pbleighton

"I don't see the problem. It's in the US military's/government's perceived interest to support those groups. So they do. Like earlier U.S. governments supported terrorists in Nicaragua. Why shouldn't they? Just because Bush makes some stupid statement like "we're at war against terrorism"?" If all he had done was make the stupid statement, it wouldn't be a big problem. Politicians do lie, after all. The much bigger problem is that he used that stupid statement to get us into a disastrous war. We are (theoretically) at war against a technique. That lowers the bar for the proof needed to go to war. Peter

"Truth is the first casualty of war" is old hat, but the consistent contempt this administration displays for the truth is far more typical of a dictatorship than of a democracy. It's positively Orwellian. I really don't know why this is true. It's terrible. This country deserves so much better. Peter

"The trick is to be able to follow inferences BEFORE playing the cards" Yup. Tough trick, when you find out how to do it consistently, let us know. You could sell a LOT of books ;) Peter

"Why would you think from this that I have not noticed the reality that inference is a gainer? That's a no-brainer." Because of the content and tone of your posts in this thread. That's a no-brainer. Peter

No objection to a wiki, but here's a short-term solution which I believe wouldn't require any programming effort: Establish a new folder Hall Of Fame Posts, which would be a sibling of General Bridge Discussion. It would have a fairly large number of subfolders on various topics, such as Basic Declarer Play, Advanced Declarer Play, Basic Standard Bidding In Uncontested Auctions, Strong Club Bidding, etc. Posts would be moved to the appropriate subfolder by BBO personnel. Forum members could nominate posts for Hall Of Fame status by messaging Ben, etc. Peter

"Maybe you are the one missing the concept, eh?" No, the post was about declarer play. Expert players can indeed get better results when the opponents have bid, though it's limited, probably not a trick per hand, and can't make up for bad bidding. The issue is that the knowledge doesn't automatically translate to better results. You have to be a good enough declarer to take advantage of the additional knowledge. I remember a post a few years back from rgb. A poster was relating how he made it (luckily) into the final round of some world championship level event. His observation was that his opponents declared quite well when he and his partner didn't bid, but that they declared phenomenally well when he or his partner had bid. This varies by level, a lot. As a reasonable club player I can sometimes be helped by the opponents' bidding, but better players than I are helped a more, and much better players are helped a lot more. Perhaps you haven't noticed this, but it's actually quite well known. Peter

"You may be missing the concept. It is not necessarily the fact that you know the location of the HCP's and know the pattern that creates additional tricks. It does on many occasions, but not always, of course." Ken, you are missing the concept. The original post was specifcially about declarer play. Peter

"I think the Magic Diamond opening structure is as good as GCC legal and don't see the point of making a whole new system..." Unless of course you would like to repond to your partner's opening bids. Transfer responses aren't GCC legal. Peter

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/...ists/index.html "An Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, despite being considered terrorists by the United States, continues to receive protection from the American military in the face of Iraqi pressure to leave the country." The so-called "war on terror" is now over, I guess :) Peter

Nice problem, it's a very close call. I would bid 2H playing constructive raises. Playing a wide ranging 2H, I would bid 1S, and invite if my partner rebid either 2S or 2H. Otherwise I would correct to 2H. I hate doing this with 3 card support, but the trump are so bad and the hand is so flat... Peter

"I have noticed all that free oil up there in Canada, just waiting for us. Not to mention with a little bit more Global Warming, that real estate will start to look hot. Maybe this pet food can be a cause belle?" Maybe this can be George's post-presidency project. It's right up his alley. Peter

"I would bid 3nt over 2D ... we have the values and likely the tricks (D suit) for game ... I want to protect my round suit tenaces and play in the likely best scoring game" And I thought I was a NT pig at matchpoints :( Seriously, a 10+ card fit, and even I want to play in 5m. Peter

I have to bid 1S. After a 2D rebid by partner, I bid 5D. No aces opposite <16 from pd, I might miss a slam but I don't think so. After a 3D rebid by partner, I bid 4D, key card ask in diamonds. Peter

"Well I hope that go out in "Glory". " Nah, you'll drown in a hot tub filled with warm, pornographically oriented custard at the ripe old age of 97. Until then, enjoy! Peter

"I know we hashed this before, but I am a bit taken back by how many, esp Democrats seem to say that Iran getting the bomb would cross the line." Saying is one thing, invading is another. Even Bush hasn't invaded Iran, though after the 2008 election he may do it as a final act of orgasmic genocide. Peter

"Yes, and it is surprising how little debate or outcry there is from Congress on that question of action." Well, there's debate and outcry about Iraq now. And of course Bush is squealing like a pig. Four years too late to stop his vile, self-destructive butchery, but better late than never. Peter

I would open 1D. I would interpret 5H as pick a red slam, but this is dicey if you haven't discussed it. It's also pretty aggressive, with 3 losers. You open 2C on this hand (and many good players would), you're in worse shape. Opening 1H is terrible IMO. Peter

And let me guess, this guy had 20 conventions listed on his profile... Peter

That's BBO Expert Standard bidding. Peter

So Iran is pardoning and releasing the Brits. Any winner here? It looks like a lot of smoke to me, but don't drink the bong water, Mike :P Peter

"So knowing I wasn't going to stop at 5 and rather than risk a misunderstanding, I took charge and bid 6." Sounds good to me. Peter

1D or 2NT, very close. It's a crummy 11 and matchpoints, so I'll bid 1D. At IMPs I'd feel compelled to bid 2NT. Peter

3S. Peter

I would bid yuk :lol: 3H, 4H, 3D, and 4D could all be right. I'm going to count on partner having 4 hearts but not necessarily 4 diamonds, and bid 3H. The SK looks good, but it may well get ruffed away on the second trick. Peter

"Not sure if I mention this in that article or elsewhere, but natural 2NT works better if you use a split range - something like 13 to 15 or 19+. If 2NT is 13+ you are going to have problems." Fred, what do you do with 16-18? Do you bid 3NT, or make a 2/1? Peter