jonottawa

You DO know how to spell his name, eh? Otherwise, you're right, as far as your analysis goes. Obama's upping the ante in Afghanistan because: 1. He ran on it as a war of necessity. He probably didn't believe it then, but that's what he ran on. 2. Republicans, attack politics, 'not supporting our troops', etc. Swing voters and purple state voters eat that crap up. Especially with the lapdog media that still repeats Republican talking points as though they make sense or are worthy of consideration. 3. Pull out + 9/11ish terrorist attack = GW Bush level approval ratings In other words, an almost purely political decision. He was in a no-win situation. He took the safe way out. I'm fine with him as a 1-termer. I tend to prefer divided government anyway. But not unless the Republicans run someone sane next time (the only one that comes to mind is Crist.)

If partner bid 2♥ with that, I'd be fine with it. If partner bid 3♥ with that, I'd be fine with it. If partner did anything else with that, I wouldn't be fine with it.

What Gordon said. I take the line that wclass rejected. Maybe ♥ are kx onside and nothing else works. If not, maybe ♠ are 2-2 and the ♦A is onside. Edit: nvm, I like wclass's line better now. I read it too quickly. (He still takes the early ♥ finesse.)

Replying to Lobowolf (the quotes are getting a little large.) Pro-life Democrats don't have any influence? How'd the Stupak amendment pass, then? Joe Lieberman left the party because he's a slimy two-faced weasel. He's Zell Miller without the violent temper. Lots of Democrats disagreed about whether to go into Iraq, and how long to stay. Only one prominent one joined Republicans in demonizing Democrats who saw the issue differently than he did. He still has his committee chairs, doesn't he? Do you honestly believe that the Republicans would let one of theirs keep his committee chairs if the roles were reversed? Of course not. Re Gay Marriage : Obama took the safe position on a wedge issue. Shrug. I don't give a hoot about gay marriage one way or the other but a lot of white trash does. There are lots of issues where the enlightened stand is not palatable in trailer parks across America. Republicans know that and have exploited it for years. Democrats often take the safe position on wedge issues because if you're right on virtually all the important issues, why risk an election to someone who's wrong on virtually all the important issues on crap like this? Democrats seem to be mainly in 2 camps. One group who thinks Obama isn't being principled enough or fighting hard enough and that we should cajole him to do more if he wants our support in 2012 and another group who thinks Obama isn't being principled enough or fighting hard enough and that we should give him the benefit of the doubt and 'stand by our man' regardless. If there's a 3rd group that thinks Obama 'can do no wrong', it's pretty damn tiny.

"21st Century Progressive Democrats" would be more valid. Far more charismatic leader - one of the key components for any cult. The thing is he's got a LOT more going for him than just charisma, as opposed to say Dubya or Palin or Limbaugh or Beck. Democrats like a herd of cats, Republicans purity tests, 'dittoheads', etc. Your point fails. They're the cultists...we follow the one true leader. You're in pretty serious denial. Democrats don't blindly follow their leaders, it's not in our DNA. That's why we have '60 votes' and still can't pass anything. Because we don't slavishly toe the line. Democrats disagree with each other all the time. Republicans call themselves 'dittoheads', vote in lockstep, and have purity tests. Would Sarah Palin or George Bush have even been elected dog-catcher if the former weighed 200 lbs or the latter didn't have a famous Daddy? FWIW I've never cared much for President Obama or for congressional Dems. But the alternative, composed largely of a bunch of racist teabaggers, neo-fascists, bible thumpers and civil war reenactors makes them the only remotely credible choice.

"21st Century Progressive Democrats" would be more valid. Far more charismatic leader - one of the key components for any cult. The thing is he's got a LOT more going for him than just charisma, as opposed to say Dubya or Palin or Limbaugh or Beck. Democrats like a herd of cats, Republicans purity tests, 'dittoheads', etc. Your point fails.

The only difference between a cult and a religion is membership count. If you accept without evidence (on faith) the original supernatural claim, everything else they do makes sense. If there's an Allah or a God or a Shiva or a Zeus or a Santa Claus, and he should be worshiped and obeyed, then you should do what he says in his book. It's accepting the original claim that is the root of the evil. Your 'cult-like appeal' quote could easily substitute 'Christians' or 'early 21st century Republicans' for 'Islamists' and be just as valid. As for Kamikaze pilots, I'd much rather have that job than fight for the Confederacy (I'm talking about battle conditions, not the legitimacy of the cause) or in the WWI trenches, or in the Iraqi Republican Guard. Desperate times call for desperate measures. If one guy has the chance to incapacitate an enemy carrier or battleship or whatever, he should take it.

I put that option instead of Pie (I often include a Pie option to give idiots an opportunity to express themselves without ruining my poll.) However, it's possible that some have used it to try to indicate that they would open one or both hands, just not 1♥. Funny, I thought I was a bit old-fashioned in my criteria for opening hands, but I still opened one of these.

I double and pass. Hope pard has KJT9 / xxx / xxxx / Ax

If I'm too lazy to look at the spots or check the vulnerability or evaluate the most likely bids, surely I'm too lazy to open this hand.

Hand A All Red 1st Seat ♠9 ♥QJ974 ♦3 ♣KQT873 Hand B All White 2nd Seat ♠9 ♥AK987 ♦J97532 ♣J Again, if you would open, but you think most experts wouldn't, that would be good to know.

Lots of different votes, none for the actual bid that was made, 2♠ How would you evaluate that choice?

Thanks for the feedback. I opened 2♥. Opps made good aggressive decisions and went +300 and +5 IMPs. After the set, my pard expressed his opinion thusly: I am a very aggressive preempter white vs red, I would open 2S with Q10xxxx-xx-xxx-xx at those colors, in fact white vs red I will open just about anything…if you do as well, then you can’t open the hand you did with 2H. I know it’s the worlds worst 11 count, but next time when you open 2H I am going to look and my 14-15 count with a heart void and wonder if I am supposed to bid 3NT here. I think we should stay within the range of (3)5-9, I agree your hand values to crap with the random Q’s, but your hand plays great in NT facing no fit and 15-16 balanced. My reply: Preempting on a 2 count in 2nd seat is a recipe for tears, you talk about missing 3N here but are happy with all the meltdowns that opening on a 2 count would cause. You have a 50% chance of being right (though pard may still misjudge later and send you for a number) and a 50% chance of hanging partner out to dry. Even if playing 5-9, that's a 2H bid. Will you miss a white game sometimes? Yeah, that's true anytime you play a 5/6 point range for a weak 2. Will you get to bad games or some other bad result opening 1H here? Absolutely. I'm aggressive 1st/3rd at these colors, undisciplined but 'normal' in 2nd. Always play me for a 'normal' weak 2 in 2nd seat. This hand qualifies (if my J5 of D were the T9 of D, I don't think we'd even be having this conversation, that's a pretty miniscule difference in valuation.)

4 votes so far (each for a different option, so maybe it's a good problem,) no feedback. You're in 2nd seat (if that makes it easier.) Anyone want to explain why they did what they did? Is this a WTP hand?

Does he?

You probably won't like your initial pass, but let me impose it on you anyway: [hv=d=e&v=b&s=s7432hj8dkqt953cj]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♣ - P - 1♥ - Dbl Rdbl - ?[/hv] Very Late Edit (most have weighed in already): You passed originally because you play transfer overcalls. 1♦=♥, 2♦ = Intermediate So don't hate the initial pass too much.

Edit: Note that you're in 2nd seat System is 2/1, 15-17 NT. Weak 2's (5-bad 10.) RHO passes and you're up. If you think most experts would bid A, but you would bid B, that would be useful to know as well. [hv=d=n&v=n&s=sqjhkq5432dj5cq92]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

Trying to avoid aging/death: “This, in the long run, is unwarranted — in terms of natural selection, there are more important things to do."

Nah, you were thinking of 'What is black and white and re(a)d all over?'

I'm adamantly opposed to allowing men to have abortions.

Sounds like justice was almost served in this guy's case. WTP? Y'all need to run a tighter ship there in Ohio. I hope the judge was fired, the cops were put on a diet/ exercise program, and the other cops were fired. This guy doesn't belong in an overcrowded prison. Sounds like racial profiling. Wasted taxpayer money. Incompetent law enforcement. The LAW is whack alright.

Rented the whole series over the past 6 weeks or so (in part because of this thread.) I liked the first season best. Snoop's my favorite character (even though she didn't appear until Season 3, if memory serves. Kenard's another great character but didn't get much screentime.) I can't stand the theme music, it's goddawful, and I don't care for McNutty, but otherwise great show.

Does myhands no longer include Deep Finesse or did I mess something up on my computer somehow? edit: nvm, I didn't see this thread http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=32945 In a similar vein, did anyone else's default colors change from really nice strong colors to really ugly pastels?

The only thing worse than greedy amoral doctors is fat lazy Americans who want to abuse their bodies for decades and then stick someone else with the bill. No good solution to this problem.

I also open 1NT, as I do with most 4-4-3-2 15 counts.