Lobowolf

2♥ is 110% natural in the good ol' US of A (and more than one or two other places, I'm given to understand). Whether it's right is another matter.

The Spassky-Fischer match (first match - '72) merits close study.

I would if I had one :) I play almost exclusively online and often not with ACBL/US players Leading from xxx is one of those things you should ask a new partner about. Leading low from Qxx is something you can assume with fair confidence.

On the convention card, standard leads are generally in bold. For quite a while, leading from 3 small (xxx) had no card in bold, because "low from 3," "top of nothing," and "MUD" all had adherents. Now the low card is in bold, but it definitely merits discussion. Low from Qxx is very much standard. From 3 small, at the I/N level, each of the 3 choices will have many adherents. At the expert level, low is the clear majority choice; high is a minority choice (more typical among "old school" types); and MUD is pretty much not in the picture. Edit: Except for Zia-Rosenberg, apparently! lol

I'd lead the 8 from the first holding, and the 2 from the second (attitude, in both cases). The lead of the queen would show the jack.

The optimal amount Winston's Feb. '09 Obfuscation calls are well in the money. If you ask a stupid question, you're going to get a flip response... (and it was indeed, a very stupid question) It seems to me to be the crux of the thread. The thread didn't start with a question but a statement. If you thought the statement was stupid, that's fine. WC is about opinions. I'm not sure if this last comment of your was directed to me or to Hrothgar, Winston. Just to clarify, when I said "the crux of the thread," I didn't mean that the thread had anything to do with stupid questions; I meant that the specific question I was asking was aimed at the crux of the thread (at least its most recent posts). My questions have been serious inquiries trying to better understand your position.

The optimal amount Winston's Feb. '09 Obfuscation calls are well in the money. If you ask a stupid question, you're going to get a flip response... (and it was indeed, a very stupid question) It seems to me to be the crux of the thread.

Unless I'd raised hearts, I would have led the 2. If I led the 2, or if I'd raised hearts and led the 8, my second card would have suit preference implications, since the lead of the 2, or the auction, would have already told partner I didn't have heart shortness. If I filled in at the table for someone who dropped dead after leading the 8 but had not raised hearts, I'd probably play the 5 the second time, present count, as I'd expect partner to play me for a doubleton after the 8 then the 2.

The optimal amount Winston's Feb. '09 Obfuscation calls are well in the money.

How sure would you want a president to be about the pursuit of nuclear capabilities by a hostile nation before acting on the best available information?

I don't know if this sums up his position, but it sounds pretty close to mine.

Yes, indeed, we changed administrations - unfortunately, we did nothing to change the agenda of the power behind the throne. Now I don't know who is the bigger hypocrite, Obama or Bush. At least Bush was an ignorant asshole and acted like an ignorant asshole. Unfortunately, Obama acts like a lawyer who knows who understands who signs his paycheck and it sure as hell ain't We the People. Just so I can understand your position better, is it that you would rather have: 1) a President who doesn't think that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons 2) a President who doesn't care whether Iran gets nuclear weapons 3) something else

In my view, for two reasons. First, the only suit partner promises is spades. If partner has a weak hand lacking diamond tolerance, he has to go to the 3-level to get back to your first suit. So it's a reverse for the same reason 1♣-1♠; 2♦ would be a reverse. Second, with a minimum unbalanced hand with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs, I'd've opened 1♦. I don't see that the overcall and negative double substantively changes the auction from opening clubs then introducing diamonds at the 2-level. If I had less than reverse values but opened 1♣ intending to rebid clubs, e.g. with good clubs and bad diamonds, then the overcall and negative double shouldn't change my planned rebid. I know that there are players who open 1♣ on minimum 4-5's, intending to rebid 1NT then occasionally get dissuaded from the rebid after the overcall (e.g. 1-3-4-5 or even 2-2-4-5 with no heart cards), so they play that 2♦ here is a natural minimum. That sort of accounts for why you'd want it to be a minimum, but it doesn't stop you from being at the 3-level opposite a minimum responder who can't do anything better than steer back to your first suit, so I don't really like it, myself. I'd rather either open 1♦ in the first place, or treat a really good club suit like a 6-card suit and rebid it. I just don't see necessity, or the merit, of 1♣ then 2♦ on a minimum.

Agree 110%, though I believe many players, even very good ones, don't play it this way.

The phrase "Support Double or a Negative Double showing a 4-card heart suit" doesn't imply that those are the same thing, but rather that it's ambiguous whether it's 1) a Support Double (showing 3 diamonds); OR 2) a Negative Double showing a 4-card heart suit. Having said that, as Josh pointed out, if the bid shows a 4-card heart suit, it's not a negative double, either.

The 8 of clubs makes it close.

The Padilla case is extremely complicated. Unlawful enemy combatant status has a history (and Supreme Court review) going back to World War 2, at least.

We probably have more such civil liberties oversight now than then. We have exactly the first sort of protection they didn't "reject," but specifically provided for - relatively short, temporary terms subjecting them to political unemployment if their constituents disapproved. We also have further oversight in the post-Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court power-grab: strong judicial review of laws for constitutionality. Before the SC can rule cases must get to them. At this point in time, precedent for the president being able to treat enemy combatants differenty than other criminals has been established only by the 4th circuit court of appeals - and the challenge may well not get to the SC in our lifetimes. I was primarily referring to the pseudo-historical appeal to "what Madison and other framers rejected." You certainly weren't going to get help from the Supreme Court in the late 18th century. Your protection was the power of the vote. Now, it's the power of the vote + whatever limitations the Supreme Court puts on various laws. But that addendum came a few decades after the founding of the country, courtesy of John Marshall.

We probably have more such civil liberties oversight now than then. We have exactly the first sort of protection they didn't "reject," but specifically provided for - relatively short, temporary terms subjecting them to political unemployment if their constituents disapproved. We also have further oversight in the post-Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court power-grab: strong judicial review of laws for constitutionality.

Mike - I probably should have interpreted that way, myself. I do appreciate the clarification.

I don't believe that objective morality comes from God. If you don't think you're "Right" in an absolute sense about the beheadings, then I disagree, respectfully. You disclaimed a feeling of being right, in an absolute sense, with respect to the mercy killing, not the beheadings, but, of course, if there is no "absolute," then you can't be "Right" in an absolute sense, about any moral question. I'm not even a theist, so to the extent that you interpreted my views on morality to be "God-based," they're not. I also don't claim that "my view is always 'right'." I claim, rather, that a "right" exists. As most people, moral absolutists and moral relativists alike, do, I attempt to discern what that right is. I'm sure I get many of the close calls wrong, and I'm sure I get the no-brainers right. I didn't say that moral relativism was moral abstention; I tried to suggest that moral abstention seems to me more consistent with moral relativism than with moral absolutism. I still certainly think that's true. Most moral relativists don't "abstain" from moral judgment, but I'm pretty sure that most people who don't give a rat's ass about morality don't believe in transcendent moral standards exist. I can't say you particularly strike me as any more tolerant than I am, but who knows?

I disagree with this characterization of "objective morality." I don't see objective morality as dictating that your two examples are equivalent. It doesn't mean that all particular generalized action (e.g. "killing") are morally equal; rather, it means that for a particular action, if two people disagree about the morality involved (in a mutually exclusive way), then at least one of them is wrong. I'm not sure if that definition changes your view of the relationship between objective morality and human judgment; in my view, if anything, it's an incentive to hone and use human judgment. When one accepts that there is "a" right and "a" wrong answer to each of the various moral dilemmas he's confronted with, then one tends to use his abilities to discern what the moral truth of a given situation is. Moral relativity as a worldview suggests the opposite to me. When any moral decision can be shrugged off with "your way is true for you; my way is true for me," then why bother? Edit/Addendum re: part one. What I mean to say (more succinctly) is that your suggestion seems to be that objective morality would dictate something like "All killing is wrong," whereas I believe that instead it would dictate something like "This particular killing is either wrong or 'not wrong'," but the wrongness of it is not variable, subject to different people's perceptions.

Yes, but unfortunately, Guns & Roses was pretty bad the night I saw them. Metallica was great, and Motorhead was solid. Anyone seen Triumph? I've heard they're outstanding live, but I never caught them.

No they aren't. Perhaps you mean that silly semantic discussions should be confined to the water cooler? (Sorry.) Ahhh, that's just semantics* * = "merely pertaining to the meanings of the words used in the communication." I mean, really...how utterly irrelevant.

"Works" is shorthand for "works better than responding 1♠ works", which I thought was obvious from the context. I think it's a poor definition for "works" in this context. When they're equally good, saying that 1♥ doesn't "work," because it's not better, has an inappropriate negative connotation. well..... I put 'works' in quotations... that might have been a 'clue'. As for suggesting that my comment meant that 1♥ is only 'not better' than 1♠... all I can say is......LOL I agree that a closer reading of your comment would have indicated what you meant by "works"; however, I wasn't suggesting at all that your comment meant that 1♥ is only "not better" than 1♠. What I was clarifying is that to the extent that 1♥ is being defended (and I reiterate that like Josh, I'm not advocating a 1♥ response), it's relevant to point out not only those circumstances in which 1♥ is a gain, but also those circumstances in which 1♥ is a push. That's all.