pbleighton

Or professed to, in order to assuage the prejudices of their countrymen. For example, about half the current U.S. population says that they wouldn't vote for an atheist for President. This is, of course, as vile a predudice as held by those who wouldn't vote for a Christian, Jew, etc. Widespread secularism is historically recent. Our day will come, Mike. OTOH, we'll probably both be dead by then. :) Peter

4S. I think it was Marty Bergen who said that if the opponents opened the bidding at the one level, you will save yourself a lot of trouble by forgetting about slam. Though this hand is definitely tempting ;) Peter

*Excellent chance* that the opps can make 3S or 4m with both opps passed? I think not. Peter

If pd has a hand which can make 4, he won't pass 2H. I really don't understand bidding past 2H on this hand. Peter

6NT. Peter

Edited, misread auction. 1NT. Peter

2H is enough. I can always bid 3H later. I wouldn't bid a preemptive 3H directly. We may be able to buy it for 2. Peter

No, you don't have a fourth heart, which is what make this a choice. Peter

Somehow I can't stop Bush and Cheney from lying. I guess that's my fault. Following your logic, Mike: 1. Hitler was democratically elected. 2. The Germans, including Jewish Germans, got the government they deserved. 3. Therefore Jews should stop whining about the Holocaust. Did I get that right? Peter

I would have opened 5D. Peter

Double, but I understand 3D. Nothing else is comprehensible. Peter

Sorry, Mike, but I do NOT deserve George Bush and his rape of the Consitution. Peter

Bidding is the best part of my game. It's the part of the game which interests me the most, and (probably related to this) I have a good memory for bidding systems. I have good judgement in competitive situations for my overall level (strong intermediate/low advanced). Defense is the worst part of my game. I find it to be the least interesting part (again, I'm sure it's related). I can't be bothered to count out hands (and my middle-aged brain is relieved by this), though I am getting better at getting a picture of partner's and declarer's hands. My signalling is OK, but I don't always pick up partner's signals. I find that as my declarer play improves, my defense improves, as I can figure out what the declarer might be doing. My declarer play is in the middle. My strengths are that I spend a fair amount of time on most hands prior to the first trick analyzing different lines of play (the best change I ever made to my game), and am good at getting the opponents to help me by early, appropriate exits. My weakness is counting. Peter

Just wait. The objection is not to the ID per se, but to the slippery slope. Peter

All this stuff was happening 10 years ago, Winston. Trust me, I was there. Peter

Every single borrower had the option of a fixed loan, and the option of buying a cheaper (smaller, worse neighborhood) home. These were all invidual decisions. Willing buyer, willing seller. Peter

jt, I just checked with my bridge partner, who is#2 at a decent sized mortgage broker in Connecticut. He says this is absolutely not true, at least in Connecticut, and in most states. In Connecticut, equity loans are 10+ years. After the draw period, any existing balance is flipped to a 20 year mortgage, fixed or adjustable depending on the agreement. At no point is the loan callable. Peter

This is simply untrue. I was in the mortgage business for two years (late 96 to late 98), and one of my bridge partners is still in the business. The reason most people choose ARMs is that they don't want to buy interest rate insurance from their lenders, because it is so expensive. This is silly conspiracy theory. What happened was capitalism - people bought new loans they liked. Who in these posts has said that it was? I certainly haven't - it's just capitalism. More conspiracy theory. I think consumers were given more choices. You seem to object to this. BFD. A laser printer was unheard of 30 years ago, but I have a cheap one sitting on my desk. Deregulated financial markets are a fact of life. IMO they bring more good than bad, but they certainly have a down side. Winston, I think I've figured out your proble. You want to go back to the fifties :P Peter

Winston, about 30% of mortgage loans made in the last few years are adjustable rate loans. They are hardly exotic. Peter

Not so. Alot of people will be vulnerable if we get a recession and moderately higher interest rates at the same time. Peter

This is true. This is technically true, but the caps are so high that for the majority of homeowners with a mortgage which is a significant proportion of their income a rise to the (or less) cap would force foreclosure - see my post on ratios and down payments. As to bailing out Countrywide, I share Mike's and Richard's distaste for it. I hope it can be avoided, but *too big to fail* may apply here, and if it does (I don't know), it would be stupid for the Feds not to do it. We shouldn't trigger a recession in order to give an object lesson in moral hazard, particularly since the political consequence would be that the bar for bailouts in the future would be lowered. Peter

I would strongly prefer that we don't bail out Countrywide. We may have no choice. Peter

True, but incomplete. Over the last 10-15 years, we've also had: 1. A slide in ratios (basically, how much income do you need to buy a house of a given value - now you need less). 2. The percentage of down payments has gone down. 20% used to be the norm, now 10% or less is common. 3. The proliferation of no income verification loans (you just state what you earn, you don't have to document it), mostly used by the owners of very small businesses who cheat on their taxes. The laxity in these loans (restricted to borrowers with excellent credit) has spread to"standard" loans. Inernet underwriting has caused some big losses. 4. Appraisers' standards (is the house worth what is proposed to be paid) have been slipping badly, under pressure from the mortgage brokers - give me a good appraisal if you want to get more of my business. 5. The proliferation of adjustable rate mortgages, which are fine in themselves for individual borrowers, but which may create a huge problem if we encounter a recession and even slighly higher interest rates simultaneously - in my freshman economics textbook this was impossible (in 1973), but then I read the papers... All of the above, but especially #5, creates the potential for the next recession to be really terrible. Peter

I bid 2S, GF 6-5, The spade suit is bad enough so that 1S is reasonable. Peter

Yes. Peter