wyman

Finals win was fav event win, but semifinal was maybe the most exhilarating match win (scores tell the story -- down 51-3 after 1Q). http://i.imgur.com/hFRxZ.png

No, but it is certainly viewed as anti-American in embarrassingly large parts of the country. In any case, It took us a fairly long time before we had a black president, so even if Islam were viewed as less anti-US, I still think this -- like many other religions that are not prevalent here (e.g., Buddhism, Shintoism, heck even atheism) -- would be a huge barrier to election. Moreover, since Obama has repeatedly said he's not Muslim, this is a way of calling him a liar and unamerican at the same time. Yes, this should make you sick.

http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2012/11/06/reddit-user-captures-video-of-2012-voting-machines-altering-votes/ I'm sure this is not malicious at all, but it makes me long for the days of scantron (since we're on the topic of voting machines).

I actually think that the statewide constitutional amendment ballot initiative is rather interesting. Background: NJ Legislature passed a bill that changed the pension withholding from govt employees' paychecks. A judge or justice (I forget which) sued because NJ has a clause in the NJ constitution that says that the legislature can't change the compensation of sitting members of the judiciary. This argument held up through a few rds of appeals, so Christie is pushing for a constitutional amendment that allows the legislature to change the salaries of sitting members of the judiciary. My commentary: 1) I believe that it would be fine to increase the withholding from these paychecks. 2) I don't think that this is an issue that warrants a constitutional amendment, since these judges/justices will retire eventually, after which this is a non-issue until the legislature wants to change tack. This incentivizes the legislature to get "it" right the first time. 3) This is a small issue, not warranting an amendment, because the judiciary is a small fraction of NJ gov't employees. 4) Allowing the legislature to alter the compensation of sitting members of the judiciary compromises the checks and balances we have in place. 5) And this I believe is the most interesting point: Ostensibly, the Republican party should be against adding massive complexity to the lawbooks, and especially the constitution. We shouldn't be amending the constitution over small things. Yet, this is somehow important enough to CC that he's willing to push for it. This seems extremely strange to me and is an example of how Republican politics has (d)evolved. I voted against it for the reasons above, even though I agree in principle with CC on the matter. Additionally, in New Brunswick, we had a city-wide initiative to change from a mayor-appointed Bd of Ed to an elected BoE. Some political action group sent out a letter from the mayor with a glossy on the current BoE and the members' credentials and an appeal to reject this on the grounds that the initiative is a way for people who failed to be elected in local elections to backdoor their way into the political scene. Again, seems weird for a dem. mayor to argue against holding elections for such positions, but since it's usually a dem mayor... Again, while I agree that the BoE is fine, and the members are (for the most part) credentialed and qualified, it's insulting to me as a member of the electorate that he seems to think that we are incapable of electing a quality, non-partisan school board. So, on principle, I voted in favor of changing to an elected BoE system. But honestly, we as an electorate should be capable of electing a non-partisan national legislature that would put aside politics and act in the best interest of the voters. But I can't even type that sentence without laughing. So maybe the mayor has a point. Kind of makes me sad.

I thought it was pretty clear that he was referring to the two sides' caricatures of the opposition candidates (Obama as a Muslim socialist, Romney as a predatory venture capitalist). Maybe if you're subjected to the adverts, punditry, and "news" day in and day out, it is far clearer.

If this is a $300 bet on Romney PK, I'll be glad to take Obama on hrothgar's behalf. edit: assuming someone here can vouch for you, or we can escrow with someone here.

Actually he rounded it down to 4T, though the article I read (and cited) only attributed 4.9T to the Bush administration. But things would just be better if we'd attach sources to numbers.

Obama added $4T to the deficit? I think you are mistaken. Obama has lowered the deficit. When Bush left, it was appx $1.4T (FY 2009), and it is $1.33T (FY 2012) and $901B (FY2013). And it's the spread of information like this that totally infuriates me during political season. Misinformation actually changes votes. Maybe it's a means to your end, but it's immoral. Or maybe you don't have a solid understanding of what the word "deficit" means. Rounding, eh? The debt grew by about $5T during Bush's 8 years (~$4.899T according to this article from CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/). However, a few points: 1) Take a look at where the debt would be without the Bush tax cuts: (via Ezra Klein's Washington Post blog) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/28/republican-national-convention-the-one-graph-you-need-to-see-before-watching/ I find it really hard to blame Obama for that, though I do put a lot of blame in his court for not getting a budget deal done to undo those tax cuts via Simpson-Bowles (of course, Paul Ryan was ON that commission and voted against its findings, so I don't let the Romney camp off the hook either). 2) Bush left office with a massive deficit that included his tax cuts. The debt increased by nearly 100% during his 8 year term. To do that, you would need roughly an annual deficit that is 9% of the debt. First note that Obama has operated in the ballpark of this in years so far, through an incredible economic downturn. Second note that for FY2013, the requested budget is 901B. Let's say they go over and spend 1.1T, which would be usual. 1.1T is less than 7% of the debt, so at the current rate, he would not be increasing the debt at a rate near what Bush did, percentage-wise. I am not a huge Obama fan-boy, and I think Romney would make a fine president; he doesn't actually scare me at all. But Paul Ryan does, and the Republican party as a whole does, and that's enough for me to be voting for Obama again. Discourse is fine, of course, but misinformation is really not.

Our estimates are 7-10 days before power, hence also water, is restored. We are packing up and headed out of state to friends' houses for a few days. My folks live at the NJ shore and took a decent amount of damage to the house and a car; fortunately all of it was external (eg, siding ripped away, electrical damage, trees down away from the house). GL to everyone still dealing w the damage and to those in the Midwest just getting the storm now...

GL art

We watched transformers blow for about 3 hours. We have a very distant view of NYC and saw Freedom Tower go dark. As far as we can see, everything is pitch black. Reports from NYC are massive blackouts and flooding. Reports from the shore are far worse. This looks like it's going to be really ugly when it's all over, and I don't think it's going to be quick.

No power other than generator/emergency in my building in New Brunswick NJ. No water since that gets sent to our 14th floor apartment via an electric pump, and unlike the elevator, that pump is not deemed essential enough to warrant generator usage. There are common restrooms with running water on a lower floor, and we filtered a few gallons yesterday for drinking, so we are fine. We are hopeful that power will return soon, as we are on the same grid as a hospital and the train station. We made a bunch of food on Saturday, and we have beer and playing cards, so all in all we're in good shape now. We can see the Raritan River flooding from the window though, and there are mandatory evacuations in lower-lying parts of town. We are already harboring one refugee. Hope everyone else is doing as well or better and continues to do so thru the week. Stay safe and dry.

Yeah this hand has enormous odr but for me 2nd red/white I'm content with 2s.

AH: Did you miss that 2H is not necessarily hearts? OP: I would not move as west. Even if you don't have an agreement about whether 3H sets trump, responder certainly had 3S available if he had interest. Thanks opps!

Pass looks really attractive on hand 1. Maybe this is masterminding, but I don't think 3S does enough damage, and 4S is probably too rich r/w. I'd bid 2H natural on 2.

it's not. it's expressly disallowed. The X=canape (5m+4M), 2C = M's, 2D = M unspecified, 2M = M+m is typically called Woolsey, and the "multi" 2D is why it's disallowed. 7. DEFENSE TO: ... b) Natural notrump opening bids and notrump overcalls, except that direct calls, other than double and two clubs must have at least one known suit.

I always bid 1S with this hand too. I'm not sure if my partners do that, nor am I sure that they are aware that I do that, though.

So what were the other auctions? If RHO went nuts with the 2D bid, or if the field bid 2H because they have 45xx, or ... well, sucks but that happens, next hand. I don't think you lost this board on judgment unless it was in the POTH.

clubs, weak and not suitable for a 2nd seat red preempt. pass imo. Heck, this might even work out well for us if LHO feels like he has to do something with his super-max pass and if RHO took some 3rd chair liberties.

http://i.imgur.com/HJPDg.jpg

My experience has been that we travel as a team and tend to play team events. Rarely have we played pairs. [Also, I am not that good, so my phone is usually only an issue on day 1 of those rare pairs events.] edit: and no, the bridge players i consort with would pretty much never opt not to play an nabc+ event if they had the option.

Yeah my NABC's in school were: Detroit (I was at Michigan, no hotel) Las Vegas (I was a winning poker player, so I went for 10 days and splurged, but friends stayed at the Sahara) Boston (stayed with BunnyGo's parents) Houston (NAP's -- got stipend from the district which i used for airfare, and also had Marriott points from a summer job so used them for a hotel a half-mile or so from the site) DC (stayed in friend of friend's apartment on the living room floor [won GNTs though. Maybe I should go back to floor-sleeping...]) so really spent nothing on hotels at NABCs in grad school. And then I graduated and my next NABC was Louisville and I had a job. Also Louisville had a sane schedule and I was able to work from 8a-12p and play the 1p/7p sessions so I didn't have to use a lot of vacation. But that's a gripe for another post.

To get somewhat back on track, JB's thread about the deterioration of respect for the rules spawned a discussion about the laws not actually governing club games in practice: If we -- for a second -- take this as truth, and if we posit that young people are more interested in playing the game competitively than socially, we might conclude that younger people would be more apt to play tournament bridge than club bridge. One problem then is that traveling to tournaments is cost prohibitive, and another is that one learns the game, ostensibly, by playing in clubs. But if the good tournament players are abandoning clubs (because they are not fun) for tournaments, the younger players will be "learning" from only the fuddy-duddies in an environment not conducive to learning or to having fun.

I personally probably spent around 200 (but I did take the train), but I also have a real job, whereas some of my teammates during this tournament were still in school. I'm sympathetic to their plight. Really I'm only on the "poor students" thing because barmar mentioned that $4 was a drop in the bucket. The real reason I'm mad about the cell phone money is because I think it's ludicrous to charge anyone anything for this "service." I don't even think I was charged to check my cell phone the last time I was at a strip club... edit: errr "gentleman's club"

Young people who have no money don't stay in the host hotel, lol, nor do they pay $30/day to park at the host hotel. So on my short lunch break, now I have to walk 6 blocks to my hotel room, go to lunch -- which is inevitably near the playing site, back to the hotel, and back to the playing site for the afternoon. And do it all again on the dinner break. It's wildly inconvenient. edit: nor do they have spouses, nor friends who decided to tag along to spend 4-5 days at a bridge tournament but not play.