jakob_r

Thanks guys! I had a fantastic day (more like two days, actually..) and must say that I thoroughly am enjoying to be of legal age. I've not had much of a chance to benefit from this fact yet (apart from drinking champagne in the Tivoli gardens), but I'm sure there'll be plenty opportunities soon :D Agitators good wishes are particularly cherished, Csaba You must be confusing me with Ian W. B. Jones, Hanoi! Tack, Andy :)

Happy Happy B-day, Helene ♥ B) ♥

[hv=n=st973hjt542d8cakq&w=s54h83dkj7643c973&e=sakqj2hkdaq52cj54&s=s86haq976dt9ct862]399|300|[/hv] Here's the full hand. At the table, E passed and the contract went down 4. This resulted in a flat board since E at the other table played in 1♠and made +4 on a dia lead. Btw, for EW another dbl by E would not be penalty. The meaning of a 2♠ bid by E was undiscussed between them.

Such ideas have worked wonders already. They were widely applied and applauded in Germany in the 1930ies. The nazis even had the objective criteria (and a few not so objective) that jjbr is suggesting be used for forced abortion. Criminals, degenerates, dissidents, homosexuals (go figure!), the mentally ill and a bunch of others were subjected to forced sterilisation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics Clearly that made the world a happier and better place. "It didn't work in Germany three quarters of a century ago when a dictatorial leader imposed his fanatical beliefs on his brain-washed followers in the midst of a world war, so it stands to reason that it could never work today." You're right. It's too bad nothing has changed in the past 80 years. We're still trying to cleanse the world of inferior races in one generation, and we're still trying to breed races of genetically superior citizens to fuel our war machines. And there's no end in sight. If the quoted statement is your interpretation of the point i tried to make or an actual quote of someone else (which i seriously doubt) I'd like to say that the passage of time does not alter my point of view. Eugenics is a sick and sickening idea anywhere at any time. But since you don't seem at all disuaded, I'd be curious to know if you could provide an outline of the objective criteria according to which people should be forcefully sterilised (or forced to abort). Also how the government agency tasked with the selection should seek out the undesirable parents? Should the unwanted traits of the parents be inheritable or is it enough that the parents, based on objective criteria, must be deemed unsuitable for parenthood? And what are the reasons for having a particular threshold? Can't further improvement be achieved if - say - certain non-debilitating traits were required to be present? As an aside that has no bearing to my point at all, the nazi's eugenic program was put into effect 9 years before the outbreak of WWII, so the war was hardly an explanation of why it occured or was allowed to occur. And just to make it perfectly clear that I'm not out after the Germans, the idea of eugenics wasn't fostered by them, but by an American. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics Happy reading.

happy 21st, drowzee ♥♥ :ph34r:

i'm with gnasher. allowing opener to rebid 2NT with all weak hands with or without a stopper makes a lot more sense than the virtually useless 2S rebid not promising extras.

Such ideas have worked wonders already. They were widely applied and applauded in Germany in the 1930ies. The nazis even had the objective criteria (and a few not so objective) that jjbr is suggesting be used for forced abortion. Criminals, degenerates, dissidents, homosexuals (go figure!), the mentally ill and a bunch of others were subjected to forced sterilisation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics Clearly that made the world a happier and better place.

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakqj2hkdaq52cj54]133|100|Scoring: MP (p)-p-(1♥)-x (1♠)-p-(p)-?[/hv]

agree with jlall and phil. 100% sign off.

that is just too sad, justin. i've got a relative with a severe bipolar condition who eases his depression with booze every night and strangely it doesn't work. i never talked to him about it since i just found out a few months ago, but now i see much clearer how sad he and his life really is. he's a brilliant man with lotsa opportunities and skills and heaps of ppl loving him and wanting to care. his only response is: LOL as for him i hope that you find it in yourself to do what is rational. if you don't, i hope you will LOL all the way. if you do, i hope the same. i know that i'm not very old or experienced, but i am sincere all the same. love yourself, man :)

Avoidance Play [n.] your favourite excuses to turn down invitations from players that invariably carve your myhand-record. Examples: - sorry, i'm just about to leave (whereafter you quickly log off and sign back on as invisible) - ah, darn! NN just asked me to play (you quickly set up play with NN or pretend to wait around for him to log on) - sorry, jonny, i just accidentally cut off my head and have to go look for it. brb

Expert [n] A Turkish bridge player who's been playing the game for more than half an hour.

GEEBER [n.] A bid of 4♣ made over any NT bid, including gambling 3NT, compelling you to pass if you have opened a gambling 3NT over which partner bids 4♣ p/c doubled by RHO if you also play ROPI even if your running suit is ♦ http://www.godofthemachine.com/bridge/09-01-02.html Useful when you frequently have outside aces despite your denial therof on the opening bid :P

ATB A headline used by posters on BBF who enjoy humiliating their partners in front of a larger group of people.

Best wishes for your bday, Andy :)

Dearest Val and Paula, When I played with Adam (mtvesuvius) tonight was the first time we were ever informed that multi was disallowed in junior tourneys. I was told by one of the opponents - after the board had been played- that it was prohibitied and that this was announced at the beginning of the tourney. I've checked my log files and it was not and it has, in fact, never been announced at any time while I've played in any of those tourneys for the past two years or so. I totally agree with what Kevin and Adam have said already in this thread and I'm not really impressed that multi was disallowed at the Cavendish tourney. When i read that my first thought was: but ofc, how should all those beginner-types playing in the Cavendish deal with such complicated stuff that's only been around and defended against for a mere 40 years! I think what Kevin meant about the TT was not about the super-stars that we are granted the fantastic opportunity to play with or against, but the other TT's where it's more down to basic principles of the game. And in that context I also agree that the focus is catering to a relatively small minority of the juniors that are playing more casually than most of the regular juniors participating in those events. The only last thing i'd like to add it this: multi is not essential as a method, but it's nice to have - especially when most of your pre-empt methods and other systemic agreements are based around it. And I wouldn't mind for a second if my opps consulted their 30+ pages of defensive methods while we were playing. As little as I would mind them consulting anything else they'd like to know more about as the game was going on. Without wanting to be un-american or atheistic: ACBL is not God nor flawless. And banning multi for decades is a joke that juniorsBBO shoulda never made itself part of. imo love and peace :) JZR

agree that 2♠ must be GF and that it would be useful to have 3NT showing extras. 2NT would then be asking responder to describe their hand further and not be promissing extras.

I agree that it's weird for preemptor to have both of the top ♣s. If he has one of them, though, it would have to be the stiff A or, if he has Ax, he would also have to be weird enough to not duck the Q :D edit: i forgot to mention that if you play to establish clubs you have to hook the J♥ on the first round of trump to maintain enough dummy entries. all in all it does seem like a fairly risky venture..

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s43hkj75d3cjt9873&w=s5hqtdkqj642cak54&e=sqjt98h9dt9875c62&s=sak762ha86432dacq]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] This was the full deal. I'm still intrigued by it and still wondering if anyone would come up with the right line at the table :)

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s43hkj75d3cjt9873&s=sak762ha86432dacq]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Suppose you're South declaring in 6 ♥. During the auction West preempted 3♦ over South's 1♥ opening and was raised to 5♦ by East. How do you plan the play on the lead of the ♠5, covered by East's ♠8?

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sa87hajtd652c9542&w=sth92dkqt843caj86&e=sj5432h8763d7ct73&s=skq96hkq54daj9ckq]399|300|Scoring: IMP (1D)-p-(p)-x (2D)-p-(p)-x (3D)-p-(p)-3NT (p)-5C-a.p. [/hv] This auction was a farce. How should it have gone in your opinion?

i'd think two votes for "natural, forcing" is more scary :D

lol, i like it :)

Gooooo lil kid - and happy happy 19! ♥♥ :( :(

Happy B-day, Brian! :)