Lobowolf

Did someone put you up to posting that?

"No coverage for illegals" is a good example of why there's more to the issue that a simple chart. There are some simple loopholes. First, you pass the healthcare bill. Then, you have a virtually all-inclusive amnesty. Presto! No coverage for illegals. Of course, the tens of millions of people currently in the country are covered, but that's ok, because they're no longer illegal. Fair enough, but do you really think that's going to thrill the +23% who favor "no coverage for illegals"?

Ordering alcohol in a strip club really detracts from the ambience, anyway. Oh, "on the STRIP." Never mind.

Now, when's someone going to start a 7-stud high/low split thread, so we can REALLY get into it?!

FWIW, I concur with "beatable, but not worth it" (apart from recreational benefit, obviously).

I think you're pretty unlikely to thin the field with a raise after everyone but the blinds is already in for 2 bets (unless you get lucky and a blind or, say, UTG re-pops it). The pot odds are just too big. If the initial raiser acted later or (better still) you acted earlier, could be a different story. Aside from any generalizations about $2-$4 Hold'Em players, after seeing an UTG raise and 6 (or so) cold calls, I wouldn't base any plays on the assumption that someone at the table knows what's going on.

There are a couple of possibilities; that he isn't a good player, or that he thinks that you're not a good player. In conjunction, they have to far outweigh the odds that he has the stone nuts. Maybe a third possibility is he thought you might play a straight the same way, and be willing to lay it down for a re-raise; the pot's big enough that he wouldn't have to be right often. I imagine even an idiot knows he can't raise you off a full house, but maybe he thought he could get you off a straight or trips with a bigger kicker.

I'd conservatively put it at under 10%, probably under 5%. There are just too many other hands a loose player would play there. And he's going to call with most of 'em. I'd re-raise and say "Nice hand" if he shows me 6-6. Just mathematically, 7-7 is much more likely; A-4 and A-6 are possible. 4-4 is possible and mathematically more likely. Heck, 5-3 is possible. If he's got the pure nuts and I give him another bet, so be it.

Master Class in Fiction Writing, by Adam Sexton Sense and Sensability, by Jane Austen Solo by Choice, by Carolyn Elefant Alfred's Essentials of Jazz Theory, by Shelton Berg Son of Simon Says, by Simon Lovell Search Engine Optimization, by Kris Jones

The Water Cooler is a poor microcosm of the country at large.

Since it's the hijacked thread and all... in Euchre, the JACKS of the trump suit and the other suit of the same color are called BOWERS. See how it all comes back around like a great big circle?!

I don't think there's a one-stop-shop answer, but I think that part of it, at least, is tied to the factor that has a huge amount of sway over presidential, congressional, and local elections - If the economy (or people's perception of the economy) is good, that's good news for candidates of the same party as the president, and if the economy is going bad, that's good news for the opposition party. McCain's numbers vis a vis Obama didn't tank until the stock market did. Although early (earlier) on in Obama's presidency, ecnomic conditions were attributed to the past administration, after a year, it's generally considered Obama's country now. Notwithstanding that presidents generally get too much credit for a good economy and too much blame for a bad one, things aren't outstanding economically now. In particular, unemployment is high, and perhaps more importantly, it's significantly higher than we heard it would be almost a year ago. Rightly or wrongly, that's bad news for Democratic candidates.

But if responder rebids anything OTHER than 2NT, he usually does promise a 4-card major. E.g. 1NT-2C-2D-3NT. (We once had a thread in which someone claimed that they bid this sequence without a 4-card major, but that's an unusual style, and probably should be alerted.) I don't buy the "too late" argument. "might not" isn't the same as "doesn't". If an opponent is looking at long major, they'll probably assume that responder doesn't have that major, even if he does promise a major. So if you're interested in interfering, an earlier alert probably won't make a difference. Knowledge of responder's possible major holdings is more likely to influence the opening lead than the auction. That doesn't really change the fact that 2NT doesn't convey any new information (information other than was conveyed by 2♣). It's a pretty good argument for alerting bids other than 2NT after alerting 2♣, though. e.g.: 1NT - 2♣* 2S - 3 NT** * Partner may or may not have a 4-card major. ** On this auction, partner guarantees 4 hearts. Or whatever. But anything opener knows after 2NT, he knew after 2♣. I don't know how often it's "too late," but even occasionally is too often. Assuming the sequence is alertable at all, the opponents should find out when the opener finds out.

Even if he doesn't have 10+ points, he might have a good 11?

The makings of a really good Water Cooler thread! Fairness: Equality of Opportunity, or Equality of Outcome?!

Man, I hope not...my best recollection is that copyright attaches upon creation, not registration - so my liberal use of the "quote" button a few seconds might get me in trouble...

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10664562/1/...e-of-banks.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-slide...126c34c&ccode=1

Concur with last two...easy limit raise. If I did something stupid to bar partner, I'd rather bid 4 than 2.

Obviously 2NT was suggesting a no-trump contract. You are pulling out of context an excuse for not disclosing information which you have gained from two bids --not just the 2NT bid. In WBF, ACBL and other places where 2C Stayman is not immediately alerted, a subsequent call by the Stayman bidder which either denies holding a major or indicates that she might not have a major is alertable at that point --not because the second bid is artificial, but because it carries additional information which should be disclosed. Just FWIW, I think the notion of alerting 2NT but not 2♣ on these types of sequences is asinine (not disputing that it's policy; just griping about it). The 2NT bid doesn't let opener know that responder might not have a major - opener knows that from the time the 2♣ bid is made, and so that's when the opponents should know, as well. Alternatively, alerting neither bid makes more sense than alerting 2NT but not 2♣. The second bid does not carry additional information.

I'd actually want to lead a club. But I'd lead a spade.

http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/01/15/france-...r-spouse-fat%2F

And does anyone seriously think that someone from today could go back and beat Roger Bannister in a 1-mile run?

Like all reasonable people, she thinks the spot should just be given to a Kennedy; she just hasn't decided which one.

ummm, we are! Moderate yourself. ps. Bet against Warner at your own risk. Actually thinking of going a little moneyline, too, but I'm taking the points. The Charles Grant (DE) injury (tricep; out for season) will be felt by the Saints.

ok, football time is back! 2 playoff games Saturday, and 2 Sunday! I like the Colts to win big, the Vikings to win & cover, the Jets to lose and cover, and Cards to pull the upset of the weekend.