Lobowolf

I believe you. Nice read.

Definitely agree. In some analogous situations, it would be "Bid 5♦, and here's where I have values if you have to make a bidding decision over 5♥." Given the vulnerability and partner's previous passes, I can't imagine it means something other than "Bid 5♦, and lead a spade against 5♥, if you have to."

In the US that is correct but in the UK a billion might mean 1,000,000,000,000, like it does in Northern Europe. Maybe the American who wrote the article was a recent transplant... (S)he'd be happy to know that the bailout is only 1/10 of 1% the size (s)he's expecting!

6-loser hand and good enough to force to game (jump shift)? Sorry, but we play a different game. Roland Uh oh...the LTC word. What's that Phil was saying about a flame-retardant suit?!

Oh it is a business deal, no doubt about it. If anything can be stated as fact, this would be it. Clearly the slots industry profits. There is a claim that it will revitalize the horse racing industry and save the Preakness. There is a claim that we can supply much needed funds for schools while keeping my taxes low (well, low might not be the word, but not go any higher). If it were just a matter of legalizing slots so people who like slots could play slots my approach to this would be great disinterest. If there is a referendum on changing the hunting season for deer, I don't care about the outcome. If I thought this didn't have a substantial financial impact I would give it no more thought than I give to what the proper hunting season should be. No one, as far as I know, is presenting this issue as being something good we would be doing for slots players. It is being presented as something that is good for the state. A business deal it is. It's seen primarily by the state as a business deal, because revenue is worth more to legislators than libertarian goodwill, and it's marketed as a business deal, because it's easier to sell (to the public at large; not necessarily to you) economic benefits than "let's let people who like to play slot machines do so here." Nevertheless, it is also a decriminalization of one form of recreational gambling. You don't have to view it as purely a business deal; however, you apparently choose to. That's a value-neutral comment. I'm not saying that it's bad that you're choosing to. I'm just saying that it's surprising to me, given your expression of some inclination to favorably view widescale gambling as recreation by consenting adults.

Mike, Forrest Gump called...he wants his royalties for all those "Have a nice day!" smileys you're burning through!

Actual percentage of "WTP?" bids that at least some experts construe as posing a problem of some sort: ______. Hint: Barbara Feldon.

You're choosing to construe it as a business deal; however, you've also indicated some philsophical agreement with legalizing all types of gambling between consenting adults. That being the case, you could certainly choose to construe this, instead of a business deal, as a measure that would legalize one form of gambling that consenting adults could engage in.

This is correct (both the chemical changes part and the smoking part). Neurotransmitters and the brain's physical reactions to various drugs is a field my father is around the top of; it's been his life's work for decades. More problematic than heroin is cocaine. I remember a study he told me about in which addicted lab rats given unlimited access to heroin would press levers to get heroin fixes when needed, then go about their lab rat lives; addicted lab rats given unlimited access to cocaine would take it and take it and take it and take it and die.

That's the best reason of all to do it. I say you send him one back that says every man, woman, and child could by a 50-gig Ipod, a pair of cheap seats Royals tickets, AND a latte.

Not bad for a guy who after a term in office lost an entire state in his reelection bid AND the District of Columbia.

Ken -- I don't want to oversimplify your position(s), because it's obvious you're putting a lot of thought into this, which is commendable. That being said, the point that this is different from a law that would permit free reign libertarian gambling, which has philosophical appeal to you, strikes me as a bit odd. It sort of reminds me of a hypothetical world in which chess, checkers, bridge, and backgammon were illegal, and you think they should all be legal. Then if a ballot initiative comes up to legalize checkers, you don't really like it, and you say, "Well, this isn't really what I'd support. It wouldn't make chess, bridge, or backgammon legal." I understand that it's more complex than that, but it sounds like there's an element of it, which strikes me as a bit counterintuitive.

Interesting breakdown in large part between camps that seem to view the question as, "Is there a compelling reason we should allow this?" versus "Is there a compelling reason we should prohibit this?" I'm typically (and here) in the latter group.

Among other problems, $85 billion divided by 200 million is $425.00, not $425,000.00 I mean, I'll take all four hundred dollar & change checks you wanna send me, but I'll be honest...like all those lottery winners say, it ain't gonna change my life all that much.

Maybe by a passed hand, a quantitative 5NT should mean, "You're not gonna believe I passed this stinkin' hand. Pass or bid 6, but if you're going pass, think again about bidding 6. Seriously."

Yeah, when the upgrade is from (essentially) "sub-invitational" to "game forcing" (or game bid) after opener's minimum rebid, that's a bit much.

The law recognizes varying degrees of culpability with respect to people's states of mind. While such a buyer is almost certainly negligent (essentially, "should have known better"), the brokers in many cases were reckless (essentially, "did actually know better, and deliberately disregarded it"), which is a higher state of culpability.

Your attorneys' screw-ups emphasize the point; how much more likely is an unrepresented home buyer to drop the ball? There's one idea off the top of my (your) head...no sales to unrepresented buyers. I think it's certainly stupid (or worse) for a broker to "guess at interest rates." From a legal standpoint, I think lack of income verification is certainly reckless. For adjustable rate mortgages, maybe a conspicuous print sheet showing what the payment will turn into if interest rates go up 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 3%, etc. in the next 1, 2, 5, 10 years...something like that.

Proving fraud is a tricky business, too.

In many cases, they didn't think much about it at all. In some/many cases, pretty much, yeah. Loans "on stated income" (i.e. don't ask don't tell...just put down a big enough salary so we can get it past the numbers guys) etc. Yes, those buyers have a definite hand in it; however, it's a complex and technical field in which buyers, particularly first-time buyers have very little expertise, and are dealing with people for whom it's a full time gig. Similarly, prosecuting attorneys have duties that defense attorneys don't have, and eminent domain attorneys representing acquiring agencies have duties that eminent domain attorneys representing property owners don't have. I think there's a strong case to be made for heightened duties here, as well. In addition to the complexity and the vast differential in specialized knowledge, there's a strong public interest (as we've recently seen) when it comes to widespread failed mortgages.

The reason for a good percentage of them, and the most readily avoidable ones, is that people were put into adjustable rate mortgages who were able to pay the monthly payments at the time, but had little to no margin for error, and couldn't make the payments when they increased. I didn't read Phil's comments to imply that brokers had been doing things that were illegal; I read them to say that the problem would be alleviated if the laws/regulations were changed such that they would be held to a higher standard in the future.

True. But there's a big difference between legalizing something and encouraging it. If you assume that all of the gamblers are finding other ways to play (e.g. going out of state or playing in illegal casinos) then it makes sense to legalize it so that it can be regulated and the tax revenue can stay local (and the gamblers who were going out of state will also save money on travel). But advertisements may also create new participants, who otherwise would have been saved from the addiction. Should the state become a pusher? Also, a lot of negative externalities of "illicit" activities is related more to their being illegal than the activities themselves. With respect to gambling, for instance, the illegal Texas home games were legendary -- and frequently robbed at gunpoint. No law, no security. Prohibition led in large part to the first crime wave of the last century. Now, people don't gun each other (and innocent bystanders) down over alcohol sales...but they do over drug sales. As long as (and in places that) prostitution is illegal, violence against prostitutes, risk of disease, etc. will be higher due to lack of regulation, and marginalization of prostitutes as criminals. None of that even touches the personal liberty or tax revenue arguments. There's a difference between "Activity X is bad" and "Criminalizing activity X is good."

I'm not a big fan of either side of the auction, but I'd give responder most of the blame. When 1NT gets pulled to 2♣ , opener is showing NT concerns, and they're presumably major suit oriented, since responder might have length in diamonds (as is the case here), but lacks it in the majors. Responder has 1/2 a stopper in both majors combined. I can see upgrading the hand with QJx in clubs after a rebid, and I can see getting agressive if the scoring is IMPs, but IMO it's a serious flaw that all his non-club stuff is in the same place.

Not to mention social responsibility for the people who lied on their mortgage applications (yes, those applications should have been scrutinized by the lenders) and now want to be bailed out of the mortgages they never should have gotten, while the responsible people who continued to rent & save scratch their heads and say "WTF?!"

You'd also be walking away from a particularly large tax deduction - home mortgage interest. Negative equity situations are particularly tricky, interesting, and problematic in my business - eminent domain. For the reasons Phil mentioned (and another one - to buy later, you'd have to come up with a down payment again, and in a stricter credit environment, depending on when you bought), making the payments and riding it out is the overwhelming preference of most people able to do so; eminent domain actions essentially created forced sale situations, though, and "riding it out" is no longer an option.