pbleighton

"At the very least I do not remember the majority of Congress saying that at the time." Would you expect any Congress or any President to admit this for any war? If not, your point is meaningless. Peter

I would have opened either 1C or 3C, depending on agreements. I pass now. Peter

I would open 3D. You are favorable and have only 4 cards in the majors, after all. This hand's a nice argument for opening 11 counts :) Peter

As far as developing judgment, I'll leave that to better players. But scoring method is key: I would bid 5H at IMPs, knowing that it is against the odds, as I can't afford a double swing. At MPs I would double, as it seems to be the percentage option. Peter

2S. I don't criticize a partner for opening 3S with these cards In the first seat at favorable, I open 4S. Peter

"But I think being smart and being stupid are mutually exclusive." Well, I guess it depends on your definition, but you can be very bright and be so either lacking in common sense (which may be a result of an unfortunate belief system) that you are effectively stupid. Peter

1. Yes, in spite of the shape, because of the prime cards. 2. Not unless you open very light. A balanced 12 count is a minimum which shouldn't accept for pairs who open normally. The trump suit is nice but doesn't make up the difference. Peter

"I guess one of the worse case scenarios is a wider Sunni, Shia war based on the European religious Christian wars that lasted hundreds of years. This time with nukes. Iran backed Shia vs Saudi, Syria backed Sunni battle it out in Lebanon, Iraq, parts of other countries. Turkey vs Kurds, etc." Probably not with the use of nukes. A terrible scenario, nonetheless. We may have unleashed the whirlwind. For whatever reason, I am hopeful most of the violence will stay inside Iraq. If it doesn't, though, it could get huge in a hurry. Peter

I think it's a very practical option to play your strong NT defense as a runout to your weak NT, provided you play something where you can run to 2x on most hands (so Capp pairs have to find something else). In my weak NT partnership, we play Meckwell over a strong NT, and as a runout. It cuts down on the memory strain. I agree with those who don't like arrangements where you can't play 1NTx. As far as weak vs strong NT, I have played both regularly for the last few years, and I definitely prefer weak NT. I might think differently if I were a world class player who played mostly teams (I know that most of them are strong notrumpers), but at (mostly) matchpoints against (mostly) non-expert competition, weak NT seems to me to have the edge in spite of the undeniable problems. It's also more fun :) Peter

" wish it were that simple, but Wolfowitz, Kristol, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and the others are extremely bright - arrogantly so - it is the arrogance that is the problem." You can have a high IQ and still be stupid. Peter

"When the stated goals defy logic, you start to believe the stated goals are a smokescreen to hide a different agenda - it wouldn't take much of a push to set the entire region aflame, and plans are being made for airstrikes against Iran even as Gates and Bush deny a plan for war." Perhaps, but I prefer a simpler explanation - stubbornness and stupidity. These guys are really clueless. Peter

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?nav=hcmodule

"Now its, "Torture a Muslim just for the hell of it". " From what I hear, Cheney likes to do it for the smell of it. Peter

""Was my 2♥ bid out of line?" - If you have not discussed the styles allowed for this bid, better not to bid it with an in-between hand." To elaborate on what Glen said, a common approach to Michaels and U2NT is that they are made only on weak and very strong hands. Not everyone agrees with this (I do), an example being Mike Lawrence. I agree with the rest of Glen's post. Peter

"...Heck just love and can't we just give peace a chance..." Hell no, kill a commie for christ. Peter

"Confucius sez: Keanu movies are like Ying-Yang -- you either go "Whoa" or "Woe" (ducking for cover)... " or "Whew". Peter

Constantine was a hoot. Peter

"And San Fransisco, you'd better occupy as well. I've heard they even have gay rights activists, there." I lived in San Francisco for ten years. What a place! We should bomb it, just on general principles. Peter

"Peter: I'm only unilateral when I judge science isn't gonna help." Yes, but you judge science isn't gonna help a LOT. You are clearly the most unilateral bidder among the Forum regulars. You're even more unilateral than I am :) Peter

"ok so we only go back in if asked as part of a multinat. force. No more unilateral bombing/attacking some training sites out in the middle of the desert?" I've got a modest proposal, Mike. You'll love it. It's totally your style, dude: The U.S. should invade and occupy every Muslim country in the world. They all have people who hate us, and we have no idea where Al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization might decide to have a training camp next. It would be the ultimate preemptive war. And when the next terrorist attack comes (which wouldn't be too long :) ) we'd be right there! No need to invade! What do you think? Peter

"If we withdraw, any votes for going back in?" One of the nastiest parts of the Iraq problem is that while it is clear to me (and to an increasing number of people) that we should get out now, it is also possible (though very unlikely) that we may find ourselves back in there in 5, 10, 15 years, asked in as part of a multinational force, when the Iraqis have gotten tired of civil war, and decide to ask for help. It is far more likely that we would be asked to fund such an effort. U.S. soldiers' presence in Iraq are politically toxic now, which is why staying and "finishing the job" is silly and unrealistic. This will continue to be true for decades. The difficulty the U.S. is having now, where a large majority is against the war and another large majority is against leaving now, is IMO cultural rather than military: We are a very optimistic country, and we hate to admit that we have made an unfixable mess. Peter

Whereagles arguing against a unilateral bid! Wow! Peter

"Heading out to see Pan's Labrynth" When you come back, did you like it? I thought it was great. Peter

Vulnerability can make a difference too. Peter

"Yes, by then the debate will be "should we get out of Iran."" Bush. Old dog. New tricks. Peter