pbleighton

"The ignorant have no consideration of others. Religious ignorance (belief) confers this state to its adherents so that they not only do not challenge the religious authority and structure but they end up not challenging themselves. A true opiate, as it were." This is true of many, not all believers. Though I hate to admit it, it's also true of some atheists and agnostics ;) Peter

"For me, I play these high-level doubles as take-out (offensive), although the higher the level, the more likely advancer will leave it in. Most often, you have a big hand and don't know what to do. Very rarely will you have a trump stack and know that penalty double is right. Even if you do get a hand like that, how many are you going to set them? So the penalty double meaning is rarely used and little value. If it ever comes up, I will have to pass and take my positive undoubled." I've found that penalty double above 4H works for me. Partner can take it out with a big suit, of course, but this is rare. Each to his own. Peter

"This is a spade hand, not a 2- or 3-suiter so I don't understand the dbl." For me, double would be penalty. I bid 5S, with pass a close second. Peter

"When a Christian man stands up for what's right he's a liar, and when a horny pervert commits adultery in a national treasure he's a hero." "One other thing, everyone who can, please vote for Obama. He's a good, devout Christian." Why is the religious status of a President or Presidential candidate relevant to anything? Peter

Bush has committed a war crime: the invasion of Iraq. All wars which are not (narrowly defined) defensive wars are war crimes under the Geneva Conventions. However, we are complicit in this crime (even those, like myself, who opposed it), and we consequently don't have a sizeable majority in favor of his impeachment. Impeachment isn't just a prosecution, it's a profound political act, reverrsing an election, and shouldn't be undertaken until there is such a sizeable majority. This may happen, but it is highly unlikely. Peter

Splinter in support of spades maybe, but then 5C is ???? Peter

China's leaders run a dictatorship by committee. They are no longer communist or socialist, in spite of the Party's name retention. They are closer to Fascism. There are substantially worse governments than China's, but they are still pretty bad. A friend of mine, whose family is Vietnamese, of Chinese ancestry, says that China has a huge chip on its shoulder, due to millenia of great history, and the (by hostorical standards) recent humiation by the West, particularly Britain. They've been relatively "mind-their-own-business" until fairly recently. That may change, and not for the better. Peter

"I frankly don't care how I'm perceived. I don't have the grand authority to judge others." Yes you do. You sure judged Bush. You just reached a different verdict than some of us. Peter

"I really thought she would have a primary fight but she really shot out of the pack." I think there will likely be a tough fight, there are too many Dems (myself included) who would be happy with her as President, but who are suspicious of her strength as a candidate. Her stance on the war may hurt her as well, though this is uncertain. "With all the anti Bush emotion running high I expect the Dems to start lining up early and in huge numbers in November 2008." I hope so, but it's a LONG time from now - about 20 years in (political) dog years. Peter

"The guy leading the Republicans, as I said, is pro gun control, pro gay marriage and pro choice and you guys hate him and say the Republicans are committing suicide?" You think Guiliani will get the nomination? I don't. He's totally unrepresentative of the national party. I realize he's leading in the polls, but Republican primary voters tend to be substantially more conservative than the larger set of those who identify themselves as Republican to pollsters in these polls (the same thing is true in reverse for Democrats). Ben Nelson isn't getting the Democtatic nomination, either :o BTW, Guiliani isn't pro gay marriage, nor are any of the leading Democratic contenders. They are pro civil union - a politically huge distinction. Peter

"I have no reason to believe that Bush is doing anything differently from what he thinks is in the United States' best interests. He's shown himself to be an honest man." wow

From talkingpointsmemo.com: "But getting our policy in order is also being stymied because the political opponents of the war aren't willing to say that, yes, the policy has failed. Not 'defeated'. To be 'defeated' you need to have some other party 'defeat' you. This is just a failure. But whichever it is, that bogey is being used by the White House to scare off the opposition. It's a failure. There's no recovering it. And the unspeakable reality -- truly unspeakable, apparently -- is that it's not that bad. Horrible for the Iraqis. Horrible for the American dead. Terrible for American prestige, power and honor. All that. But not the end of the world. The future of our civilization isn't at stake. And our physical safety isn't at stake. We'll go on. We are not the brave British standing behind Winston Churchill bucking us up with the confidence that "We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender ..." Those aren't the stakes here. Put it in those words and it's almost comical. President Bush wants us to believe that it is because it serves his grandiosity and direct political interests to believe that, to believe that his political interests -- where everything, history, legacy, etc. is on the line -- are the same as ours as a country. They're not." Peter

"sigh. 2NT-3D-3♥-3NT." Agree. Peter

"And unfortunately, if the smallest of problems can never be fixed, how can one hope for the larger problems to ever be corrected?" You can't. Peter

I suggest 1NT = 44 without opening values, then 2NT is 55, a suit is natural. Peter

"if you're feeling conservative, pass... if you're unwilling to abandon hopes of a vulnerable game, bid 2NT I suspect that the decision is largely a function of opening strength/style" Agree. I would tend to bid 2NT, with a sinking feeling. Peter

I see I'm in a minority of one here :P I'm expecting something like 5C(332) from partner. We have good source of tricks in diamonds (though one or two losers is possible), but we also have 28-30 hcp, no 4 card major from partner, so no good source of tricks in the majors, and the clubs will have to be played from partner's hand, so AQ10xx = probably only one trick. There are lots of hands where slam makes, but even more IMO where it doesn't, and I don't know how to find out what I need to know. I'm still passing 3NT. Peter

"ok ok...must be too many brandys to write this" WAY too many :P Peter

Pass. For me, 3D shows either a fifth diamond or more points. Peter

No, though since it's posted here I suppose I should be. Peter

Double, raising to game over any non-jump response. Peter

Not in the direct seat. It's fine in the balancing seat. Peter

"We are all limited in the type and amount of funding..see McCain/Feingold" Mike, the subject of this thread is a new approach described in the article Richard provided a link to. McCain/Feingold is a red herring. Peter

"If I have family members in the military and think the Commander-In-Chief is doing a terrible job why limit how much of my after tax dollars I can spend on his opponent? If others choose to spend their after tax dollars on other stuff ok but why limit me?" It doesn't limit you. Peter

"What is so wrong or bad with a candidate taking money from a pro or anti abortion group or other advocacy group if it is disclosed and they agree to keep their promise to the people who are giving the money? Do you really want people to not donate to a cause and expect the donors to have the gal not vote their way? I prefer the full disclosure, no other limit avenue. I think this is the best for an imperfect world." The way I read the article, this approach wouldn't prohibit any contributions in addition to the $50.00. Mike, I agree with you on this. I've never been enthusiastic about campaign finance reform, and the experience so far backs up my skepticism. This appraoch, as I read it, is "in addition to". Peter Peter