jonottawa

Unfortunately, I don't believe that is true. Just look at Mitt Romney for example. Yeah, but Romney has magic underpants.

I disagree with you all. The statement was clearly racist and you'd have to be pretty clueless to miss that. Although, to be fair, I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of my experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a bunch of folks who haven’t lived that life. As for the political suicide question, who cares? Repugs are evil. Dems are corrupt, self-serving and unprincipled. Yes, one's worse than the other but tweedle dum, tweedle dee, etc. Now let's get back to discussing important issues like Rafa's tragic loss at Roland Garros.

They hate us for our freedom and stuff. USA! USA! I'd protest this decision, but I'm already booked at the 'sodomy is a constitutional right' rally this weekend, sorry.

Likely off a ♠ and ♦, pass.

My initial reaction was 'of course you have to pass' but after reading some comments here I agree that you can do anything but double (unless your system notes are explicitly detailed enough to prove that it is your agreement to always double with a hand of this shape/strength under these conditions.) Partner needs a serious talking-to. Her behavior is unacceptable. I'd be unlikely to play with this person again absent a 'come to Jesus' moment on her part. What was partner's hand?

This was FRONT PAGE of NYT.

I think BBO requires like 10 examples or something like that before they'll take action. If I suspected someone was cheating, I'd bring up their last month, find 10 examples, and then unleash the hounds. But I have more free time on my hands than most.

You aren't making this against the 2nd example. But presumably that's a 1NT opener anyway ...

I don't see the pitch doing a whole lot of good. Either the ♥ is onside and your 2nd ♥ isn't a loser, or the ♥ is offside and they can tap you in ♥. Maybe I'm missing something... I ruff and play a low ♠ Am I down yet?

Slowly.

It's a messy hand and I'm not sure what's right but I'd have run the ♣8 at trick 2. While W surely has the ♦ length you can only take 4 ♦ tricks if the ♦Q is with shortness and going after ♦ feels like I'm attacking my own communications. I'd also want to know more about their system. Does 2♣ deny a hand that would make a normal takeout double? Does it promise (or strongly suggest) 5-4 or better?

How did I get from step 2 to step 3? I'm not in dummy after step 2.

Great idea. I hope it catches on.

I like double. It's close, though (the t's are the tiebreaker imo) and I can live with your initial pass. 4♠ is nuts at any other colors. Here it's hyper-aggressive but I grudgingly admire it. Bidding 5 over 5 without a void or a known MONSTER fit or double fit ... Shrug. It's not like 7 IMPs (+200 vs -100) is particularly cheap 'insurance.' While I'd probably bid 5♠ I wouldn't consider it 'clear'. I'd more hope to get lucky (and find it easier to justify in the post-mortem if it's wrong than never showing support with this hand.)

Re: ad hominem Dude, you started it with 'your brain is mushy' but whatever floats your boat. If you want to include yourself anytime I say 'most people', be my guest. I admit I went off on a tangent. Your argument is wrong and nothing but an attempted distraction (typical Republican apologist move) but in a boring, dry, legalistic way. I broadened the debate with some fresh meat since you can (and probably will) argue all day long that your interpretation of the 'public danger' clause of the 5th amendment is correct, in spite of common sense, context, precedent, etc. If you google 'public danger,' you will discover that the EPA has declared global warming as a public danger. So no more 5th amendment protection because of global warming. Yeah, okay. Since you're so fond of the constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Treaties are the supreme law of the land. We signed treaties making torture a war crime. Prosecute war criminals. We signed treaties governing the treatment of prisoners of war. We violated those treaties. You want a nightlight to keep you safe from the terrrists, knock yourself out.

If you're my partner Shube, it's probably already too late for a plus score. :)

Why I hate pigs: Example # 4892 http://www.infowars.com/birmingham-police-...scious-suspect/

Citing the law ... how quaint.

x / qxxx / kqxx / kqxx is a signoff? Not hardly. And if opener has Kxx AKJxxxx A xx, whose fault is it? Ummm, the guy who bid 5♦ with 3 likely (or at least, not unlikely) fast losers?

That's one thing that really burns my ass. I'm a conservative (a Goldwater conservative) and these people decided that neo-fascism didn't sound very palatable, so they changed their name to neo-conservative and now the neo- has been dropped altogether even though the ideology is indistinguishable from fascism. (Some of them even have the unmitigated gall to call Obama fascist. You'd be surprised at how often when you listen to Bush speak about our enemies, he is perfectly describing his own policies/administration.) Anyway, as for your specious Realpolitik reference: How did toppling a secular regime in Iraq, the enemy of the religious extremists in Iran, contribute to US national security? How did bankrupting our country, which was running a massive surplus when Bush took over, contribute to US national security? How did voting for a coke-snorting, alcoholic, religious zealot and failed businessman to the most powerful office on the planet contribute to US national security? How did torturing people, in violation of the rule of law, which acted as a huge recruiting tool for our enemies and which (rightfully) turned many of our allies against us contribute to US national security? I was railing against all of these things AT THE TIME. You can't even see your mistakes with the benefit of hindsight. Whose brain is mushy now?

Realpolitik my ass. The Bush administration was full of chickenhawks, religious zealots, neo-fascists, crony-capitalists and demagogues and virtually every one of their policies showed it. Here are the 14 defining characteristics of fascism. Let's see how many can be fairly said to apply to the Bush administration. 1. Powerful and continuing nationalism. Check 2. Disdain for the recognition of human rights. Check 3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. Check 4. Supremacy of the military. Check 5. Rampant sexism. Not so much. 6. Controlled mass media. Check 7. Obsession with national security. Check 8. Religion and government are intertwined. Check 9. Corporate power is protected. Check 10. Labor power is suppressed. Check 11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts. Check 12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Check 13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Check 14. Fraudulent elections. Check Here's a good slogan for the Republicans in 2010: 'Hey, we're not TECHNICALLY fascists, because we're not sexist!'

What Helene said, carbon tax is the way to go. Another great idea that the wingnuts have derailed.

4♠ If you criticized your beginner/intermediate partner for 6♣, shame on you. That's a perfectly reasonable beginner/intermediate call that might work on a good day, (either making or as a good sac or to scare the opps from doubling or pushing them to 6) and is the kind of bid I made all the time back when I actually had fun playing this game. If you think the fact that 4♥ goes down is of any relevance whatsoever when it is 100% clear for partner to bid SOMETHING, then shame on you for resulting.

Most people are cowards and sheep. We in America live in the safest time and civilization in the history of the world. It is not misleading to point out just how unbelievably unlikely it is to fall victim to a terrorist attack. I do think our brains work differently. Your brain seeks comfort, mine seeks truth.

x / qxxx / kqxx / kqxx is a signoff? Not hardly.