onoway

I am Canadian but that little bit at the end of my last post came as a result of listening to a news interview about what's going on in Hungary at the moment, which sounded very sad and scary.

Your first statement is NOT a fact and there is absolutely no reason to allow it any validity whatsoever. It is the ever increasing appetite for land caused by land degradation which is threatening wild and wonderful places, if that's what you mean. The desertification of land around the Sahara and other places can be reversed and made fertile, not all at once of course, and likely not all of it, but a lot of it and surprisingly quickly. It has been and is being done. The Sahara and others will be around until after you are gone if that is what's worrying you, just getting smaller rather than bigger every year. Sterile and abandoned farmland which has caused farmers to move on to "fresh" land can and is being restored, so it's no longer necessary to move to uncultivated land. The exercise now is to stop the degradation of the land which makes restoration necessary.Changes in attitude and agricultural practices will save the wild and wonderful places because they will not be needed, once we stop mining the soil. You have absolutely no clue about what I am saying if you think a commune has anything to do with anything, Is the concept of cooperation so lost that it is inconceivable? I'm not "wishing to return" to anything, I wish to avoid the future which seems to lie on the path we are following which several writers have envisioned. This is: most people living in city warrens,no privacy,little or no independence, activities closely monitored for "antisocial" behaviour or conversation, living on scientifically designed pseudofood, and drugged by the manipulation of the media - through a mixture of fearmongering and encouragement of obedient behaviour to authority - to believe this is the best way to live. Hitler did quite well with this format in Germany and he didn't have access to either the knowledge we now have about how to manipulate people, nor the technology to make it happen. Not that the future holds another Hitler, necessarilly, though it certainly could, but there are always people who never have enough power and never have enough wealth. They show up time and time again throughout history. Diversity is the hope of the future imo, and people living with dignity and self respect within the context of a larger society. Diversity is something which makes most governments unhappy as soon as it steps beyond the bounds of their control. A surprising (to me) number of people admire anthills and think human society ought to emulate them. I emphatically do not.

First of all, the goal is not to maintain subsistence farmers in a state of poverty. It is to help them learn better ways to use the land they have so it is able to produce more in a sustainable fashion and we now know how to do that, It is NOT via chemical agribusiness techniques but through systems such as permaculture and biodynamics which work with natural systems instead of being at war with them. Wars of any kind always cost. In the meantime, ever heard of barter? Governments hate it but it has been a viable means of providing for families what they need without requiring the money that buying stuff does. There's even a show about it on TV, the one time I watched it they supposedly bartered their way up from something worth $200 to a working kit plane. Even so, in the article I cited above, even on that miniscule plot of land they were given, they found that they were able to produce a surplus of product and sell it so they could send their kids to school and buy essentials they could not produce. It's exactly how it has always worked and indeed works now. When food production ceases for reasons such as drought or land degradation, then everything else fall apart. You may be able to produce your gizmos in your gizmo factory with robots but who are you going to sell them to, if people are starving and need food, not gizmos? Perhaps you should be specific about what sort of thing you are talking about when you speak of leisure and social activities. Concerts? Sports? I can't imagine why you would think that because people have minimal money they are cut off from leisure and social activities. Possibly because you are stuck thinking inside the box of what you consider is essential for social activities, such as perfectly zambonied ice in an arena and lots of expensive equipment to play hockey or expensive instruments needed to make music? Every culture I have ever heard of has music and theatre and sports of one sort or another. If, as an example, they want to experience the music of other cultures, poverty is not always a barrier to an imaginative mind. Quite probably the opportunities for PASSIVE recreation such as going to movies would be less accessible. I'm not convinced that being unable to spend money and time watching Wrath of the Titans is something to lose sleep over. How many gas jockies or people working at Walmart can afford to play hockey, or go to a concert which will cost them maybe two days wages, wages already earmarked for rent or food or other essentials? Should they somehow be rescued from the lack of unlimited social interaction that wealthier westerners enjoy? If not, why not? Could it be because they don't have anything that rich or multinationals want, like land? How many people living in tent cities or poor city neighborhoods have great social activities and leisure time? Why are the Food Banks in virtually all North American cities stretched to their limit and beyond? If these people could at least raise some of their own food then those resources could go to support other needs. I sent this TED Talk about an architect in Texas helping people build houses out of recycled materials to someone with a very comfortable lifestyle. She was clear that nothing about it would ever apply to her, which is probably true. Your comments seem to me to have as she does, a somewhat privileged view of the world which is so far from the reality of so many people's lives today it's difficult to see how to bridge the gap. I suppose that's what the Wall Street protests were about.

wow, where to start? I would suggest you provide some evidence that those slum dwellers have any other place to be and that the vast majority of them would not leap at the chance to HAVE a small plot of land somewhere. I have read of people in refugee camps trying to nurture a tiny garden in even those most difficult of circumstances. Also, the idea that a small farm family would want or need to be so isolated that they would necessarilly be providing their own clothing dishes books etc is totally bizarre to me. It seems to me that everything I have ever read or heard about people who have worked with subsistence farmers is that they consistently comment on the remarkable degree of social interaction they enjoy. Ever heard of barnraising? As far as that goes, I grew up on what would today certainly be considered a subsistence farm for North America. Certainly there was very very little money; once to the point that my mother sold most of her hair to a dollmaker to pay some bills.(Yes I know there is a story that goes something like that but this actually did happen in my family) My parents played bridge regularly, the whole family went to square dances and other community events, there were lots of beach picnics with neighbor's families. I learned to play badminton in the community hall, I was involved with live theatre and music festivals, and I got at least one or two books for every birthday and Christmas. Perhaps not typical but certainly not unusual either. Obviously not everyone will want to farm, some will want to work with leather, some want to work with clay, others to build or fix things, some like to entertain, some to design and make clothes,and still others would be shopkeepers. Etc. ALL of these things require some space. Some will be better at it and have more pride and work harder than others, just as in anything anywhere. So perhaps they can't afford Pravda and have to settle for something other than a Lamborghini or a 100 foot yacht. So what? Certainly the majority of people in industrialized nations can't either, In fact, many these days can't even afford the house they're in or the car they drive.They can't pay back the cost of a very expensive education which has ended up not even rewarding them with a job. This is better? As far as not having sufficient arable land, in spite of busilly paving over or building on the best land there is still a whole lot of productive land around. Someone once pointed out that if only the pastures for pleasure horses was put into food production, the amount that could be produced would increase by an order of magnitude. In WW2 many families had Victory gardens in their yards which helped a whole lot to keep families healthy and fed in times of rationing and shortages. Now in some places it is illegal to grow potatoes along your own front walk. What's up with that? OTOH there was a TED talk some time back which detailed the plans of a group in the States which is reclaiming derelict strip malls and parking lots into green spaces. Also, Will Allen of Growing Power in Milwaukee Wisconsin (US) has demonstrated it is possible to grow immense amounts of food on a very small area of land, but it is labour intensive. He grows an estimated million pounds of food annually on 3 acres of land, all organically, without any chemical inputs whatsoever. He has turned his business into a nonprofit and spends much of his time speaking to groups around North America about what he is doing and how he is doing it. The thing is, though, if you are not going to use poisons and chemicals, then you need people. There WON'T be enough arable land if we continue the drive toward industrial agriculture, and the cost of feeding a family will increase drastically, along with increasing pressure on water tables to keep up. Did you know that depression is considered to be an epidemic in North America and gardening is considered one of the top non medical treatments for it? As far as having nothing to do, you clearly haven't spent much time if any on a small farm. :D In any case, what about the young people rioting in Spain France and Britain in the last few years because of no jobs? The chronic whine of kids complaining about having nothing to do except play video games or watch TV has become a truism for those kids not being rushed from organized activity to organized activity. Farm kids learn early NEVER to say they're bored, as there is always some sort of work available for a bored kid. I am certainly not suggesting that the life of a subsistence farmer is easy, many of those in the " developing" nations have a very hard life. BUT. Years ago, the Cherokee were removed from their lands and forced to march on a trek now called the "Trail of Tears" because so many died. The government of the day said that the Cherokee went willingly and would be much better off in the place they were being sent. All conscious, despicable lies. We and other "have" nations are continuing this practice in other countries now and it is more than time we stopped. It is not helpful to the farmers, the planet or us to move these farmers off their land. It's simply theft.

There is a pretty strong case to be made that it is NOT the subsistence farmer who is forcing resources away from education and toward environmental remediation. The amount of pollution being dumped into the sky and water from industrial practices are far and away more damaging on a daily basis. I don't know of any examples of subsistence farmers poisoning the ground water, rivers and lakes with agricultural runoff such as is the case in North America at least. There is also the research that shows as population density increases the incidence of crime and socially aberrant behaviour increases, at least in rats..mothers abandoning their young, unusually aggressive behaviour within the group etc. One example of how stereotypes of the subsitence farmer may not exactly fit the reality is this quote from a longer article from the New York TImes http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/what-a-little-land-can-do/ Subhankari Nag lives in the village of Burdwan, West Bengal, about 70 miles from Kolkata. Until this year, the Nags — Subhankari, her husband Uttam, and their eighth-grade son and sixth-grade daughter — had spent their entire family life squatting on other people’s lands. They had so little space that Subhankari even had trouble finding a place to cook meals. Uttam was a day laborer on other men’s farms, earning very little. What was worse than his wages, he said in a phone interview through a translator, was the affront to the family’s dignity. “When I was out working, people would come to my children and wife and say ‘this is not your place. Your father cannot buy land for you — go away.’” The Nag family did go away. In the very beginning of 2012 they moved to a plot of land given to them by the West Bengal government, a few hundred meters from where they had been living. It has a water pump, and electricity is on the way. They now have a garden where they grow papaya, eggplant, pumpkin, cucumber and other vegetables. They have two cows and three goats; the family has added milk, cheese, vegetables and fruit to its diet. The government gave the family trees to plant. Subhankari has space for a loom. “As a village girl, I knew the work of weaving clothes and kitchen gardening,” she said. “But I couldn’t do it. Now I make 200 rupees a week weaving (about $3.60), and the garden, cows and goats bring extra income.” She spends most of the money keeping her children in school. The Nags still live in a tiny thatch hut. “But it doesn’t matter,” said Subhankari. “It’s really thrilling to stay in my house. I am confident nobody will come to say bad words to my children and ask us to go away.” I believe Abraham Lincoln said that "The greatest fine art of the future will be the making of a comfortable living from a small piece of land". He may well have been right. Not for everyone of course, but for a lot of people who admit that they hate their jobs and live dissatisfied lives. How ecologically sensitive are the slums of the cities being ever more crowded with people who cannot find work? How many cities are still dumping garbage and effluent into the ocean, out of sight out of mind? Perhaps the problems of the industrialized society, educational and otherwise, ought to be fixed before we chase more subsistence farmers off their land for the benefit of the rich and multinationals.

The interview was very interesting but a couple of things come to mind. Hans Rosling has a series of TED Talks on population, the last one He maintains child survival rates are the key to population control; that when children live, there is no need to have so many of them, in a nutshell. The speaker in the original video missed a somewhat crucial point when he talked about the water table levels falling in India and leading to drought and potential famine. That was directly connected to the widespread switch to GMO crops and has led to a very large area of India now being designated by the Indian Government as a GMO free zone.This whole thing was dealt with by Dr Vandana Shiva in her Melbourne Peace Prize talk in 2010.( I think it was 2010) The land..and the water table.. can and will recover when it stops being abused by chemical and mechanical stress. Work done by Geoff Lawton and others have successfully and spectacularly brought land back into production using permaculture techniques. One of the first and best known of these projects can be found on You Tube under Greening the Desert, where Lawton headed up a project which brought land near the Dead Sea back into productivity. (The video is long,has two parts, and has a lot of extraneous stuff in it; later ones were better, but this was the first big project afaik.) The people involved with such projects maintain that changes in agricultural practices will be the key to the survival and prosperity of future generations. Presently industrial agriculture tends to treat the earth as enemy to be forced into producing food, in much the way some ancient tribes used to beat the earth with sticks every spring so it would grow crops for them. Permaculture techniques have rather dramatically demonstrated that working with an understanding and sympathy with natural systems is not only much more productive but also uses minimal resources, and as the earth heals, springs, creeks and wells will also recover. As an aside: It was very interesting to hear him say that soap operas have been hugely effective in changing people's attitudes. And yet it seems relatively few people will entertain the idea that a steady and apparently addictive diet of murder and mayhem on TV and video games has an effect on society. Seems to be a bit of dissonance there...

story on the news that a bunch of schools already are sending the teachers to gun classes to learn how to shoot. Is it legal in the States to carry handguns around in your pocket or will this mean that teachers will be writing on the chalkboard with one hand while having a death grip on a rifle with the other? It might add a whole new dimension to the emotional response of having to tell the teacher you haven't done your homework or don't know the expected answer :ph34r:

People you have barely met who feel free to try to involve you in their personal dramas to the point of making a choice necessary;1. to be rudely direct (since anything less is ignored) and hope their weirdness doesn't then become directed at you, or 2. to try to walk a thin and stressful line of being polite while hanging onto some degree of distance with a death grip. This means continuing to be subjected to painful play by play recaps of everything they are going through ad nauseum. (Of course nothing constructive ever ever comes out of any of it, that's clearly not the point.) It's nice to have the forums to vent in, thank you BBO!

My experience with computers is not that they are fully predictable..I Have had them turn themselves on for no particular reason, freeze up, relay me into places I didn't intend or ask for. People have demonstrated it is already relatively simple for people to shanghai cars with just the computers already in them..they can make them speed up, brake, turn, stop suddenly etc., indeed take over complete control of a vehicle they are not even in. It's probable nobody would ever want to do that to the car you or I are in, at least intentionally. Does that give you a sense of security? Also, it is hardly reasonable to take the worst of one scenario and the best of the other and compare. Most of us fortunately don't ever have to contend with drunk drivers. Perhaps part of the solution is to make driving drunk carry such penalties that it simply stops being an issue. A drunk who kills someone should perhaps be automatically convicted of murder, for example, and no tolerance for people trying to offload responsibility onto hapless bar waitresses.

Just listened to an interview about self driving cars. The thought is that human drivers will eventually be limited in the roads they are allowed to drive on so they don't damage the autonomous cars which would be the only ones allowed in heavy traffic areas such as downtown areas or freeways. I tend to be distrustful and prefer to control my own vehicle, thanks very much. Engineers just completed a billion dollar bridge in BC which in the month it has been open has been directly responsible for multiple accidents, apparently more than 70 in one day last week. Building bridges is NOT a new concept and they clearly didn't get it even remotely right, although it is a most attractive structure. The idea of riding in an autonomous vehicle charging down the road at 100 KPH 10 meters from the bumper of the car ahead of it doesn't inspire. OTOH it would be a boon for people who cannot drive for one reason or another, and allow people to live where they preferred to live instead of being restricted by access to transportation. Are autonomous cars inevitable? If so, to what degree?

About 8 years ago I ran across a series of the Roy Rogers TV shows. Never having seen them before I watched one story series. It was remarkable to see that he did NOT go for his gun when strongly provoked but remained cool and self possessed. When eventually he was pretty much forced to shoot, he didn't shoot to kill but to disarm, which was always successful, of course. It would now be considered hopelessly naive but it made me somewhat nostalgic for a different society than we now enjoy.

The thing I find unfortunate is that as far as I can see, atheists in general are totally unable to comprehend the need of some if not most people to find something outside of themselves to give their lives structure and meaning. Some people are able to cope comfortably with the concept of their lives ultimately being of no more significance than that of a starfish or a dung beetle or pigweed in terms of meaning, others might be driven to despair by the idea. They need to see a point to it all. It's still incomprehensible to me how university educated, intelligent people would have committed suicide to go leap onto the comet's tail a few years back, except in that it shows how desperate people are to believe in something more than themselves to give their existence focus. Telling such people they should not need anything more is like telling someone they don't need anything other than Wonder bread to live on, a sterile,alien, unworkable concept. A side note: I read years and years ago about people who went to Africa to do whatever they went to do there. The ones who denied being remotely superstitious and snorted derisively at those who took the "mumbo jumbo" of witch doctors and tribal leaders seriously, apparently were usually the first to succumb when informed of a ceremony which attacked them. Possibly food for thought, suggesting that respect for the belief systems of others is rarely misplaced, even if not shared.

What a heart wrenching story. The stats about people with mental illness now being tossed into jail rather than given some sort of help/care is all too true in Canada as well. I used to work with emotionally disturbed kids and it is humbling now to think about how much easier it was for us with a cohesive staff and programs to support the kids and each other. Also, the intake was limited by both age (pretty much between 9 and 12) and those the admin felt we could help, and we had very few kids as severely affected as her son. As far as I know, hospitals or jail were the only other options for out of control kids. Although we had a very high rate of success in helping these kids reintegrate successfully into schools and community, the program was shut down by the provincial government years ago as a means to help balance the budget. It's horrifying to think of people like the writer trying to cope without any support for her or the child or the other family members. Perhaps she is right and attention to helping victims of mental health issues is a more urgent item on the agenda than gun control. Unfortunately, people can't see the damage, only the result of it, so it's difficult to convince politicians they would be getting a good return on their investment by dealing with damaged people, especially kids, before they reach tipping point. The NRA is a very powerful and supposedly rich organisation, perhaps they should be involved in helping set up programs for severely disturbed kids as they are right, if nobody pulls the trigger the gun won't go off. If they want unlimited access to guns then perhaps they should be partly responsible to see that people don't grow up to use them so tragically. Turning schools into armed camps with Wyatt Earps roaming the corridors is not an acceptable solution.

There is a WORLD of difference between kids dressing up with cowboy hats and capguns and guns that look so real now that even the police are unsure if they are the real thing or not when confronted with them. One is clearly a fantasy game and the other not so much. There are two problems that spring to mind, one is that fantasy games and videos especially are trying to blur the distinction between fantasy and reality more and more. Children only grow into the understanding of which is "reality" and which not, some may develop this later than most and some may never develop the ability to be really sure. Characters in soap operas get thousands of letters warning them of some twist in the plot which is going to cause their character trouble or that so and so is double crossing them or some such. Letters written by adults who have got so wrapped up in the fantasy they don't remember (or know?) it IS fantasy. This is just one simple example. The other is that way back in the 70's there was a study done with random groups of kids playing a two rooms where everything - all the toys and so forth - was as absolutely identical as possible except for what was playing on the tv in the background (neither playing loudly so as to demand attention.) One had violent programs showing and the other did not. The room with the violent tv program on in the background spawned very different behaviour, much more aggressiveness, aguing and fights. I think it's unfortunate to say the least when adults don't remember that children don't come equipped with the same understanding of the world that adults do and must grow into it. Too many regard kids as just small adults and they aren't. It's asking too much of them and an abandonment of adult responsibility imo. When a child has seen something like 18000 murders on tv and in video games by the time he or she is a teenager, is it really such a wonder that some kids end up thinking that violence and murder is a viable way to deal with problems? As far as that goes, whole governments suffer under the same delusion. For sure people used to have guns but they used to know how to use them, because then they were a tool just as a tire iron is a tool. They did NOT have guns which would spit out a whole bunch of bullets with one press of the trigger, or hollow point bullets which blossom inside the target to make a bigger exit hole than entrance, so a shooter can be really sloppy and still be sure the target is going down. (Admittedly those are now illegal in some places, for whatever that's worth.) There is certainly no question kids understood the difference between their capguns and the rifle in the corner by the door ready to nail a coyote after the chickens. Except for some few, those days are gone. Now guns for most people, including most hunters, guns are a toy, really, just as skiis or jazzed up 4x4 is. They justify guns for hunting but if everything is added up most hunter pay more for their moose meat than it would cost them to buy steak at the butcher shop, as dedicated hunters will often cheerfully admit. To say that a hunter needs an automatic of any sort to hunt is a disgrace, imo. Bow hunters don't have the option of spraying bullets around like room freshener and they manage quite well to bring in the meat. But they have to be close enough and sure enough of what they are shooting and where, unlike hunters who wander the woods shooting cows and horses, occassionally each other or themselves, and sometimes even a vehicle, secure in the knowlege there is always another bullet if that one didn't work. Hunters can use scopes so they can easilly see and shoot something 1000 yards or more away. Some scopes are equipped with infrared so hunters can see/hunt at night. If they STILL think they need more than one bullet then imo they ought not to be allowed to hunt at all because they don't care enough to develop the skill to make sure the first one is a killing shot.

A lot of people are rabid about the right to bear arms as much because they don't trust the government as for protection against bad guys. If you read the survival blogs that is very very clear and likely there are way more people who privately agree. You're never going to get guns away from fearful people.

according to the police here (where it happened in Kelowna) it was a house party. The victim is 18 so it's quite possible that the house was owned/rented by young adults and no parents were involved at all. It's unlikely there will be a lawsuit. Canadians don't automatically leap to sue quite as often as people do in the States. Since the two men have been charged and are likely to be spending a good deal of time in jail or some such, a lawsuit would probably not prove very profitable to anyone but the lawyers anyway. Well maybe it's true that almost anything could do it, but the point is that frequently they have said exactly what it was that triggered them. There is even a term for it "copycat killings". Perhaps without the movie, or video or TV show they would not have been "triggered" at all. Some people can handle different types and degrees of stress and stimulation which are simply entirely beyond other people's ability to cope. There has been a huge (and growing) rise in the incidence of autism, which I understand involves an inability to adequately filter and manage stimulation. Autism is one end of the spectrum, from his comments I suspect Barmar might be typical of those on the other. What happens to those who are on the vulnerable end but aren't clearly autistic? What if those people already have problems with social interaction? (As apparently the shooter did) It may be difficult for most people to understand but some sorts of stimulation which give them a pleasant buzz may compel a physical reaction/behaviour in others. If that is combined with antisocial images/behaviour they relate to and there are weapons handy..it could lead to the sort of thing that happened. It's impossible to know but it is a possibility. It seems facile to suggest media has no role to play, especially media which is consciously designed to affect people emotionally.

We have just had several banks and credit unions downgraded by Standard & Poor apparently because Canadians are suddenly found to be carrying too much credit card debt, and it supposedly needs to come down. So it would appear that the money people, whoever they are, are working it both ways. Seems a little like a shell game from here.

It was disconcerting to hear the news report that this was the second worst school shooting in American history, as though there was some sort of importance to that statistic. I wonder sometimes if the media has a role in the seeming acceleration of nutjobs rampaging through crowds of innocents. The other day there was an interview with the actor who plays the serial killer who acts as a good guy by day and kills at night. The interviewer pointed out there is a convicted serial murderer in Canada who said he had been "inspired" by the show and taken the character as his model. It's worrisome to think that some crazy person hungry for some sort of fame however gained might now be "inspired" to try to beat the record of most children murdered at one go. It's appalling and very very sad that children now have to be trained in such things as how to behave in lockdowns as a normal part of school life. If the education system is broken in terms of academic achievement it seems that both the education system and society in general is entirely broken when such training and scans for weapons at school doors is considered normal. Another event almost equally unbelievable happened in BC a few days ago; a teenager at a party passed out on the kitchen floor, another "guest" poured accelerant on him and lit him on fire while a third "guest" videoed the whole thing. The teen is alive, but with massive burns. The police said that videos showing kids setting themselves or others on fire are readilly found on the internet. (I took their word for it.) It may be a truism that every generation says that they don't understand the next one but surely somehow we have gone seriously astray somewhere. Seems to me that teaching kids how to behave in lockdowns, scanning for weapons at school doors and providing counsellers for kids after calamitous events is like treating cancer with aspirin.

I like 2♦ waiting as it keeps the way as clear as possible for declarer to get his hand out there. Saying responder has an ace or a king somewhere seems somewhat less helpful as it doesn't tell declarer WHERE,so seems more of a distraction than anything. If declarer tells where his strongest suit is then responder can then see if his points are actually going to be of any major help or not. Gave up on 2♥ negative when it seemed as though I always ended up as responder with a hefty 5+ card ♥ suit, so it became a problem. That said, the second neg cheapest minor has also sometimes been a problem when I've had semi decent ♣suit as the only biddable suit in my (responder) hand, but it isn't good enough to mention off the top. So still looking for a way to show a bust hand that isn't a pain in the neck.

I use private for skill level because sometimes I play fairly decently at what I've been told is advanced level and other times I might make stupid silly mistakes that would embarrass any intermediate. Also, I don't play as many conventions that most people seem to play, but stick to a bunch that seem to come up enough to be regularly useful. It seems pretentious to sit opposite a player with multi and Walsh and all sorts of other things on their profile and claim to be advanced when I don't know half of the conventions on their profile. The most useful thing I have found is to look for partners who claim to play 2/1 rather than sayc and to look at what conventions they play. I have seen NO TRANSFERS in big black letters on a number of sayc profiles claiming to be advanced players, and feel doubtful. OTOH I do use my real name and country and like to have an idea where people are from.For example, if someone is from Malasia or Bulgaria or Turkey (or even Quebec!:() etc.,they may not understand English as well as most Americans, so knowing that might help avoid misunderstandings. I dislike playing with people who refuse to admit to having a name or anything on their profile at all, it feels like a sort of oneupsmanship tactic."Guess what I play, ha ha you got it wrong." With the number of people on BBO it's hard to imagine that anyone could be readilly identified by a first name and a country unless the name was exceptionally unusual, in which case they could simply choose a different one to play under.

I'm talking about the arrow at the top left of the screen. If I forget and use it it almost always kicks me out of the Forums. ~~~~~ later udate post~~~~ Well, now it isn't doing it.. it kicked me out twice this morning as usual but now it's working fine

You would rebid the 5 card ♣suit, Ken, rather than mention either of the 4 card majors? Wouldn't the odds suggest I am more likely to find three of a major rather than clubs in p's hand if only because there is one more of them out there for p to have? Would you rebid that if I opened 1♣ instead of 2? You got the scenario exactly right; 2 diamonds would have been waiting, and I understood by his jump that he had a long decent diamond suit. We just disagreed on what to do about it. Thanks all for your comments.

It would be so nice if clicking on the back button in the forums didn't kick you out to a "page has expired" notice. It's a minor thing for sure, but a niggling annoyance esp if you are at the bottom of a long page and want to get back to the forum title or go to another thread. Am I missing something or is it really necessary to scroll back up the page to the title of the thread and then move out? Maybe there's a trick I haven't yet found, or everyone else pays more attention and never forgets not to use the back button, but this is my whine for today.:)

the hand came up in a casual table of people who all knew each other but very seldom had played together. It led to somewhat heated feelings of frustration :) so was redealt, unfortunately before I saved it. However, the question came up, when should a 2♣ opening be used? My hand as best as I can remember ♠ AKQx ♥AKQx ♦0 ♣KQJxx. I opened 2♣ and my p responded with 3♦ as he had a seven card ♦suit with most of the top honors and no points outside. I pulled to 3nt and he rebid 4♦. After that I dont remember how it went except we ended up in 6♦ which would not make. 6nt would also fail. I was informed that I should never open 2♣ with a three suited hand. So if you should never use the bid for single or two suited or three suited hands then what use is it? And what should the bid be for such a hand, in that case? If 2♣ is a reasonable bid and if p then responds 3♦ waiting, what should the rebid be? Adnittedly I had/have no real idea how to bid the hand...the only part I had felt relatively sure about was the opening bid!

doesn't taste that great but plain baking soda works.