pbleighton

Just put it in the main section of your profile - it will reduce the number of conventions you can list, but so what? Peter

""Nonsense." The upsurge in violence was NOT due to the war in Iraq. Battle of Tours(Oct. 10, 732 A.D.) "A Muslim Army, in a crusading search for land and the end of Christianity, after the conquest of Syria, Egypt, and North Africa..." Attacked the Franks(modern day France) from Spain. America and the British Empire were not around to take the blame for the Muslim conquest of numerous nations and the attack against what is now modern day France." LOL. Peter

"Totally unacceptable to write a thing like this in my opinion. You slander and insult them deliberately, and they have no chance to respond. I am offended on their behalf!" Are you also offended on behalf of Muslims, based on the viciously bigoted and ignorant nonsense spewed in this and other threads by certain posters, or is your sense of propriety selective? Peter

"The upsurge in violence was NOT due to the war in Iraq." Utter nonsense. Peter

"..ms Ali did not invade Iraq, she just spoke up against female genitial mutilation and such." No, but the huge upsurge in radical Islamic violence over the last few years was directly caused by the Iraq war. Peter

"Does it not shock you when someone speaks out and get kicks out the their home so their neighbors are protected?" No, given the circumstances. It does not shock me at all. As Richard said, it is a rational action by the neighbors. They hardly cover themselves in glory, but there are larger forces at work here - OH NO, HERE COMES CONTEXT!!! :) Peter

"This post was not about Iraq, I did not vote for it either in any case." Anti-Western Islamic fanaticism is in large part due to Western policy. The recent huge upsurge in violence is directly due the Iraq invasion. You didn't bring up Iraq directly, but when you make (very heated) reference to current activity Islamist extremists, you really can't separate this from Iraq, however much you would like to. "I just am not sure there has been an upsurge of violence compared to when?" Prior to the invasion of Iraq. Hint: Egypt, Spain, London, etc., etc. "In any event are you saying the USA is mostly if not all to blame?" People who commit violent acts have responsibility for them. Countries who commit bad foreign policy which has bad consequences have responsibility for them. These two statements are not in any way contradictory. Peter P.S. Feel free to post things like "Given all these facts it still sounds like Appeasement to me. I guess I am the only one shocked by these facts. Silence is deafening as we go quietly into that night.", but if you do, expect reaction.

"We picked a fight? Good grief get your facts straight." Here are some facts for you: We invaded a country which hadn't attacked us, and which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. We did this largely in retaliation for 9/11 (whatever we said), which was perpetrated by a splinter group of fanatical thugs, who hated and were hated by Saddam. We have essentially declared war on any Muslim country which has the nerve to disobey our orders. This is picking a fight on a very large scale. 9/11 itself, while horrible and unforgivable, arose from a state of affairs in the Arab world which is in large part attributable to Western policy over the last 100 years (predominantly U.S. policy over the last 50), which kept it in a permanent political infancy by installing and supporting a series of corrupt secular dictatorships. The only institution these dictatorships didn't mess with much was Islam, which became in many countries the only practical vehicle for political dissent. This is the basis for Wahabism (a historically recent phenomenon) and other anti-Western theocratic nonsense. We reap what we sow, and we don't learn from our mistakes. When you are in a hole, stop digging! According to the British medical journal Lancet, about 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of our invasion. If you believe the Pentagon (I see no reason to), the number is 30,000. Either way, that's a lot of death, and a lot of extra motivation AND RECRUITING MATERIAL for the fanatics. You have noticed, haven't you, that Muslim extremist violence has seen a HUGE upsurge since the invasion of Iraq? You think that this is a coincidence? Open your eyes. Peter

"Yes, all of these facts were in the article, nothing new there but thanks. Given all these facts it still sounds like Appeasement to me. I guess I am the only one shocked by these facts. Silence is deafening as we go quietly into that night." Yes, the U.S. picks a fight with the entire Muslim world, and there are serious repercussions thoughout the world. Shocking!!!!!!!!! Peter

"Note there is at least one table still playing, else you would move already." Noted :P "6 min is too short, I'm with 7 or 8 tending towards 8. Some people are slower than others." Sure there are slow players. But if they need 8 minutes in online, they probably need 10-11 in ftf. With a little encouragement, I'm sure they could finish in 6 minutes. Peter

This is not "BBO", per se, but: The tournaments are too slow. 6 minutes per hand is plenty, IMO. No shuffling, scoring, moving to another table between rounds, revokes, bid/play out of turn, etc. Peter

I suggest making the time allotted shorter, maybe6 minutes per hand instead of 8. This is internet bridge, after all. Peter

This was just a partnership misunderstanding. The normal meaning of 2H is a limit plus raise in spades. Your partner obviously didn't play it that way , but you did. Agree what 2H means in the future, and move on. Peter

We have found our fit, they have found their fit. I play double as penalty. I would bid 3H. Peter

"At imps I would bid 4s with the north hand at unfav vul. and would not be surprised to go down. Just bid game." Agree, but I don't think 3S is a bad bid - it is close. Since I expect North to bid 4 with his hand, I would pass 3S as South. Peter

Tough problem! I wish I knew how the opps played their trump raises, and what the range was for 1M-2M. I have a sneaking suspicion that the 2S bidder is less than 8 with with 3 spades (or maybe 2 - you might risk this in BAM opposite a limited opener). Double and 3H attract. I choose 3H, for no particular reason. Peter

Yes, I would open 3C, and not just in my "anything goes" partnership. I have 7 cards (I will bid 3m on 6), am at favorable, don't have much defense, and am 3-1 in the majors. I would respond 3NT or 5C, depending on my mood. Peter

I bid 2D. I understand 1NT, but it is a lie by a card, and 2D is only an underbid by a point. Peter

"5Clubs giving up on slam." Agree. In competition, simple is usually best for most players, which definitely includes me. Peter

4S is arguable, but I pass. Peter

"If you want a "simple" project to start with , please take a look at the USBF General Conditions of Contest Systems sections and help me do better there." Here's a modest proposal, which would make a lot of us pretty happy: add to permitted bids (openings and responses): "Any bid which shows at least four cards in a known suit, and at least 10 hcp for an opening bid, and at least 6 hcp for a response" This, or something like it, was suggested by Adam in another thread. I understand (though disagree very strongly with) the sentiment among ACBL members to outlaw unusual preempts, or unusual super light one bids. Constructive bidding is another matter. Using a 10 hcp floor (or rule of 19, if you choose, though the ABCL seems to be more comfortable with hcp) seems to be a good compromise - the alert requirements use 10-21 as their "no alert" range for one bids. I don't think that most members would have much of a problem with this. On defenses to transfer openings, given the above, I really don't see why double = stolen bid, and bidding the suit shown = takeout wouldn't work. The defenders have a very significant and useful extra bid at their disposal. Other things being equal, I would rather play against transfer openings than natural openings. Now, they are not equal, because the opening side has an extra bid too. But if you keep the prohibition against relay systems in the GCC, then bidding the suit shown shows either: 1. a natural trump raise of some sort, which is easy enough to deal with, or 2. an artificial game forcing (though non-relay) bid, which is very easy to deal with (if you are inclined to jump overcall in the sandwich seat, you would rather do it when only one of the opponents has shown her shape), or 3. a transfer response, which again is not so tough - you have a lead directing double at your disposal. BTW, while a transfer after a strong NT tends to imply the opps have the balance of power, a transfer over weak/mini NT (which I play) does not. Peter

"Notice what is =not= on either list: 1) Trying to "steal" the hand with a Weak NT. Nope. It is supposed to be a descriptive and _constructive_ bid when played correctly. Disciplined Weak NTs are not supposed to be any form of preempt!" "Supposed to be" or not, they ARE preemptive. You won't prevent the opps from reaching games very often (though they may wind up in the wrong game, or in game when they shouldn't be). You WILL get them into bad contracts. You will also get 1NT-All Pass a lot, where they miss a good part score. Peter

I bid 1S, then double 2C. I don't want to defend on this hand, especially not vul. Peter

"the ACBL is a big bunch of old farts." Generally nice old farts though :blink: "Cater to their needs but don't be surprised if Bridge remains a terribly unsexy undertaking. I don't really care, I won't ever be an ACBL member and the situation in Germany is not much different anyway (BTW any old farts reading this don't be offended). I've pretty much given up hope for a positive trend outside of online bridge." I've pretty much given up hope too. Peter

3NT, regardless of partner. Pd may not be short in diamonds, or (more likely) have long clubs and bid 4C. Peter