pbleighton

Then, since they are popular and legal in many places, someone should already have done so. Can you point to this? If you can't, and can't explain why not, your statement is silly. Do you have any evidence for this statement? If you can't, and can't explain why not, your statement is silly. Adam, your posts are usually excellent. This one doesn't come close to measuring up to your standards. Peter

Mike, I'm aware of the lower court ruling and referenced it in my post. This isn't the Supreme Court position until the Supreme Court says it is. If it does, I'm OK with it, but until and unless that happens, let's not, ahem, *jump the gun*. Peter

1. Banning of all civilian ownership and use of handguns, semiautomatic weapons, and automatic weapons. 2. Registration of rifles and shotguns. It's my understanding that the Supreme Court's rulings on gun control would permit this. There is currently a lower court ruling, which will very likely be heard by the Court, which is far more restrictive of legislation. I would accept a more restrictive interpretation by the Court (though I wouldn't like it), and would oppose any effort to change the Second Amendment in any way. I would oppose any effort to ban rifles and/or shotguns, except those which are either automatic, semiautomatic, and easily convertible. Hunting, target practice, and defense of the home are legitimate activities. Peter

"I won't try to convince a gun control advocate about the 2nd Amendment, however, I think the framers of the constitution had it right all along. I don't think the constitution is like a Chinese menu, that you can pick and choose and mix and match it to fit your own taste. This isn't one of those gray areas." Phil, do you accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment? Peter

Me. Peter

Double, because it's matchpoints and they are vulnerable. Peter

Well, I'll have to defend a lot less. That IS good news. Peter

Helene: Would you also ban the infamous "Standard" 1C and 1D openers, which may be as short as 3 cards? The horror, the horror! Peter

"Completely ridiculous. It is arbritrary and clearly incorrect rulings like this that give ACBL regulations (and regulators) their well-deserved bad name." I used to think Richard was too harsh on the regulators. I still think he's too personal, but.... Peter

Well, to start with I'd like the ACBL to allow what the GCC allows. I was playing a system where: 1. Two clubs as showing at least 15 points (no exceptions for distribution, it will always be at least 15), and at least 5 hearts. It doesn't say anything about club length. 2. Two diamonds as showing at least 15 points (no exceptions for distribution, it will always be at least 15), and at least 5 spades. It doesn't say anything about diamond length. Falling under GCC 3a and 5b 3. TWO CLUBS ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of: a) a strong hand. :) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP. 5. TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of: a) both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP. B) a strong hand. c) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP. The chief TD of BBO ACBL disallowed it. Her reasoning was that the provisions required the bid to be completely artificial, though it said nothing of the kind. OK, this is what the ACBL headquarters are for: I wrote to rulings@acbl.org, and Mike Flader wrote back and said "According to our regulations, what you wish to play would be legal." I sent BBO ACBL this ruling. The upshot is that Rick Beye got involved, and he said: "In reading both the GCC and the MC it is clear that the intent of the writers is to allow both 2C and 2D to show a strong hand, not a specific strong hand (which I believe is allowed on the MC #8). The proposed convention below is essentially a transfer opening bid, something not included on the GCC. I do not think we can allow these agreements in GCC events." In other words, the Mid Chart exception for any bid showing 4 cards in a known suit means that the GCC doesn't mean what it says in English, which is that a 2m opening bid that is both artificial and strong is allowed. Artificial can obviously mean a bid that has specific distributional meaning, see 3b, 5a, and 5c. No, the "intent of the framers" is obvious. They MEANT to write "a strong hand which doesn't give any distributional information" instead of "a strong hand". What an incredible oversight! But how obvious to an ACBL official who hates transfer openings. Somehow he didn't get around to mentioning that they won't let you play transfer openings in Mid Chart by virtue of banning the defenses. Lovely stuff indeed. Peter

And some are Beginner Minus. Ditto. Peter

"Fair enough, but I'm willing to bet that its a lot of the paying 'regulars' who complain the loudest when there is prima facie evidence of cheating." Perhaps, but I play mostly on BBO ACBL tourneys, and while I understand and respect the arguments for banning it, I'd like to bring back kibbing. F**k the cheaters, I just ignore them. Peter

I would bid 2H opposite a passed hand at all vulnerabilities, though many (most?) players wouldn't do this vulnerable. I think it's probably *most*, since Ben wouldn't, and he's a fairly aggressive bidder. Opposite an unpassed hand I would bid 1H, the hand is too good for 2H. Peter

"One may or may not agree with Mrs. Clinton's policy statements but one wonders how the Dems could do a worse job..except perhaps if she raises taxes and kills off the economy." Umm, like her husband killed off the economy? :ph34r: Peter

The entire U.S. Attorneys scandal is remarkable for its complete lack of necessity. What they did originally was smelly, but in no way criminal. Had they merely told the truth, then said "if you don't like it, tough", it would have been over in a week and forgotten in a month. "The coverup is worse than the crime" is commonplace in politics. This one is just remarkably silly. Peter

5C. When in doubt bid game. Peter

"Using 2N as an invitational balanced response is common (but few really like that)." This must vary by location, in New England (U.S.) virtually everyone plays it this way. Generally, I think the 6-11 1NT response only makes sense in a "pure" 2/1 system, where 1D-2C and 1D-2NT are GF. Most people I know play 1D-2C as F1, and as for 1m-2NT, see above. Peter

"If we agree that the U.S. has a kernel of "greatness" then it makes the current U.S. government even more contemptible." Exactly. Peter

2NT seems clear. Peter

I play responsive doubles through 3S, This double would be card showing, penalty oriented in my methods. Thus, I agree with Robert. Were I playing that the double was responsive, I would pass as well. 4S is a decent call as well, it just smells like no one can make 4. Peter

"3NT. If 6♠ is on it may have to be in my hand, which seems impossible to achieve." I agree. This is ugly but practical. Peter

Agree. Peter

"I'm no Constitutional Scholar, but I don't think it violates the First Amendment. They're not prohibiting you from participating in the marches. Furthermore, the rights in the First Amendment are not absolute -- safety concerns trump them (you can't claim free speech gives you the right to should "fire" in a crowded theatre)." You're right, it's not absolute. It's also true that the Constitution allows many (but not all) fascist laws and law enforcement practices. This is one such practice. Do you really think shouting " fire" in a crowded theater is a valid analogy to participating in a peace march? Peter

Forcing. 3C after 1D would be nonforcing. Peter

I could open this hand 1S or 4S, depending on mood and partnership style. I don't think it matters much. I'd tend to open it 4 not vul or vul in the 3rd seat, and 1 vul in 1 and 2. I'd open this 2S in the 4th. It's too strong for 2 or 3, except in the 4th. It's not good enough for NAMYATS. I don't know anyone who plays Gambling 3NT with a major suit. Peter