pbleighton

"Increasing taxes on poluters means (assuming that the overall tax burden is a seperate issue) less taxes on non-poluters. It will hurt some industries and benefit others. I don't see why it would hurt the economy as a whole. But it may depend what is understood by "the economy". If you mean the standard of living, and you think that less polution does not increase the standard of living, then it will hurt the "economy" because industries will be forced to produce in an "ineffective" way. But of course, the whole idea of enviromment protection is that the enviroment is worth protecting, hence the quotation marks. If you mean the GDP, I wouldn't expect it to matter much. In the short term, there could be some adverse effects of the transition to a new tax regime (whether more polution-targetting, less polution-targeting or in some third direction) and there could be a positive effect of moving some of the demand from imported fuels to domestically produced alternatives (wind turbines, more expensive but less gasoline-consuming cars etc). And then there're the administrative costs of the regulations and/or tax regime themselves." Helene, this is WAY too sensible. Peter

"I was totally amazed when he doubled." I wouldn't have doubled, but the form of scoring (you didn't specify) makes a huge difference. Double at IMPs is crazy. Double at matchpoints isn't a good idea IMO, but isn't crazy. Peter

"I'd rather have 13 cards myself." lol Peter

"If so, 2♠ (or 3♣) usually shows opening values and at least a 5-card suit. At the 3 level, 6 cards is more common." Or 5 cards and extra values. After 2S by LHO, what are you going to do with Kx-AQx-xx-AK10xx? Everyone I know will bid 3C. Peter

"1) Ok Peter votes for an in depth investigation into many complicated issues after a nuke strike on the USA." Your question implied, in my reading at least, that an independent terrorist group rather than a country launched the strike. Was I correct? If so, do you have the intellectual honesty to throw out a few scenarios, along with your judgment as to the appropriate response? Apparently you think the issue is crystal clear, so it should be easy for you. I expect that the answer to this question is no, but I can always hope :P If not, MAD applies. Peter

"If a small stolen or bought nuke from the USSR or wherever was used by terrorists on the Usa or Israel what is the moral response?" What are the circumstances? What are the connections? It matters, a lot. Peter

"Another possible situation for Israel is just the never ending war, sometimes small sometimes bigger with Muslims for another 100 years. Not perfect but possible the best of the poor options?" Not with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, it's not. If this was prior to WW2, it would be possible. Now, it guarantees a strike. 100 years? They may not have 20. Peter

"Wow alot of people ready to bomb Iran..to what effect or consquences?" People never seem to think about this beforehand. Israel is in a very difficult situation, but if it kills as many Iranian civilians as would be necessary to mostly eliminate Iran's nuclear capacity, it will be worse off. Peace with Muslims is Israel's only long term survival option, no matter how difficult and long term it may be. The alternative is a nuclear strike in Tel Aviv. The idea that they can beat the Muslims into submission has been disproven conclusively by its own history. Peter

"By definition a regulation has the power to kill off any industry. Government is the power to destroy." Whose definition? This is "drink the Kool Aid" stuff. Again, not too specific. We've had environmental regulations for a long time, and they haven't hurt. BTW, the economy performs better under Democratic presidents than under Republicans. You can look it up :) Peter

"Even some right wing hacks vote for not killing off the grandkids." Very few in Congress (or the White House) feel (vote) this way. Why do you presume that environmental regulation will kill off the economy, when history shows it doesn't? You're not too specific :) Peter

I would bid 5D here. I know this isn't everyone's style, but it's a reasonable action. Peter

"I'm quite scared that people are even contemplating opening with this hand. I'm sure it's because it was put into a poll and suggested that some might open it that people are looking for reasons to do so. Because I'm fairly sure that most of you would pass this without a second's thought if it came up at the table?" Speaking for myself only, I would open 2D without a second's thought if it came up at the table. You're quite sure of yourself :lol: Peter

I preempt and overcall much more freely than most, but I don't like WJS. If you play them in a very discliplined manner, they hardly ever come up. If not, the results are unimpressive. Why preempt partner, who may have a great hand? Peter

"BTW what is the specific goal of those worried about global warming? Save the planet and kill off the economy or do they have something more helpful?" Save the planet without killing off the economy. Failure to succumb to scare tactics of right wing hacks, who have consistently predicted economic disaster from environmental regulation, and who have been consistently been proven wrong. Peter

Assuming 2NT is 22-24 with no 5 card major, 4S. 3NT is a decent bid at MPs, but I don't really care for it. A slam or slam try is too hopeful IMO, with flat opposite flat and a combined 30-32 hcp. Peter

Yes, I would have bid 1S. 2S is tempting but the hand is too good for it. I bid 5S, with false confidence. Peter

Yes, I would have bid 1S. 2S is tempting but the hand is too good for it. I bid 5S, with false confidence. Peter

"I should also mention I need a rebid." After 2Dx? Peter

"Just pass. I need a reason to bid other than being in 3rd chair green." Takes all types to make a world ;) Peter

I would bid 2D, as long as my partner wouldn't freak out. Peter

"I'm surprised at the people who think this is easy, and partner has "nothing". Let me give you a bidding problem: xx xx xx AKQxxxx you are at favourable. 1C from partner, Pass, ? Isn't 3NT tempting? I don't think I can answer without knowing who my opponents are. " Fair enough, but how likely is this? Peter

"My understanding is that if you sit down with an expert partner for the 1st time and you agree on "Lawrence 2/1", the following are true: 1. A 2/1 is a 'soft' game force, where a rebid of responder's suit is usually not a GF. 2. A rebid of Opener's major does not promise 6 3. Reverses by opener and high reverses promise extra values and set up a GF. Your question is complicated, since it has ramifications on all areas of constructive bidding, but the soft GF is not the standard these days. Most play the 2/1 as 100% GF." Phil, I've never really understood the "almost GF" style. What does responder do with a single-suited GF hand? Do you temporize, then go past 3NT? i.e. 1S-2C-2S-3D (oops, can't rebid clubs with my nice 14 count, will be my diamond fragment instead)-3NT-???? Peter

Richard: I'm stunned. Where did you learn to be so polite? :P Peter

Pass. Pd is broke, we can probably set 3NT, but why tell declarer how to play the hand. Peter

""Gee, Lieberman is against Islamic fundamentalism.....there's a stretch." I think this is 100% wrong. If you have any proof of this please let us know. In fact I think he has respect for Islamic fundamentalism to a great degree." You're right, Mike. Lieberman is a religious bigot, but his target is not Islamic fundamentalism. He is viciously anti-atheist and anti-agnostic (he said at one point that civilization is impossible without religion). BTW, his nickname in CT is Holy Joe (as in holier than thou). Peter