bid_em_up

Unlike yourself, I was fully aware that WTC 7 had collapsed that day at approximately 5 pm EST. The building was empty and no further loss of life occured on that tragic day as a result of its collapse. Whether it is was deliberately brought down or not is a non-issue (to me). The building was going to have to be demolished anyway. If they decided to "pull it", so what? I thought I remembered hearing at the time, that it was a deliberate decision to do so (better to be expecting it to come down, than to have it fall randomly on its own), but my memory of that day was (and still is) more focused on the horrors that occured earlier in the day..... War Games The war games were public knowledge at the time. From another website: "On Aug. 22, 2002 Associated Press ran the following story (version carried in AirDisaster.com): "Top U.S. Intelligence Agency was to simulate plane crash into government building on September 11, 2001. U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings." It would not be hard to conceive that since it was public knowledge that one of the simulated war-games would, in fact, be of a scenario similar to the one that the terrorists were planning, that they chose this day to execute their plan to take advantage of the confusion as to whether this was really occuring or if it was just part of the war games. Put Options From Snopes.com (the Urban Legend Website): "The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11, it was all coincidentally innocuous and not the result of insider trading by parties with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks: Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous." It is my understanding (from other websites) that there are/were some outstanding puts that were never exercised. But this was a small amount compared to what is claimed by the "conspiracy theorists". However, I would not find it difficult to believe that the perpetrators of such atrocities would also use the stock markets to increase the "wealth" of their "funding". Anyone willing to stoop to the depths that they did, would have no qualms about profiting from it as well. However, they would more likely to have been buying small quantities of puts over longer periods of time, imo. FEMA IN NYC FEMA (from what info I can find) was in NYC on 9/10 beginning to prepare for a biochemical drill. This too had probably been scheduled for months in advance. So what? Other: A Popular Mechanics article (below) covers a lot of this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=1 All of these explanations were found in about 10 minutes, using a wonderful thing called Google. Maybe you have heard of it?

LOL! Sad but true....

The U.S. government. Don't you remember all the flight simulator training reported? Take this next for what it is worth. The author claims to be a pilot and an aeronautical engineer, but I cannot substantiate that claim. "Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor." And this is also included in the same article: "This excerpt from a letter I received, from a senior 757 captain with one of the airlines involved in 9/11, sums it up: “Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.” A novice would be lucky to find the city, let alone a single building. A strike on the first approach in a tightly-banked 180-degree turn at 400 knots? impossible for trainee pilots whose instructors claimed “could not fly at all”. One might as well hand the keys to a car to a 12-year-old and ask the child to drive across town to school." For the entire article which covers the virtually impossible task of a rookie pilot taking over the controls: http://www.physics911.net/sagadevan.htm See, this is the entire problem in a nutshell - what you say is absolutely accurate in that this could have been planned for years with millions of dollars and carried out by extremely qualified pilots (except for the pentagon) - but that is not what the government has told us. When you wipe away all the speculative questions, you are left with a handful of seemingly real questions of which there has been no satisfactory answer: 1). What caused WTC 7 to fall at free-fall speed? 2). Could a Boeing 757 aerodynamically be able to crash into the first floor of the Pentagon? 3). CNN tape clearly shows a third white plane flying past the WTC towers (if this tape is not doctored.) What was it and why was it there? 4). Removed: Valid explanation found 5) Aerial photos show a huge empty crater in the center of WTC 6. If this building was destroyed by falling debris, where are the debris and why is the crater empty? 6) What caused the molten steel found in the towers' basements? None of these questions are speculative - they are simply questions based upon video evidence or upon the government's claim of events. I don't see how they can be construed as controversial or conspiratorial in nature. I would think any person of inquisitive mind would be interested in the answers. From aerospaceweb.org http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml "This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much. Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11." Theres plenty other information in the article explaining how it could be possible for an inexperienced pilot to accomplish such a task, but you can read for yourself.

Duh, never mind, it works.

Its probably just me. I tried to do this last nite, and it did not work. I am at work now, so cant verify that I wasnt just imagining things. I will try again tonite when I get home.

I'm lazy. I would just return a diamond at trick 2. Now I can find out if the diamond J will stand up before deciding how to play spades.

The arrow works, but you (or at least I) could not jump to a letter of the alphabet from a table. If you want to find a user that starts with I (inquiry), you have to click the arrow to move the lobby list right until you get to the I's. In the main lobby, you can right click and select I, and it will jump the list to the I's.

In the current version of software, if you are in the lobby, you can right click on a button to give you a jump to "letter" function, so that you do not have to scroll right/left continuously. However, if you are at a table, and click on lobby, you do not have this functionality available to you. Can it be made so that it possible to do so?

Sorry, but I am simply drawing normal inferences from what you are stating in your own posts. I do not have to "know" you or your partner to reach these conclusions. You claim he overbids. Its clear (to me anyway) that his doing so IS influencing your bidding decisions (in your own words). While he may be an overbidder by nature, you should not attempt to compensate for it by underbidding yourself. Isnt this what you claim to be doing? If neither partner can trust his partners bidding, you will usually never be able to reach the right contract. Nor can you expect him to learn anything, because he sees you open this hand, and then pass, and then try to compete later. In doing so, you are simply encouraging him to bid on, because evidently, he does not understand the pass and bid situation that you describe. But....good luck in your partnership. :(

Or rather, next he will be claiming that no planes actually flew into the buildings. Oh, I know....the "conspiracy" just created those images in our minds. No planes ever actually flew into them at all, right? Geez.

Dagnabbit, does that mean I gotta go to law school to get one of them thar thingies? I sure could use one of my own.

So what actually happened? EDIT: Never mind, I found it.

In a word, No. You chose to open this hand. Once you choose to do so, you have two options. Either you never take another call (It is highly unlikely that there is any game possible) or if partner happens to bid second your suit, you raise immediately. Why? Several reasons. You've opened a dog. You have absolutely no reason to encourage partner whatsoever. Especially when you already "know" he is an overbidder. Any subsequent call you take will simply encourage him to bid on. Passing and bidding later, just exposes your side to unnecessary penalties. You deny a four card fit. You provide opponents with the opportunity to exchange info at a lower level. There are others, but those are the ones that pop into mind immediately. I seriously doubt this. It is fairly clear (at least to me) that he had plenty of help. You underbid since you do not trust his bidding (maybe rightfully so). He seeing that you underbid, and then overbids in an attempt to (over) compensate. And on goes the downward spiral. It is good that you didnt say a word, though. :) My suggestion is to go back to playing bridge.....either he tires of going for big numbers, you get tired of him going for big numbers and find a compatible partner, or you both learn to play bridge for real. Right now, it appears that you are just jerking each others chains.

While it is a "low-level" penalty-oriented double......that is not what the CC means. The X in this case, is not so much an attempt to defend 2S x'd (although you would be happy to do so) so much as it is simply psyche exposing, since you can be almost 100% certain that RHO will bid 3H when it gets back around to him. Partner said he can stand whatever you bid with his takeout X (supposedly) and you have to show that you have spades as well. However, if RHO is foolish enough to sit for it......then it becomes penalty. :-) The CC refers more to auctions like (1C)-p-(1H)-X, or (1D)-p-(2C)-X, or in the case of support X auctions.

they might say that, but they would be wrong... you might deserve to be arrested for disturbing the peace, but you would not deserve to be beat or killed... that isn't to say you *wouldn't* be beat or killed... Jimmy, I usually dont perceive your posts as bigoted, per se. In most cases, I take them as being just conversation starters, but Richard has a point in the fact that the threads you start tend to be on subjects that could well be controversial and/or inflammatory. It could be intentional, it could be because you actually want to find out about things that are going on in the world, it could be you just like irritating Richard :). Without knowing you personally, it is hard to tell via written medium what your intent actually is. While I usually read the back and forths between the two of you with amusement, the statement above appears to show just how naive you may be of what goes on in the real world (if you actually believe what you wrote). The N-word is considered, in many places, to be a fighting word. Most people know that if they use it, they can expect to get the crap beat out of them, at the very least.....a gunshot or a knife to the throat is also a good possibility. I certainly would tell you that you were stupid for doing such a thing, as you should know what was going to happen to you. If you dont believe me, go down to your street corner and find out for yourself if you get arrested for disturbing the peace....or...... Now in a "perfect" world, yes, all that would happen to you is you would be arrested. And its great that you think that is all that "should" happen. But this isnt a perfect world, and you damn well know it and you have to know what WILL happen if you do it. Therefore, if you are dumb enough to actually go and shout that word on the street corner......you DESERVE what happens to you. The same goes for the pope, imo. A man in his position should have a real good idea of how his words will be received by others. To make a speech like the one he did, and claim "Oh gee, I didnt realize that I might offend someone" is ludicrous. Especially given the tensions in the world today. So either the man is really dumb/naive (I dont believe that he is, as such) or.....his speech could be perceived as being deliberately inflammatory. I dont believe that to be the case either. I think that as the leading authority for his religion, he has just as much right to state his beliefs and give the Church's opinion on matters, as the mullah's do. But he had to be able to forsee what the consequences of such statements would likely be.....and then make a decision that the matter was important enough to him to make the statements anyway. Of course, he has as much right to defend and state his beliefs as much as anyone else does........

I have always wondered......What/Whose name does an atheist scream when they are having sex? Their own? Nobody? Non-existent? :)

From the website: Convention cards Both teams have agreed ther convention cards. You can study them by clicking on the links below. The cards are in pdf format, for which you may need to download Adobe Reader. Now since it says teams.....and the schedule for today is pairs, I will assume that this only applies either for the individuals or for team play. I thought that in the context of the Buffett Cup, "team" means the entire American or European teams of 12. So did I originally, especially when combined with Fred's earlier comment regrarding the fact that he and Geoff would not be allowed to play their Strong Club system. However, evidently this is not the case......

Well, I look at it slightly differently and bid 4♠ now. I expect 4H or 5m to be making. I have 8 playing tricks on my own and we're not taking more than 1S trick (if any). The heart A rates to be over me (but may not be), so we have 2, maybe 3 tricks on defense if we are lucky, only one if unlucky. If partner is jerking me around and raising on Qxx and nothing, then 4H is making and 4S is -1 or 2. If partner has a hand that actually contains any values, I might just make this and at worst will be -1 (I think). I'm not big on the idea of letting opps have another free round of bidding allowing them to share more info at this point and still being faced the decision of with what to do when it comes back to me on this holding. I already know I am bidding 4S over 4H, so may as well do it now.

Dummy (not declarer) cannot hold AKxxx Q10xx Kx AK, I agree. But given your second dummy, AKxxx AK Kx Q10xx, Declarer may well hold Qx QJxxx xxx Kxx (certainly a reasonable 1N response), and the heart lead will leave declarer 11 tricks on top, whereas the diamond would have held 3N to 3. Give declarer Qx QJxx Qxx Kxxx (about as max as he can be).....and a diamond lead again holds 3N to three with proper defence but a heart lead will allow 3N to make 10 (or more) tricks. And yes, I fully realize that declarer could also hold KJ9x(x) of diamonds and the diamond lead will, on this hand, work out terribly. Them's da breaks sometimes, but I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence here to choose anything but a diamond. (And I am fairly certain that anything other than a diamond loses a lot more frequently than you suggest, but as I said, convince me otherwise.)

I guess what I was attempting to say, is that I do not consider this to be a hand to take an anti-field action on. And while certainly higher level players will occasionally select opening leads other than the norm.....the point of the lesson may be when do you decide to attempt one, and when do you not. In other words, they still need assistance on "well, do i lead fourth best as I have been taught, or do I try something else?". I am reading your take on the problem as being, "This is definetely a hand on which you should select something other than a normal lead and what should it be?" In selecting my lead, I will consider the following: The auction was fairly normal and straightforward. You know approximately both dummies HCP and distribution. You know the approximate hcp that each side is expected to hold. You can reasonably expect the opponents to be able to rattle off 6-7 tricks off the top. From looking at your hand, you know how many hcp your partner is expected to hold. I do not hold a stiff or doubleton in any suit, making it less likely that partner holds a long suit of his own (and even if he does, it could be clubs, diamonds or hearts, so we would just be making a wild ass guess as to what suit he is actually holding). Partner did not make a preemptive bid over 1S so he is unlikely to hold any suit longer than 5 cards that is headed by at least two top honors. Even if he holds a 5 card (or longer) suit, it is more likely to be clubs or diamonds (2-1), than it is hearts. If he happens to hold 5 or more diamonds, it may be critical to get the suit started now instead of yielding tempo in another suit. Leading a heart may not give away an overtrick, in and of itself, but it certainly MAY give up the tempo necessary to establish and cash your diamonds to hold declarer to the minimum number of tricks. Then I will ask myself, Is it feasable and consistent on the auction for partner to be able to hold enough values and/or length in my suit for us to be able to establish and cash it? In this case, the answer is yes. Is it likely that Is there anything about my hand (a doubleton, a stiff) or anything about the auction that suggests that partner might hold a good 5/6 card suit of his own? Absolutely not. Therefore, I do not believe there is any logical reason to do anything other than making your normal lead. As I said before, it is a wild ass guess to do otherwise. I also think partner will have to hold two (or more) honors in the heart suit to make a heart lead effective, where as he will only have to hold one diamond honor (usually) for a diamond lead to (usually) work out ok. Given his limited holdings and the auction provided, I would much prefer to attempt to find partner with ONE (or two) honors in my suit......than trying to find him with TWO honors in another. Especially if the other suit is the OTHER major, as it becomes less likely that opps are bidding 3N on only one stop in the other major. While you are claiming that a diamond lead "may" yield an overtrick, I can claim the same thing about a heart lead. Partner can easily hold KQx or KQxx or KJx of diamonds as well, but the heart lead lets them cash 5 spades 3+ hearts and a couple of clubs for the overtricks that they would not attain on a normal lead. I think the lead of a diamond will yield much higher percentages than you suggest and that there is no overwhemingly convincing reason/evidence to make anything other than a normal lead. Try to convince me otherwise but the reasons need to be better than the ones you have listed already, cause they havent worked. :) But I am willing to listen.....

My problem with this....is that he is Jeff Meckstroth. He has the knowledge, and abilities to look at a hand and say to himself, ok, this is a preempt. Or to look at an opponents CC, see that they are playing complex agreements, and if I had to bet, he would know in an instant approximately how preempts will effect their bidding system. But telling novices, intermediates and even some who consider themelves advanced or expert (at least by BBO standards) to open preemptive bids on these sorts of hands.....is poor advice, imo. They are not Jeff. They do not have his expertise and/or table presence. He can get into a doubled 2 or 3 level (or higher) contract and usually manage to play at least one trick better than they will. So while he may go down 300/500 against a vul game that opponents may have, they will go down 800 or 1100. Its ok for him to do it......but I do not consider it to be ok for the random player to be told that they should be doing it. They will do it, and then wonder why they are losing imps all over the place against better competition. However, to each their own. If anything, I would be more likely to loosen up my preempts against weaker competition, they are less likely to establish when it is correct to double you for penalties, will be unable to do so at all, or will make the wrong decisions about the final contract. Stronger competition will have methods usually built into their partnership methods for handling preempts and will certainly know when to double for penalties (and they wont forget to do so either). The only reason for not loosening your preempts against weaker competition is that since they rarely will end in the right contract, and are usually confused even without the preempt, there is no sense in helping them along while presenting them with more information regarding your hand and/or suit.

Because 4H x'd is quite likely making and partner may not pull every time he needs to, and our values are too concentrated in our two suits. :o

From the website: Convention cards Both teams have agreed ther convention cards. You can study them by clicking on the links below. The cards are in pdf format, for which you may need to download Adobe Reader. Now since it says teams.....and the schedule for today is pairs, I will assume that this only applies either for the individuals or for team play.

Mike, while I agree with most of your thoughts and inputs above, I would like to comment a little further on these two......and remind you that the problem is listed as teaching an intermediate player how to select an opening lead (not necessarily, how you would select the lead yourself). 1) I do not consider this to be an auction that requires a "passive" defense. The opponents had no trouble reaching 3N, and they are expected to reasonably hold the values necessary to make. One hand has indicated that it is fairly strong. They are also reasonably expected to hold at least 4-5 spade tricks off the top (my spade holding would tend to indicate that the spades are breaking). 2) The most passive lead you could make is the J of spades, imo. You can be reasonably certain that this would give nothing away that isnt already there for the taking, so if you really wanted to lead passively, lead a spade. 3) A heart lead should be out of the question at any form of scoring, imo. Dummy or declarer will hold usually hold ample heart stops as a lead of the other major is normally expected. Declarer also may well hold 5 or 6 hearts and you just picked the suit up for him. 4) Dummy is expected to hold 5-3-3-2 or possibly 6-3-2-2 along with a 19'ish count. (I think there are better uses for the 3N bid, but thats another story). Combine that with your 6 and the 6-9 or so that declarer can be expected to hold (assuming an SAYC 1N response). This leaves opps holding approximately 25-28 hcp, so partner will hold somewhere between 6-10 (usually). 5) Assuming partner can hold 6-10, he can well hold the AQxxx of clubs or AKxxx or the KJ of diamonds or ♦KQ.....or etc. 6) The club suit is the Rodney Dangerfield of Bridge. It gets no respect and tends to be the least stopped suit when 3N is bid by opponents where the suit has never been mentioned. It should be given a little bit more consideration in this scenario. While I agree that leading from Jxx is not usually a good lead, this sequence is an exception to the norm, imo, making a small club a close second choice. Especially if I am trying to beat 3N, not quite as close if I am attempting to achieve a normal result. 7) While some may consider a heart lead is to be passive (I don't......it is pure speculation), it is also anti-field (along with a club lead). Too many players will automatically lead 4th best, and given the fact that you hold A10xx, it may also be critical to score your diamonds tricks immediately before declarer can take pitches on the spade suit or so that when partner wins a later trick, he can lead thru whatever remaining diamond honor declarer may have. 8) This hand, and auction, present me with absolutely no reason to do anything other than making the normal lead. If anything the diamond lead is more likely to reduce declarers chances of overtricks than to actually provide them, AND it is also the lead that I would expect the MAJORITY of the novice/rookie/advanced fields to make. It is also the lead that would most probably lead to the defeat of 3N, if it is possible to do so. The 5 of diamonds should stand out by a mile. Yes, on this particular hand it may give up an overtrick, but then again, so could any other lead. I find that it usually does not pay to take an anti-field action without excellent reasons for doing so. On this hand, I see none.

global warming will play absolutely no role in the election.. zip, zilch, zero... the economy, yeah - it always does... and int'l diplomacy also, if by that you mean things like nat'l security, military, etc just my opinion :o In another 2 yrs, Global Warming may be the only issue.....except in Fla. unless voting booths float....;-) Again, nonsense. Global warming will never be a major issue in the US. Sorry. We know how to turn our air-conditioners on. If you Europeans dont know how to do the same, thats your problem. :) The people in California are all lunatics anyway, so no great loss there.....and Florida is nothing but a bunch of old farts, damn yankees and immigrants/tourists anyway......so it can go as well. :) (For all my friends in CA and FL......MOVE!! NOW!! While you still can!!)