pbleighton

2S, at any other vul it would be 3S. I can't imagine passing with 4 card support. Peter

No. It also won't do anything significant to the civil war in Iraq. Bush (and the coalition) has hurt that poor country as much as Hussein. I cry no tears for Hussein, who was an evil butcher, but will Bush swing for his war crimes? Not likely. Peter

"I think that system of playing is not so important, the bids are natural so far." I disagree. If we are playing 2/1 GF, I bid 3D. If not, I bid 2S. One thing I don't do is pass with a 6-5 hand. Peter

I just wanted to offer my thoughts on cheaters on BBO: I couldn't care less about them. They provide for their own punishment by degrading themselves. I wish other people would stop obsessing about them. Online bridge generally isn't (or shouldn't be) serious. If you want serious online bridge, arrange your own private opponents or a team match. Or play ftf in tournaments. Otherwise, chill. I'm not going try to tell Fred how to run his site, but I wish he hadn't banned kibbing. It won't stop cheating, and as for a reduction, as I say, I don't care. I don't mean this as a flame, but I do get tired of the continual, unhealthy obsession with cheating. Peter

"Everyone wants to kibitz the last round when they finish playing, and I think that feature has always been available. " It's available only after a certain point - if you are in a "fast" section you wind up not being able to kibitz for quite a while - you can really only kib the last few minutes of the tournament. Peter

"Actually, you're expected to be able to defend against GCC legal conventions... " He's thinking of the Mid Chart... Peter

"in my last 2 weeks experinces that weirdest results have come once the last round is open to general kibbers who dont have a rating of whatever they need to kib " What I was suggesting was that this be limited to pairs who have finished the tournament. Peter

I would like to be able to kibitz all open tables when I have finished a tournament and am waiting for the results. Can there be any harm in that? Peter

"As for the election, the vast majority of the country either voted for the accused war criminal Bush or did not bother to vote at all. A non cast vote is just as guilty if think the guy is a War criminal or the worst administration you have "ever seen in the history of the world"." Again, Mike, how is this relevant to whether Bush is.. well, anything? Peter

"As I mentioned many times before I do think people get the government they deserve. To just blame Bush or his cronies is a cop out for the rest of us(Americans). We elected him and relected him and elected this Congress which pays for the weapons and the soldiers, in fact pays for them quite eagerly. We, (me), deserve full blame for any war crimes or feelings that this administration is the worst in your human memory or that you have seen." "Eagerly" is an exaggeration, but I generally agree with your point regarding collective responsibility. However, your point is a COMPLETE non sequitur to Ron's post. How does the fact that he was elected and reelected mean that he can't be frightening and/or a terrorist? I happen to disagree with Ron's "terrorist" label", preferring instead "murderous religiously bigoted imperialist" (which I think is more accurate), but in any case our collective responsibility doesn't absolve Bush of anything. Peter

Pass. Peter

"But it was pretty clear to me (at least I thought so) that Winston's question was about suicide bombers with (anounced) political motives. Maybe the scope of his question was slightly broader. Anyway, it doesn't really interest me what the word "terrorist" should mean more generally. If you say that (say) Pinochet was a terrorist I won't disagree with you but it's quite clear that he isn't the kind of terrorist to whom Winston refered." 1. Terrorism is a collection of tactics used by the weaker side in a conflict against the stronger side. Pinochet was a brutal dictator, not a terrorist. 2. From Winston's first post in thi thread: ""Tommaso Palladini of Milan perhaps said it best as he marched with his countrymen in Rome. "You fight terrorism," he said, "by creating more justice in the world." I recently read this quote and it made me stop and think - just what is a terrorist and how does one assume that role? It seems to me that the heart of the matter lies in the quote above, that a "terrorist" is one who feels desparately deprived of justice, to the point of killing or being killed in order to make a stand. I am no historian, so those of you who are and wish to comment feel free to correct any errors I may make. It seems to me that a terrorist is anyone so deemed as opposition to the status quo, one who feels so enraged by perceived injustices that terror is a last resort to alter or at least advertise his plight. My memory is not what it once was, and my history lessons were never learned well anyway, but it appears that in a sense the American Revolutionaries could be deemed terrorists - to some the Boston Tea Party could be categorized as a terrorist action. The IRA certainly was considered a terrorist group, but they finally won amnesty and a voice, if memory serves. Menecham Begin helped orchestrate the bombing of the King David Hotel, a purely terrorist act, and later he became Prime Minister of Israel. Yassur Arafat at one time was almost as infamous as Osama bin Laden, but in later years was known as a leader of his people. I'm sure there are many other examples, but doesn't it look like many terror organizations ended up being heard, that at their core there truly was an injustice to be righted or at least admitted?" You could add Nelson Mandela and the ANC to this list. This seems like a more general discussion to me. Peter

"Weird .. I thought we were discussing an interisting topic, namely how/why someone becomes a terrorist. Somehow we seem to have moved to a fruitless discussion about the semantics of "terrorist"." "Fruitless" is a good description of a discussion of the why people become "bananas", before we have discussed which people are "bananas". Peter

4C. You have 3 clubs, and a void. You have already rebid your spades. 4D is (to my mind) forcing, and too much given that we have 21-23 hcp between us. If we have a game, it is most likely in clubs, and then only if pd has a lot of distribution. Peter

"Or as I would put it, does al-Qaeda have any legitimate claim to injustice - pre-Iraq/Afghanistan invasion?" There is considerable validity to Arab claims of injustice. However, Al Qaeda by its actions has forfeited any moral claim of its own to anything. Peter

"It was a war where I learned to duck and cover under my desk at school to protect myself when the atom bomb would hit the midwest. Where a country (Cuba) had nukes and when we all came very close to a full blown nuclear exchange and we told them get rid of them or we attack." GROSS distortion by omission. We put our nukes in Turkey first, Cuba was counterpoint, the (unpublicized) deal was that the USSR withdraws its nukes from Cuba, then we withdraw ours from Turkey, which we did. We didn't win the Cold War, the USSR reformed itself, in spite of our (idiotic, largely unintentional) efforts to help the hardliners maintain control. The Communists were bad, but the situation wasn't nearly as one-sided as right-wing mythology would have you believe. There were more people on our side who wanted a nuclear war than on theirs. Our (illegal, immoral) invasion of Vietnam killed far more people than their (illegal, immoral) invasion of Afghanistan. "I note that the USSR war in Afghanistan was another example of the militaristic containment policy of the USA in it's cold war (often hot) with the USSR. Btw I recommend reading the Looming Tower and other books. To say we recruited and trained them is a bit of half truth at best. They were there and fighting with or without us." A half truth at best. We armed and trained them, making them into a formidable opponent, first to the USSR, then to us. "Blowback". "Does any of this compare to now?" Sure, danger and chest-thumping, idiotic patriotism are a self-destructive combination. Far better to think before we talk, then talk before we act. Peter

"What are we talking about, Peter? Of course the Mujahedins in the 80's were terrorsists. I thought this was about the current US/Bristish campaign in Afganistan." Helene: My post (that I thought we were talking about) was: "Mike: Please compare and contrast the terrorist tactics Al Quaeda used in Afghanistan against the Russians (with training and funding by the CIA) to 9/11. FWIW, I supported them then, as terrible as they were (the Russians had no business in Afghanistan), and am against 9/11 (duh), but I think this example makes clear that the term "war on terror" is linguistic nonsense, and is a sign of total intellectual bankruptcy. Richard is right, terrorism is a tactic, not a movement. This isn't trivial semantic nit-picking. This sort of sloppy wording (and thinking) is why we are now in a hopeless situation in Iraq, after an invasion which has substantially worsened our national security for decades to come." Or to reiterate the dismally true cliche "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". What makes a terrorist? In this case (Al Quaeda in the 80s), the CIA. Peter

Easy pass. Peter

"I think you have already bid out your shape. It is time to hear pd's opinion" I agree. Peter

"2) The tactics are different. 9/11 is litterally terrorism in the sense that it's immediate purpose was to create fear (=terror) in the general US population. It's possible that the effect of the US/British campaign in Afganistan is similar (I don't think so but what do I know) but at least it's not (as far as I know) the tactics to create fear in the Afgan population." My understanding (and I claim no expertise here) is that the terrorist tactics were brutal, involving torturing Russians and collaborating Afghanis to death, and that this was very widely known. This is as 'terrorist" as flying a plane into a building. Peter

"If you think that some kind of war is moral, then you need to decide what that is." 1. It is defensive war (per the Geneva Convention). The invasion of Iraq clearly doesn't qualify. Iraq had not attacked us, nor had it declared war on us. 2. War crimes (as defined by the Geneva Convention) can and do occur by the "just" side in a defensive war. Those committed by the winning side are very rarely prosecuted, except for individual acts committed by low-ranking personnel. They should be. Mike, this is War 101, I don't get why this difficult for you to understand, as you clearly are well educated. Do you believe the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to us? Peter

"These are the kinds of moral equivalency arguments that cause me lose to hope in sainity. If these are morally equivalent then we are all in trouble. If you think comparing the Nazis is the same as comparing Bush and bombing afghanistan God help us." Mike: Please compare and contrast the terrorist tactics Al Quaeda used in Afghanistan against the Russians (with training and funding by the CIA) to 9/11. FWIW, I supported them then, as terrible as they were (the Russians had no business in Afghanistan), and am against 9/11 (duh), but I think this example makes clear that the term "war on terror" is linguistic nonsense, and is a sign of total intellectual bankruptcy. Richard is right, terrorism is a tactic, not a movement. This isn't trivial semantic nit-picking. This sort of sloppy wording (and thinking) is why we are now in a hopeless situation in Iraq, after an invasion which has substantially worsened our national security for decades to come. Peter

"My point is if double is the "only bid" then how can we say that it can "easily be wrong?'Does it not imply that many other bids are worth considering?" No. As Cherdano said: "Double is the right bid, while it could easily turn out wrong on any specific hand. But any other bid is far more likely to turn out wrong, and so no other call is close." That's why people preempt :blink: Peter

"I am not sure it is an advertisement. Is ♥KJ52 really THE feature of the hand I want to show?" It depends on what you are playing. Playing standard methods, where pd expects 5 hearts, or occasionally a very good 4 card suit, KJxx isn't what pd expects, and I would double (though pass is close). If you ROUTINELY overcall with 4 cards, it is clearly the bid. I overcall with worse suits, and am happy with the results - usually :blink: Peter

This hand is a good advertisement for overcalling with 4 card suits. You have a clear 1H overcall, instead of a flawed double or a worse pass. In my partnership where we play 4 card overcalls, our takeout doubles of 1m are a lot cleaner than they used to be :blink: Peter