olegru

We agreed to play the second part this week. Hopefully soon. Knowing the deadline would help.

The average temperature in the hospital is 98.6F Half patients are already dead, half has hyperpyrexia but according stats hospital is perfect. :)

gordontd vs olegru the first half, http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:36f4d497.68d1.11e6.8e99.0cc47a39aeb4-1471915846&u=olegru frank0, thanks for explanation

gordontd vs olegru played the first half, but I have no ideas how to find link to our match. Could somebody help me with instructions?

My apologies, I should not generalize. My experience in discussions with people who proclamate themselves as liberals makes me to think that many of them cannot tolerate right of other people to have different opinion. Of course it does not mean that all liberals are like that. I was wrong to put phrase way I put it. Thanks for correction. By the way, here is a post that I had in mind then commented about liberals and labeling.

Now I am agree with every word. If human activity is a presumable cause for future catastrophe we have no choice but act today based on current knowledge and current assumptions. In a same time we must continue research to make sure our assumptions are correct and our resources are not wasted in wrong direction. What I found unacceptable is eagerness of liberals to put labels on people who dare to question common unproven believes. (Sorry, all above have nothing to do with Trump. I have no ideas about his position towards climate change and not really interested to learn more. Somehow I don't think there is a connection between what he is saying and what he is planning to do.)

I agree with it with small deviation. I would like to base my believes on scientific proofs, not on scientists believes. There is no doubt and there is huge volume of scientific proofs of global warming, but when it comes to the claim that it caused by humans situation is much worse. As a main proof of that fact usually referred the meta-data analysis of scientists opinions performed by social science researcher.

It is true. 97% of climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming. By the way, not less then 97% of priests believe in existence of God. Could we consider it as a proof or closer look maybe useful?

My apologies. Started to play but had a router problem in the middle of the tournament.

Now we know how exactly Trump planned to force Mexican pay for the wall. They will build it themselves to prevent huge illegal emigration from USA after Trump became President. ... And I heard Canadians thinking about wall too. ;)

I would like to join. Thanks

Sorry, I was not explicit in the original post. By director's opinion the offender was not aware that the irregularity could damage the non-offending side by any way. The idea that one of the opponents could play the false card in order to trick his partner into the correct play is beyond her imagination. Even attempt to explain how non-offending side was damaged the most probably would fail on both Declarer and East. I don't think law 23 is applied here. Sorry, old joke The one of the reason do not report irregularity was the simple fact that as a playing director I had nobody to report. All what I found appropriate was to ask the declarer to make sure she plays cards only when it is her turn to play.

In the middle of the hand West on lead and he aware that the rest of the ♠ suit distributed as: ....……..10x QJ……...........……Kxxx .....……..x West needs his partner to overtake his card and return to another suit. East is a very weak player, who is not able to figure out anything by himself. So West plays the ♠J in hope that East will place ♠Q with a declarer and took trick with ♠King. After it East would have ~43% chance to find the correct return. (7 cards left, 3 in the right suit ...… ) Declarer, player the same caliber as East, waving his partner to play and placing his small spade on the table before East played the card. East, seeing that partner’s ♠Jack will hold the trick, happily plays the small spade. Complain about irregularity in that company would be absurd, but I am still curious what law says about it.

I guess we are on the same page. :) If there were a sane Republican running I would give him my voice. Trump is the only person who made me seriously consider voting for Democrats, but I cannot see Clinton as a trustworthy candidate too. Who is left for me? :( By the way, when I saw the "republican" candidate Trump the first time I thought that he was hired by team Clinton to destroy the Republicans as the only way for her to be elected. (I am republican, so world only in the last sentence could be gross overstatement)

Well, does not it makes you think that your own political positioning underlies your position towards the Trump more than trustworthiness of the person. Or you think that only Democrat supporters have a monopoly to be objective? ;)

I guess you took my comment separate from the part of discussion I participated. To check the trustworthiness of Trump Ken (kenberg) suggested to think if you are ready to trust him own money in business. I replied that I dont think any top level politicians will pass that test. Winston (Winstonm) suggested Hilary as a politician who could trust. My reply was: He asked me to clarify and those stats is my answer. I never said I trust Trump more than Clinton. As a matter of fact, I dont. I also think that Hilary more trustworthy than Lotan Fisher, Claudio Nunes and other couple of thousands people around the world. I see your point. We need to choose the less evil. However, I still cannot force myself to vote for Clinton based only on the fact that she is better than Trump. I know in todays polarized America the third force have no chance, but I am still going vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson. Do you have stats from other top-level public servants to base your opinion that 27% of lie by Hilary is a good score? My gut feeling that one proven lie out of every four claims is worse than unacceptable, but if you have data to support your opinion, I can accept that I am wrong in that regards. By the way, I think that comparison for lie rating of Clinton and Trump is comparison apples and oranges. From one side are lies told by high-level public servant, many of them concern her duty as a public servant and lying about them is a borderline crime. From the other side are lies told by a person in a short period during the process of election; time there some level of lying is expected. It does not make Trump anywhere near the acceptable candidate, it just demonstrate that article in NY Times made in a way to benefit Clinton. Lets look at The PolitiFact scorecard for Clinton cited by NYT: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ I am not expecting 100%, but there are many numbers below 100 that bigger than 22. I also would expect a normal lawyer be able do not cross the line below "Half True" statements too often.

Any more questions?

15 years ago being a new American I studied English in Riverside language school. (By the way, I love that school.) One day we discussed the stereotypes about emigrants from different countries and somebody said that Russian Americans are much less tend to trust compare to other Americans. I found that observation to be very true. Sorry, in my list of politician who I would not trust even to hold a bag with my dog’s droppings, Hilary is on the third place. Trump is on the second.

But is there are any top level politician who would pass that test?

Well, according Guardian it was not Trump, but somebody named Roger Stone who said it. According Wikipedia he left the Trump campaign on August 8, 2015, so you cannot blame Trump for saying that.

Theory is sweet.

As a person who have lived noticeable part of his life in socialistic country I am terrified (not sure if this word is strong enough to express my feelings) by this.

Person with proven poor judgment borderline to crime? Seems like our expectations are so low that it is not even funny.

Not sure who said "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil." I believe both Satan or Cthulhu will insist they are lesser evil, especially if we have to choose between them two.

Hit the spot.