pbleighton

3S. Peter

") I would have bid 4S, but 3S seems reasonable as well. 2) either Pass or bid 4S 3) 3S by South is ok, 4S by North seems clear cut 4) South could raise 2H direct to 3H, but pass is ok as well The 2H is just competitive, i.e. it does not promise anything, but South holds a 5 card suit and the max. of the range he promised. For what's it worth: a direct 2H over the RDBL does not promise strength, it just shows length and is preemptive, although one would not make this bid on garbage, but a 6 card suit with a 6-4 distribution is probably enough. Summerization: South is bidding a bid conservative, but that is a style issue, the only clear error occurred on board 3" Agree, except that not bidding 2H initially was VERY conservative. Not wrong, though, if that's the way you play. Peter

3S is out - you are not invitational. I would bid 4S. Weak, LOTT, plus you have nothing outside of spades. Many would not, however, with a 5322 shape. This is a style issue. Peter

"hmm lets see you say not the most important issue but the most effective remedy..good grief talk about splitting tiny words." Issue: environmental costs. Remedy: A variety, the taxes the most effective. Taxes are important only because of the problem (issue). I don't see why this is difficult to grasp. "Good grief, I did just the opposite. I did acknowledge those costs." Where? "Let's assume killing off most of humanity will not maximize NPV on an absolute basis."? Good grief. Peter

""You have completely ignored the environmental consequences of different types and levels of energy consumption, and the associated economic (including health) and social costs." Well not quite..I am assuming that killing off most of humanity will not maximize NPV on an absolute basis. Killing off or making deadly sick in any sense of the term." That's not the same thing, and I think you know it. You do not acknowledge environmental costs. "You do not say this explicitly but my point is you assume taxation is the most or almost most important issue. I see taxation as the most evil issue." No, it is not the most important issue. It is the most effective remedy for moving the economy away from a carbon based energy supply. The effectiveness of excise taxes is a well-known economic fact (though I'm sure Fox News could find someone to dispute this). See, for example, what the cigarette industry says about the effect of higher cigarette taxes on consumption. It is not the only thing which needs to be done by any means, but it makes the other things (development of non-carbon energy sources and conservation) far easier. It allows them to be done with a steady, persistent basis, with far less explicit action needed in the way of laws, regulations, and subsidies than would otherwise be the case. Drive a Hummer if you like - I would never want to stop you. I just want to make people, on average and over time, more likely to conserve, and to give a big impetus to alternative energy sources. There are three reasons a carbon tax makes sense: 1) Global warming. In spite of all the anti-warming hoopla, the large scientific institutes and teams have lined up on the side of human behavior most likely being a substantial part of the established fact of global warming. The other side is reduced to quoting a few scientist who disagree - the 95%-5% split hotshot alluded to - with the inevitable ad hominem attacks on the scientists who are part of teh consensus. This is frequently hilarious. 2) Well-established environmental costs/health effects of carbon fuels apart from global warming (see acid rain and lung damage). 3) If we don't do something about oil consumption, we are headed for huge economic disruption. We are burning it twice as fast as we are discovering it, and third world consumption is growing rapidly. We are headed rapidly towards an oil cliff. We won't burn all of the oil, but it will become prohibitively expensive. If we have not as a species moved substantially away from oil when this happens, we will get the worldwide depression we deserve. On another note, as a liberal, there is a good reason for me to dislike a big carbon tax - it is regressive. It would need to be offset by something like a big cut in the FICA tax. Peter

"1) Our goal is not too save money, therefore saving energy is not our goal." Why assume this? "2) Let's assume our goal is to maximize NPV ( net present value) on an absolute basis." This can hardly be our only goal. "3) Let's assume killing off most of humanity will not maximize NPV on an absolute basis." Well, OK ;) "4) Let's assume tax policy by definition cannot make energy as cheap and plentiful as possible. It may help or hurt." Why assume this? "4) Let's assume tax policy cannot by definition maximize NPV. It may help or hurt." Why assume this? "5) Let's assume making energy as cheap and plentiful as possible will maximize NPV." In the very short run, yes, but in the long run it depends on the type of energy consumed. You have completely ignored the environmental consequences of different types and levels of energy consumption, and the associated economic (including health) and social costs. Peter

"Nature is about balance, und you don't need much to end balanced situation." This is apparently a very difficult concept to grasp for those without any scientific understanding, or those whose understanding is overwhelmed by their ideological agendas. This "trees cause a lot more pollution than people" nonsense has been around since (at least) that noted climatologist Ronald Reagan. Peter

3S on an 11 count (OK, an excellent 11 count, and in the balancing seat) seems out of line to me. What is the minimum hand for 4S? Peter

"Some interest groups try to create the impression that the groups of scientists that disagree about whats happening are of about the same size. While in fact the distribution is more like 95% to 5%. " Some people also deliberately misunderstand the meaning of "consensus". Here's the definition, from Encarta: "general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group" 95% works for me. Here's a little more: "After a comprehensive review of climate change data, the nation's preeminent scientific body found that average temperatures on Earth had risen by about 1 degree over the last century, a development that "is unprecedented for the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia." The report from the National Research Council also concluded that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."" http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/l...ack=1&cset=true "The fact that I find most curious is, that reducing the carbon dioxide emission is in your best interest even if you don't believe that it causes global warming. Anybody who had a look on his latest electricity bill or refuelled his car should realise that reducing the energy consumption will save money. We all know that oil is a limited resource, and that prices will go up even further." FAR too rational. We can't permit this kind of thinking. Peter

"Sounds as if you read it as opps opening, but partner did, Peter." Oops. Pass. Peter

4C. Too good for 3, not good enough for 5. Peter

2S seems pretty clear, playing standard methods (and it's an indy). Peter

I would also open 4405 hands 1D. Two issues: 1) Which plays the (very rare) 4405 hands better? 2) Which causes less system damage, making the very common 1D 0+ instead of 1+, or the less common 2C 5+ instead of 6+. As to 1), I think it's close. 2C works better NV and with a good suit. 1D works better vulnerable and with a mediocre/bad suit. Small advantage opening 1D, because of major suit partials. As to 2), there is really no benefit to having 1D show 1 instead of 0, but there is a big benefit to having 2C show 6 instead of 5. Peter

I am able to use both VPN and BBO simultaneously. I use cable broadband. Peter

I hate 2H less than anything else. Not by much, though. I sympathize with the passers. Peter

"If I took Viagra before a tournament would they ban me or give me a stiff talking to?" You would only be banned from the pole vault. Peter

1S. I open 4S more than most people, but here we can lose a good slam, if pd has good club support, or get into a bad one, if pd has lots of stuff in the reds. Switch hearts and spades, and I might open 4H, but here, I can always bid 4S over their 4H. Peter

"For the purpose of this discussion, I think it makes sense to assume that any solution (whether using taxes or other instruments) should be tax-pressure neutral. So a carbon tax would be offset by a decrease in other taxes (VAT, income taxes, whatever). Of course one could be in favor of higher government revenues, or less government revenues, or a more (or less) prrogressive revenue collection, or a bigger (or smaller) public sector etc. But those are different issues." Agreed. Peter

"Would be very interested in any feedback, etc" Yeah, why are you such a chicken when you are vulnerable? :D Peter

"Why are taxes always the first item up for discussion.. and not the last? sigh.... " Because they work. Peter

"Lets please keep taxes out of the discussion." Why on this planet should we keep a well-proven method of affecting behavior out of the discussion? Had we implemented a gradual gas tax after the oil spikes of the 70's, so that the price was $3.00 per gallon more than present from 1995 (say) on, what do you think that would have done to our oil consumption? Peter

"When I type at the computer how much pollution am I causing at what cost to me. I think a solution can be found to this economic pricing issue." Pollution taxes, carbon taxes... Mike, are you seeing the light? :) Peter

"One lesson to be considered here is the folly of making a take out double at the four level without spades." It's fine with this hand, as it is good enough to bid 5D over 4S. Peter

"I'll admit to not having this problem because I'd have opened 5D in 3rd seat" Agree, but to the problem as stated: If you have sophisticated pertnership agreements about high level interference, that's better than if you don't. I don't. So, I think 4S is a good bid. Double is a bad bid at IMPs. The payoff is low, and the bidding indicated a lot of distribution, quite possible a spade void. Peter

I agree that North is to blame, but if he plays 3S as NF, he has a problem. 2D should be natural, and 2H (I think) should be limit plus in support of clubs. I probably would have bid 2D, then jumped in spades. Peter