Impact

I'm playing imps - I must bid as the problem is that I have 9 cards in partner's long suits - including 4 cards opposite his long C. On the assumption that he holds something like 4H & 7C or 5H and at least 6C, his solidity in those suits could contribute 0 tricks in defence. 3H was awful: 4H was clearcut with the double fit, as that is what it would imply, whereas 3H could have been bid on HQxxx or similar. Picture opener with something like void AKxx Ax AKxxxxx (or even make his C solid), or perhaps void AKxxx x AKxxxxx - in which case there could even be a double grand slam swing (!!!). Who knows unless he has 2 cashing tricks in their suits it is going to problematic. He does not know you have C length (in fact your 3H has tended to deny it sensibly) so he will double when he holds what looks like QT in C & H!! Had you bid 4H over 2S you could pass to let him decide (in case he has those 2 tricks in their suits) but as it is you have to guess first - and should take out insurance (you are unlikely to be more than one down - and the same applies to them!!!). regards

Contrary to standard mantra of new suit at next level showing 10+ HCP and forcing, whenever you hold a decent 6 card suit and partial support for opener's suit, your failure to show the suit at the first opportunity will put your side behind the 8-ball. I t is much less dangerous to make the bid now than hope to get teh chance later (when it has either gone all pass or comes back to you at a relatively stratospheric level and both opponents have had the opportunity to exchange information both as to strength and degree of fit). THe only other point to make is that partner should be on the same wavelength, so that he understands that you may have this handtype. If his double of their intervention of a new suit is penalty he should be prepared for you to pull with this type of minimum and partial fit for his presumed long suit. Ideally bid as a transfer which may include these sorts of hands (yes I like a transfer double to show C on the first hand - hardly a mainstream treatment). If that is not available, make the (2minor) bid anyway on the good understanding that these sorts of offensive values are included as one description of the alternative natural meanings of the bid. regards, fred

I agree with Ron on the importance of double carrying an initial statement that it is probably our hand- save for the last part about Cappelletti which is awful against Strong NT but actually (slightly modified as I played it as effectively reverse gladiator), very effective against Weak NT!! The other point is playing imps as opposed to matchpoints you should use 2NT overcall as a strong 2-suiter both to take it out of the realm of double (those double game swings are painful) and to ease your own responses (I play pivots and exclusions to ensure that the overcaller gets to show both suits and rebids). regards

What is often described as "return to shareholders" is actually short-term return as opposed to maximising longterm return. Short-term return also tends to impose a conflict between management which organises bonuses/golden handshakes etc on shareprice spikes as opposed to sustainable performance. We have seen such conflict produce "creative accountancy" (and even without the nefarious inference) there are on-going issues and debatable classifications which can make all the difference to management rewards. There are no easy answers - but part of the solution is to have active non-executive directors who are attuned to considering the necessary conflict and making those determinations. Obviously, there is a huge difference between privately owned corporations and those listed corporations - if for no other reason the immediate accountability of management to shareholders who are not so much represented on a Board, but actually ARE the Board. It is a difficult position where the Board is composed largely of appointees of institutions which will have different criteria: generally not to rock the boat but as professional investors on occasion the need to sell at a profit or to claim a larger dividend to offset other factors. Diligence by directors and concern for the true "best interests of te company" (whatever that phrase may mean) is the sole defence of the small shareholder - and too little defence it has proven to be all too often. regards

The one thing people forgot to mention is that if PARTNER has short S (and he will have 0 or 1 if there was no psyche) he may have pushed to bid his long H. If that is the case you should just be happy to have escaped the axe in 3H (3NT with this hand is awful as no S tricks etc)...and smile sweetly if they have psyched. In a far far way land I have a well-deserved reputation as an almost inveterate psycher (or is that merely psychotic) and I can tell you that the people who try to double-guess continually are the biggest losers. Skid Simon is so right: concede the occasional battle, win the war!

Justin, no need for vituperation. Also, consider that neither of you (Justin nor Ken) has clarified a couple of other bids which would affect the possibilities eg direct 4H over 3C should also be defined eg if fit-showing it effectively should take care of Fluffy's concern (albeit such a hand as Hannie suggested should be able to make a forcing raise of D anyway in Acol if not in standard at imps). Inferential bids at the table require a partner who will think through the possibilities involved - having particular regard to the set of agreements in place in the partnership. There is only a tiny percentage of players AT ANY LEVEL who are interested in this aspect of the game - and hence it is inherently the antithesis of "winning bridge at the table with an unknown partner". Anyone who has played rubber bridge or been exposed to S. J Simon or played with clients will eschew such bids as impractical unless they have great faith in their partner (or enjoy sadism or are in cahoots with the opponents to skin the palooka). That does not make the bid wrong - it just serves to show the risk as few enough players will start with the same premises for reasoning - let alone be prepared or capable of working it out. Occasionally only a single line of reasoning will be attractive - but usually only with a more defined system. Even BWS which is considerably more defined than "standard" spawns all sorts of alternative premisees to cope with proclivities of practitioners thereby making MSC interesting. regards

Ken, I used this in a standard/Acol framework with Kokish (before it was known as Kokish or published to my knowledge) and control responses. If you simply make the puppet you lose the opportunity to show natural long S over Opener's hands with H. THis can be crucial in locating 6-2S fits and/or playing in the weak player's long suit with a double fit. There are other hiddne difficulties with Kokish (which do not outweigh its advantages but which are present nonetheless). The object is to take out the S hands as the only hnads on which you DON"T want to bid 2S both to rightside the contract AND it serves to give you a stall/artificial bid below 3NT if opener shows a 2-suiter with H & minor (you can rebid 3S either to suggest a fit for the minor but a hand unwilling to proceed past 3NT, or by agreement to transfer the declaration). Also as an aside you can also modify your responses over Opener's 2NT rebid to take into account that you no longer need or will wish to show at least a 5+ card S suit. Accordingly the transfer to S can be used to differentiate minor suit hands typically (all the more so if you have already eliminated the singlesuiters with 6+ card suit headed by at least QJ). A simple method is to use the transfer to show one minor and a 3S bid to show the other primary minor. A more sophisticated method is to use the 3H "transfer" as a puppet to 3S to allow you to show a range of minor 2-suiters including shortage, reserving a direct 3S bid for minor single-suiters. regards

Hannie, I would go further and require that a bid of 2S is automatic ON ANY HAND WHICH DOES NOT hold 5+S. There is a surfeit of alternative bids which will describe the hand starrting with the assumption that to bid NT you must be LESS likely to want to play NT, so simply :- 2NT= 6+S (preferably having already denied a suit as good as QJ) 3C= 5S, <3H, at least 4+ in m 3D= 5S, <3H, no 2nd suit headed by top Honour (?) 3H= 3H & 5S 3S= 4H & 5S 3NT= 5H & 5S 4C= 6H & 5S An alternative more involved scheme also excludes hands with as many as 4S:- 2NT= 6+S 3C= 4S (now whether you play a relay for other information or natural is dependent on predilection) 3D= 5S, <3H 3H= 3H & 5S 3S= 4H & 5S 3NT= 5H & 5S 4C= 6H & 5S THere are a lot of variations on the theme, butthey also have advantages in terms of avoiding description to defender's of opener's strong hand while preserving the maximum prospect of opener declaring the hand whether he is balanced or not. regards,

With due respect to may here, the common "2D waiting" is yet another move to attemptto retain control bythe "substitution of your expert judgement" when actually passing information is superior. The common desire to control the auction (unsuitably) as opposed to allowing a GF to determine whether the assets held by responder match sufficient to proceed past game, seems to me to be questionable. It leads to terrible inconsistencies (how many extras has he shown etc) and catch-ups - and that abomination of responder taking control by Bw/RKCB etc after a 2C Opening. Control responses are fine if you keep a decent standard for the 2C Opening (GF or 23+bal seems fair). The caveat that I make is that the 2NT response to 2C should NEVER be natural or merely a number of controls: typically as per Rosenkranz recommnedations it should take out a subset of hands which are hard to express from the minimum range. Typically, since you are raising the auction by a full level the obvious answer is that they should have some particular dramatic feature - and again a 6 card suit heade by at least QJ is a sensible alternative (then if you respond with 2D=0-1 control, and rebid the same suit later in a natural auction implying 6+cards, opener knows the suit is weaker - crucially important for slam purposes). By relaying over the 2NT response for the suit below the real suit, it allows opener to anme the denomination (protecting the strong hand) AND by then bidding the suit at the 3-level inquire about side shortage..... Most of the rest of the time after a control response Opener will bid 2NT with the balanced hands (GF opposite 2H or higher) and you can use the whole suite of responses in your complex for responder; otherwise bidding proceeds naturally when a fit is found and openre has the advantage of knowing whether the combined control count is sufficient to warrant further investigation or not. This works BECAUSE you are committed to game whereas over strong Club etc there is no guarantee AND the possibility of relatively equal distribution of assets between the partnership. By contrast the opening of 2C announces (at least in strong mode) the possession by one player of the equivalent of more than half the deck (in HCP if bal, and a lot more in playing strength if unbal). It is much easier to place cards and slot covers for losers when you are looking at the great majority of the cards than otherwise where you have to guess to a ridiculous degree (opener should be able to ask about key Q & J. where it will totally problematic for responder as which additional lesser Honours will be held in side suits - or need to be held). While disagreeing on methods, I stillecho both mikeh & Frances that the key even after showing controls is for responder to recognise the additional values held (above the minimum for your control bid), and when agreeing a suit show them via splinters or 4NT bal raise of 3M as expressing extras in order to allow opener to move to slam/grand slam. regards

Don't cast me as the whitewasher for Israel. There are a lot of nuances to the conflict(s) in the Middle East. Don't confuse support for any particular cause or its inherent appeal, with support for the methods. Your original point was the appellation of "terrorist" or "terrorism". My comment referred to that. If you happen to support the Palestinians - so be it. However an attempt to suggest that Hezbollah and/or Hamas are not terrorist organisations because effectively you support hteir aims is both disingenuous and beneath you. Note, I am not exculpating Israel or vilifying Palestinians. I just want you to accept that the unpalatable word "terrorist" happens to be an appropriate descriptor for both Hezbollah and Hamas (which is not to say that they can also perform other "civic" work). The other matter from your various posts appears to be an on-going rejection of Western government utterances, combined with a flagellation of the West which appears to amount to almost paranoia on conspiracies. It is one thing to be an iconoclast but it takes judgement to determine the battles which should be fought. While it is approriate to have some scepticism as to self-serving press releases, and utterances from politicians and journalists as representing a factual state, I do think it is taking that attitude too far to automatically assume "not A" when "A" is declared.

Winston 1. I am not from USA 2. It is not the difference of opinion that is the problem - it is the right to exist both as humans (given a stated preference and performance to kill them off) and as a state. 3. Anti-zionism is not terrorism: correct. 4. Killing people randomly in Israel is terrorism. 5. Even killing Jews because they are Jews is terrorism. 6. Your wishful thinking well-intentioned PC view is fine,and may even be pragmatic for you and/or America but IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE BASIC MEANING OF THE WORD TERRORIST OR MAKE IT EQUATE ANY THE LESS WITH WHAT THE GROUP does and is. Calling a spade (no racial overtone intended) a spade is not wrong - and it avoids misunderstandings.

Attacking civilian population (and visitors) of a state with intent to kill, where you disagree with the state's policy is the relevant point of distinction rahter than wearing uniforms (albeit I accept the historical allusion as likely to be accurate in 1776). It is not even as if there is any attempt to find out the views on any issue of the particular unfortunates targeted. It is an attempt to destroy a society by hte very randomness of the "terror". Hence : terrorism. In the case of Hezbollah the contiuing denial of the right of existence of the state of Israel suggests that "the goal" represented is somewhat more extreme than a mere state of their own. The only state that has been acceptable for years on an official basis by the PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah has been the complete destruction of Israel and absorbtion by others... Also, the not so slight suggestion that may not be mere rhetoric, to "kill all the Jews" does tend to engender some qualms if you happen to fall into the relevant ethnic (for want of a better description) group! Sure "terrorist" is an emotive word but that is precisely their objective: to strike terror into Israeli hearts (and indeed tourists so that they are discouraged from going to Israel). Why bend over backwards being PC about potential motives when the term actually accords with their (short-term) objective ?

Since T1 exposes the H void we might as well take advantage of the chance to ruff in hand (twice in fact) as we may be able to isolate HJ as a menace in LHO if H are 6430 round table. We will draw trumps while taking the opportunity to ruff a second H and cash HA and CA before running S with the likely basis of a simple squeeze in C & D (which requires D at least 5-2 & CK or triple squeeze or if we pick it double squeeze with H & C menaces split and neitehr able to hold D). NB the latter requires the positional element of LHO holding a pickable menace as the end position will be N HT, DA5 CQ when South plays from S5 DK43 and leads the last trump. That is not as good a position as the 2 single menaces in the South hand and the D length in dummy- so some guessowrk will be necessary as to which menace is held where but the unambiguous lead of the Q should make it fairly clear as West presumably (std leads) holds HJ and East the HK.

As regards proselytising atheists or those who exhibit contempt for the religious: with the exception of Dawkins I am unaware of many of the former but admit to acquaintace with a number of the latter. However to assume that all atheists hold such views (or exhibit them) is at least as bad as branding all religious-believers as fundamentalists. I think that I am not alone when I say that lgic interferes with my acceptance of any religion: in many ways it would be a for more comfortable life to believe in a benevolent God who might be satisfied by my performing certain rituals and maintaining a belief. It is my failure that I am unable to accept such: in fact human history is such that on the grounds of probability alone the Ancient Greek version of a plethora of Gods playing with humans as with puppets is more credible (to me). I don't believe in that either, but the theory fits the existing evidence better than a benevolent God - and that is before I engage in the whole theory of creation (which effectively renders unlikely in the extreme the existence of a single God-creator: after all who created the creator etc). Again a more logical argument would be the acceptance of worlds or universes continually orders of magnitude in size so that a "world" for us may be an atom for another - but that does nothing to solve the creation problem. Regardless of whether a particular group of beliefs is accepted, I find fascinating that highly intelligent persons can differ so greatly in these beliefs without recourse to logic. The question I ask my religious (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist) friends is what precisely it is that resonates with them beyond upbringing to allow/warrant the faith that tehy exhibit? Not one has had or quoted to me a personal supernatural experience or vision, but each has acceded to faith as a determining factor. When I query why the faith should relate to the particular formula of belief espoused, the majority tend to admit to effective tribalism (my word and interpretation). Interestingly, many of the religious query how atheists can live "moral" lives...but the answer lies in applying practical principle for communal living without the necessity for either a belief in divine reward - or retribution. If you possess the relevant faith, perhaps you could practise noblesse oblige (from your own viewpoint) with those who do not. If you lack the relevant faith to be religious, perhaps you could practise manners to avoid a display of intellectual arrogance with those who do !

I happen to be in favour of immigration - but we have a real issue of sustainability in terms of both the infrastructure in the country and, inter alia, water resources. If I wanted to live in a country of 300 million I would go there. With due respect, my single greatest criticism of "Americans" (a generalisation) is their parochial nature and assumption that everything echoes their own country - and if it doesn't that is aberrant. It is normal to compare with that with which you are familiar, but not to immediately assume that different is wrong - albeit not suiting you. A little bit more knowledge of the existing circumstances in other countries would not go astray. As a country of only nearly 21million a long way removed from elsewhere, Australians tend to be much more outward-looking and well-travelled. We don't have the option of pretending that we are the centre of the universe - although the occasional politician still has delusions (of adequacy).

I really don't understand your logic here. ***I HAVE TO AGREE WITH RICHARD, AND ASSUME THAT MIKE IS TROLLING OR BEING SARCASTIC. Its perfectly possible to believe 1. The US is full of religious fanatics 2. Unlimited immigration from Indonesia into Australia is a bad idea In what way does the second point invalidate the first? I'll note in passing that your last post seems to responding to post Winston and to Impact, both of whom seem to be commenting on different subjects. BTW. I was just over in Oz a couple years back. The Aussies (appear) to have a much more sensible immigration policy that does the US these days. Moreover, the country seems to have a very real appreciation that it future depends much more on integration with Asia and the Pacific its position as a member of the British Commonwealth or as a European colonial outpost. There are certainly limits regarding the number of immigrants that are accepted into the country. However, my impressions is that these limits have less to do with cultural differences and more to do with ideas about to the carrying capacity of the country. (You know... all that environmental crap that you seem to mock all the time) *** OZ AND USA HAPPEN TO BE THE 2 MOST SOUGHT-AFTER DESTINATIONS FOR MIGRANTS. OZ HAPPENS TO BE AN ISLAND-CONTINENT AND ACCORDINGLY DOES NOT SHARE LAND BORDERS WITH ANY OTHER NATION. THE CITIZENS OF OZ TAKE THE VIEW THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE BOTH THE NUMBER OF MIGRANTS AND THE ORIGIN OF THOSE MIGRANTS (notwithstanding the existence of a vocal minority which is unrealistic and would allow as many who want to come to be present). WHY WOULD WE SEEK TO IMPORT PROBLEMS THAT WE DON'T HAVE JUST BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO COME TO OZ ( as opposed to genuine refugees, but effectively the only countries for whom we are the closest port of call are Papua new Guinea, Indonesia/Timor and New Zealand). WE TAKE THE VIEW THAT WE DON'T WANT SHARIA LAW OR VARIOUS OTHER MATTERS - AND ANYONE WHO WANTS TO COME TO OZ HAS TO ACCEPT THAT IT IS UP TO THEM TO FIT IN WITH US (at least initially). Australia certainly has its problems. There have been some well publicized race riots between white supremicists and muslim fundamentalists. However, these are especially notable because they represent a major change. ***CLASSIC CASE OF MISREPORTING: THE SO-CALLED RACE RIOT AT CRONULLA WAS A JOKE COMPARED WITH RIOTS IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD: NO ONE KILLED, VIRTUALLY NO PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ONLY A FEW INJURED. THE CAUSE WAS AS MUCH A MEDIA BEAT-UP AS ANYTHING ELSE, BUT SERVED TO HIGHLIGHT A POTENTIAL PROBLEM. IT WAS SO UNTOWARD FOR OZ THAT IT MADE HEADLINES AND OIPINION WRITERS EXAGGERATED IT OUT OF ALL IMPORTANCE - EACH OF COURSE TO SUPPORT HIS OWN CONTENTION! Its hard to know which set of idiots is more to blame. The fundamentalist muslims who fear the fact that their children are integrating into Austrlalian society or the Howard loving fascists ***RICHARD, METHINKS YOUR RHETORIC HAS OVERCOME THE REALITY. IT IS CURRENTLY PERCEIVED WISDOM TO DENIGRATE HOWARD AS A MATTER OF COURSE - PARTICULARLY AMONG THE THE INTELLIGENTSIA, AND THE HOWARD-HATERS ARE STRONG BECAUSE HE HAS TAKEN SO MUCH OF THE MIDDLE GROUND WITHOUT ACCORDING THEM AND THEIR HOBBYHORSES, GRATIFICATION AND HONOUR. I AM SURE THERE IS A RATBAG OR FASCIST ELEMENT IN OZ (LEAGUE OF RIGHTS IS THE FASCIST PARTY SUPPORTED BY AUSTRALIANS AGAINST FURTHER IMMIGRATION) BUT THESE PARTIES REGULARLY POLL UNDER 3%. HOWARD IS THE LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY (conservative as opposed to the Labour left) but that Liberal party would still sit well to the left of the Democrats in the US! whole thrive on the whole clash of civilizations model that you so love. see below

According to our (Oz) 2001 census, nearly 68% identified themselves as Christian (but that may not mean practising as opposed to registered at birth) while 15.5% expressly averred "NO religion" (atheist) and 11.7% declined to state or respond. From that it can be seen that the remaining religions (Buddhism at 1.9%, Islam at 1.5%, Hindu at 0.5%, Judaism at 0.4% not forgetting marginalsied groups like Jeddi knights !!) are statistically insignificant. Nonetheless, the percentage of practising (ie regular churchgoers of whatever persuasion) is apparently only around 15% (ie less than one in 4 of those who identified themselves as Christian). My heritage is one thing but by belief I qualify as atheist - but not aggressive in my belief, and neither do I proselytise. However I am always fascinated by the "reasoning" that enables intelligent people to profess faith in a benevolent creator, when to my logic all evidence indicates the contrary. NB the denial of "God- the creator of the universe" does not deny the putative existence of superior beings to humans or aliens or a host of other possibilities. If you can overcome the initial "leap of faith" the selection of ritual (however silly, traditional, elaborate or otherwise) is basically accessorising the vehicle to taste (yet another unpopular view!). In Oz the abortion/stem cell research debate is not as vigorous as the US, despite or perhaps because abortion is both legal and available in many cases under Medicare (Government Health care for all for the vast majority of costs)! As an outsider, certainly the list of requirements to fulfil Christianity from my perspective requires only 2: belief in God as creator of the universe and Jesus Christ as his son... but then I am the outsider.

Mike, The comment was not joking but drawing out the difference in the attitude of the electorate between Oz & US - yet both countries with overwhelming migrant population and real smorgasboards (ours is AT LEAST as diverse as US - albeit from a smaller base as our total population is only a little over 20.7 million) with English culture and legal systems. OTOH we originally got the convicts and you got the puritans - so who got lucky? regards

From a different nation and continent, notwithstanding travelling and living in USA for a year, I always discounted the references to religious zealots as representing only 10-15% of US population. That was based on living in Manhattan, and even when travelling tending to mix with professionals (not bridge players), and avoiding social solecisms such as the discussion of religion. Richard Dawkins' book THe God Delusion is worthy reading no matter which side of the fence you sit on. Dawkins (THe Selfish Gene etc) is an eminent (perhaps pre-eminent) biologist and his training in that area and expansion on Darwinian theory is well-written. By contrast, his refutation of criticism made of him, tends towards being precious and/or carping. I was familiar with the logic of the position he advocates - and perhaps it was alittle like "preaching to the converted" in part but my unfamiliarity with New Testament writing meant that his references to that material was new, and the position of the contradictions in the gospels (both between them and with events of undoubted historical authenticity and certainty of date) made edifying reading. Returning to the original point, what did come as a surprise to me was Dawkins' indication of just how religious (at least in terms of both espousing a stated religion and the degree of credence given to say creationism) the US appeared to him. Again, I accept the fact that Dawkins had an axe to grind and is not a completely disinterested observer, but if the figures he cites are remotely accurate, i am concerned. In Oz, no enquiry is made of church-going habits of politicians unless they volunteer it themselves. By contrast with the US, any politician who addressed the nation and attempted to invoke God on his side - or even tto bless the country/nation would invite ridicule and electoral defeat! It is not necessarily that we are more atheistic (albeit we probably are) but that there is a healthy scepticism if not cynicism in the Oz citizen that does not believe that any God would take such direct interest in politics, and the certainty of conviction to amount to absolute faith is frightening! regards

3C looks attrractive but responder lacking a C Honour may not realise that the C are solid; 2H is clearly forcing to game but the bid I prefer with a partner on the same wavelength is 3H stopper asking (and if he bids 3S you will raise to 4 given the doubleton H)...and this has the advantage that further competition from overcaller will not leave responder in the dark as to my hand type. I realise that in US more people would presumably interpret the 3H bid as a splinter for S, but FWIW if you can get your hand type shown in a single bid in a competitive auction, your partenrship will be better placed than otherwise if the level increases dramatically... regards

1. Bid 6S - they might sacrifice - surely partner holds only 1C and he MUST have a card or 2 (the weaker he isthe more tolerant of S?) 2. What requirements for a super accept : usually merely a top Honour and good values...but when we are missing both DAK this is of little assistance...if you use new suit over transfe as shortage you will be better placed as you can certainly stand risking getting to 4D... 3. What is 3H - a splinter agreeing C on the basis that 2H is forcing (TOSR anyone?)? or 5+5+Majors? surely not 5+S &4+H.... a) if a splinter, I will make a try with my 2 bullets outside as I still have an opening bid despite H wastage and bid 4D.... :) if 5+5+M forcing I bid 4D as cue for H c) if some bizarre beginner bid this as forcing 5+4+ I am forced to choose between a bizarre 3NT (to stop her playing the hand, albeit sheer guess and antipositional) and 4H which shows where I live (except she expects a 4th H) and with my positive controls looks right 4. Just tell me why I didn't bid 3H over 2H - or would that have agreed S? Is partner's 1S consistent with real C only (it should be as he could pass with balanced hands etc)? I envisage slam even if he has some wastage and am tempted to just bid 6C as a practical matter as surely he would not bid this way with KQxx KQx Qx Jxxx or similar....please tell me that it ain't so...

I have only delved into various chapters and scanned the remainder generally:- 1. It is well- written (unusual in this day and age - all the more so from a "system book") and actually readable as opposed to my own system notes which are designed for minimal reproduction and maximum information; 2. Although I disagree with many portions of the underlying principles as being optimal or even close thereto, the case is well-argued; 3. Unlike many such system books which are mere egofests, this acknowledges the work of others, and at least essays alternative bases; 4. There is an internal cohesion and cogence to many portions which is sensible; 5. On individual themes John has adopted Majors first as an on-going theme (cf Moscito, Symmetric, Mafia, Blue etc) and I agree with the policy - albeit not the detail, and prefer relay aligned with transfers and fit style, together with more puppets and substitute bids; 6. As opposed to readability for absorption and/or learning the system I think a chart of the base responses to the opening bid at the beginning of each relevant section would aid someone seeking to understand how the system is put together/learn it by perceiving the overview of style from the responses. anyway - FWIW - congratulations

Mike, Both C. S. Forrester (author of Hornblower and other epics) & E.M. Forster (the actual author of the book "Passage to India") would consider suing for the confusion - and the film! Truly great movies on a sujective basis:- Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (slow start but great film by the Archers: Roger Livesey, Deborah Kerr, Anton Walbrook - far better than mere propaganda) The Philadelphia Story (best of the Cary Grant comedies with a great cast including Katherine Hepburn, Jimmy Stewart) Mephisto (Klaus von Brandauer at his best from a mighty novel written for revenge by Heinrich Mann on an actor who allegedly had affairs with both him and his girlfriend- brother of Thomas Mann, and Szabo handles it brilliantly with the stae scenes a particular tour de force) Cinema Paradiso (a modern sentimental delight handled with delicacy) My Fair Lady (best musical - and Stanley Holloway's performance as Mr Doolittle is a gem) Me and THe Colonel (Danny Kaye in a serious part with Curt Jurgens brilliantly cast from a play by Franz Werfel with some brillinat scripting) Cat bellou (together with The Unforgiven as the best of modern westerns) Space Odyssey 2001 (probably the only decent sci-fi movie ever made: I really abhorred Star Wars as bad space opera) Citizen Kane (both for its historical importance in pioneering cinematic techniques and the genius of Orson Welles - and what a pity that THe Magnificent Ambersons was cut to death, while The THird Man deserves a mention) Kind hearts and Coronets (the subversive concept and the brilliance of Alec Guiness who was an actor's actor but see also Lavender Hill Mob, Man in the White Suit, Captain's Paradise) Claudius (the never finished epic starring Charles Laughton in the title role and Merle Oberon as "best unfinished film" - and Laughton for all his troubles had a screen presence second to none) Casablanca (the film which accidentally became a classic and with the "perfect" cast...just try to recast almost any of those parts ) That is a very subjective dozen which still leaves room (for a bridge player) for the 13th which must be a movie I have forgotten....

Cute hand as a lot depends on the S pips with an expert partner and declarer (who will endeavour to conceal position if he can afford so to do). Both S4 & 6 are missing - and I assume that even if broke partner would tend to bid 1S over 1H with 5- hence assume S are 4441 (which would probably afford fewer options to declarer). Partner also holds 4C I assume on the play (or is that standard encouraging) and we need him to hold at least either H8x or xxx to beat the contract. The only certain way to make declarer ruff in dummy is by playing a second S (otherwise if CQ he can win in hand and then play trumps overtaking....or DA and ruff then drawing trumps in dummy). Partner appears tobe 4-2-3-4 or 4-3-2-4 - in latter case we need him to hold DJ, and in former some C/S Honours

What was the Gore Vidal quote when asked about gay marriage....something along the lines of "Why would we want to imitate something the heterosexuals have made such a mess of..."