Sigi_BC84

ELEVEN pages just to defend the Multi?? Tell me you are kidding here. I'm not wondering any longer why you guys are that opposed against unusual methods... --Sigi

Which is?

First of all let me thank you for your interesting article. I'm looking forward to read that book ;-). The main threat coming from terrorism is not the possibility to get harmed in an actual terrorist attack (I personally feel the probability to die from a terrorist act in my case is pretty close to zero). The real problem is the collateral damage caused to prime values of the western societies, mainly freedom! Ironically this damage is caused by our own administrations and not directly by the terrorists themselves. Now we have to leave fingerprints when visiting the US, innocent people end up on ridiculous no-fly lists and even in Germany (so far unharmed by major fundamentalist action) highly questionable legislation is about to be passed in the name of fighting terrorism. These things are which are severely influencing our way of life. Sadly its often only realized after it's too late... Why are you the first one to mention this fact here? I think you should have done it even more clearly. Fighting the symptoms is not going to solve the problem. The "war on terror" (I'm not fond of that phrase, see below) means that our governments have to find ways to weaken the terrorists through a sensible policy. We (and especially US americans) must realize why certain groups of people hate us so much. A lot of informed and sensible analysis of the possible causes have been published, only it is not recognized enough by the general public. The people are being misguided to believe that hard and fast retaliation and measures which really cut into our own freedom are ultimately solving the problem. This is mainly because those "solutions" are easier to grasp than understanding complex relationships between societies. It makes me despair sometimes. Finally a few words on the dreaded terminology of "war on terror(ism)". I think that this term was clearly coined by the media post 911 because it sounds so dramatic and makes for great action news. I've never heard it before the twin tower attacks (for example applied to IRA, ETA or RAF terrorism). Unfortunately, very unfortunately, now everybody is using it as if we're talking about a real war here. People, get real. This is not a war, it is struggling with a social phenomenon that has been around forever and is presently surfacing at a dangerous level. Another problem with talking about a "war" is that all kinds of associated terminology and practices come to mind and suddenly start to sound reasonable (because we assume the context of a real war), like the neutron bomb plans Jimmy has mentioned and "POW camps" such as Guantanamo and other unfortunate developments. --Sigi

I do not understand which denial you are referring here :) He's referring to the denial of the fact that it's about resources and not humanitarian reasons. Many people and many leaders live in denial about that fact. --Sigi

I guess one should pick the second option (♠Pik, ♥Herz, ♦Karo, ♣Kreuz) which are the "official" names. If the request is specifically about Bridge, go for the first option. (This was just for clarification, not nitpicking ;-). --Sigi

Exactly, that's why the average over all Europeans is reasonably high. I'm not offended at all, don't worry ;-). --Sigi

The ability to speak english, is not evenly distributed across europe. Indeed it's not. Richard, you have mentioned several times that giving the mean of a distribution is not enough, one often needs additional parameters such as standard deviation or variance to draw useful conclusions. The distribution of English speakers is a good example. Most of the French I've met in my life (quite a few) were awful at speaking English and the same goes for many Spaniards and Italians. I can't say much about the Turks but most of those I've met on BBO were hardly able to alert their calls. Many Germans are not that good either. The Europeans with excellent English usually come from small countries (Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavian countries) or from eastern Europe (for obvious reasons I won't repeat here). --Sigi

Since p has shown ♦ shortness already 4♦ clearly shows first-round control. Yes. Yes. --Sigi

possibly you're right, though there are plans for neutron warfare that (theoretically) result in a "win" "Winning" to me would mean eliminating terrorism as a whole, which is fairly utopian anyway. Even reducing it to a "manageable level" (whatever that is) will not work by attacking specific places. I absolutely don't see the value of WMDs in any meaningful campaign in this area. Having such weapons is simply insane; probably one needs them for deterrence now but making plans to actually using them is just sick in my eyes. --Sigi

We have a bar-restaurant at uni who, from time to time, offer an extra-hot pizza for free if you manage to eat it entirely ;-). --Sigi

I love pistachio. Unfortunately, for some reason, it's not really sold in Germany (packaged that is, ice cream parlors do have it). I've been told it is because the quality requirements are to high and there are not enough pistachios of proper quality on the European market, but I don't really know if that's true. I'd be interested to hear about the situation in other European countries. As for brands, anything with a name goes. --Sigi

I still don't see how one could win the so called "war on terror" with weaponry. --Sigi

This is a misconception. You usually get to show you have a 1-suiter. Then opps bid and you can forget about your 1-suiter. This leads to another one-suiter convention that I think is debatable: the Double (as in DONT). It's not preemptive but it gives you the option to pass it out with a reasonable flat hand and hoping to set 1NT with the help of the long suit. It would require that the suit is really good and maybe a potential side entry too. Any opinions on that? --Sigi

I second that. If you feel uncomfortable with the "seriousness" of some of the threads here and fear that it might hurt the forums as a whole or BBO in particular, close the Water Cooler. To me that would be regrettable as I really enjoyed reading what's going on in the minds of the people here apart from bridge. As Claus already said: discussing bidding sequences for the 101st time can get a bit boring. If things get ugly, show the yellow card or shut down threads. But to be honest, I think we've seen quite a lot of opportunities already for things to get out of hand and it hasn't happened so far (apart from a few ugly post in the "worst inventions" thread). --Sigi

I've seen a crazy GCC legal system (based on Phantom Club) which would be totally HUM per WBF standards. The name was "Midnight Special" but I can't find it at the moment. IIRC it is by Noble Shore, maybe Adam knows where to find it, or just Google it. You have to pass some constructive hands because there are holes in the opening system and many bids are two-way. --Sigi

I'm not sure either, maybe you are right. My interpretation is that what matters is that such an intermediate pass always promises rule-of-18/whatever values, as opposed to a 0-11 pass as in SAYC (which does not promise an opener at all). Maybe an expert TD could clarify. --Sigi

Silly question maybe, but: Is it named after you or another Meyerson? --Sigi

Yes, that's what Hannie said but I decided to not make a distinction here because most people won't play X as pens against strong NT anyway and the rest of the two conventions are exactly the same. --Sigi

One of us is on the wrong track (I believe it's you :-)): When they talk about "generally accepted as", they're not measuring your Pass against your own system but against their definitions of what constitutes an opening bid at the one level. So if your "pass" promises values that are generally (as opposed to in your system) accepted for an opening at the one level, then your system is per definition a HUM. Since 7+ HCP hands are considered proper one-level openings, playing "pass" as 8-12 makes it a yellow system. --Sigi

Since there's one of those advocacy threads about systems against 1NT running at the moment, I thought I might use the opportunity for this poll. My apologies if I missed a method that should "obviously" have been included above. --Sigi

What about shifting those cyclically downward, making it: 1♦=♥ 1♥=♠ 1♠=Fert Gives you a nicely obstructive fert plus transfer openings. Any obvious disadvantages I have overlooked? --Sigi

Why did you stop playing them if they are that successful? I wouldn't be so sure about that, since as per WBF definition: --Sigi

As far as I can see, "Multi-Landy" and "Woolsey" are exactly the same. Why are you making a disctinction between the two? --Sigi

Now it's getting interesting. What specific auctions would that be? Does anybody have such agreements and even if not, what would you suggest? My own ideas are as follows: a priori you are forced through 3NT, and if that's not playable, 4m the player who would bid 4m (i.e. the first partner who steps over 3NT) can instead bid 5m with extras and no slam interest or bid 4m+1 as RKCB (kickback) or cuebid from 4m+2 upwards the partner of the player who has just bid 4m can bid 4m+1 with slam interest (kickback RKCB) or cuebid from 4m+2 upwards or sign off in 5m to deny slam interest you never go past 4m if you don't have shortness (singleton or void) in the suit where the stopper is lacking --Sigi

My question was: if you are "forced to game", what constitutes "game" in this context (for a 5m contract is not game, but game++ in my eyes...). --Sigi