Leaderboard

A couple of thoughts.. wasn't Pence's proudest accomplishment as governor axing funding for Planned Parenthood? and he is adamantly against abortion. Barefoot and pregnant, or dressed up and cheering her man on, but ALWAYS subservient when push comes to shove. It is highly ironic to listen to people - usually but not always men - pontificate about how government - usually but not always men - should decide what women can do with their bodies because of some sort of sanctity of life. Have you thought about war lately? A woman can't decide she doesn't want to carry a child to term for whatever reason without all hell breaking loose with people oozing outrage at the right to life of an unborn organism, but hey, let's go off to Afghanistan or Iraq and blow up thousands of people INCLUDING children, some of them babies. Or what about the children trying to reach safety running from Syria, how many right to lifers are looking after any of THEM? Oh - they are just collateral damage, nothing to be done. Sanctity of life indeed, give me a break. It would be also be interesting to know how many of these right to life people have adopted kids, among the ones I have met, NONE have. The people who adopt are delighted to have a child to adopt but none of the adoptive parents I have met have ever expressed any desire at all to force women to carry to term, including one couple who had been waiting quite a few years for a child. The anti choice people I have met, however they dress it up with evangelical piousness, have as their ONLY interest imposing their point of view, of seeing that nobody offends their personal sensibilities by having an abortion. Whether or not the mother is able or wants to care for the child is of no interest, what happens to the child - or the mother - after the mother is forced to carry to term is of no interest. This is a flashback to slavery and is totally unacceptable in any sort of supposedly somewhat enlightened society. Men have no business messing with a woman's decision as to what she does or does not do with her body unless she specifically invites them to be involved with her personal story. Not anyone's else's, only hers and only when invited. Full stop.

To those who believe that rape (or incest) is a valid reason for abortion but that abortion should generally be illegal, I have a question: What is the operational definition of rape/incest for this purpose? If it is just that an accusation has been filed, then I am sure that some evil rape revisionists would say that accusations are filed in order to get abortion. There will be a few cases where an accusation was filed, followed by abbortion and then followed by withdrawal of the accusation. It is already so that rape victims face all kind of suspicions that deter them from reporting to the police. We don't want to make that situation worse. It the definition is a guilty verdict, then it is even worse (especially in a country that uses lay juriors) because some juriors will be influenced by the suspicion that the accusation is a scam to justify abortion. Besides: the rape case will have to be rushed through courts to produce a verdict while abortion is still possible. So the result will be later abortions (nobody want this, especially not the pregnant rape victim) and less reliable justice.

What makes you think you have a vote? What makes you think you should have a vote?

Whatever was going on, 4S was a shocking overbid. Did he forget that he had already overcalled 3C vulnerable opposite a passed partner?

Why Helene, didnt you know? If a woman REALLY wants not to be pregnant, rape or not, her body will reject the baby! So no need at all for abortions! We know this because a lawmaker (who is anti abortion, a man of course, and naturally has no medical training of ANY sort btw,) tells us so. Since when did truth ( or reality) stop having any connection with anything coming out of government or splattered all over the internet?

I have held off on commenting, I am not sure I have anything either original or useful to say. Sperm are life in some form, I am not planning on protecting them. Women have been coping with unwanted pregnancies as best they can forever. More easily in some times and paces, with more difficulty in other times and places. It seems to me that there is some form of life in a pregnancy, but I do not wish to tell anyone what to do about it. If I really felt compelled to meddle, I think it would be to keep pregnant women away from cigarettes, away from alcohol, away from illegal drugs. Being closer to the other end of life, I see a disconnect in attitudes. Depending on how things play out, I can very much imagine that at some point I would want to say that's it has been a good life and now I am done. If a pregnant woman can abort a pregnancy with legal medical assistance, I see no reason why I cannot, at a time of my choosing, end my own life with legal medical assistance. I don't see why I should have to move to a different state, or prove that I have a terminal illness, or prove anything to anyone. Perhaps it should require a psychiatrist to certify my sanity, perhaps the same should be required of a woman wanting to terminate a pregnancy. Beyond that, I don't see why it is anyone's business but my own. That won't be today, by the way. Not to worry! Anyway, I think that there is life there, but at least through a large portion of the pregnancy, I have no wish to decide for the woman what she should do. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy has enough problems. Incidentally, I was born to a 20 year old unmarried farm girl. I have a high regard for adoption as a solution. My high regard for this solution is not binding on anyone else.

Well hot damn! An awesome treatment and an opportunity to trip up the opponents.

[hv=pc=n&s=s43hk843dj82cat82&n=sa92ha2daq43cq654]133|200[/hv] You reach 6NT as South on the lead of the ♠K. It is teams, so do not worry about the overtrick. The contract is now cold, but what lead would have beaten you? Not difficult, and when you solve it do not post the solution. Just say "solved".

Glyn Liggins

Wasn't it? This was the question as far as I can see: It should perhaps be even more apparent to you that insulting those that try to answer your questions is not a good way of attracting further responses. It is a cliché but every hand is different. If you read up on the many previous threads for minimum (31)45 hands in natural systems you will see that there are advocates for mostly opening 1♣ or 1♦ but far more choose their opening bid based on the character of the hand generally. The hand you gave has the general character of a weak NT so this is the answer I gave you. When you provide other specific examples then you will obviously get different answers. Are there specific systemic reasons why the same reasoning that applies to a natural system should not apply to yours? You write in the previous message that 1♣ is systemically impossible with 4♦5♣. If that is really so then you are in a similar position to strong clubbers and the answer seems to be obvious but that is nowhere presented in the OP, so expecting posters to reply on that basis is rather silly, don't you think?

Hi Adam, I've supplied my answer, but I wonder how much any result may be skewed by predilection to open 1NT with a 5 card M? I know the direction of travel is to do so, but perhaps, somewhat Luddite-like, my preference remains not to. Further, the statistical research that I've seen by Richard Pavlicek suggests it is more effective with 5 hearts than 5 spades: which makes sense as it's likely to pre-empt some 1S overcalls. Regards, Newroad

There's a good case for the king of spades here, in case we need a switch. A diamond is a gamble that could be right (but could also be very wrong), a club seems to have little upside, and this looks more like a cash out situation, so a trump doesn't stand out. I don't like to lead an unsupported king (from length), so I will lead the presumably standard Jack.

Why do you think you have a vote for disabled, gays, transsexuals, blacks, islamic people, jews, browns etc etc? We all do. Not that we are one of them, not that we judge them. But because we have a say when there are "laws" being made about them, to protect them, to support them. Or as in this last election, to be against them. Did you even know that, if the rights of pregnant women was defined and made laws about it ONLY by pregnant women, they would have MUCH less rights than they do now? The system that we all accepted and having to live under gives me the right to vote in different ways. The same system that allowed idiots to vote for someone who chose to blow 2 civilian cities, babies, kids, elderly. pregnant, nature, everything on its path in Japan just because they wanted no more military people to die and to end the fight between soldiers early. The system that allowed another idiot to kill many people in another country and much more Americans than the 9/11 in order to revenge the 9/11. Some of the idiots still do not recognize they just started a war that will not last less than at least a century. As long as I recognize that little life in a female body as a separate human than the carrier mother, and see laws are being created in order to protect one over the other, oh hell yes I have a say when it comes to tell and argue and defend the rights of these lives. But even then, even with negligence of mother, if that expected baby carries a health risk for the mother, I stated that her rights to live overrides the right of expected baby. My vote, opinion matters. Because there are religious idiots who would argue that the life given by God can not be taken regardless of what and she should take the risk. My vote disagrees with them when people are making laws about it. How do I vote for it? I try to choose people and vote for the people who shares my opinion. It is not like I want doctors to come and ask me for each single case. EVERY ***** election, we vote for a president and other politicians. The position we allow them to occupy gives them many powers, including pressing button that can end all the lives on this planet. Who the ***** gave us any right to vote for people who has these powers? Each time we vote, we put our signature that it is OK for some humans that we elect to have this power and blow the planet when they see their nation is under threat and about to lose! I am not a religious person. There is no religious motivation that shapes my opinions. So, am I right to recognize that little creature as a human? The entire thing is, as MikeH said, I said, it is not clear. What we all trying to establish is, "when should we, if ever, recognize this creature as a human being in the eye of law?" I have the right to vote for people who recognizes this expected baby, creature, embryo, fetus or whatever name you like, as a human being. One candidate this election said, if he is elected, he will make sure people of x nation or people of y religion will be send back from USA or similar things. There were people who voted for him and there were others who did not. And you are questioning my right to vote to protect a life that I consider as human being? You may disagree with me that I should not consider the fetus as a human being. I will have no problem with it. I may not agree with you but that is ok. But unless you come up with some solid argument why it should not be considered as a human being, we are going back down to the basic chicken/egg argument where there is no clear agreement.

Donald Trump is so sick that he refuses to believe his own intelligence agencies because he sees their information concerning Russia's tampering in the election as somehow diminishing his win? What the hell is wrong with this man? And what the hell is wrong with all you people who voted for this nutcase?

4♦ is obviously bad. It seems in many competitive situations, it defines bids similarly to as if opponents hadn't competed at all. The upper range of 3♣ looks like the first problem though - wouldn't any strong hand pass 2♥?

It's seen your opening bids? ;)

baby: a very young child, especially one newly or recently born. -- Oxford American Dictionary These are not babies you're talking about.

While abortion is a tricky question, it seems like: 1. We should be able to achieve consensus around making birth control easily available, as this has been shown to have great impact in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. The fact that we cannot do this is really proof that (most of) the "pro life" side is more interested in forcing their religious beliefs on everyone than anything to do with preventing abortion or saving fetuses. 2. We should be able to achieve consensus around making childcare and pre-k as cheap and easy as possible, so that women who have babies young and/or out of wedlock can minimize the disruption to their education and career. This will help the babies themselves (which are surely at least as deserving of "life" as fetuses) as well as encouraging women to choose not to abort. Again, the fact that we cannot do this is really proof that (most of) the "pro life" side is obsessed with punishing women who get pregnant young/out of wedlock rather than with helping babies/fetuses. 3. Lawmakers weighing in on these issues really ought to do some research as to the reasons/stories around women who get abortions, especially abortions fairly late in the pregnancy. The vast majority of these cases involve something seriously wrong with the fetus, where the baby is unlikely to survive much beyond birth (or is even already dead in the womb). They are very sad stories and not at all the sort of "elective abortions" that most people find at least somewhat distasteful.

Some threads work; some don't. No big deal. It is not a personal affront if others are not interested in the subject.

Crowing once or twice may be bad form but it's not a big deal. Crowing incessantly is too boorish which is unforgivable even on the bacon thread aka the official hijacked thread. Ditto for trolling. Not suggesting trolls make good bacon.

How about a plebescite on the question limited to only women? As for the other half of the population, perhaps obligatory courses in impulse control? ;)

jonottawa has seen fit to send an email to all of my partners, accusing me of defaming him and suggesting that my partners take action against me. He has threatened to report me to the Law Society. He even addressed the email to one of the associates, effectively one of my employees. Now, I am not overly concerned about this. I am happy to stand by my opinions as voiced herein, buttressed by the fact that my opinions of him are apparently shared by many others. However, I thought that you might be interested in the fact that jon thinks it to be appropriate to take disagreements voiced here into the personal and business lives of those with whom he disagrees. Frankly, repugnant tho I find him and his views (the former because of the latter) it would not have occurred to me to go beyond the WC to mention him. Oh well.

What I find really frustrating is that people spend large sums of money and considerable resources being anti-choice, while instead they could be "pro" something -- cheap, safe, effective contraception being widely available. The fact that this seems never to be part of the discussion is ample proof that the anti-choice position has nothing to do with foetuses; it is about denying women control over their bodies, their sexuality and their lives.

What's wrong with opening 1NT?

I agree with Mr Ace but I'm unsure how much weight should be given to male opinion. Even if the reluctant mother intends to put her baby up for adoption, she must Host her unwanted baby for 9 months,Follow a restricted life-style,Endure considerable discomfort,Interrupt her career,Suffer a traumatic, dangerous, and painful birth,Experience an emotionally scarring adoption process,Handle post-partum problems.Live with permanent after-effects.Hence although the foetus needs some kind of "guardian ad litem", female opinion seems more relevant than male to this debate.

I think that the climate change and racism arguments are ugly enough without throwing abortion into the mix... FWIW, I don't view the original post as an attempt to kick off a serious discussion.

It's really hard sometimes to know for sure what's going on. I have had reports of cheating from time to time in the club and usually it turns out to be that someone played the hand or bid the hand differently than the person objecting. I have had people claiming that a pair must be cheating because they were husband and wife with NO other evidence than that. I'm sure that BBO abuse gets more than their share of those, as well as complaints about the people who really are cheating. Many of us go through periods when everything we do bounces back and smacks us, and other times that we can do no wrong. if I have a concern, I ask for help from someone much more expert than I am and often it's very difficult for them to determine if wrongdoing is going on. Still, when it IS clear cut then they should be booted imo. Even if they do come back with another ID perhaps eventually they'll quit either cheating or playing and either one would be a win.

So partner has seen the 2,3,4 and 5 - and doesn't think the 6 is a small card?

In the past, I have recommended that BBO send out at least an automated response that they have received a complaint. IMO, they should send out a followup that somebody is looking at suspect hands, and a final email stating whether any wrongdoing was found and any penalties levied. Assuming that somebody is actually reviewing hands, sending followup emails should take much less time than analyzing a single hand. Whistleblowers may get discouraged at the lack of response and decide it's not worth the effort to report additional miscreants.

Yet you aren't horribly disappointed each year when your stockings remain empty on Christmas day? Rik