Lobowolf

Particularly #1. Good luck with that "Buy later when prices fall."

Well, yeah...and guess who supports higher taxes on cigarettes and who opposes them? Like the man said...a politician whose plan is to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's support.

My post was just intended to point out that the logical extension of "relay then 3NT would show stoppers in both suits" is not "direct 3NT denies stopper in either suit." From a "What should I do?" standpoint, on the given info, I like Fred's approach.

From a strictly logical standpoint, this is analogous to making a negative double of a 1S overcall. If a free 2H bid shows close to 10 points and at least 5 hearts, the negative double doesn't say "I have less than 10 points and I have fewer than 5 hearts." It might show a hand with more than 10 points and only 4 hearts, or it might show a hand with long hearts, but few points. Not (A+X) doesn't = Not A & Not X. Not (A+X) = Not A OR Not X. So even if it's true that 2NT then 3NT shows both hearts and spades, it shouldn't follow that a direct 3NT denies hearts and denies spades; it just denies (hearts and spades).

Sorry, but that's as ridiculous as saying it doesn't specify whether slow shows a stopper in their suit or in clubs. It shows a stopper in what they have shown. If it shows a stopper in what they have shown, then I'd assume that 3NT denies a stopper in what they have shown. They've shown "both majors," which would imply that a direct 3NT says, "I don't have 'both majors' stopped," but leaves open the possibility that responder has one major stopped. The point being that at some point, you have to go outside the parameters of the agreement. If direct 3NT = no major stopper and 2NT/3NT = both major stoppers, then you go outside the parameters of the agreement when you have only one major stopped. You can do that in the way that SoTired has suggested, and assume that that treatment is common enough to be considered standard by your partner, but you're still stepping outside of "Lebensohl - slow shows."

The agreement, though, doesn't specificy whether slow shows one or both.

At least in our state, bans against it, and limitations on it, are also a product of a "crusading" lawmaker who not coincidentally has Vegas or Indian casinos listed on his campaign contributions disclosure form. Or so I found out when checking out one former State Assemblyman in my journalism days. I have a strong feeling it was hardly a unique situation.

Well, yeah! Not to mention, with this state in a budget crisis, seeing the trail of taillights heading up I-15 on Friday and coming back on Sunday after having spent those dollars next door. But mostly the nanny state.

Or to be succinct, for a change, I never meant to originally imply that Pelosi was the reason it didn't pass; I meant to imply that her comments were stupid and sure didn't help, and (assuming you want a bailout to pass) I wouldn't have her do it again. In blackjack terms, I'd say it was about like seeing someone hit an 18 against a face card, bust, and then watching the dealer turn over a 20. The action didn't hurt; it just wasn't smart. And if I had a stake in the results, I wouldn't want him to do it again.

I think that an overwhelming percentage of the blame goes to anyone who changed his or her vote. I think that ultimately (to the extent that there's blame for the vote), the blame has to mostly go to the people who voted. However, particularly in view of the fact that most people give credit to those congress members who can bridge gaps and get bipartisan support for important measures, I think that some of the blame should fall on her as well; however, that blame is "theoretical," unless we know of a particular congress member who changed his or her vote because of her. I think she made a very bad (even reckless) choice; I don't know if that choice had an impact on the vote, though I suspect it didn't. Next time, it might.

I pretty much agree with Josh's post entirely, other than I wouldn't call opposition "absurd." More like a value judgment I don't ascribe to. I'm not a fan, in general, of criminalizing activities between consenting adults that don't directly and imminently harm third parties. Even if people don't fly in from all around for your slots, you'll probably pick up some drive-in traffic, if it's illegal in neighboring states. I think the economics of it are benficial (job creation, tax revenue, etc.), but that's a side argument to me. Primarily, for me, it's like one of the popular arguments in favor of legal gay marriage -- If you're opposed to gay marriage, don't marry someone of your sex. Similarly, if you're opposed to slot machines, don't play 'em.

I wouldn't go that far on the first vote...the margin was big enough that I don't think there were that many boneheads (if any). But if the vote's going to be close on Bailout 2.0, I'd rather she kept her mouth shut.

Pelosi is dispicible and so was her partisan speech. That being said, anyone from either party who changes their vote in either direction over something like that is an even-more-partisan whiny baby who deserves nothing but insults, mockery, and bad fortune for the rest of his or her life. So she gave a speech, big freaking deal, ignore her and move on. The vote impacts the entire economy! Agree. Then I'm confused, could you further explain your first comment? Are you saying that some House Republicans ARE the type of people I describe, given that the House Republican leadership blames (at least largely) Pelosi's speech for the bill not passing? I only know one House Republican well enough to answer, and for him I'd say no. But I think that given a possibly close and certainly important vote, why take chances? Lots of people are, or at least can be, quite petty. Yes, that's a particularly horrible quality (sic) in a Congress member; however, to the extent that we recognize and praise Obama's and/or McCain's ability to bring bilateral support to measures, and to the extent that it's an important quality in a leader, then I think the flip side is that divisiveness, particularly at a time like this, is rightly criticized.

How's it pan out if you allow for longer clubs without the strength to reverse? With respect to 2♦ making almost twice as often, what are the rough percentages? I'd guess if anything, opponents would be more likely to balance over 2♦, suggesting some semblance of a fit, so to the extent that's a consideration, I'd weigh even more in favor of rebidding 2♦.

Pelosi is dispicible and so was her partisan speech. That being said, anyone from either party who changes their vote in either direction over something like that is an even-more-partisan whiny baby who deserves nothing but insults, mockery, and bad fortune for the rest of his or her life. So she gave a speech, big freaking deal, ignore her and move on. The vote impacts the entire economy! Agree. I strongly expect a bailout to pass Thursday. The question isn't "Bailout?" It's "Which bailout?" While there is a time-critical element to the discussion, I don't think that a general need for a bailout should necessarily stampede people into a vote for any particular bailout. With respect to delaying the bailout and the hoped-for stability it will bring, I'm more P.O.'d that they're taking days off than I am that Bailout 1.0 didn't fly. Maybe there are procedural requirements that don't make it possible to work through? I suspect that if this were a private sector crisis, the key people in its resolution wouldn't have holidays off.

lol I'm a Mets fan living in L.A.

You mean the ones who all compare themselves to Kennedy, who cut taxes to stimulate a sluggish economy? If you want a bailout to PASS, then Pelosi should probably be barred from ever getting close to giving a pre-vote speech. I think that there'd be strong Congressional support for the proposition that "Significant government intervention (i.e. "bailout") is required." The question of any particular plan is a much harder sell.

IMO a strong market rally (post-bailout (check back Thursday)) makes it a race again; barring that, McCain is on the ropes.

It is a 2-sided coin, indeed. Reminds me of a semi-recent bailout of people who lived in a heavy mudslide area of Southern California and didn't have insurance. Yeah, you have to feel bad for the people whose houses got all but destroyed, but jeez, at the same time...why not attach a rider to the bailout plan that allows for spitting in the faces of the idiots who'd been paying their insurance premiums for years, knowing they lived in a high-risk area?

Ever heard the expression "A solution in search of a problem" ? It almost feels like Conservatives has an ingrained bias in favor of taxes cuts. They seem to trot taxes cuts out regardless of what issue is at hand. The Federal government is running a surplus - Better issue a tax cut The Federal deficit is running a deficit - Better issue a tax cut The US is dependant on foreign oil - More tax cuts are needed Wall Street is melting down: You guessed it - Tax cuts I don't find it at all surprising that the religious zelots on bulletin board also seem to be the ones who buy into this same type of mindless mantra regarding tax cuts And of course the flip side from the other side of the aisle...the "solution in search of a problem." As long as "problem X" can conceivably be remediated by money, we've got a solution! -- Take more money from "rich" people and pay for whatever you don't have. Oh, and remember me at election time.

So if you can still make your house payments, a decline in market value shouldn't bother you. With respect to tax cuts for the rich...well...to be fair, they ARE the ones paying the taxes.

Unless I'm misinterpreting the analogy, sounds like just a statement of fact.

Finally, someone gets the pun :( "The pun used to be considered the height of humor." -The Vampire Bill Don't tell me I'm the only one around here who watches Trueblood.

Also the antonym of virtue. See also: "vicious."

Used correctly, maybe, although the English are aware from contact with Roland and other Great Danes that the Norsemen speak our language far better than we do. But how could you misspell it? I take it you already know of tough and bough and cough and dough, but even sew.. "perogative" is about as popular as "definately."