Impact

General agreement is that rubens advances still apply:- since we are above 3NT (unless we bid 3NT) on this auctiuon:- 3NT= nat 4C= nat & forcing 4D= H 4H= good S raise, mildly invit to slam 4S= nat 4NT=Kickback because it is S suit, not because it is 4NT 5C= fit-showing & forcing to 5S (at least) 5D= void D, and slam try in S 5H= fit-showing in S and slam-try forcing to 5S 5S= bid slam with D control: I have the earth 5NT= GSF because it is S suit extrapolations reasonably clear

Brutal problems from one set:- 1. 1NT despite shortage in H with 2D 2nd choice; at least NT focuses on strength and most likely game.... 2. foul but 3NT on Hamman's rule with apologies to partner as we chalk up some huge minus...but all the other options look worse including bidding at the 4level on a 5 card suit....hey it could have been even tougher if the pre-empt had been in D and my reds were switched as now if I risk 3NT I also risk that partner will transfer me to H.... 3. At last an easy one for my methods: 2D as transfer to H over which I can complete my description to 2S. I use the double to start transfers - and although it is not for the lead 6 card suits with constructive values require a bid, and if you don't show your 6 card suit partner will not play you for one even if he holds AKx (your S honours make it likely he holds some card/s in H) 4. PASS - stay fixed and pay off if they psyche successfully.... 5. Crapshoot but anything could be making and vul opponents are unlikely to opt for hara kiri - so 6H for the lead and expect to run to 6S, but to say that this comes with no guarantees is one of the great understatements of our time - and I'll be prepared to apologise to partner if the outcome is poor (a generally advisable strategy on any offbeat call - even if you think that he should get the gag, and I probably pull more "creative " bids than most)

I attend 17 Swans (AFL) games over 3 seasons and they win.....zero of those games including managing to lose by 30 points when leading 48-0...... I accept that I am Jeremiah and do not go to any more games (consoling myself by watching on TV)- so last year they win the premiership...., a mere 72 years since their previous win -sheer luck or taking me out of the equation? It's not that I'm paranoid - it's just that they're all out to get me....

I used to play negative free bids (for about 17 years) before giving them up for transfers in most cases. IF you play negative free bids it is important to discriminate between the different hand-types and not overload the double more than you can help. I used:- Double: standard negative with typically 4 cards in unbid major OR strong single-suiter GF (rebid own new suit) OR balanced GF lacking a stopper (rebid cue in their suit below 3NT) Strong 2 suiters excluding opener's suit went via the immediate cuebid! The last part sounds intuitively wrong - but worked astonishingly well over a period of time.

Double or 4NT are awful as a) you would be surprised if partner bid anything except C - your void; b)given his all but certain shortage in S, he might even have a jump to 6C on a void in S and decent 6 card suit eg KQJxxx... c) the difference between a 4card suit (D) and a 6 card suit (H) is dramatic. - and for partner to prefer H is exceptionally unlikely. Further, converting any bids to D or H only continues the misstatement of the strength of your hand -assuming you survived the last round. That leaves Pass and 5H as the viable options. You hold 3 Quick tricks against 4S, with almost any card in partner's hand giving you some winning defensive prospects. Accordingly, you are odds on for a positive if you pass - and guessing completely if you bid (but the upside of a godd guess is considerably better). If the SK was the DK - notwithstanding the same 3 tricks I would be inclined to bid 5H, but although I am usually a bidder, the downside of this hand is just too great, but it is that close. If one could assume that most others would face the same problem I think that pass has an even higher upside as many will go badly wrong, so whether it is imps or MPs you will still be reasonably placed. Of course, if it is a straight teams game you would want to know what your teammates' arrangements were.... So Pass for me, but really all I would need would be the HJ to bid 5H - notwithstanding the downside!

Forget the percentages of who plays what -the difference between regular "top-level" partnerships and generally expert bridge is huge. THe mere fact that a bid (or system) has popularity, is no definitive point (many topline players have to play with mixtures of partners or were brought up playing rubber etc). Moving on:- Over 1NT opening: a) if weak NT the relevance and advantage of what has been referred to as "garbage Stayman" is much higher than when playing a strong NT :P conversely Smolen or similar is more useful than garbage Stayman over Strong 1NT; c) completely agree with Frances about opening with 5M(Frances you might want to rethink on that basis :D ) as to use of puppet Stayman over 1NT opening whether weak or strong and also that 2C is more useful as asking initially with the ability to locate whether 4/5M subsequently.; NOTE: a personal quirk is that I consider S as the ranking suit to be in a different class from H, and hence tend to be more reluctant to suppress 5S within 1NT than 5H (all other things being equal), and impose more stringent negative suit requirements accordingly. Over 2NT Opening or overcall:- Here both level and space combine to require you to make the NT bid with more distributions. Now finding 5M in opener/overcaller's hand may be crucial. Any system which asks for 5M has to be useful. In response to the oft-cited inability to show 5S & 4H below 3NT (other than by allocation of the 3S bid - which is too great a liability for minor suit investigation IMHO, and too great a devotion of a valuable resource to a small class of hands), tradditional puppet Stayman replies to 3C by bidding the 5M, while 3D denies 5M (but promises at least 1x4M) and 3NT denies M altogether. Merely by doing what I call the SHUFFLE between 3NT and 3H, you gain room to show 5S & 4H (given that 4S & 5H can be shown by transfer to H and S rebid). Hence 2NT-3C ? 3D= no 5M, at least 1x4M 3H= no 4M (yes it permits a lead directing double, but only by the player sitting OVER the NT bid who would be on lead most of the time anyway....but also leaves room for responder to bid 3S to show 5S & 4H! while still below 3NT) 3S= 5S 3NT= 5H (over which you may choose to play retransfers with 4C/D or retain natural meanings). 25 years ago I used both 3S and 3NT as puppets to get extra room for information disclosure- but in terms of a single bid that can go wrong, the "raise" of NT to game was the most frequently forgotten I have ever seen in any partnership - with any partner. Regardless of theoretical efficacy, I am convinced that playing witha human it is losing strategy to adopt it (but if Icould clone myself, as so many have descibed me as inhuman.....) regards

Barrister: commercial & equity (ie not real people.....) Previously : solicitor, wine judge & writer, ski instructor...

At least backstroke and coxless rowing without further thought...

Nick, sorry but you are out of date - the new ball has less stitching and fewer panels and indeed instead of the octagonal (?) panels, the latest has fewer patches...apparently the smoother surfaces increase accuracy.... but on the original issue, Barcelona has the class but arguably requires more than that paticularly as I think they are away to AC inthe second leg with only a 1 goal cushion... Arsenal has the same advantage against Villareal - and Arsenal is the classier of those two sides but home leg is worth a lot... To coin a phrase, it could all be determined by the bounce of the ball - which is where I came in!

When I hold an unbid 6 card suit and partner doubles for takeout, I should be very reluctant to pass for penalties.... Sure you can make a case for a positive when partner starts with SA and continues and then we take 1 or 2 H and a C....BUT what about the perfectos where he holds 5-4-0-4 (and we are taking NO C tricks on defence) or 5-3-1-4 or 6-3-0-4 etc Any hand with C length (and he almost certainly holds 3+C) which has heavy holdings eg KQJ are likely to take 0 defensive tricks in the suit. Regardless of whether it is right this time, for the sake of partnership confidence I will pull to 5C with this hand (which I do not expect to make) but I do not expect to be more than 2 down. NB if he holds say Axxxx Axx x AKxx I am an overwhelming favourite for 5C, and say Axxxx AJx x KQJx makes 5C likely but 4D also likely....and all the more so on a C lead. Change his hand to say KQTxxx Kxx x KQJ where I am 2 down in 5C but they are likely making 4D... and what of AJxxxx Axx void AKxx and similar concoctions?

Bidding ♦ immediately is out for a number of reasons: 1) the suit is poor 2) I have no rebid assuming the opponents make a bid: I play a rebid by overcaller in NT without any bid by advancer as showing length in the lowest available suit (typically a 64, occasionally a 54) - unless the opponents bid 3C in which case I could double 3) any rebid or takeout double by me which is likely to produce a "preference" bid returning to my overcalled suit in any close case is likely to produce a bad result 4) if I make a bid at the 2-level with this hand and it is passed out the odds are that I won't be happy. That leaves a choice between a direct 1NT and doubling and then bidding NT(as a plan). The latter is about right on values: positionally and with 3 bullets, this hand is better than 18HCP, while it is very good for play in S despite the extra length in H. Our most likely games are S or NT - and making a simple overcall in D is unlikely to get us to either. After all, on a H lead mere xxxxxx x xx xxxx gives me some play - and there will be many better hands he may hold on which no move would be made over a simple overcall. I feel some relief as he is a passed hand and it is unlikely (based on my H holding) that the auction will bounce. So at teams at any vul I double, and at MP vul I also double (thereby putting a likely plus score in slight jeopardy for the additional return). I should note that the opponents' methods protect them - and it may be that the 3rd hand opening bid will not be made at all tables, so I may have some "catch-up" to par. n/v and playing MP I would be more inclined to take the low road of 1NT direct - only because the absence of the appreciable game bonus and the super-accept of S still remains to get us to a good game.

Now that makes sense in ♠!!! Of course, there is the small problem of doing that when the particular terrorist is dead and his (generic) avowed purpose was eliminating as many people as possible who fitted into his definition of enemy/infidel/unsuitable/not to be tolerated..... but I take your point and agree: whatever is the stated aim of the terrorist group generally, to cave into them only encourages the terrorist activity as once successful, you go to the well again (ok not the particular suicide bomber).... Certainly, in the sense that deliberate self-censorship of sensitive topics is sought, a policy decision to protect the publisher is virtually required (otherwise self-preservation suggests that many will determine that the risks are far too great). However, the risk in those circumstances, becomes that of conveying official sanction to what was only comment! In short, while I agree with the sentiment I am remarkably unclear as to a mode for its practical implementation. regards

It is still not clear to me just what the EW conventional agreement was. If 2D showed Majors, absent any prior misbids or system problems, then the 3D bid by East must have been a gametry for H !!!! Now there is even less room for West with DQJxx and 4card H support to be negative about his hand (unless he thought he would beat 3S on repeated forces but contra that in such circumstances NS must be able to run a lot of C). It also suggests that he (West) has taken UI from Easts's failure to alert 2H (preference). I think that NS have been damaged by their own methods - but perhaps also by their failure to bid 4S by North given a partner who is willing to commit to 3S vul (rightly or wrongly) when he believes the suit will break badly, when North also has a source of tricks. Opposite a weak NT the south hand really looks like a non-forcing bid in S (no shortage- and then information that strength sits over the NT bidder). If that was the rue meaning of the bid, S would have been reached at 2/3 level on North's testimony. They have been deprived of that by the "psyche" of 2D (if indeed he had forgotten the meaning of the bid). However the fact that West says that the reversion to 3D suggest natural -means a misdescription of the bid or use of UI by East...and an expectation of such by West (where H had not been doubles etc) and then the further UI when East failed to alert West's bid. I think it is actually easier for NS to reach 4S on this auction than over a typical weak NT and natural interference - given that South has "risked" the 3S bid. N/S should keep their score (for North's poor bid, and no I don't want to think about other permutations where South does not bid 3S!!), but E/W should not be allowed to profit form their version of "Wolfschmitz". I would have been harsher on E/W giving them only 20%!!! or average minus with an additional procedural penalty (probably the better ruling).

Only one relatively easy problem - otehrs all difficult/close:- 1. Pass: sing CK is not pulling its weight, and partners push with invitational types when they think they can locate all the points... 2. Double in standard methods but the virtual certainty that RHO is short in H would let me downgrade this hand to 1S (normal overcall) on personal style 3. Another nightmare: 2S as the least of evils - it should make but my risk is that I have underbid dramatically, although a KS reverse to 2H is possible, but really 2D is too discouraging, 1NT is worse (both for values - and a hand which seems to scream for suit play), but I would prefer my D suit stronger (and H suit weaker) to bid 2H. 4. Depends on partner's proclivities and limits imposed on weak 2s....to be honest I think at pairs there is some risk but opposite a solid citizen I must bid. At teams you virtually must bid 3H which will give us a good play for game opposite as little as AQxxx Qxx 5 assorted minor suit cards assuming both CA & HK are onside.... 5. 7 card suits and voids do not play well in low level doubled contracts generally - so I will wimp with 2C.... 6. Double - the easiest problem of the set as the risk of 3H is that partner thinks it is a fit non-jump by a passed hand....albeit the disparity between the suits is great, I really don't want to encourage partner to bid over S in D!!!! 7. All prime cards but a lot of warning signs out. Not a bad argument for a direct 4D over partner's 2D - and let him make the decisions, particularly at imps. Isn't this the sequence you would use with a slightly weaker (ie min GF) or a considerably stronger hand? Anyway, now I'm in the position I have to decide whether partner's 2NT (as opposed to immediate 3NT over 4SF ) showed some extras. If it did not, the hand has depreciated as he has declined a slam invitation (presumably looking at poor D we know but also msifit for C - 5-3-4-1 likely). Just how light does he open? QJxxx KQx Qxxx x is obviously no play; Improve the H a touch eg AQx and it is no joy...but AQxxx KQx QJxx x is great....on this hand I think I'm looking at establishing his S suit (the odds against his having a hand such as CK to allow me to establish my suit decreased with his regressive bidding after my first bid of C and forcing reversion to his second suit- so will probably need to ruff at least 1S and hence can expect to lose at least 1H. Unless the 2NT is extras, given my expectation of minima, I Pass. How much better is the direct 4D over 2D as it seems right on values, allows a pinpoint of 2 potential H losers immediately...and you will not cue above game unless partner forces you....

In terms of alltime eyecandy I forgot (!!) Grace kelly (THE ice blonde) Rita hayworth (Gilda was sensationally sexy for a different era) Alexis Smith

A simple rule/premise to adopt is that if a pass is forcing, a double should be "penalties" - however that is defined. You should not make a forcing pass with a hand which possesses a clear feature (like an unbid 5+card suit) as you risk being unable to catch up.... This also allows you to nail them from either side. In this instance, by application of the initial premise, you simply bid 3C (assuming that that is forcing under your system...). Once you accept the initial premise of pass is forcing, hence double is penalties, many auctions are clarified. Pass and pull also takes on particular overtones (can show extra strength etc) regards

greatest ever male actor: Alec Guiness Charles laughton Orson Welles eyecandy/charm male: Marcello Mastroianni Cary Grant contemporary male:Klaus Maria Brandauer Al Pacino Sean Penn? greatest ever female actor: Deborah Kerr eye candy/charm: Audrey Hepburn Sophia Loren Halle Berry contemporary female actor: Hilary Swank Uma Thurman

Just discovered this thread - and realise it is late but a few older movies that others may not know:- Life and Death of Colonel Blimp: incredibly touching while amusing with a serious side, a very young Deborah Kerr playing many roles, Anton Wallbrook, Roger Livesey...it is long and the first 20 minutes merely set the scene but delightful...even if it was WWII propaganda Cinema Paradiso: another chick flick that really works superbly Mephisto: tour de force acting (particularly Brandauer) with no likeable character but rips you apart, quite aside form the historical revenge biography by Heinrich Mann(brother of Tomas) Kind Hearts and Coronets: others have said it all Philadelphia Story: best of K.Hepburn & Cary Grant with very clever sceenplay My Fair Lady: if you must have a musical, and I love Audrey Hepburn - but Stanley Holloway steals the show as Mr Doolittle....WIth a Little Bit of Luck has wonderful lyrics, and the original GBS play is pretty damned good Me and the Colonel: from a play by Werfel, with marvelous dialogue and Danny kaye in his only serious role as the wandering Jew opposite Curt Jurgens as the Polish aristocrat both caught in Paris as the Germans arrive... Colonel: Gun I shoot, woman I honour, church I obey Jacobowsky: Colonel , you have one of the great minds of the 12th century - it is just my misfortune that we are together in the 2oth century... Once you have seen this movie you will understand the importance of "There are always two possibilities...." Kelly's Heroes: silly but Donald Sutherland as the spaced out tank commander's "Don't give me no negative vibes, Moriarty" and a great cast somehow works for me - or it was just my youth... Arsenic and Old Lace: my nomination for "horror" film...delightful in so many ways including the in jokes Roman Holiday: Audrey Hepburn again with some charm (if you liked Notting Hill, see how much was "borrowed", albeit updated from this....)

I think most contemporary filosofers would agree with you. I might be wrong. It's possible that this is case were many filosoffers would say that it's debatable. Which is not to say that everything is debatable. Rape and torture are not. [ Helene, I think I know where you are coming from but your example may not have been the best: one of the classic dilemmas on any moral philosophy is the point at which something (eg torture) which is reprehensible in itself (note I did not use "morally wrong" ;) :) ), can be justified. First year philosophy includes starting with the general prohibition against cannibalism/killing. Next you stipulate that the group of people have no source of food but a time for imminent rescue is such that all would be dead....now one peson is dead and consuming him would allow all others to survive.....and then you move to the scenario where no one is dead, but if someone is not consumed all will die....etc In the case of torture of someone eg a terrorist where many lives are at stake for the information he retains- or if that is not enough for you, hypothesise the destruction of our world.... I confess that I am unable to justify rape per se, but I suppose if you were to classify rape as a form of torture (stating or hypothesising that it was the only form of "torture" that would be likely to produce a result -really stretching here -and apply the same hypothesis as that posited above), you might be able to make a philosophical case even for rape under the circumstances. Note, I am not sure that the various semantic and psychological definitions of "rape " beyond the physical fact of non- consensual sex would be appropriate - but that is a further argument. What we can agree upon is that there are commonly held views of matters which are reprehensible. The circumstances which could justify most of those acts to any individual will vary from person to person introducing a further subjective variable (after all to a strict Roman Catholic, if I understand it correctly, divorce is still "unacceptable"). Semantics is fun in itself - as is the philosophical conundrum. I like to use the arbitrary distinction between an opinion (that which I believe applicable) and a conviction (that which a person believes to be universally applicable). When convictions are pressed and disputed, there is a real risk that it will lead to convictions of a legal kind!!! regards - and congratulations for keeping the lid on this thread, more or less...

Peter, Please resist the temptation to take everything personally as relating either to you or the US. If you read the full text, you will note that I specified firstly (albeit without footnotes) that if you accept the Iranian head of government's statements at face value, he and hence the government, have various stated policies - including the destruction of the state of Israel, its complete elimination. On the basis of his religious fervor and again stated belief that following such destruction, any retaliation against Iran would still leave the ledger in favour of the destruction of Israel - no matter the numbers of his own people killed:- I noted that Israel's existence was directly threatened. The USA, aka as the Great Satan, was less directly threatened - and the means were less apparent in the short term (albeit I noted that the potential to arm terrorists with "devices" to further his aims was much more likely as a risk than ICBMs). Oddly enough while YOU may not care so much about MY existence, I tend to care rather more than you (and probably vice versa). {Please note that I am neitehr Israeli nor American). Hence, when it is one's own existence or state which is at risk, the balance shifts dramatically. "Moral calculus" or moral algebra is pretty much rubbish. There are not many of us who will willingly sacrifice not merely our lives but those of our families in mere hope - or worse still for no reason at all. When the chips are down, the gloves come off - when there is no hope or only a slim hope of survival you grasp it. You cannot blame Israel as a state which has had to deal with a continuous stream of suicide bombers for being concerned that another who espouses the same line, may soon have access to a superior bomb. How much do they already hate Israel: enough to deny it the right to exist on any terms. How much worse can that be? Most Americans really want to be liked - and it is US foreign policy's greatest single failing to recognise that power may attract acolytes but it does not bring liking - whereas it breeds envy. How much do Muslim fundamentalists hate the USA? I really don't know - but if you accept much of their stated policy viewpoints about infidels and the USA's point position as the counterculture to sharia law and the leading infidel nation, it is no small thing. Not all Muslims are fundamentalists - but a fundamentalist Muslim nation (a description which may reasonably be applicable to Iran) is a potential threat to the West. Geographically, the USA, Canada and Australia are relatively safe in the short term - but to what extent do or should each decline to assist its western brethren on the grounds of its own comfort. Cloak it in morality or friendship or extended self-interest as you will, there is a point for most people - it just may differ for each! If the USA were to retreat to a position of isolationism it would be bad for the USA - and for the rest of the world (on a simple comparative advantage and potential free trade basis if nothing else). Nonetheless isolationism has been a very popular line in the USA for at least a century (eg "America First" ). With the advantages of modern communications including the internet, the globalisation of commerce and the internationalisation of many companies, even were isolationism popular, it would be hard to pursue as "American interests" are all over the world. As to the job at hand: immediate destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities: that is a matter dependent upon their hardware, its defences and the offensive hardware available to any "pre-emptive force". It is not beyond the bounds of probability that the US could provide the hardware and intelligence (if anyone trusted the latter) to Israel to accomplish the task. How many Iranians dead? I have no idea, but if I were an Israeli, whatever qualms I had would be quelled by the knowledge that my life, those of my family and my friends were all at stake. Moral calculus again: well, unlike a group which sought my death and destruction I would try to minimise the loss of life in order to accomplish the job. Could I sleep at night if I had to make the decision? I don't know - but I do know that if I survived but my family and friends did not because I failed to take that decision, I could not sleep at night. Remember,if you reject the Iranian statements as mere rhetoric, that Jews are one group which have seen horrific and "unbelievable" views about their extinction, acted on over the last 70 years. Arm another group which has a stated intent to eliminate them, with the means to accomplish that task and they are rather more nervous than others. Moral calculus and tolerance and getting everyone to love another is all very well when it is not YOUR life that is on the line. Sometimes you have to take hard decisions - and taking that pre-emptive strike decision now might be a lot easier now than taking any decision after Iran has nuclear weapons..... Remember the lines of Pastor Niemuller.......

It is all but unarguable that "we should take care of our environment". It is very arguable about the form that should be adopted - or indeed the precise nature of the danger. Self-flagellation and self-denial per se may make some people feel good (have you ever tried using some of that recycled toilet paper?), but the economics and damage coefficients of many suggested programmes make little or no sense. Kyoto falls into that category in that the failure to place limits on the fast-developing nations negates the point, while causing disruption to those economies. I note with that European sanctimony on the point is reached because no sacrifice whatsoever is required as the replacement of obsolete Eastern European (read formerly communist/Iron curtain) plant, produced the requisite level of improvement. However Kyoto did raise consciousness of some of the potential problems - and that is not a bad thing in itself. The problem is that the feelgood nature of protest and the money thrown at "being green" does not equateto real progress (imagine the same amount being spent on famine relief and agricultural improvements!!). The fact is that notwithstanding the stagnant or declining populations of some Western nations the global population is on the rise. Short of exponential application of Chinese law as to population control, that situation is not going to change. Further the very source of European relief (improved technology) is the likely answer both in the long and short terms: exporting improved technology to developing countries so as to avoid a repeat of the worst of the excesses already encountered in the OECD but on a far larger scale given the (rising) populations of India and China is the short term answer. Improving technology and changing it is the longer term answer. Surely it is also time to seriously consider the efficacy of efficient use of nuclear technology with modern (3-layer redundancy) safeguards. The disposal of nuclear waste should be a serious research project on an international basis, but there are fairly safe storage mechanisms now if we can overcome the NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitudes. The strange thing is that the very middleclass people who promote much "green" refuse to make sacrifices tehmselves but expect everybodyelse so to do - with the exception of the idological apologists who always feel that whatever the consequences if only we (read "the West") had tried a bit harder teh terrible consequences of (name your poison: war, suicide bombers, disease, pandemic, global warming....) could be averted ;) :blink: I don't know the answers, and unlike some here, I am no scientist, but the vast majority of the "solutions" proposed by the various lobbies are clearly windowdressing and do NOT address the main issues of rising populations and developing countries (often intertwined) with economic and ecological sustainability. regards

Tom Lehrer circa 1965:- First we got the bomb, and that was good, 'Cause we love Peace and motherhood; Then Russia got the bomb, but that's ok, 'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way; Who's Next? France got the bombe, but don't you grieve, 'Cause they're on our side, (I believe); China got the bomb but have no fear, They can't wipe us out for at least five years; Who's next? Then Indonesia claimed that they, Were gonna get one any day; SOuth Africa wants two - that's right, One for the black and one for the white; Who's next? Egypt's gonna get one too, Just to use on you know who; So Israel's getting tense, Wants a bomb for self-defence; "The Lord's our shepherd" says the psalm, But just in case we better get a bomb.... Luxembourg is next to go, And (who knows?) maybe Monaco. We'll try to stay serene and calm When Alabama gets the bomb. Classic satire then - and still applicable. Seriously - you would expect "contingency plans" to have been drawn up for virtually any scenario as a amatter of course by a competent DOD. Is it a good idea to destroy the Iranian nuclear plant/incipient plant? Well, if you believe the public pronouncements of the Iranian government:- 1) they hate Israel and are committed to its destruction; 2) US ranks next on the hate list (the Great Satan); 3) remainder of the West/non-muslim world comes next... 4) ostensibly the doctrine of MAD does not worry them as they are convinced theirs is a holy mission (yet still very few leaders involve themselves at the sharp end in suicide type missions)... So if survival of any of the first 3 groups is a serious issue, a pre-emptive strike maybe justified. In terms of short-term delivery obviously if you were an Israeli you would feel inclined to believe that you had little choice since this group denies your right to exist....US would see less immediacy in a risk to mainland, but the longer term delivery of nuclear devices to terrorists rather than ICBM would pose a risk. THe contrary argument is:- A. this will make them hate (us)/more; B. It will only delay matters; C. it will force them underground.... D. it should be dealt with in a multilateral (read UN) forum; E. sanctions could be applied (preferably on a multilateral basis). To which it is fairly easy to respond: A1. how much more would make how much of a difference? B1. survival is never to be sneezed at - particularly if it is your own survival... B2. delay in this case may result in a change of government/opinion with further access to the west through internet etc and improved standard of living.... C1. so what? see B1 & B2 D1. Utopians are wonderful but given the record of the UN (excluding UNICEF & WHO ) towards Israel at least since the 1948 vote, it is hard to see the UN doing much more than passing a motion of condolence for its demise after the event. E1. "could" is the operative word, but the likelihood of their being passed is not high. E2. Given the application to Iraq (corruption allowing effectively only the citizens to feel the pinch), the odds with Iran worsen particularly given the amount of oil controlled by that country in the current climate; E3. there is no data to suggest that sanctions work- even less that they would have the effect in time to provide the bulwark necessary for protection of any of the 3 groups progressively threatened - and certainly not for the first. When survival is qustioned the relatively thin veneer of civilisation is stripped away; Tolerance is a wonderful foundation stone of western society; It is not possible to tolerate those who deny you the right to exist - if you wish to remain extant. So- if you accept the premise that the survival of one group is directly threatened by Iran possessing nuclear weapons, the logical answer for that group at least is to do all in its power to minimise/avoid the risk. THat would include a "pre-emptive" strike.

Winston sums up the "native Iraq" problem accurately - but his analysis stops short of the current position: the US (with Oz & GB) is there now. You don't create a favourable culture and "liberal" democracy overnight even when dealing with an heterogeneous culture - much less a tribal society with intertribal hatreds in an artificially created state. The theory of division of the state among the 3 tribes geographically ignores:- 1) its unpopularity with ALL neighbours (even US ally Turkey would oppose a Kurdish state); 2) the unequal geographic location of oil (hence wealth); 3) the inevitable dislocation of large segments of population causing further hatreds and feuds; 4) the logistics of boundary drawing which tend to be arbitrary and lead to further disputes (cf Palestine, India/Pakistan, pick any Balkan states....). I was one of the pragmatists who believed Saddam on WMD, viewed his downfall as "a good thing" (cf 1066 & All That) but even prior to the invasion dared to voice the query as to what the plan was for "the peace" on the basis that occupation would have to take place for a minimum of 2 decades to educate and inculcate a generation if there was to be any prospect of establishing a sympathetic (or empathetic) western-oriented state. I doubted whether the US possessed the intestinal fortitude to stay the course over such a period as historically dramatic throwing of resources at a problem in the short term has yielded US its best results. To my knowledge the only longterm "occupations" by the US have been Vietnam (not exactly a success), Germany (dealing with a western heterogeneous group) and Japan (which was at least heterogeneous). Since WWII US foreign policy has been about maintaining a bulwark against communism - and since 1990 about effectively maintaining a status quo (as the dominant power is wont to prefer). Once rhetoric is excluded that simple doctrine explains virtually all actions - and alleged volte faces for the past 60 years. It doesn't make those actions right - but it does explain them. That is not to say that no dividends have been received by the occupation: a number of arab states have foresworn WMD and direct open funding of terrorists and a number of others have had to come to grips with the risk that there might be another state in which "the people" actually have a say - thereby instilling some doubts about the totalitarian regimes in other states. Certainly, there is a strong argument that such dividends are insufficient for the cost (in lives and financially), but there is a further real issue now: what of the cost incurred to date if the US exits now. Those "costs" are effectively wasted in such a scenario. As noted, the longterm strategy of staying the course in Iraq could be a winner geopolitically - but is all but unsustainable on a domestic political basis from an outsider's perspective. Again, to steal from Clausewitz, America's foreign policy has really been a continuation of its domestic policy by other means. I may not like a world superpower - but if we have to have one I am generally grateful that it is the US (consider the alternatives if say Russia, China or even colonial GB exercised the same dominance) as it is doubtful that in those circumstances criticism would be tolerated - and almost certainly there would be no self-vilification or introspection by such a nation. It is quite touching - if somewhat naive- that the US still tends to believe that anywhere they go they will be loved - and the continued air of surprised disappointment when they are not. Other nations have tended to be considerably less caring.....

I believe 2C is a significant underbid, but generally accept Ben's valuation & comments with the only caveat being a possible 4-4-4-1 hand if your style is not to reply 1D on this hand. Even then 4NT should be safe, and I think 4NT is the indicated bid for safety o fthe contract (wrongsiding etc) but 4C is a better bid if a slam in C is on as it gives more room to investigate controls. The only danger to 4C is if partner is one who would not accept 4NT as terminal in such bidding. Still - assuming I was a substitute (the original person who made the 2C bid having taken ill!!)_with a genuinely good player, the right bid is 4C as the location of specific controls may be the key to finding the right slam.

1) in response toMikeH who posited a S suit headed by QT, surely the bid over 4H was 5H- or 5D if that was clearly another cue...; 2) Notwithstanding the apparent agreement of H by 4D under the methods, it is not clear what alternatives responder possessed with a GF ss in S - and perforce he may have been forced to make a cue intending to convert H to S.... 3) Whatever it is that partner wants - you have it: full control of C and useful S, so you must help, and I think 6C is the obvious bid (but query whether 5NT is the "master" bid but at this stage you presumably place partner with the DA - whereas if the actual hand was contemplated maybe you had to consider the possibility that your -opener's hand could have had the DA instead of CK, but then presumably you would not rebid 4H with that hand either over 4D?) 4) seeing the actual hand Frances held highlights a potential disadvantage to the standard structure- wrongsiding the contract, which can amount to luck in almost any system....