pbleighton

"Speaking of creating reality, one has to like the onion: Fedex and more on topic: Thousands More Dead In Continuing Iraq Victory" which brings us to the question of the day: Has Dick Cheney stopped wearing panties? Peter

"Sure hope we see more posts on these subjects next year. Maybe even a few that say yes we are in a War and how and why we should win it or why you hope we lose it?" Mike, two questions: 1. Can you/will you distinguish between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, or more generally, between nasty secular dictators who pose no immediate threat to us, and radical Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill us? 2. Do you think the invasion of Iraq was a good thing or a mistake? Peter

"I think as long as the online games are easy to access and have some integrity they will continue to gain a following. As for 10 years, heck I hope to be playing on bbo in a hologram setting in my family room. Long before that it should gravitate to cheap and easy HD tv access." My goodness, I haven't dropped acid for such a LONG time B) I'm keeping my PC. Peter

"He was reelected, and no one ran for President on cut and run in 2004. In fact no one votes to cut off funds still. I see even the new Defense Sec. says it would be a disaster for US and Iraq if we just left. Does that make the vast majority of us....... " Yes, Mike, it makes all of us complicit to varying degrees, including me (if you're wondering). What did I do to stop it? Democracy doesn't provide any cover for war crimes. To the contrary, it makes the collective responsibility heavier. Peter

"True and millions and millions were killed in the killing fields and many millions had to leave their home. No one cared and I guess they still do not care!" Many more people were killed in Vietnam and Cambodia than if the U.S. had never gone to war, that's the bottom line. People on the Right didn't care and still don't. Might is Right, Better Red than Dead, etc..... Why should the U.S. EVER take responsibility for the consequences of its own actions? Even the suggestion is unpatriotic and immoral! We are the world's superpower, and are God's chosen nation to propagate His message by force of arms, to finish what the Crusaders only started. Onward Christian Soldiers! We have a war criminal as president. Peter

"But even with the troubles the Nixon administration went through, he still managed to implement an exit strategy from Viet Nam." True, but the last American soldiers left in 1975, on the same terms (we leave, the North Vietnamese win) he rejected in 1969. Peter

Board 24 - I would take 3C as strong (the normal meaning without the double). Board 22 - 2S is fine, but your pd should have bid 4S instead of 3S, he has 13 hcp, the AK of trumps, and another ace. Peter

"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency. The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''" http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine...9e162076ei=5090

"Hum.. speak for yourself" I'm not speaking for you, I'm just speculating, based on the evidence before me :P Peter

"Poor players will anyway make mistakes in the play if they get to play the hand. What I'm saying is there's no need to push your preempts vs weaker players as much as you would push them against good players. In a weak field you can play a solid straight-down-the-middle preempt style and do fine. You're automatically in AVG+ mode by doing so because a. you don't slop as many tricks on defense as opps do and b. opps are likely to slop tricks against you. In a good field opps will reach their par contract and play it for your AVG-. In this case you have to try and stop them from reaching that contract, with a twisted pree if necessary. (I speak from experience as well.) Finally, a higher variance vs weak players is what you DON'T need. The sharper that peak is, the better for you because your peak is higher than opps' peaks. If you take measures to smear out that peak, you risk losing your statistical advantage" Whereeagles, if you haven't done so already read Adam's post in this thread on what is a weak player, and Justin's reply. When Justin is talking about "weak" players, he means compared to him, as in the majority of duplicate players - and I suspect that I (and maybe you) are in this category :) He's not talking about beginners (or Life Beginners) who manage to screw up even basic non-contested auctions and simple declarer play. Against those folks, you're right, just let them bid and play. However, against the average-to-above-average duplicate player, preempting works quite nicely. I also do it against the best players, because I WANT to randomize against them. Peter

I agree with Ken. Peter

"If you've studied books like "Inferences at Bridge", these inferences generally assume that the opponents are playing "correctly". But flight C players don't always do the right thing, and your inferences will frequently be wrong as a result. As a result, you're more likely to be "fixed" by weak players. " I'm guessing that Mike is already aware of this. This is a WILD, WILD guess, but I'll go out on a limb ;) Peter

Double, in spite of the bad hearts. Generally, when you have two bids, one which is unilateral, and one which involves pd, involve pd. Peter

"I have encountered many occasions when 3N is the last making game (or only game that has a prayer) despite holding an 8 card major suit fit, and not all of those occasions are when both players are balanced. In those cases I regard it as just as important to be in 3NT at IMP as I do at MP." My experience is different - it is that 4M is more likely to be the right contract at IMPs than 3NT when one pd is unbalanced. That's not to say that 3NT is always wrong, just that 4M is more likely to be right. Mileage obviously varies. Peter

Clearly there is a story here. Pass seems so obvious. Peter

'If you understand 4S, why dont you understand 3NT?" Because you know that you have an 8 card fit, and pd is unbalanced. Why play 3NT at IMPs? At MPs I could understand, but not IMPs. Peter

Note: it would be nice to know the system, especially on slam bidding. Hand 1: South has a 15 count, one ace, missing the DQ, with a stiff in pd's primary suit, with no indication from pd that he has more than 12 hcp... you want to play in a diamond slam, if any slam at all. Would 3D have been forcing? If so, that was your bid. Is 3C forcing? If not, with no agreements, 4NT is optimistic but not terrible, but I would settle in 6D not 6NT. A tough hand, especially without agreements. I might bid 3NT if playing Standard American. Hand 2: Whereagles has a point, 3S is fine, but it's IMPs vul, so 4S is fine too :) I don't understand 3NT at all. Hand 3: 3H at unfavorable with a small doubleton????? Peter

5C automatic. Peter

"If not than it is obvious you do not thing we are at war hence my comment." Speaking for myself, not Helene: Our invasion of Iraq (which is a war) IS NOT PART of our effort against anti-Western radical Islamic terrorism, which is primarily against Al Quaeda. In fact, it has been counterproductive to that effort. This effort is often called a war. While not absolutely wrong, it is inaccurate, since wars are between countries or groups of countries. Saddam Hussein was a secular tyrant with regional ambitions. He and Bin Laden hate each other. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Calling what we do against terrorism a "war" is a bad idea because sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking, such as conflating Iraq and Al Quaeda, and sloppy thinking leads to stupid, self-destructive actions, such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Peter

"But wars helps them to be a lot more popular, and helps them to recruit more members." Exactly. These groups don't exist in a vacuum "I admit I can see some politically motivated rationale behind the actions of IRA, ETA or Hamas, but none at all for Al-Qaeda." I can. They want to establish a theocracy across the Muslim world, and are willing to kill as many Muslims and non-Muslims as it takes to accomplish this. Peter

"I did read that and I asked what does that mean? After 20% or 10% or pick whatever number is your best guess of the population is wiped out are things settled down? Do we then send in billions to the winning killers?" Why this obsession with defining winners? It's unlikely there will be ANY winners, only a LOT of losers, and after things calm down, we should help them however we can. Don't you feel any sense of responsibility? As to specifics, they will have to wait. The devil is always in the details, and things won't calm down for years. Peter

I play 3C as forcing, so I would not have bid it with my 13 count misfit opposite a passed hand. Now I have to bid 3NT. Peter

"Give money to who or what? And who enforces how it is spent? You want to pour billions into a new Cambodia extermination country?" You might want to read a post before responding to it, particularly: "Its going to take a long time for things to settle down, but if and when it does..." Peter

"On a more general basis, I think that the US owes a massive debt to the people of Iraq. We destroyed their country in a fit of pique. Its going to take a long time for things to settle down, but if and when it does the US should start providing large amounts of economic aid for reconstruction." I agree 100%. Peter

"I do not think America should be punished more than of course the terrible life and limb loss we have suffered already. No I do not think we deserve it." But do you think we will, that's the question. Peter