pbleighton

Two issues: I would never hide the spade suit. If is didn't have 4 spades, Qxx is not a great stopper, but it IS a stopper. I voted for "pushy". Peter

"It may very well be that having the Muslim Brotherhood or similiar groups coming to political power is a necessary step to a more peace loving group coming to power?" Unfortunately, I think that this is true. The West has installed and supported brutal, corrupt dicatorships in the Middle East for decades (not to mention colonization before that). The only force in these societies which the governments dared not mess with too much is religion. This has led to the rise of various "political Islams", which are: 1. Fundamentalist, and wishing to overthrow the secular governments, and replace them with theocracies, as in Iran. 2. Anti-Israel. 3. In many cases anti-Western. The degree of this varies. This is frequently misinterpreted in the West as being "destroy the West". This is, in fact, a very small minority view. The majority view is "kill as many Westerners as necessary in order to get the West out of all Muslim countries". The CIA reported that even Bin Laden, who initially opposed the 9/11 plan, changed his mind after the U.S. continued its support of Israel's handling of the Palestinian situation. This has become the dominant political force in the Muslim world, particularly in the Middle East. It is a poisonous situation, as is always the case when religion and politics mix. Theocracy will have its day. Iran shows hope, though. Most of the younger generation has turned against the mullahs, and is thoroughly sick of theocracy. In the meantime, expect fundamentalist, anti-Israel parties to win elections, as they have in Palestine and Iraq. Israel is a huge sticking point. It strengthens the fundamentalists' position immeasurably. As difficult as it will be, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is necessary for the Middle East, and for the world, especially in these nuclear times. As an analogy, see Northern Ireland - the support of the Irish Catholic Church in the Irish struggle against the British has made Ireland the most Catholic country by far in an otherwise increasingly secular Europe. Religious divisions make the Northrn Ireland problem a lot more difficult. The position of the Northern Irish Protestants/British descendants is somewhat analogous to the Israelis - even though they should not have been there originally, in their words "It's our country too", and they are not going anywhere. OTOH, they finally started to negotiate seriously, and peace, while not quite there, is visible. And, of course, the invasion of Iraq was a huge gift to the more extreme versions of political Islam. Peter

"I have read this claim twice, both times from you. Can you back this up?" I can't back it up, but I have heard this before from other sources. I know that they play with clients a lot at regionals. Whether this is because they can't use their system or because they like the money from clients, I don't know. Peter

"An interesting aspect of his work is that he first thought the hydrogen should be mainly produced using natural gas, oil and coal. But when the oil price raise in the last 2 years he changed his mind and is now proposing that it should mainly be won out of bio-mass, simply because this is much cheaper than oil even if the farmers are paid a very fair price for their energy crops." The paper is interesting, but your paragraph above identifies the key issue with hydrogen fuel cells: They are an energy transfer mechanism, not an energy source, since it takes energy to get hydrogen.I did some systems development for a company which produces industrial fuel cells. Their cells use natural gas. The environmental benefits are huge (about one thousandth of the pollution compared with burning natural gas), but they are not an energy source. There must be energy expended to create biomass. I'm not sure I found that factored into the analysis, though I must admit I didn't read it too carefully. Peter

1D-1H-3C-4NT-5D(3)-6C. Sorry, but that is what would have happened at my table, with "basic SAYC" prescribed. To tell you the truth, missing 30 point grand slams with 9 card fits doesn't bother me. Peter

I would not have doubled, with 3-3 in the majors. I would have bid 3C. It's close, though. Now I would pass. Pd's second pass and lack of jump in the third call discourages moving forward in spades. I would double at matchpoints. Peter

3NT, because I think that it is most likely where we should be, and pd may well not know it. If you bid 3C/3D, if pd doesn't have a hard heart stopper (probable), he may bid 4C or 4D. My second choice would be 3C, third 3D. This is a tough problem with no good bid. Peter

You already showed your suit was hearts. I sympathize with your partner's 5D. I would have bid 4H instead of 4D, being less subject to misinterpretation. Do you play Texas transfers?. If so, this hand is a good candidate. Peter

"If you want to find out, why not take a look in one of the countries where multi is legal (even at the lowest levels). I would expect that all pairs that play in the highest British or Dutch league have detailed agreements about their defense against multi. How many of those pairs still use multi? " A few years back, I looked at all of the ccs for the next-to-last Bermuda Bowl for the round of 16, about 48 of the best pairs in the world, many (most?) of them from jurisdictions where the multi was legal. I found that a large majority of them (don't remember exactly, memory fades) used some form of the multi. As I remember, many used the weak-only variant. They generally used 2M for a wide variety of 2 suiters. I remember being surprised that such a high percentage of a group of world-class players did this. Maybe they knew that none of their opponents knew how to bid against it, the multi being as unknown as it is? Peter

"That would be a typical 4D pre-empt for me at green." Me too. Peter

"You can put bombs into planes, suitcases, ships, artillery shells, etc etc.... " Exactly. If there is a nuclear strike against the U.S., it probably won't be delivered by a missile. As bad as North Korea is, I am actually more concerned with the roughly 10,000 nuclear bombs dispersed throughout the former Soviet Union, which is chaotic, corrupt, and thoroughly capitalistic. Someone there (probably not a government, more likely a group of military officers) is more likely IMO than North Korea to sell a nuke to Bin Laden. Peter

It sounds like the result of the hand was that the attractive French girl found them funny, too :) 4H for me too. Peter

"If you are ever going to pass with 13 hcp and a 5 card major in first seat, this is the hand for it. Not sure this is allowable in this Century." It's not. The WBF has declared it a war crime. Peter

"responder does not have a limit raise. responder has a single constructive raise and should make an immediate 2S bid." This depends on your agreements. "I don't think a whole lot went "wrong". I would just chalk it up to system loss." I agree. If I was playing constructive 1M-2M raises (which I dislike, but which work nicely in this case), I would raise to 2S. If not, I would wind up in 3S, whether playing in SA or 2/1. This isn't a good 10 hcp raise, but it isn't bad either - 2 aces and the trump Q make it reasonable in spite of the shape. Why was your score so low? Were others able to make 8 tricks, or did everyone stop at 2? Peter

I had a discussion today with a partner regarding cue bidding first vs second round controls. It was in the context of a strong club auction, but it can also apply to any GF auction. Let's say you establish trump below game level in a GF auction, for example: 1S-2H-3H playing 2/1, or 1C-1H-2H playing a strong club. When you cue bid, should you always show first round controls before second round controls. Let's say you had the CK and the DA in the above auction(s), and extras, so you were going to cue bid. Do you bid clubs or diamonds? My partner (who is far more experienced than I am) says to bid clubs, it is more important to find out where you are wide open than to know first or second round. He says use RKC to check for aces. I am fine with this, but I am used to showing first round controls before second round controls. Which style do you prefer? Peter

You mean I can't open a strong club? :) I don't have a way to ask about pd's minor suits after 2NT. The problem with Gerber is that you can't stop in 5C. Oh, dear, I wish I had better agreements :( I would bid 5C or 6C, depending on my mood. Most days I would bid 6 (because of my dislike of the 5 level), which happens to work on this hand. Peter

"1♠ in 3rd seat, 2♣ rev drury from pd. What is your bid? 2D? 2N? 4N? something else?" At the risk of offending the god of space conservation, I bid 3D. Peter

"The numbers are quite different and suggest some different conclusions. " "Estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived have varied tremendously; in the 20th century scholarly estimates ranged from a low of 8.4 million to a high of 112.5 million persons. Given the fragmentary nature of the evidence, precise pre-Columbian population figures are impossible to obtain; estimates are often produced by extrapolation from comparatively small bits of data. In 1976, geographer William Denevan used these various estimates to derive a "consensus count" of about 54 million people, although some recent estimates are lower than that.[1] Anthropologists agree that the bulk of indigenous American ancestry can be traced to ice age migrations from Asia over the Bering land bridge, though some believe previous sea faring peoples contributed small population stocks." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_hi...igenous_peoples Peter

1) "You are also ignoring the elephant in the room - this was carved out not merely for the Jews in Palestine, but for European Jews as well. A mass migration was planned (and it happened). This was not something common in history, as you state it was." If you accept that people have a right to self-determination, they then have a state and they make the rules regarding migration/immigration to that state. Your point being??? I do not accept self-determination of one group at the expense of other groups. 2) Utopia is the only state in which there is no injustice. Every time we make a law, draw a boundary or any real or artificial distinction there are hard luck cases or those of injustice. We would all love to see a world where it is not so - but it doesn't happen. So, one hopes that steps are taken to attempt to minimise the injustice. Your point being? 3) You seem to feel that all Palestinians have been dealt this huge injustice. I can understand that in the case of any who were forcibly removed from property or had it appropriated, but that is only a small minority on any basis that I have read - even giving credence to the more pro-Palestinian accounts. What is now Israel used to be Palestine. The Palestinian people had lived there for centuries. If you can't see that this is injustice, I can't help you. 4) You have never come to grips with the basic tenet that the Palestinians deny the Jews and Israel the right of existence. Yes I have. I stated emphatically in an earlier post that they needed to do so. On the other hnad you seem to feel that a minority (of Palestinians) alleged economic injustice outweighs the right to exist of the Jews. That is an interesting view of "injustice". I do not. This is either an absolute fabrication on your part, or a refusal to actuall read posts you are responding to. 5) When referring to the dispossessed you never acknowledge or have regard to the plight of Jews Again, false. Please read my posts efore you respond to them. a) who lost their land/possessions by being in the wrong part of partition at the relevant time; who were dospossessed and forced to flee from the various Arab states in the Middle East over the succeeding decades- and a complete lack of compensation for those persons from the same Arab states who bleat about Palestinians (and which states benefited by expropriating property. You might have thought that would weigh heavily on the scales of injustice. I do. From my first post in this thread: "I don't think either the Israelis or the Palestinians have learned much since the British robbed the Palestinians of a chunk of their land and gave it to the Jews, one of the worst-considered pieces of racist social engineering in world history. The Palestinians will have to accept historical injustice, and recognize Israel's right to exist. It is not going away, and the Israelis have acquired the right to live there by longetivity. Israel should never have been established, but it was (actually, it should have been established in Germany after WWII, but that is another story...). They can look to Native Americans for grief counselling." 6) "General attitude to Arabs": well, I'll take each person on his/her merits -regardless of background, race, creed or colour -or even bridge-playing (or denigrating some: card-pulling) ability! However, if and when someone says "you don't have a right to exist", I get a little concerned and am unlikely to make of that person my best friend. Indeed a little wariness is in order: even if you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not trying to kill you. Fortunately, living in a nation which encourages tolerance of all, virtually any minority recognises it is just that, and unites in love of sport and general laissez faire. I suggest your comment is - at best- unfair. I suggest that it is true - I said that your comment encapsulated your attitude toward Arabs/Palestinians. Every comment you have made in this thread has shown zero respect for Arabs/Palestinians. I am not saying that in your personal life you would treat them badly - I am not accusing you of personal racist behavior. However, your comments have been quite consistent, and quite negative. At worst I could turn the tables and accuse you of anti-semitism, but I don't. And what comment have I made which would enable you to do that? I don't know you. It would be unfair and improper to do so. I am attempting to deal with arguments - and attempt to sway someone whom I see as making continuing emotional pleas to consider additional facts and /or premises in an attempt to convince him - or at least mitigate a perceived antipathy. If you bothered to read my posts carefully, you would have seen that there I have no antipathy towards Israel. The establishment of Israel was an injustice, as was the conquest and genocide of Native Americans. Israel has earned the right to exist, but it must make peace with the Palestinians, for moral and practical reasons. You deny the moral reasons and have never dealt with the practical: Israel literally cannnot exist indefinitely in a world with 600 million Muslims without making peace with the Palestinians. There will, sooner or later, be a nuclear weapon(s) detonated in Israel. This will be totally wrong. It will also happen. Nuclear weapons have changed a lot of things. In a previous century, Israel would not have to make peace (there is, as you say, plenty of historical injustice). I request that you accord me the same courtesy, rather than ridicule or denigration. Stop being so sensitive. You misread/don't read my posts, and make comments which verge on being flames. I suggest that you modify your posting style on political topics if you can't stand a little heat. And here is another suggestion. My posts evidently bother you. You have an option. Ignore my posts. If you tell me that you are going to do this, I won't respond to your posts. I am not saying that you should do this (I am, after all, composing lengthy replies to your posts), but it is an option for you, if you wish. I have already done this with luke warm. I no longer respond to his posts, based on a posting he made with respect to Iran: "i don't think you can ignore religion, i think you underestimate the actions of people who think they will go straight to heaven when they die, with shitloads of cattle and virgins waiting for them" Based on this, I came to the conclusion that further discussion with him would be fruitless. He may well be a good guy in his personal life, I'm just not going to waste my time responding to someone with his worldview. Life is too short. If you have the same reaction to my posts as I had to his, just let me know and I will have the courtesy not to bother you any more. Peter

"Again since Gaza is a nation". Gaza is not a nation. Peter

"Difficult hand as most high level missfits are. PD reversed and then forced game with 3C so he has to havea bit more than a min reverse. You have clubs stopped and the ace can be held up if needed. I don't think PD has more than 4 hearts or he'd have bid 3H on his 3rd turn. For that reason I prefer 3NT rather than 3H on your 3rd turn. I wouldn't rebid 3S on my third turn since how many times do you want to rebid a weakish 6 cards suit. After 3S PD having 1 or 0 spades and no club stop is stuck or has to gamble that you stop clubs enough to allow 3NT to make. So I try to buy the auction with 3NT..however, now you cannot bid 3NT so you should bid 4H (4th turn) and hope to make the 4-3 Heart fit game and suspecting PD has 17-19 HCP it should have good chances. I won't bid 4NT and hope PD passes since I fear he's too likely to wonder why you bypassed 3NT and won't pass. I suspect that if you bid 3NT on your 3rd turn it is a favorite to make. .. neilkaz .. " Agree with the above. Peter

"Your claim of "various oppressors" of "the Palestinians" is interesting. Firstly, define your "Palestine": do you mean the British mandate following WW1, the Roman colony, Israel plus other areas? Bear in mind that with the exceptions of the Roman colony and the British mandate, there has not been a single state "Palestine"" This was in fact my point. They are a people who have never been permitted to have their own country. This does not make their suffering and injustice any less real. "Similarly when you allege "Jews were one seventh of the population of Palestine" - are you taking that definition of "Palestine" as the British Mandate at the date of partition?" My "allegation" is from the 1922 census performed by the British. You may verify this easily, if you wish. "If your point is that there is injustice in the form of drawing borders - you are right: there always will be whenever an artificial distinction is drawn. There will be injustice on both sides of the line. If your point is as to strict division of territory on per capita basis at the time, again live with it: it doesn't happen. Every chronicle I have read suggests the British did the future state of Israel no favours in its division but I accept that someone will alwaysfeel disadvantaged." This "realpolitik" is quite dismissive of injustice - "live with it". There is resistance to injustice - live with it. You are also ignoring the elephant in the room - this was carved out not merely for the Jews in Palestine, but for European Jews as well. A mass migration was planned (and it happened). This was not something common in history, as you state it was. "I agree with you and Ben Gurion as to an understanding of their frustration but that does not make it right." Says who? You make a "screw it, that's life" argument, and then turn around and say that it is wrong for victims of injustice to fight back. This is logically inconsistent. "I suggest what really annoyed many was that land was sold to Jews at what appeared to be a high price for uncultivated and generally believed to be unarable land - which was then rendered arable. THe vendors moved from self-congratulation at their own cleverness to irritation that they had been underpaid. there are few things as annoying as humiliation - and watching your neighbour progress after you had the opportunity for decades but did not avail yourself thereof, tends to be frustrating." There was in fact substantial Palestinian opposition from the start. Your general attitude towards Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general is encapsulated in this comment. "If I lived in comparable circumstances exposed to continuing propaganda I too might feel as tehy do." This is totally ridiculous. Don't kid yourself. If you (or I) were either Palestinian or Israeli, you/I would be partisan, with or without what you dismissively refer to as "propaganda". Not necessarily extremist (many Palestinians and Israelis are not), but partisan nonetheless. As proof, how many Palestinians AND Israelis are not partisan to some degree? Peter

I won't criticize the initial pass - if you play soundish openings, then that is what you play. The first double was fine NV at matchpoints. I pass now. I have nothing else to tell pd. Peter

"This does seem to qualify as psyching and fielding, especially if the pair in question is a semi-regular partnership" The key point is whether it is a something approaching a regular partnership. This is online bridge, after all. If it is a pickup partnership I just shrug and move to the next hand. Of course, it is hard to know if a partnership is pickup or established. There are a LOT of weird bids in online bridge. Peter

"In fact, although there has not been a Palestinian state previously (and certainly not an Arab one), by all means let them have a separate state." Disingenuous. The Palestinians had lived in Palestine for centuries, under various oppressors, the most recent of which were the British. "What precisely was the nature of the individual injustice of which you speak: 1948partition? Why is or was that an injustice?" No, it started with the the 1922 Mandate For Palestine, which attempted to cut out from Palestine a homeland for European Jews. You can read about it on the Internet, if you like. "Regardless of the rights or wrongs, prior to 1948 partition there was a significant Jewish population - and no reason why they should not be self-governing." Jews were one seventh of the population in Palestine. As a parallel, let us suppose an superior power occupied your country, identified an ethnic or religious group comprising one seventh of the population, carved out a section of your country, gave it to them, and invited all members of that group from around the world to move there permanently. Assuming that you were not a member of that group, how would you feel about this? "When you stack statistics of those killed you take a Western viewpoint conveniently to suggest injustice by loss of life: but it is only one side (the Israeli) which has placed the Western huge premium on individual life." Nonsense. This is essentially a civil war, with mass murder on both sides. Here is another perspective on injustice, from the first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion, a dedicated Zionist: "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: they think we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance." Peter