Lobowolf

lol Reminds me of the old Chess Life & Review cartoon cover from around the Fischer-Spassky match....Spassky with stacks of books on all of the defenses to 1. P-K4 (e4), by far Fischer's favorite opening, from which he almost never deviated. One of the advisors says, "But Boris...what if he DOESN'T play 1. P-K4?" Fischer uncharacteristically mixed it up quite a bit in that match, and won a resounding victory.

Great game...I think I'd have gone with Harrison as the MVP. That interception return to end the first half was HUGE.

The Internet swallows all irony.

Are beginners who are aggressive bidders more likely to preempt in T-high suits, or underlead aces against suit contracts?

Wrong (if true).

...said Benjamin Button, the Polyp.

an example of begging the question? Certainly with respect to the first premise ("the only way in which we could expect...") Why is that the only way we could expect a Creator to show itself? It also strikes me as a form of affirming the consequent, i.e. "If P, then Q. Q, therefore P." e.g. "If nobody is home, then we would expect to find the house quiet. The house is quiet; therefore, nobody is home."

Were you playing with my ex-girlfriend?

Got to admit, I was, too. I thought it was more of a given than evolution, among scientists. Don't all contemporary studies reflect its existence, by either attempting to explain it (e.g. neurochemical effects of the brain), or by controlling for it? The placebo sidebar in this topic, appearing immediately on the heels of Mike's comments about theists vs. scientists, has been my favorite part of this thread.

I work for a quality law firm specializing in eminent domain, and I deal in rare boxing memorabilia. Please let me know if I can be of any help, too.

I'd probably bid 2♥ at this vulnerability (3♥ favorable). Maybe 10% I'd get a wild hair and bid 3♥, or if I really knew my customers. I agree strongly with Echo - never in a million years would I bid 2 THEN 3.

I guess it depends which theists and which atheists you hang out with. I know theists who are far more scientifically minded and flexible in their beliefs than a great number of atheists. That's not to dispute your statement as a generalization, but it's far from universal.

Thanks for not including anything about his huge package that we keep hearing about. Like Eddie Murphy said..."If you're gonna believe the myths, believe 'em ALL."

THey're all as black as anyone else who is (was) black, except Clinton, who isn't at all. With all due respect to Toni Morrison.

I imagine a more likely danger would be partner passing a 7-8 count that makes 3NT (e.g. KJxxx of diamonds, and Kx of clubs), particularly as our majors are so strong, there's a good chance he won't have a stopper in either unbid suit. This is not to say that 2♣ isn't correct; just that the risks of missing a game are more plausible than you suggest. All of the bids have their risks, though. I'm actually getting more and more tempted by Josh's 1♥ bid.

ok, I have to ask. I tried to fight the urge, but I failed. What is a "white component"?

I don't play Woolsey, and this is without deep premeditation on my part, so excuse me in advance if I'm asking a moronic question, but... Any theoretical merit to changing the double/2M bids around so that the double would show a longer major than minor, and 2M would show a 4-card suit with a longer minor? That way if partner didn't like your major and you ended up at the 3-level, it would be in your 5+ card suit.

I think you could almost add in the BBO self-rating guidelines for "expert" something like: "Does not 'take exception' when people open 1NT with a 5-card major."

I was trying to bridge the gap by seeing what kind of chemistry would develop if I took the obvious and polarized it. So, mathematically, how does 50% black and 50% white become black? (Especially since he acts so white?) We're progressing... Homer Plessey (of "Plessey v. Ferguson - the Supreme Court decision that said "separate but equal" is ok (much later overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education) - fame) was "black," and he was only 12 1/2% black.

True...nothing "odd" per se about talking out of both sides of one's mouth when an election is in play. Poor choice of words. I don't know what you mean by this. I didn't mean anyone who believed it was true during the election no longer does. I just meant people aren't talking about it any more. Maybe you can elaborate but I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry; my turn to misread a post. I agree with you.

Sometimes I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, dryly funny, or just making plain statements of fact. I mean, it's certainly an assumption that he's telling the truth, but it seems like a reasonable one to me. True...nothing "odd" per se about talking out of both sides of one's mouth when an election is in play. Poor choice of words. Most immediately, I was referring to Adam's post, and also to yours where you say that I "shouldn't assume" that he's a Christian, when Obama has said it often and recently, and references to his Christian faith are on his own website; it does seem as though you're fairly inclined to leave outs for his possible non-Christianity. Aside from this thread, most of my non-Christian friends who support Obama seem to have the attitude that the Christian thing is just something he says for the cameras. Going back to your agreement with Adam's post (or a portion thereof, anyway), I thought the suggestion (which I agree with) was that it's cynicism to assume that his Christianity is for political expediency. I would think that the natural thing is to take him at his word (which I do). As a non-Christian, I think his inclusiveness comments were refreshing, and he seems to share my belief that founding fathers did a nice job of leaving religion out of their work, for the most part (e.g. the First Amendment - have whatever God you want - being in direct conflict with the First Commandment - have no other Gods before me). All of which sounds like he's a Christian who knows that there are a whole bunch of other Christians in the country, but who doesn't want to run the place like a theocracy. Works for me.

Well, he's SAID he's a Christian in numerous places, e.g. his website, last week's Newsweek interview..I mean, I guess taking his word for it is an assumption on some level, but no more than believing his stated position on any political issue. It's gotta be MORE of an assumption to think he's not a Christian. It's a little odd that during the campaign, it was Obama supporters most vocally proclaiming that he's a Christian, and now it seems they're not. I guess "inclusiveness" (or even just the perception of inclusiveness) is more important than electability now. It's funny that nobody seems to want him to be a Christian now. My wacky cousin, who hates him, is still convinced he's a Muslim, and my secular progressive friends, who generally love him, are still convinced he's a spiritual, quasi-theistic guy with no particular religion. I don't really care; I'm not a Christian, and (but?) I don't think it has any bearing on how good a president he'd be. I do have to admit, though, I find it all interesting.

If you're smoking weed, you should play the 8. It's deep.

I agree with this, too. I do think, though, that the best measure is his own words and actions, so if we're not attributing it to political expediency, then shouldn't we assume that a guy who joins a Christian church, designates a Christian spiritual advisor, and quotes Corinthians at his inauguration is, in fact, a Christian, and not a generally theistic spiritual kinda guy?

While his church ultimately became a political liability on the national stage, it may have been an asset when his political forum was more localized; I don't know enough about local politics in that region to say either way. While there are many Americans who don't follow the explicit teachings of an established religion, but who do believe in God, this seems to me (at least if we're talking about the same group of people) to not be in Obama's style. The people I take this to apply to don't go to church or claim to be Christians, specifically; it's a much more nebulous and personal thing. In Obama's case, I would assume that either the Christianity is genuine, or it's political. I don't see a vague, general theism translating to apparent Christianity to the extent of joining a Christian church, designating a Christian minister as a spiritual advisor, etc.