pbleighton

"See New Yorker...I rest my case" You rest all right :lol: Peter

"Geez even the Democrats seem to be preparing for war with Iran. See Senator Bayh's(Ind) article in the New Yorker this week." Anyone else (LIeberman doesn't count, he's not a Democrat any more)? The Dems I saw were all against it. Will you be cheering the invasion of Iran, Mike? It seems like the tenor of your posts has changed since the election. They seem a little bitter :wacko: Peter

"Perhaps I'm just venting at this point. If so, somebody stop me. I'm not bitter, and my life is in no way affected one way or another by how I do in an online bridge event. But (as I said before) one of my pet peeves has always been that less experienced players have a never-ending ability to invent new applications of their agreements (or lack of understanding of them). When such events occur, it becomes very difficult to achieve redress, because the less-experienced player is shielded by the "I'm a less-experienced player, why would you expect me to understand my agreements?" defense. These two hands, and the one in my original post are all examples of this. It annoys me. I know it won't stop. Just don't tell me that the opponents are somehow "allowed" to invent conventions on the fly, then have partner field them. One way or another, wittingly or unwittingly, they are managing to "game" the system when this sort of thing happens." You are right, this IS annoying. It is also just bridge, and there is nothing that you or anyone else can do about it, except to play in strong fields where this sort of thing doesn't happen. BTW, in real life they ARE allowed to do this. They get bad scores from this kind of thing more than good scores. Don't worry about it, and move on to the next hand. Peter

Pass. I don't criticize a pd who bids 5D, but I think we're going down if he does. Peter

Yuk! Double is slightly less bad than 2NT or Pass. Peter

"Bush is now unilaterally sending another 24,000 troops to Iraq. That has everyone's attention right now, for some weird reason. Do you support this?" Still waiting, Mike ;) Peter

"Hmm didn't some country just attack and take over Somalia without declaring War? Where is the UN? Where is Europe or Canada? Now the USA is sending in Gunships and shooting up the countryside? Is that even legal? Where are the Democrats? I heard no outrage or calls for impeachment today, did I miss them?" Yes, Ethiopia invaded Somalia with our help, and we have killed people there. Just a matter of priorities, Mike. Bush is now unilaterally sending another 24,000 troops to Iraq. That has everyone's attention right now, for some weird reason. Do you support this? Peter

"I like your idea Peter, and it says a lot for the potential that we have as human beings. Perhaps faced with the ultimate threat (extinction whether by natural or man-made means) may cause the supra-survival instinct to kick in....we can only hope so." Well, I've always been a short term pessimist and a long term optimist. In the short term, I seem to be right more than I am wrong :P Our behavior as a species does improve over time, believe it or not. This isn't to gloss over the horrors of the last 100 years, but slavery, torture, long grinding wars, mass rape in the aftermath of wars, etc. used to be even more common. This is partly due to wealth, democracy, science, etc., etc., but I do think we have some capacity to learn from history. It just takes a LOT longer than it should... Peter

"I do believe the war is being won, because I try very hard to view it from a global view." Fair enough, But: What is the "war"? Who are "we"? Who are "they"? What to "we" need to do to "them"? FWIW, in my 'global view" societies will eventually be: 1. Secular 2. Democratic 3. Respect human rights, at home and abroad 4 Have a mixed economy - a capitalist base with a welfare state and regulations to sandpaper the evil underbelly of capitalism 5. Engage in free trade with other countries 6. Be (mostly) peaceful This will take centuries, if not millenia. The human race could screw it up. There will be lots of violence along the way, but I don't consider this to be a "war". It's a process. Calling it a "war" is sloppy thinking, and leads to disasters/war crimes such as the invasion of Iraq. Peter

"5D Such simple conversations after the hand. " LOL. Peter

"I didn't start it. I just responded to it when I see the nonsense that's passed along as fact. I simply am passionate about it and therefore this is why I have had my fill of this. To me, there's nothing wrong with dissent, there's everything wrong with the self-righteousness of tone that some espouse. I call it like I see it; never have I deliberately or intentionally to my knowledge have I embarked in character assassinations." You don't think you dish it out? My goodness. Peter

5D. If opps bid 5H I double. Peter

4C. We are favorable, game seems unlikely, put the pressure on. Peter

"Just because I view this as a long-term item (I look at Iraq as a battle) doesn't entitle the view of delusionment to be what I'm about. This is part of the reason I comment little here anymore; whenever I say something directly, I'm labelled in one way or another as inferior or mental and I've had enough. It's ridiculous that name-calling is the response to something fundamentally different and non-mainstream. To say I'm furious right now is an understatement" "...the traitorous New York Times and Washington Post..." "No longer does the newspaper have a free run. The scrutiny is so high these days that when the NYT, the WP, the AP, and Al-Reuters step out of line, the chorus starts signing immediately. It's unfortunate that these formerly prestigious organizations have had to resort to blatant lies in order to attempt to maintain share." You are one of the more "provocative" posters in the Water Cooler (possibly the only thing you and I have in common), and you can't expect a free ride. If you can't take it, I suggest that you don't dish it out. You are also free to ignore posters whose posts you don't like. I have done this, and it's a good solution. Peter

"Furthermore, I believe the war is being won." This is totally delusional. We are not "losing" in the conventional sense of the word, but we have started a civil war, and have no way to stop it. "It isn't certainly for lack of effort on our military's part in the field." True. Peter

"I look at the war in Iraq with grave concern because we don't have enough high-ranking generals that are willing to fight it out like the warriors they claim to be. " ROFL. What a rationalization! This war was doomed from the start. "Looking back at the election, I came to realize that it was not conservatism that was defeated" Hee, hee. Peter

"If I were a natural 2D bidder, after this inquiry i would check whether the question was used to show a D control or to ask for one. And if there is indication of this, i will ask the TD for a score correction, because of use of this UI." I disagree with you, because of the context. Bids after a strong club or a 1NT opener are frequently artificial. The opener's partner has every right to ask about an unalerted bid. Peter

I would open at the game level with 1, 3, and 5, and at the one level with 2 and 4. Peter

I'll only preempt at the game level with a good hand. Peter

"Joe Grue and I will be featured on the cover of Maxim in April." Your heads will be functioning as Jessica Alba's chair? Peter

"I find it amusing that this guy is giving rulings on conventions he clearly knows nothing about. Obsolete?? Reall??! " Remember, Ron, nothing that happens outside of the ACBL exists. Peter

Double. We may belong in a minor, and my 1S overcalls are never this good. I don't like 4S, in spite of the fact that in other situations I am more likely to bid 4M unilaterally than many other players. This hand has too much going for it. Peter

I agree with Justin. Peter

Obsessed with money and the possibilty that someone is cheating them. Not too bright. Anyone want to do one for bridge players? :D Peter

"The rule seems odd to me. Why should a 74 hand be worth the four level if the 7 carder is a major, but be worth an extra trick if the long suit is a minor?" The issue is not what it's "worth". 4m is typically a bad hand. Why would you bid 4m with Richard's example hand, when you could in fact be missing game. In general, I like Burgess' rule, but if I have a bad hand/suit and am vulnerable, I would tend to open 4m rather than 5m. Peter