Lobowolf

2D...jump-shifts are more distributional; HCP maxes aren't enough. As Phil implies, it's a lot more precise than 1S-1NT; 2D in standard American or 2/1.

I think it depends what you mean by "beliefs." Certainly, beliefs themselves shouldn't be imposed on people; but laws based on those beliefs are a different thing. Laws are based on people's moral ideals. I don't see a substantive difference between murder's being illegal because atheists and/or agnostics thinking it's "wrong" (or "undesirable" on a utilitarian basis), and its being legal because Christians believe it's wrong because of the Biblical commandment. We vote our morality, whether it's from the Bible, a philosophical text, or just the Golden Rule. The source of one's moral beliefs doesn't disqualify him or her from political participation. If a majority of Americans believed that working on the Sabbath was immoral, you'd be OK with laws that make it illegal to work on Sundays? What do you mean by "ok with"? There are all sorts of laws I'm not "ok with" in the sense that I strongly disagree with them; on the other hand, I'm "ok with" them in the sense that I support the process by which laws come into existence, even those I disgree with. That certainly includes constitutionality checks, btw. I'm certainly very much "ok with" the First Amendment, including both it's freedom OF and FROM religion. I believe it's the broader point that's important, though. You very frequently hear the catch phrase "You can't legislate morality." Of course you can. And of course you should. You're legislating morality when you set a tax structure by which money taken from a subset of people is used to fund education. Or public housing. Or the military. Other than First Amendment constraints on the establishment of religion, there's no difference in principle between supporting the leglisation of morality that derives from a religious belief, and supporting the legislation of morality that doesn't.

Hey, have you ever considered posting in the Water Cooler?

I think it depends what you mean by "beliefs." Certainly, beliefs themselves shouldn't be imposed on people; but laws based on those beliefs are a different thing. Laws are based on people's moral ideals. I don't see a substantive difference between murder's being illegal because atheists and/or agnostics thinking it's "wrong" (or "undesirable" on a utilitarian basis), and its being legal because Christians believe it's wrong because of the Biblical commandment. We vote our morality, whether it's from the Bible, a philosophical text, or just the Golden Rule. The source of one's moral beliefs doesn't disqualify him or her from political participation.

99.9 out of 100. The only questions are, how much privacy, and at what price? I suspect most people are glad airports have metal detectors that everyone walks through. I'm also pretty sure most people wouldn't want them to have mandatory strip searches for everyone.

Of course, if RHO wins the ace of clubs when LHO is out of clubs...and pitches his penalty card...then RHO will be on lead with no restrictions. Hmmmmm

Fully consistent with my First Law: "The better the player, the less likely that any given 4♣ bid is Gerber."

I'm not even going to pretend to be a little bit sorry to have missed THAT.

I'd imagine it would pertain to that whole "Jesus as the son of God...only way to eternal salvation" kinda thing. But what do I know; I was surprised to find how many self-described atheists believe in God. I think technically I'm an athiest and that technically I'm jewish. And in a very fortunate stroke of luck, I'm technically apathetic about the whole thing. There is the whole "religious Judaism" v. "cultural Judaism" (or even the matrilineal "ethnic Judaism") thing. But I have a really hard time imagining what a Christian would be other than one who has a religious belief about eternal salvation through Jesus etc. Though I was pleasantly reminded by all this of the old Sam Kinison bit... "Rock Against Drugs?! What genius thought that one up. What's next, Christians Against Christ?!"

I'd imagine it would pertain to that whole "Jesus as the son of God...only way to eternal salvation" kinda thing. But what do I know; I was surprised to find how many self-described atheists believe in God.

If the implication is that when two people disagree strongly and one calls the other unreasonable then the first must also be being unreasonable, I do not agree. I wasn't trying to imply that. It was just a flippant response to parts of Mike's response that I found really funny, in conjunction -- 1. Let's not goad the literalists. 2. They're impervious to reason. 3. Jimmy's like someone who has suffered severe head trauma and is blind without even knowing it. Well, ok...as long as you don't goad anyone! I don't think anyone who posts here is particularly thin-skinned or will be offended/hurt etc. Just struck me as funny.

On a related topic, there's no need to *****ing cuss, either.

1) Cuebid, then bid diamonds. 2) Play the jump in a new suit as natural & forcing.

No, Phil, you really don't.

But which black king would your teammates lead?

I'll take it. If your mission to strive for peace at all costs, you'll probably be successful...on both counts.

There's probably a correlation. Certainly, if we ever elect a president who doesn't care about trying to thwart organizations that strive to attack the United States, its interests, and its allies, it will be a good time to short the stocks of certain contractors involved in the defense industry.

That would be value-neutral, and anonymous. You're supposed to "admit" ("confess," "concede") your belief.

I don't, myself. I'm just posting because when I was reading the original post, the only other forum member in the topic was "Rain," which I found really funny.

The next director call, btw, comes when the opponents don't find their 8- or 9-card spade fit after you've (gratuitously?) explained that just because he bid 1NT doesn't mean that he doesn't have a spade suit.

This is not realistic. It is what the law requires. If we're talking about ACBL laws, I think there's clear support for the bidder here. "During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made)" (20F) "A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding." (21) If whether or not the the responder might have 4 spades is relevant to your bidding decision, then you should ask whether or not the responder might have 4 spades.

Gotta win the peace, too.

Yes, but suit preference is the most common.

There's something you don't see every day in the ol' Water Cooler.

But responder's hands will be able to take into consideration distribution points depending on whether he knows there is a fit. e.g. a 4441 11-count might pass as opener, but have enough to GF if partner opens 1M and it's not the singleton. So it seems as though if all you want to do is maximize the chances of achieving a 2/1 auction, to some extent lighter openings would help, as they would increase the chances that responder would be able to upgrade, knowing about a fit. Apologies if I'm overlooking something really basic; this is off-the-cuff.