dwar0123

Because reducing carbon gas emissions will lessen the amount of warming from carbon. I guess I'm not comfortable skipping as many steps between cause and effect as you, it leads to misunderstandings and people talking past each other.

Too be clear I personally support a carbon tax and not for the financial reasons. I am also quite left in my leanings. However, the term revenue neutral strikes me as misleading language. All tax money is spent somewhere, revenue neutral just means the benefactor of this revenue is predetermined.

Because it feels... Oh, the direct reason is to encourage a reduction in carbon emissions by those being taxed. Another reason is to raise revenue.

In the same sense as the purpose of sex is to have grand children. There is definitely a connection but it is neither direct nor the only reason.

1. Partner can't bid 1♥ over 1♦, so I lead a small club. 2. A 3rd or 4th heart depending on agreement, because I see no reason not too.

Emphasis on the man part. Apparently she is married to another woman.

Given the modern world with its global trade and fast transportation, I think the gun laws are mostly immaterial with respect to fighting govt. tyranny. This is one of many realities that is fundamentally alien to the founding fathers and thus not considered when crafting the constitution. In addition to the massive incease in the lethality of modern weapons.

You said flat out I was wrong, that was the first thing you said in this thread. As the only thing I did was give a definition of a reverse that is almost a definition by negation. That sounds like a synonym for defining a reverse. This is no doubt worrying and if someone points out to me how my reading of the bridge world definition of a reverse is in error I will have to acknowledge having egg on my face. Though to be fair, I originally asked in a humble manner and was flatly told I was wrong without anyone bothering to tell me how my reading of that quote is in error. You have been discussing with me hand evaluation, a topic which I did not bring up nor have ever really bothered to debate with you. Others have all agreed, including me, that the op hand has a simple pass. I said I thought it was such and such and then got quoted a definition which matched my understanding. Bridge world, "a non-jump bid in a new suit that bypasses a bid in a lower-ranking suit already bid by the same" I read the 'bypasses a bid' as in the lower-ranking suit was bypassed when the higher ranking suit was bid. Why else use the word bypassed. Please explain how you came to this conclusion. If you respond to nothing else, please at least do this. The only thing I can think of you referring to is my example hand/auction in which I constructed a hand strong enough to bid 2♠ in a free bid position. Which of course shows extra's, how you can possible take this to mean I don't understand the difference between a free bid and a forced bid is beyond me. If I tried to construct a hand that was to weak to bid there, then you would have a point, but as I didn't make that mistake it seems you are the one making a mistake about me. I like to think that I am very good about the stop digging part of it when I am actually aware that I am in the hole. Some people will keep digging even when they know they are wrong, I don't. But first someone has to convince me I am wrong and I am not saying it is impossible, given the weight of the opinion against me I am not even suggesting it is likely I am right. But I will be damned if I give up just because a lot of people say I am wrong without providing any evidence. I also like to debate and debating the meaning of definitions is not off topic for this forum.

I am not sure how to read that. Are you suggesting that we are the tyrannical force successfully oppressing the unarmed Iraq's and Afghan's. My response. They are hardly unarmed. Are you suggesting that we are the tyrannical force successfully oppressing the heavily armed Iraq's and Afghan's? My response. What good did the weapons do them? Are you suggesting that we are the tyrannical force unsuccessfully oppressing the unarmed Iraq's and Afghan's? My response. They are hardly unarmed. Are you suggesting that we are the tyrannical force unsuccessfully oppressing the heavily armed Iraq's and Afghan's? My response. Their level of armament prior to the outbreak of conflict was immaterial as in both cases they are acquiring arms at a substantial rate from outside sources. Regardless, I don't think your premise is at all bolstered by this example, in fact I think it is substantially damaged. A truly determined and oppressed population doesn't need to be armed prior to conflict to overthrow their tyrant's. I give you the Arab spring in general as an example. Given it is a real world example I feel confident in stating that is how it would really go. Plenty of examples of the military backing the civilian populations and in the cases where it hasn't the relative armament of the oppressed was only a temporary impediment. <insert awesome inspiring quote that has little to do with the topic and does nothing to aid my point>

Those are all terrible things, but I don't think many accept the notion that liberal gun ownership would have changed any of them.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that a congressional research service would show the amounts of potential revenue involved when researching a tax. I can only imagine your agreeable response if a congressional research service didn't disclose the potential revenue when they did their report on a tax.

I've been pretty clear about what I am talking about and you two have been pretty clear about to whom you are talking too.

I understand just fine, you don't understand what we are talking about. This is laughable, I am clearly trying to give a hand that can bid 2♠ yet your suggestion to me is to make it not so strong and then you follow that up by stating that with anything less you have an easy pass. I'll explain what we are talking about. We are talking about the definition of a reverse. We are not talking about hand evaluation, on that we seem to agree, despite your semantic gymnastics to make it seem like we don't. If you don't like my definition of a reverse, take it up with the Bridge world, you are free to make up what ever silly definitions you want for a reverse. It is rather immaterial as long as your hand evaluation is good, which obviously it is. Though if you are going to try to help newer players, I suggest you clean up your definition some to cover some of the obvious holes in it.

I understand that it was an example, and to be clear I am not trying to call you selfish, I was making the point that it is all relative. As you noted there is no purely altruistic act and one could argue there is no purely selfish act. Our use of our military comes in deep on the selfish side of that scale, as any countries military is ought to be. We might err on the side of being moral, but we do not spend trillions of dollars as a selfless sacrifice to the greater good. We might use our military more altruistically(still deeply selfish, but it is relative) than other countries, but honestly, with certain obvious exceptions, I believe that is just a cultural bias.

Your logic has a massive hole in it. Let me fix step two for you. 2. There is a small chance we can lose defending 5♠ redoubled, which can only happen if I double and then pass the redouble, which I will never do, so it is safe to double.

double and then bid 5♣ over 4♦ or 4♣, pass 4♥. If partner bids 5♦, let him play it. If opponents bid 4♠ double again.

As I understand the arguments that west gave herself. We are up 20 imps and are having an otherwise good set. 1. There is no way we can lose defending 5♠ 2. There is a small chance we can lose defending 5♠ redoubled 3. There is no way we can lose going down in 6♥ Passing when you think there is a small chance of losing a match vs bidding and having no chance of losing = not a LA

I find the notion that we are armed as a means to defend ourselves against a tyranny of our own government profoundly flawed on both ends. On one end, if the US military actually wanted to suppress us, they would have very little difficulty doing so. On the other end, there is no way the US military would actually suppress us, they are a still a citizen army. I can actually come up with scenarios were your 'fear' makes sense, but it isn't easy. You would have to start with something that would at least partially legitimize a permanent declaration of martial law and the subsequent suspension of elections. Scenarios that I can think of would involve almost the complete collapse of society, such as an outbreak that wipes out 40% or more of the population, wide spread nuclear strikes, the Yellowstone super volcano going up in a big way or a near extinction level meteor strike. Of course, to many gun carrying, 2nd amendment fanatics, this is probably something they fantasize about. A tyranny is all but certain and arguable necessary in such a situation, I would rather the tyrant could trace some legitimacy to our democratic origins rather then leave it to the most successful warlord. An outcome that would be more likely with a relatively unarmed general population.

That is a difference, not sure how that relates to it being a reverse or not with the given definitions. What would you bid with you being dealer ajxx x xxx akqjx 1♣ (p) 1♥ (2♦) ?

That might disable Timo's 2nd definition, but it is just as disabled by the RHO overcall in the OP, hence if the answer to the 2nd definition means it is not a reverse then the OP problem is still not a reverse.

What about 1♦ (2♣) 2♥ P 2♠ A reverse by your definition. I've seen a lot of definitions, including the one I am going with which is the quoted bridge world one. Bids might show extra values by the nature of forcing to the 3 level, but a reverse is when you personally bypass your own lower ranked first bid suit to show a 2nd suit. Hence the OP problem is not a reverse, though passing is still correct.

Thanks for the replies all. Is the hand to weak to double and bid hearts or are the hearts to good to not bid originally? 5♥ was the winning call with the layout that we got, 6 has no play, closed hand had kqjx of hearts and a stray jack.

You are baffling incoherent at times, and by at times, I mean pretty much always. I wasn't addressing you, I was addressing barmar, you can tell because I quoted him. In the quote, I am responding to his example of personally giving to a charity for alzheimers as being altruistic despite the fact that a cure may result in a benefit for him or a loved one down the road. I merely pointed out that giving to a charity that has a lot less likelihood of benefitting him is even more altruistic. How you took that and went on this little rant is beyond me.

Agreed, but I still feel the reason our military exists is far to self interested to in general be considered altruistic. Fairly altruistic, but not as much as gving to a charity to help wipe out malaria in Africa.

Weird, cause I clearly read that definition as stating it is not a reverse.