BunnyGo

Partner might just have the club king. It's a long shot, but we may cash out 5 clubs. Even if the club lead fails, it may set up my long club for whenever partner's strength wins his one trick.

I went through exactly your thought process wyman, but decided the 8 was better. The 2 is more likely to fool partner into miscounting me for just 5 diamonds, and thus miscount the hand. There is no reason for a fancy 'alarm clock' here. I'm already not leading his suit. Just play the 8 and let partner think.

I must admit I'm a bit surprised. Why is everyone bidding 3♥ instead of 2♠? It seems to be better in that it: a) uses much less bidding room b) is similar strength showing.

Yes, and I have to change planes in Idlewild next month.

Perhaps we know who wrote this question now.

The NYTimes had an interesting article about a previous head who was famous for his numerous affairs all over the world. Times have changed.

<deleted>

They already have these guys in some sense (like the people that the van Sustren went to talk to when Rove threw a fit). They just don't listen to them now. Maybe they'll start.

He gave this outcome (assuming FL goes to O) a 20% chance. So he hit the 1/5. I don't know what odds he gave the correlations in the senate races.

No. Slavery was legal and practiced throughout the Union. Some Northern states gave it up sooner than than the Civil War, and you should note that those were the Republican states.

http://xkcd.com/1131/

MSNBC just called it...go to bed.

It's over...go to bed. They've only counted 30% of Cuyahoga and Obama is up in southern Ohio.

Particularly amusing, Nate is giving less than 1 in 20 that Obama gets exactly 290 votes. It's not one of his top 5 most likely occurrences.

I was most amused by his use of the past tense for George W. Bush. Is he dead?

We did have Roosevelt for 4 terms in 1930s and 1940s, and then they passed an amendment to make sure it didn't happen again.

Ah, I spent the weekend grading exams of students who weren't sure 2+2 = 4. My sarcasm detector got turned off for having too many false alarms.

All I'm saying is that by definition: Deficit = Spending - Revenue. Whether Increasing Spending has any effect on Revenue is another debate, but if Spending goes up and Revenue goes down, then tautologically Deficit goes up. If Spending goes down and Revenue goes up, then by by definition Deficit goes down. These are not independent variables, but the statements above are tautological. And no, 2+2 = 5 for large values of 2. I'm an analyst :)

Not quite. What he says is agreed by definition of all the terms. What is debated (in certain circles) is whether raising tax rates increases revenue, and whether raising spending increases revenue.

Maybe it did...maybe it was the flu.

Ah, yes. I misread that. I agree then as well.

Is it so unreasonable to expect her to play her winners (which are all equivalent in her mind) in the wrong way?

I'd be interested in hearing Fluffy's reasoning for bidding.

They are also missing Angus King (the presumptive winner) from the senate race here in Maine.

It seemed in depth, but when I checked their comparisons they seemed a bit off. For example: Iran I apparently sided with Romney, but it only gave Romney credit for " Isolate through trade embargoes" and didn't give Obama credit for that (despite it being what he's doing) nor for my answer which was "strategically eliminate nuclear capabilities" which depending on definition is what Israel and US are doing with computer viruses (to a small extent). Or "Should the US end the war in Afghanistan?' I said "yes" (and based on my interpretation of Obama and Romney in the debate, they said "yes" too) but only the third party candidates are credited with that answer. mostly it seemed reasonable, and interesting, but I did not understand the details of some of their information.