pbleighton

2D enough for me. I detest gambling 3NT as either an opener or an overcall. I appear to be in a minority ;) Peter

"I'll ask a leading question: Is it easier to take 8 tricks in NT than 6 in clubs with this hand?" I am bidding 2NT in the hopes that pd (who is unlimited) will have a decent hand and raise to 3. If I knew he would pass 2NT, I would certainly pass, and take a likely 200. Peter

"Would I like to be able to bid a nature 2NT on this hand? Probably... Do I think that a natural 2NT is a desirable treat ment? No... " OK, I'll bite. 1. What does 2NT mean to you here, in your regular partnerships? 2. What would you assume it meant with a pickup partner? Peter

"As a side note, to rebid 1nt or 2nt depends on how junky your partner is opening." It would have to be pretty junky to rebid 1NT on an 11 count. Not a great 11 count, but you do have Kx and Kxx in his suits. Peter

Phil, since you are posting this, it can't be a wtp? question, but I see no other bid than 2NT. Peter

I have been opening semibalanced hands with different NT ranges for 3 years. I do not open with a stiff or 7222, as I play a lot in the ACBL and I don't want to deal with their nonsense (you can do it, but you have to comply with the no more than 1% rule). I always open 5M332 in the NT range, except for a strong hand at the top of the range. I will generally not open 5M422, unless in a mini where the hand doesn't qualify for 1M, or with a bad primary suit with values in the doubletons. I am happy with the results. Playing a strong NT, as you do, there is a big upside in showing pd a good hand with a tight range. Opening 5H332, you avoid rebid problems after 1H-1S. You will get some good results (more than bad ones) in the partscore battle by starting 1NT. Peter

"All Along the Watchtower. Dylan then Hendrix" Wondered if someone would mention this. Peter

I am not going to hazard a guess as to your library, but according to the ever-useful Wikipedia: "Paul McCartney's Yesterday is the most covered song in the world with over three thousand different versions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_version...t_covered_songs Peter

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press. The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book. But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels." http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/27...e.ap/index.html Consensus, anyone? Peter

In that case I agree with Adam. Peter

"So what's the difference between doubling first or not? Or do you have different kind of cues?" Free, for goodness sake you are talking about an INDY! You will be lucky to get a cue bid recognized. Personally, I would never cue bid in an indy, and use Blackwood reluctantly - does he think plain Blackwood, 0314, 1430, or will we think it is quantitative and pass it? Peter

"Sure you can...." Yes, but it takes along time to dig to China B) Peter

Joan Jett has an awesome version of Louie, Louie. Peter

Two requirements: 1. The original has to be a recognized rock classic. 2. The cover has to be better than the original. My pick: Joan Jett's version of "Summertime Blues". Peter

"why is it so hard to "believe" that as oil and energy gets too expensive we can pull something off the shelf that will work." Mike, I have no doubt that we will solve the problem. We are a very ingenious (though self-destructive) species. The issue is timing. If you think we can convert from an oil based economy to whatever alternative we will use in a few years, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Peter

1. Cue 2. Blackwood 3. Cue 4. Blackwood With the caveat that anything can happen in an indy. Peter

"Hard to say we have a real energy problem yet when costs go up 10-33% and the net result is we use more of the energy not less. We fly more we drive more, etc etc....some crises." If by problem you mean a short term problem, you are right. That's not what we are talking about, though. "Note the Calif crises was an economic, non free market driven one, not one of lack of oil in the world." I agree that the California electricity crisis is not particularly relevant to the discussion, as it didn't involve oil, which is the subject. BTW, the California crisis arose because of badly designed privatization. "Lets at least wait until total energy use drops along with total productivity drops to say we have a problem at least." That is certainly the "strategy" of Bush and co. Wait to fall off the oil cliff, and THEN invent a parachute. Brilliant. Peter

"Thank goodness the physics is only half or less of the problem. The economics will be a large part of the solution that is driven home in the near future. I believe the effect will be logarithmic and not linear in the solutions to the energy "problem"" Nice to have this belief :) Any evidence to back it up, or are are you content to wait for the genie to fly (logarithmically fast, of course) out of the bottle at the last possible moment? Peter

"Going down does that, too." Of course. But if it's close, I bid game. BTW, I don't know where you play, but where I play (northeastern US), the majority of good players will bid an immediate 4S on the given hand. If it's close, they bid game. And then there's Meckwell... Peter

"It's not a political issue. It's really technical." There are a lot of difficult technical issues, but there are also more opportunities than your post admits. If we had shown some foresight 30 years ago when the oil embargoes hit, we would have accomplished FAR more on: 1. Conservation, in its many forms 2. Solar power, and other renewable energy sources 3. Fuel cell technology We might have also made progress on fusion, though, as you say, that is technically problematical. It may be literally too late to avoid huge disruptions, even if we were to get our act together now. It's unclear when oil prices will turn permanently stratospheric (at least as long as oil is used as a major energy source). Personally I think we may have another 20-30 years or so - but maybe not. What is crystal clear is that if we don't do something major soon, we will be in the soup. Peter

"Personally, I hate losing. Why make bridge more difficult than it already is?" I find missing games conducive to losing :P Peter

"Maybe non-conventional oil sources and/or nuclear fusion can ease the passage from oil to other sources of energy, but right now there's a lot of technical issues to be sorted out before those provide the necessary mitigation to the problem." I think it is more a question of political will, which is lacking worldwide, and completely MIA in the U.S. We could get switched over in time to prevent major disruptions, but we won't. Peter

"As planned, I bid 3♠ and it went all pass. Given that my 3♠ call indicated good, long trumps and a max, should partner have bid 4♠?" You showed any 4 trumps and a doubleton, no more. This was just LOTT competition. I don't blame your partner. I don't blame you, either, even though I would have gone to 4 initially. You choose the style you are comfortable with. Personally, I HATE missing games, so I make bids many others wouldn't. Win some, lose some. Peter

"Your thoughts?" Don't double 2S at IMPs, unless you are SURE. At MPs, it would be a marginal double. I wouldn't do it, but wouldn't sriticize it either. Peter

Opening. Peter