I was intrigued this week when the Mohegan Indians floated the idea of Connecticut's two casino tribes fighting back against the expansion of gambling in Massachusetts with a new tribal-run casino along the Interstate 91 corridor, somewhere between Hartford and the northern state line.

A third Connecticut casino, at first blush, sounds like a good idea.

Massachusetts is busy developing new casinos that will not only keep their own residents gambling closer to home but are also intended to capture some business from northern Connecticut.

By most professional forecasts, this seesaw in casino fortunes will eventually kill a lot of Connecticut jobs and cost Connecticut a 25 percent drop in gaming revenues by 2017, when the new Massachusetts casinos go on line.

If that's the Massachusetts war plan, why shouldn't Connecticut fight back?

For that matter, why stop at trying to retain all the casino business that will soon start bleeding over Connecticut's northern border with Massachusetts? Why not let the tribes build a Bridgeport casino, too, casino number four for the state.

Careful readers who have been watching the development of the Connecticut casino industry over the years will remember when the Mashantucket Pequots competed in 1995 with Steve Wynn for a license for a commercial casino in Bridgeport.

Foxwoods Resort Casino was already a huge success, and the Mohegans were planning to open Mohegan Sun. Back then, the idea of casino gambling outside Las Vegas and Atlantic City was still very new.

The Pequots eventually beat out Wynn as the preferred developer for Bridgeport, but the Connecticut Senate rejected the plan, to the great consternation of then Gov. John Rowland, who had lobbied hard for the Fairfield County casino.

Some of the dynamics of a Bridgeport casino have changed since then, including the opening of New York gambling outlets, including a huge slots hall on the city subway line.

But Bridgeport remains an interesting market, accessible by commuter trains from New York and ferries from Long Island. And there are lots of sites to choose from in the development-starved city.

Bridgeport politicians were all on board in 1995, including then City Councilor Bill Finch, now the mayor.

"We have a lot of hopelessness in Bridgeport," Finch said in a 1995 public hearing on the Bridgeport casino plan, citing crime, unemployment and a dwindling tax base. "We need a big injection of hope. This is an injection of hope."

One might say the same thing today.

Indeed, any planning for expansion of gaming needs to have another careful public airing in Connecticut to be sure everyone is heard from. The path to avoid is the one that lawmakers took two legislative sessions ago, when they drew a plan for keno all over the state out of a hat at the closing hours of the session.

That obvious and pervasive expansion of gambling, literally in bars and restaurants all over, did not sit well with the public. And a repeal of keno, before it even got started, was easy.

I'm not sure the same public reluctance would surface for two more casinos, which most people could ignore if they wanted to.

Advocates for those with compulsive gambling problems should have their input in any lawmaking that would create new casinos in Connecticut, and more resources could be dedicated to prevention and treatment programs.

And yet I wonder exactly how much more harm could come from two new casinos in a state that already has two of the world's biggest.

As for reaching a saturation point for the business, it seems to me that's up to the people who want to build them to decide.

If the Mohegans and Pequots can find partners willing to invest in new Connecticut casinos, why stop them? It is their investment to lose.

I know some people in eastern Connecticut think a new northern Connecticut casino is going to kill jobs here and create more in the other end of the state.

That may be true. But the alternative is to lose jobs here and create them in Massachusetts. I like the first choice better.

There would also probably be some business synergy between new tribal Connecticut casinos and the existing ones. Presumably the tribes have reason to direct new customers from outlying areas to their larger and more established resorts in eastern Connecticut.

That won't be true if those players are going to Massachusetts or New York.

Stronger tribes with successful gaming businesses, even if they are located elsewhere, have to be good for eastern Connecticut, where the tribes' huge casino mother ships are permanently grounded.

It seems as though Americans have begun to shrug off casino expansion objections and are getting used to the idea of more gambling halls, often smaller and regional.

After all, a Springfield, Mass., casino that will soon be a reality was once turned down by voters there. The Connecticut Senate turned down a Bridgeport casino.

Times change.

Maybe it's like gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana. It's part of cultural transition that a more libertarian-minded country seems to be embracing.

This is the opinion of David Collins

d.collins@theday.com

Twitter: @DavidCollinsct