pbleighton

I pass (I would be tempted to bid if the opps weren't vulnerable). My hand seems suited more for defense. Game is unlikely, and if we could make 3 of something we should be able to set them 2. I would bid 2NT with another diamond. Peter

The numbers don't tell the whole story. In Connecticut, I have watched over the 3.5 years I've played ftf bridge, and have seen the serious players (average age close to 70) age/die. Many of these players started playing in their youth or middle age. This is a shrinking pool. They'll be mostly gone in 15 years. There are new players, who play in beginner games, who are generally in their early or mid 60s. These people have a good time, but very rarely have the attitude/aptitude to become decent players, much less strong A players. They might play in an intermediate game, but not the stronger games, and have little or no interest in tournaments. As a result, attendance in regionals and sectionals slowly declines. I think online bridge will "win" by default. Peter

"Why is this a "clear cut" 2♥ opener with us Vulnerable and the opponents not vulnerable? I guess it depends on your partnership agreement. (Maybe this is a Marty Bergen V-nV 2 bid?) What would your non-vul vs. non-vul 2♥ bid look like? How about your non-vul vs vul 2♥ bid? " You don't want to know :) Peter

"and Yasser Arafat shared the prize for peace!" ...and so did Henry Kissinger B) Peter

"Watch the next 2 years as the Democrats do nothing but Perp walk the Republicans up the hill to Congress to resolve this issue." It won't be their occupation, but it will certainly be a very pleasant avocation :) Peter

The explanation I got was that internet connections were slow, so they rarely rule on tempo/UI. I asked the TD to look anyway, and she said the opp's bid looked "fairly normal", and there would be no adjustment. I didn't want to "teach the TD", so I didn't say anything. A minor flaw, IMO, for inexpensive, convenient play, with better competetion than the MBC. Peter

"Just call me BidMaster Winston" Well, your bidding on this hand is certainly cleverer than mine :) Peter

Adam: Do I read the vul right, we are at unfavorable? If so, I pass now and over 4H. I'm thinking they can probably make 4H, I'm not willing to bid 5D, and I won't push them into it. I noticed a bunch of immediate 5D votes, which made me think I am wrong on the vul. If favorable, I will also bid an immediate 5D. Peter

Bush's credibility is (deservedly) so low right now that you could probably get a majority to disbelieve a statement by him that it is raining. They had credible information that an attack by Al Quaeda was coming. They ignored this information, and don't like to talk about it. This is what people are thinking, not that it was an insurance scam. Peter

3NT for me. 3D isn't terrible, but: 1. It has a significant chance of wrongsiding a 3NT contract, or even having pd bypass 3NT when that is right, and 2. Pd has (presumably) denied 4 spades and 3 hearts, meaning a decent chance that he has at least 3 diamonds - good for NT, but potentially disastrous in 5C, and 3. As Phil pointed out, slam is against the odds here. Peter

"Is this sort of thing common at competitive club games?" Pretty common, though most nights you shouldn't have as bad an experience as you described. The extent of it varies by game and club, though. If this level of poor behavior continues, try to find another club game. The behavior you describe is one reason (the other being my job) that I play less ftf bridge than I used to. Peter

Thanks all for the replies. Peter

Unfavorable at IMPs and a lousy diamond suit (where we are most likely to play after 3NT) make me pass this one. Peter

Assume you are playing 2/1 responses as 10(9)+, and forcing, and you are opening light (<11). 1. I know that many play 1M-2x-2M is NF, 5+ cards, and you can stop in 2M (I play this in a weak NT, fairly light opening 5cM system). If you play this, what about rebids cheaper than 2M, such as 1S-2C-2D? Do people play this as forcing (or are there different opinions)? 2. If 1S-2C-2D is forcing, do you commonly bypass a diamond suit to convey a minimum by rebidding 2S? 3. Is 1M-2x-2M-2NT invitational, showing more than 10 but less than GF (say 12-bad 14), or is it to play? 4. Is 1M-2m-3m NF? If so, what do you do with a strong hand with good support for partner's minor? 5. Is 1M-2m-something-3m NF or forcing? If so, what do you do with the other hand? TIA, Peter

Your bidding is fine. 1. This is the only sequence where the 4th suit isn't artificial, so 1S is right. 2. 4H is conservative, but OK. The alternative is 4C. The problems with this are a. Pd won't play you for the CK, and will think you have more in the other suits, and b. Bad trump support. Peter

I agree with Richard. Peter

Forcing to game is the standard meaning. Peter

Pd's failure to double says it's probably a double fit for both sides. I will bid 4D, which in this auction for me is strongly invitational, as he should have at least 5 diamonds, and I want to take bidding space away from the opps. Second choice is 5D. That said, I wouldn't quarrel with most of the other bids. Peter

Partner has 4 spades, the same as if she wasn't a passed hand. Peter

"What right does the USA have to act in it's national interest? We can all debate what that is and how to achieve it but what right do they have?" "The degree of justification depends on the action proposed to be taken and the circumstances." "What? I do not understand this logic, the action justifies itself and provides rights to itself?" You left out "and the circumstances" :ph34r: Let me give you four examples: 1. Nazi Germany invaded countries and murdered many millions of people in order to conquer the world, enrich themselves, and fulfill the wish of God that Aryan Christians rule the world. 2. In WWII, the Allies murdered many millions of people in response to the aggression and mass murder of Germany and Japan. 3. The U.S. gives economic aid selectively to foreign countries, in order to promote its interests. 4. The U.S. has invaded and occupied foreign countries, and caused the deaths of millions of people (2 million in Vietnam alone) in order to promote its interests. I believe 2 and 3 to be justified, and 1 and 4 to be not justified. Is this clearer? Peter

"What right does the USA have to act in it's national interest? We can all debate what that is and how to achieve it but what right do they have?" The degree of justification depends on the action proposed to be taken and the circumstances. Peter

1. It depends on a lot of things. Most importantly, a negative double at the 2 level should promise 2 places to play. 2. Playing normal (~12+) openings, a 2/1 bid in competition should be about 10 hcp with on OK 5 card suit. With a better suit, you can be a little more aggressive. Remember, though, you are inviting your partner to game, and if she has 14/15 hcp, she will go there. Peter

"It may be idealistic but at least there is some basis for foundation - as opposed to nothing at all!" A nation which doesn't go out of its way to create enemies for itself (which is what the U.S. has done) - I don't think this is "nothing at all". I think of it as realism. As for your fantasy about a 20 year occupation with a happy ending, this ignores: 1. The corrosive effect of the occupation on Iraqi society, and 2. The reaction of the broader Muslim world, and 3. The evidence so far. Peter

"For once they acted in perceived self-interest (if you accept that the administration actually believed WMD to exist)." Do you consider that "perceived self-interest" is an adequate justification for a war which will wind up killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? The U.S. has LOTS of WMD, and I certainly wouldn't consider that fact to be a justification for invasion of us. As to your "20 more years" theory, the situation in Iraq has gotten worse every year we have been there. What make you think it will get better as long as the U.S. is there? For all your trumpeted realpolitik, you seem to be a very trusting, idealistic soul ;) First Rule Of Holes: when you're in one, stop digging. The natives have AK-47s and plastic explosive. Colonialism (or whatever historical parallel you choose) will never be the same. Peter

"Only the Western democracies are so consumed with issues of self-guilt that they let their own best interests decline." So I guess it was a non-Western dictatorship which invaded a country which had less than 10% of its population and far less than .1% of its GDP on the pretext that the invaded country was developing weapons similar to those the invading country already had in great abundance. Peter