 3 suiter with 4S B) max hand with 3-1-4-5 or 3-1-5-4 c) semi-solid+ 6+minor max (defined as at least AKJxxx) Now instead of puppet responder who is limited bids on a pass or correct basis: 3m= Pass or correct (Opener rebids 3H with 5431, 3S with 4S and 3NT with C over a 3D signoff) 3H= on-going opposite 6m but doubt about H and only 4S 3S= as above with 5S 3NT= strongly held H and values (probably top Honour in each minor) In a more standard context:- 1D- 1H 2S=SR+1 - 2NT=puppet ? 3C= strength & shape similar to below but D suit weaker eg strong NT 3D= 6+D & 3H otherwise suitable for 3D direct 3H= economical jump 4-3-5-1 strong or fits gap in ranges depends on rem system 3S= 6+D & 5+S 3NT= differentiating from direct jump to 3NT by either H length or suit quality rather than strength higher= strong 4 card H raise which does not fit within direct raise structure If responder fails to puppet he is making a descriptive bid which shows a lack of interest in Opener's type!!! Obviously details depend on remainder of system structure in either event - and the assumption is that change of suit is forcing (so that opener's rebid of 1S would not be passed). regards,

THe problems with that suggestion is that a) partner may pass with his long suit (assuming a minor suit takeout scheme) :P assuming you use 4NT as extreme strong takeout - and hence KNOW that you will get another chance, the 3 card disparity between the suits is just too great and partner will have too many ways to go wrong. Note that 4NT is right on say AKxxxxx AKxxxx types or slightly stronger 6-6 shapes - or perhaps even if the S were the long suit as you can always convert, but it will be wrong far more often to let partner choose S on the basis of say 2-1 preference (or 2-0!!).....not to mention many other possibilities. Put yourself in partner's shoes: if you encourage him to make an intelligent choice of contracts - you can't blame him for so doing! Attempting to find both Major Q or some such - or 4card S support (!!!) is fairytale stuff.... regards

Nick, They are Juniors (perhaps embyonic is a better description!). It doesn't work (generally - there is always a hand you can construct where it will) against thoughtful opponents. Some people self-destruct against that with which they are unfamiliar - but as someone who has probably played more deviants of weird and wonderful than almost anyone else, this is inherently poor but very active even by Junior standards. As has been noted elsewhere the ranges are too large for balanced hands - and they start too high on unbalanced hands in most situations with only marginal information about suits (per the negative inferences of failing to make a Wonder/myxo). IF it is their hand they will be (at least) one level too high on most parscore hands (isn't that youth bridge?) - even assumingthey locate the best fit, while leaving themselves open to substantial penalties when it isn't their hand. Quite frankly, variable vulnerability ferts and two way strong bids (strong or very weak) are miles superior both for definition of style for constructive bidding and for destructive bidding. That pass is underutilised for such a low bid and will only show a positive in auctions where 3rd seat gets to operate but by contrast betryas enormous amounts of information to competent declareres; 1C is unplayable with the balanced range; the other auctions are self-pre-empting without the advantage of doing the damage to opponents......please play this against us!

Appropriate venue...

Ron, Actually slight improvement when not playing Myxos:- 2H=Relay 2S= nat I 2NT= H I (allows counter try) or alternatively good for uninterrupted auctions: either C OR H & 3C by opener says would not move over C... 3C= constructive in D 3D= competitive in D

Surely after the 3S response to 3C, the better rebid is 3NT (rather than 4C). No one suggests that as the pre-empting hand you promise stoppers in unbid suits, and whatever you do it tends to deny S support (else cue bid red - which I would interpret 4H to be- or raise to 4S). Once responder effectively knows that there is no S support he needs at least CKxxxxxx and a D control for slam. Those odds have slimmed with the short S (2 short suits is slight). The odds against effectively 1-4-1-7 precisely are high - so now you are banking on DA - or the slam being at best 50% if he holds DK (depending on your style eg DKQ possible?). So - after 3C-3S 3NT responder's obvious bid is 5C with no reason to investigate for "perfection" ...

20 more years (at least) because it requires an education system to inculcate values and traditions which do not grow up overnight.....it took almost that long in relatively homogeneous civilizations (Germany & Japan - of which at least Germany had had some embryonic experiences in the Weimar). It may be idealistic but at least there is some basis for foundation - as opposed to nothing at all! Cry over the spilt milk but and agonise over the options foregone as is the want of historians and journalists, but also face a present reality and let us see if there is some advantage to be obtained... Your Rule of Holes neglects the concept that you may have had a goal in digging and perhaps you wish to reach it (OTOH if you meant to suggest that getting out of quicksand has something to recommend it, that would be a difficult proposition to resist - albeit not accepting the analogy).

Peter, For once they acted in perceived self-interest (if you accept that the administration actually believed WMD to exist). Getting it just plain wrong happens: there were all sorts of justifications which some will find acceptable for going into Iraq. What is and was even then clearly wrong to me was the absence of a viable plan for Iraq following the initial military victory: a disaprate tribal country with no history of democracy was always going to take a generation of "occupation" if there was to be any hope for the installation of western democratic practice on a lasting basis. I said as much before they went in, and continued to make the same statement: does USA really have the will to stay the course for 25 years both economically and in terms of the lives lost (with no guarantees)? If not - don't go in because all you do is disturb the fragile balance that exists (albeit sending some sort of message to those who defy teh might of US). There were lots of alternatives to invasion - including just wiping out Saddam - but all left serious questionmarks about the vacuum, even if they might have left less direct responsibility. The same sanctimony about assassination of leaders appears to be maintained by many on the grounds of personal interest. In an age of instant gratification by pressing buttons, it did not seem likely - and with the exception of the US Civil War there have few occasions where the US has had to buckle down for the long haul (which is fortunate on the one hand but gives no real experience and an increasing unwillingness to embark on such a course). What the effect of departure by the coalition from Iraq in the short term, would be is interesting conjecture. It is hard to doubt that it would be hailed as a victory in much of the Arab and Islamic world. Victories do little to discourage those groups, but the cost of a "draw" much less victory for the coalition is looking high. My reaction is "at least another 20 years" now that you are there - for better or worse. You can't set the clock back - but I truly doubt the intestinal fortitude for the task. If perseverance ensues for the longer term there are a lot of potential benefits (not least amongst them the concern of other nations, the soaking up of "terrorists" in one place, and the potential for more widespread favourable regime change in a strategically important part of the world - but don't hold your breath). As I said the "crime" was to go in with a bizarre belief in a short-term goal.

Let us examine sme of the alleged "causes" of hatred from a realist's perspective instead of utopian or doctrinaire viewpoints (and I don't care which doctrine it is). US foreign polcy has usually been an extension of domestic policy - as with most nations. In the later part of the nineteenth century and early part of the twentieth century, strong isolationism (and protectionism) fought with the occasional foreign adventure and imperialism. Post WWII, US foreign policy was pretty much "hold the fort against communism" - which meant in practice supporting anything which was anti-communist. Rid yourself of a prism of idealism and the rhetoric showered on the public, the alleged volte faces of US policy make some sort of sense (whether or not you agree with the justification adn vlidity of the underlying tenet). Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the USA was effectively without a direct rival both economically and militarily: it is THE superpower. Historically when any dramatic dominance by one nation has occurred previously, either a further period of conquest has been embarked upon or (and frequently almost seamlessly) a determination for maintenance of the status quo in order to avoid a meaningful challenge to dominance, has been the motivating force. Metternich's balance of power doctrine, and England's switching sides/allies in continental Europe for at least 250 years in order to prevent an hegemony to challenge her incipient - and then real- empire spring to mind. I suggest that the latter has been the order of the day for the US - and it is only events of direct threat which have motivated foreign adventures. The US did not want a too powerful Japan to dominate Asia, a powerful theocratic Iran to dominate the Middle East (hence the decision in 1991 to cease hostilities against Saddam's Iraq which could act as some form of balance to Iran) - and some balance in both South America and Europe. By and large Africa to date has been largely irrelevant (save for periods of active communist infiltration of states which led to propping up and supplying some of the strangest regimes - making Vietnam or Saddam appear almost normal). So much for the hstorical perspective of the US actions. For 500 years at least Europe has been the centre of Western thought and power. It is never pleasant to realise that rather than being the mjor player(s), you are a now a bit player. There is a resentment at the swing in economic, military and poltical power. The EU which consists of nations with historical enmity is an attempt to redress the balance. At the same time the nations in the EU are delighted that they can spend (in real terms) far less on defence than previously as there is no direct national threat to them - and no need for the umbrella of US defence offered by NATO during the cold war. At one and the same time the US is accused of massive conspiracies and Macchiavellian machinations, it is blighted with seeming incompetence in those machinations and overriding all is a touching naivete: you actually seem to expect to be loved, and to live up to the rhetoric uttered by its leaders. That schizophrenia is apparent in an inherently secular society which insists on paying lipservice to notions of God and playing to a "moral majority". It also makes Americans and US politicians almost uniquely vulnerable to outbursts of sanctimonious pap from politicians of other nations (who have no qualms in maintaining their countries' own economic interests and no hesitations in making pronouncements of utopianism without the slightest intention of furthering such). On an individual basis do YOU you give to every charity or group which masquerades as a charity? Do you feel a need to explain to each such group why you are giving an amount to them or justifying why you are giving more to another? Foreign aid is part of diplomacy - and as such is pursued for the real perceived interests of the donor country (which incidentally might include all sorts of altrusitic notions which are important to domestic voters). It is sheer nonsense that aid must be given equally or come with no strings - after all it is your tax dollars and you are entitled to demand some return either real or maybe just sickly warm feelings for it. However, anecdotal observation of human nature is such that gratitude is rarely received. Rather envy of someone (anyone) who is better off appears to be the norm, and expectation that they should be placed in that position is a given. Victimisation is standard with pleas/demands for more without actually offering anything in return or performing oneself. The modern object is to make the donor feel guilt about not doing enough as opposed to what the donee could do for himself. Hence a whole range of groups and nations line up for largesse as of right - but then resent any suggestion that there may be a quid pro quo. For a not inconsiderable period the US was the largest single donor to "the Palestinians" but of course that would not lead to gratitude: how dare the US give more to Israel? No culture or people copes well with inferiority. All like to believe they are (at least) as good as the next group - and usually better. Of course, occasionally when faced with stark reality, the issue becomes how do you cope? Various methods have been tried: the rarest is to actually try to absolutely improve your own level of well-being but that pales if your neighbour too improves his own level (look at the relative well-being of the poor in OECD countries and compare the criteria of poverty in those countries over the last century); the most popular is a declaration of war: if you cannot improve in direct comparison of your own doing, the least you can do is drag the opposition down. The modern form is one of begging without humility: the demand as of right to charity, but is not called charity! Regardless of economic and military dominance which you may lack, you know that you at least have moral/theological superiority - but perhaps - like suffering stoically, there is no point to it unless everyone knows that that is what you are doing! Hence the last refuge to justify all else can be used as a weapon - and is being so. As usual our own freedoms are turned against us: freedom of religion is fine but it doesn't give you a right to active intolerance of others. If you are a taxi-driver presumably it is within your rights to deny access to an intoxicated passenger (on the grounds of safety, cleanliness etc). However, the mere fact that someone is "armed with the means of intoxication" (alcohol) is no more reason to refuse them carriage than refusing a woman "because she is equipped with the means to be a prostitute". That should be a term of the licence. No one compells someone to work on his religious holiday but you cannot seek employment at an abattoir and then object to the killing of animals for meat, refuse to participate and expect to be paid by the abattoir! If someone hates you already and you are paying them for nought - perhaps rather than reconsider your other policies, you should first reconsider whether you should be paying them!! Only the Western democracies are so consumed with issues of self-guilt that they let their own best interests decline. We hear all about Islamic solidity but where were the funds from various Islamic states loaded with oil revenue when their brethren were suffering from tsunami: the expectation was that the heathen West would supply funds - and we did. It is time to stand up for our own self-interest before it is too late: that is not taking an antagonistic posture it is simply being open and admitting self-interest instead of pretending otherwise. Self-interest includes feelings of gratification for helping someone: after all it makes you feel good, but don't pretend that they have a RIGHT to more!

I think you'll find that it has been around for a very long time: Danielson's relay Precision circa mid to late 1970's offered 2C GF relay to all main range one-level bids, and 2D as an invitational bid (not natural either). AFAK those responses (as opposed to continuations) were not ground-breaking at the time (other than perhaps their application to Precision).

Hope layout improved but cut and paste showed up differently; the emoticons were not intentional - they appeared at random for a bracketed second letter in the alphabet...

In response to akhare's request in Malex 3 thread. APOLOGIES FOR FOR FORMATTING EARLIER but cut & paste originally Clearly illegal for many jurisdictions unless open slather, current version:- SUMMARY OPENING BIDS Not Vulnerable Pass=16+ HCP any / 0-4HCP!! 1C = a)13-15 bal b)10-15 m3(<5 S) c)10-15 4 S & 5+m d)10-15 m2 1D =10-15 4+H ,unbal maybe canape 1H = a)6-9 non-MYXO ie not suitable for singlesuited or 2 suited pre-empt b)10-15 6+C ss 1S =10-15 5+S (<5H) 1NT =10-12 balanced 2C =0-5 any 2D = a)10-15 6+D ss OR But in 4th seat vul, 11-14 with D only B)5/6-9 6H OR c)5/6-9 5+S & 5+C 2H = a)ACOL 8PT H But in 4th seat vul, Acol H only B)5/6-9 6S OR c)5/6-9 5+C & 5+D 2S = a)ACOL 8PT S OR But in 4th seat vul, Acol S only b)pre-empt C OR c)5/6-9 5+D & 5+H d)solid C & o/s A/K 2NT = a)5/6-9 5+C & 5+H OR but in 4th seat vul, 11-13 with 5+C & 5+D B)5/6-9 5+D & 5+S 3C = a)pre-empt D OR b)solid D & o/s A/K but in 4th seat vul, shows 7 card semisolid suit named & A outside 3D = a)pre-empt H OR b)solid H & o/s A/K but in 4th seat vul, shows 7 card semisolid suit named & A outside 3H = a)pre-empt S OR b)solid S & o/s A/K but in 4th seat vul. Shows 7 card semisolid suit named & A outside 3S = solid suit, no o/s A/K but in 4th seat vul shows 7 card semisolid suit named & A outside 3NT = a)pre-empt C OR b)pre-empt D but in 4th seat vul, shows hand TO PLAY 4C = pre-empt H, NAMYATS, 1+ QT o/s 4D = pre-empt S, NAMYATS, 1+ QT o/s 4H = pre-empt 4S = pre-empt 4NT = 5+D & 5+C, < 3 Quick Losers, < 4 L, m suit solidity VULNERABLE is more traditional 1C= 16+ 1D= 10-15 2 or 3 suited a) 4S & 5+m :) m3 (<5S) c) minor 2suiter (m2) 1H= 10-15 4+H (denies m3) also denies 5S unless holding 5+H) 1S= 10-15 5+S (<5H) 1NT=12-15 2C= a) 10-15 6+C singlesuited (ss) OR B) weak 2 in D OR c) weak 5+S & 5+H OTHER as per n/vul scheme Over every 1 level opening step 1 is relay based on Symmetric principles but opener almost never bids suit held in order to maximise prospect of being dummy. New non-relay over the multipurpose 1m opening are descriptive but n-f, with higher bids being pre-emptive (noting that if resp hold 44minors there must be at least 8 card fit vul). Over Major showing bids a) cheapest is relay B) simple new suits are transfers c) jump +1 is singleton raise ie splinter with limit or min GF d) other simple jumps are fit-showing +2= 2way either that suit or highest e) one under double raise is limit f) jump raise pre-empt g) jump raise +1= bal min GF raise h) double jumps are switched void-showing splinters (one under) Note 7 card majors are only opened at the one level if weak or 7222 assuming the 7222 does not qualify for the solid with no outside A/K or solid with outside A/K. Intermediate 7 card suits with outside values fit the somewhat liberal definition of "Acol 2". The Acol Two could also be a 65 with six + cards in named Major as it takes those hands out of 1-level openings without upgrading to strong opening. Many unusual treatments including transfer doubles, specialised cues : the complete system including defences to absolutely everything is about 50 typed pages of theory with some sequences completed (but no examples). If anyone seeks more information, please respond in the thread or PM to me.

As someone who has played variations of FP for 25 years (and my regular partner fro the last 15 has kept every hand record and bidding sequence we have had!!) let me weigh in with a few observations:- 1. Playing imps a vul fert is a BIG loser. It is inherently unsound. 2. One famous hand when we had a 54 Major fit and 17 HCP we went for 1100 at the one level: if you had seen the hand it could have been a James Bond design against the system but that hand was genuinely bizarre and not a reason to change the system of itself; 3. ferts n/v are potentially big winners as they force opponents to guess outside their comfort zone (or even to switch systems) when it is their hand: we play 2C opening n/v as 0-5 for 17 years, and 1H n/v opening as either 6-9 unsuitable for single-suited/2-suited pre-empt OR singlesuited 6+C 10-15. 4. Defending against ferts is an artform and the goalposts move: if they open vul with a fert your first option should be penalties but when the vul is unfavourable to the defending side, the odds change dramatically... 5. Having played all sorts of ranges for "mainstream bids" , I confirm Richard's analysis of 8-12 versus 10/11-15: 8-12 while frequently occurring is a BAD range for taking median positions, whereas 10-15 is a good one. 6. Often overlooked is the judgement developed in responding to mainstream openings is largely lost when you switch to 8-12 and it really takes huge adjustments to make this work whereas the minor adjustment for the other is practical. 7. 8-12 openings push the opponents (particularly international class) into more potentially makeable games....pressure can rebound, and too frequently provide the road map when an early couple of Honour cards are located... 8. Some systems which are largely banned at and for pairs events (owing to the rarity and few boards played against each pair) were developed for pairs originally - and are less effective at teams/imps (eg Regres and a few of the other Polish systems) 9. Relay systems are very good for imps - but the concentration of strength which may be vital for pairs decisions are lost in relays - particularly at the partscore/Moysian marginal level (as you tend to show shape regardless unless branching out...). Having different information will create swings, but even having more information when it is of a different kind is NO GUARANTEE of a better result (eg the typical relay nightmare of finding doubleton opposite doubleton and avoiding NT only to find it was a very strong doubleton in partner's hand, or worse still AQ tight opposite singleton -cf concentration of strength but there are compensations) 10. My methods differentiate and revolve around the S suit as I am a strong believer in the boss suit: I like to differentiate between 4S, 5+S, pre-empts and hands which hold enormous playing strength but middling defence to open a strong bid. The Malex style is overly locked into precise length and ignores many practicalities of modern bidding.

One other point to add is an agreement whether or not you so do, as partner's tendencies on sacrifices or obstructive raises together with his assumptions on the degree of a particular Major fit which the opponents "must" enjoy looking at his own hand, will vary considerably depending upon the agreement...

A bit like US foreign adventures - tehy are more driven by domestic politics than any overall plan - which I realise is a severe blow to many of the conspiracy theories. Kadina (Olmert's party) leads a fragile coalition in the Knesset. Kadina was elected on a platform of peaceful withdrawal. They tried - and the strategy has been at best a limited success.... And then things escalate: in a country where almost every child of eligible age is in the Reserve, not merely the symbolism but the reality of every Jewish mother's nightmare where her child is kidnapped..... The old rule pertains: to get peace - install a hawk (Rabin) but if you wish to see war, push the dove - because after the dove has exhausted his offerings he has no choice but to respond (and arguably far harder than the hawk) both for pragmatic reasons and for domestic political reasons. Incidentally, the swing against Barak following the rejection of the Camp David offer tangetally illustrates the same point: you can only go so far with one method and when it doesn't work you have to swing right round (or at least the democratic electorate forces that upon you when it doesn't work - hence there is an argument - to come full circle - in favour of not necessarily benevolent tyranny : if all you are interested in is consistency and maintaining the status quo - a position which eloquently defined large slabs of US foreign policy which is where we came in!!) regards - and not so tongue in cheek at all

No W. G. Grace?

Of all auctions, the one you cite is the easiest for relatively high level agreement because:- 4minor logically MUST be forcing (even by people who might play nf new suits in lower auctions it would make no sense in terms of utility to bid 4m nf to stop precisely at 4m compared with all other possibilities....) This cue-bid is a cheap bid below game to indicate higher ambitions in S if co-operative. Whatever you think of new suit forcing responses to overcalls generally, when the opponents have pre-empted (and I include ferts in the general form of pre-empts) and partner makes an overcall, it is logical to use new suit forcing as the expectation of the strength of advancer's hand has been increased (by the difference between a pre-empt and at least a minimum opening bid). Better still to utilise transfer advances commencing with the cue bid.... regards

My view is that the government should take a backward step on the issue (and indeed on most issues). It is one of the key issues over here (Oz), pushed by both conservative (Liberal) and Labor, competing strongly for the "family vote" and no one will gainsay it. Oddly enough anyone who IS going to procreate based purely on financial advantage by so doing, is exactly the first person I would seek to discourage from procreating.... We also have one territory (Australian Capital Territory - equivalent of DC) which has stipulated legality for same sex unions but the federal government is considering legislation aimed at preventing such. Similarly (but perhaps with a more secular and less heated press) the various states have differing legislation as to what constitutes de facto relationships, rights on intestacy, access to superannuation etc both for those married, and those of same sex. Overall it is another area of controversy both as to rights and privileges with the word "marriage" itself a lightning rod for some of the groups. Statistics of reproduction (eg lowest % of households with children) can be used to show anything- after all :- a) the population is higher than before :P we are living longer (hence households in which people are older beyond the more obvious child-bearing/rearing ages) c) the assumption that growth of population is a good thing (or even maintaining population) which I suggest may be a false premise... As to immutability: religions which rely on dogma and ritual cloak themselves in immutability but actually require adaptability in changing environments for relevance (although if you subscirbe to opiate of the masses doctrine, perhaps part of the attraction of religion is convincing people that life has not changed....) The extent to which that involves sophistry or can instead be said to stem from the "true principle" is usually at least as good for a heated discussion as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.... regards

Since we're into iconoclasm, let's go further. Historically marriage was fostered by various states/religions/ruling groups because of the need to take care of children (the weak) - particularly in eras of high rates of child mortality and mothers who died in childbirth. Like much of ritual religion, and moral codes - the basis was one of sensible pragmatism: without contraception children were likely and the they needed all the protection that could be afforded them (as did the mother burdened by them assuming that she survived). (typical other examples: if you're in the desert and it is pre-refrigeration, and you run across shellfish - don't eat it, whereas by contrast salting fish has been known for much longer; pigs revel in filth - eat pig =eat fith and get ill; milk and meat will curdle....the Roman Catholics added eating fish on Firdays as a balanced diet - and to defray the relatively higher cost of meat for many in days when people gathered in coastal/river communities; fasting or cleansing one's system is (very) occasionally good for you...the list could go on). What about today? Well, infant mortality is way down (particularly in the Western world). We have a very high world population but the human race, per se, has not shown a desire to refrain from procreation. To the contrary, it seems that such is very basic (i exempt those few who are humble enought to believe that the world is not made a better place by smaller images of themselves running around :D :P ;) ). It is true that in the Wesern world the number of children per "family" (substitue "unit " if you wll), but there is no real risk of the human population of the earth decreasing : quite the reverse. Accordingly, is there still a good reason to encourage (financially and in other senses) procreation? Certainly there is still a case for protection of children who are born (again the weak - and after all it was not by THEIR choice). But as to a need to encourage procreation per se-I doubt it. The one thing we have too many of in this world is people! In the West, people should not be determining to have children based on financial plans of the government or other wise - and by and large let us be honest people have children for their own selfish reasons. The human race will not die out if such subsidies were removed (yes leave a safety net for those children who cannot be taken care of by their parents- it was not their fault that they were born!) Yet the sanctity of motherhood/childbirth/having children is inviolable - at least as regards public opinion and inevitably that of politicians; why it's as American as apple pie! So I go further - and say the time has come look at both marriage and children without historical and hysterical myopia, but from a logical point of view. Sadly I am condemned to agree with Richard on the point of delineation of marriage: between two consenting individuals (which assumes the capacity to consent, hence ruling against bestiality and minors in no particular order) a contract of sorts. Let us leave it at that while allowing any religion to encase it in its own wrapping/ritual, but other than historical baggage, let us not pretend that it has some truly mystical meaning to which a government or logic (note the distinction between the two) should adhere! regards before the flames engulf me....