Lobowolf

Similar to me, except it's more like a queen and a half or a king.

Well, if we were jurors in a trial, I would suggest to you that making assumptions not in evidence is not in the purview of a juror. If you insist on making those assumptions anyway, I guess we'll have a hung jury. As for his dreadlocks, they're irrelevant. If we were jurors, we'd be privy to more evidence and have to make fewer assumptions. As we're not, it seems reasonable to draw rational inferences. As an aside... "You may consider whether a party failed to explain or deny some unfavorable evidence. Failure to explain or to deny unfavorable evidence may suggest that the evidence is true." -California Civil Jury Instruction (CACI) #205.

Really amazing to find all these 5-2 fits at the three level when partners doubles with 2452 and you bid 3 club on you 2245 hands. It is getting even better when you decide to open all 4/4 hands in the minors with 1 club because you like to have your transfer responses as often as possible. But we had been there before, there are strong opinions about the fact whether a double should show just the other major or something different but no facts. When partner doubles with 2-4-5-2 and you bid 3♣ with 2-2-4-5, he corrects to diamonds, because prior to bidding 3♣, you opened a diamond. So after "finding" your 5-2 fit, you play your 5-4 fit at the 3-level. What's amazing is when he's 2-4-2-5 and you first bid 1♣, then 3♦.

I'd be happy to sing "Children of the Grave" as well.

Why do reverses show extras? Because you might end up a level higher. Responder doesn't promise diamonds for the negative double; he might have hearts and club support. Is he supposed to pull to 4♣ with a minimum 2-level negative double opposite a minimum opener? 3♦ shows extras. If you have a weak hand with the minors that isn't suitable for a NT rebid, open 1♦ and rebid clubs (or agree to particularized gadgetry). If you opened 1♣ with a minimum because you intended to rebid clubs, then rebid 3♣, not 3♦.

No fast arrival in NT. Jumps show extras.

aka "The Full Marty"?

2♦ over 2♣. "ELC" = "Equal Level Conversion" i.e. because the suit we're lacking is clubs, the pull to diamonds lets partner choose between the other suits without going a level higher. If we wanted to run to diamonds, we could have done that immediately; running through the redouble suggests an alternative. Pulling 2♣ suggests that clubs wasn't the alternative we had in mind. Opener should work out to pass or correct to 2♥.

I'd bid 4, and I like it. I wouldn't bid 3, but I don't hate it. Whatever the strongest of hate/despise/detest/abhor is, it would have to be multiplied by a factor of about 10 to get close to describing what I think about 3, then 4 next round.

The queen of clubs. Wait, what was the question?

Club for me.

Every time you pass a forcing bid, God kills a kitten.

Probably true on a per-cigarette (joint) basis; on the other hand, the people I know who smoke pot might have a couple of joints a month, and the ones I know who smoke cigarettes have over a thousand in a month, so I know whom I'd bet on.

Don't tell me

He died of lung cancer in his early 50's, 15 or 20 years ago.

So, roughly, from the percentages in the article, from a group of 7 people who attend church once a week and a group of 7 people who don't, 6 of them are the same in each group -- the 3 who support torture, and the 3 who don't -- completely irrespective of their religious beliefs. But for the sake of that 7th guy, who thinks it's 'sometimes justified' (per the survey question; in the article, that's "supports" or "backs," in the same way that pro-life propagandists suggest that if you're pro-choice, you must think abortions are great, and everyone should have 2 or 3), the group (85% similar to the other group) should be marginalized and "cannot be ridiculed enough." I like the choice for the thread's title. Darned amusing.

Surely, the moral and/or intellectual superiority of non-churchgoers, non-religious people, non-theists, and/or non-Christians as compared to their counterparts has been well enough established in the WC, through diligent effort, to make a thread such as this akin to one proclaiming the inferiority of 2♦ Mini-Roman.

Most of the points are in aces and kings, and it's a got a good 5-card suit, so I can see thinking twice about upgrading it. However, on the downside, you have the doubleton jack, and no tens (or even nines). I'd call it a good 16, but I wouldn't upgrade it out of a 14-16 NT opener.

Wingy as this may sound, sometimes you have to drop it into a discussion with those other wingnuts who try to equate "health insurance" with "health care" (e.g. to make it sound as if the X number of people without insurance are getting no health care), (who also tend to equate "people living in America" with "Americans" (e.g. to inflate the number of Americans who don't have health insurance)). Tens of billions are spent in healthcare annually on people with no health insurance. This may be a strong premise in support of insuring more people - ounces of prevention and pounds of cure, and all that. But it's just as wingy (granted, we're on the other wing now) to go from, say, "45 million people (say, 30 million of whom are American) living in the USA without health insurance" to "45 million Americans receiving no health care." This is not to say that the ol' health insurance = healthcare trick has been tried in this thread, but I've seen it done more than once or twice. Now, you may get riled up and say, "Well, hell, 30 million Americans without health insurance is a HUGE number and way too damned big, even if it isn't 40 (or 45!!!!)" To which I'd reply that yes, it is. But that just strikes me as all the more reason not to fudge the numbers.

I have the Kindle 2. Love it. No waiting for Amazon to ship, no driving to the bookstore...$10 hardbound new releases, lots of features...it's great.

I think it's a close call between the pointy suits. The diamond could blow a trick, and the spade could blow a tempo. The 2M-4M auctions are awkward, because we don't know if LHO is bidding out of strength, or just spade length, so you never know whether you're trying to create a 4th trick or avoid giving up a 10th. I tend to favor more aggressive leads; I'd try the diamond with a clear conscience at IMPs, and holding my breath more at matchpoints.

Thanks, Josh. I thought the game was passing me by.

This is not a fight about words. Do you think Obama's goal should be to provide health care for - all US citizens, - all permanent residents, or - all current (permanent or non-permanent) residents? That's a separate question. As it's one that I do have an opinion on, I'll be happy to answer it, but as a starting point, it's misleading to claim "X number of Americans don't have health insurance" when X includes millions of residents who are not citizens (or even legal residents). I don't know that Obama's goal should be to provide health care for "all" <anything>, because I'm not sure what cure would be better than the disease (no pun intended). However, given that he wants to provide health care for "all Americans," I don't think that should include non-legal residents. I'm not sure whether it should include non-citizens who are legal residents. In more broad terms, I don't believe that a government owes the same duty to its non-legal residents that it does to its citizens. I also believe that to the extent that a government wants to have immigration laws, it's generally not good policy to incentivize people to break those laws.

Because I believe the common parlance default definition that most people use for "American" doesn't refer to all people residing in the country (although I recognize that alternate definitions exist).

What's wrong with that? We do it all the time when we preempt. Usually, we (as Philip Seymour Hoffman said in 'Charlie Wilson's War,' "Me and like 3 other guys," at least) don't have a 5-card side suit when we preempt.