Trinidad

Nice that you reply. You are reading the laws correctly. But can you now also tell where it says when declarer can call a card from dummy (and when opponents can start playing) or when dummy is supposed to have finished the spreading of the hand? After all, that was the key question that I asked from SB. Don't tell me that "everybody understands" (like Barmar and Vampyr), because everybody - except for SB - does indeed understand. We all understand because we know what bridge looks like. However, for the SB bridge is defined by the Laws and the Laws only. So, normal people I treat how they would like to be treated: I would be very understanding... but normal people wouldn't even get the idea of asking for a ruling in such a situation. And SB I treat how he would like to be treated: By taking the Lawbook literally. SB wouldn't want it any other way ("is there any other way?"). In this case, it is obvious that dummy hadn't yet finished putting his hand down in accordance with law 41D (otherwise the cards would have been in order of rank, wouldn't they?). The fact that the other players started playing before he was finished is not dummy's fault. Poor dummy! He is supposed to play the cards that declarer calls, keep track of the play to be able to quit the tricks correctly and continue spreading his hand, all at the same time! No wonder it took him four tricks, after the initial confusion, before he caught up. It must have been quite an unpleasant experience. Perhaps declarer and opponents should be penalized under law 74A2, but I'll let them off the hook with a warning. (I know: SB thinks that I am too lenient.) Rik

Proper polling is pretty difficult. I think that NBO's put way too much emphasis on polls, without realizing that formulating a proper polling question is difficult and interpreting some of the answers is even more difficult. As an example: You describe the situation, give all the boundary conditions that you deem necessary, including all the meanings of the different options and ask: "What would you bid?". I wouldn't want to feed the people who take a minute to come up with an answer and who reply "none" when you ask whether there was an LA. You know that there was an LA before they gave their first answer, but it simply vanished due to cognitive dissonance. IMO, asking a few wise folks with extensive bridge knowledge and experience in dealing with these things and have them discuss the relevant questions together (let's call them an "Adjucation Circle" ;)) is much better than polling. Rik

Actually the USA is one of the few Western countries that has these kind of jobs. Think of flaggers, grocery baggers and greeters at supermarkets... I think these jobs are disappearing, but in Western Europe these jobs simply don't exist. Rik

That was not necessary... I suggest you delete your post. So, Pete got confused because of the word "club". I admit that until he figured out his confusion himself, I didn't understand what he was confused about. But I concluded that this was because of my lack of imagination. In hindsight I can easily understand Pete's confusion and I will recognize that he has more imagination than I to be able to jump to the other meaning of the word "club". Rik

KenR. I think your argument is for a mixed (manufacturing/service) economy is fair, but incomplete. To summarize your reasoning. The global economy s based on production factors: natural resources, energy, labor and ... places to dump the waaste of your production. If the USA only does the service economy to let the third world deal with the production economy, the third world will be drained from natural resources and energy and they will end up with a large pile of waste. This is why the USA should do its share of manufacturing. I think that your reasoning is noble. The flaw, however, is in the availability of production factors. The USA doesn't have a work force that is willing to work for $2.50 a day. This is why your clothes are sewn in Bangladesh. Everybody in the USA is overqualified for these jobs: They have finished elementary school, they know how to do arithmetic and they are able to read and write. None of this knowledge or these skills are necessary for a true manufacturing job. And if you want to have manufacturing jobs that can compete with the rest of the world, you will have to stop investing in people, simply because you cannot afford it. So, if you want a high standard of living for everybody in the USA, it will have to come from the resources that the USA has available. The biggest resource that the USA has, compared to the rest of the world, is knowledge. And I am not talking about top level scientific knowledge (college level or higher), no simply the fact that "everybody" has finished high school: They can read and write, do fairly complicated math, understand the basics of society, know how to write letters or send emails, can make business deals (Trump isn't the only one who can make a deal), can communicate, reason, make complicated decisions involving other people, drive a car, etc... A set of these skills are worth much more than $2.50 a day. So, the US economy needs to be knowledge based. That will certainly also include (knowledge based) manufacturing, but, inevitably, it will be dominated by service industries, symply because the USA doesn't have the resources to do the old-style manufacturing work (people who are willing to work for $2.50 a day). Rik

Did you read the rest of what Ken wrote? He makes a pretty good argument. I think his argument is flawed, but you cannot simply push it aside with a oneliner. Perhaps we should leave the oneliners to the people who are best at them... Rik

I think he is just a billionaire. He is not a business man and he doesn't have an agenda. His thoughts are roughly: 'Hmm, I'd like to have a TV show...' or 'I wonder what it would be like to run for president?' and he gives these things about as much thought as I do when I decide whether I want soup or salad. If he would be a business man and if he would have an agenda, I would have much more confidence in him as a president. I think it is much better to have a president with an agenda that I don't agree with than one without an agenda. Rik

If you deal with an SB then you need to reason like an SB. "After" is the opposite of "before". The laws don't specify when dummy should be finished. And we all know that dummies are often finished spreading the hand after the continuing play has started. HH often plays a card from dummy practically before he has seen it! If truth needs to be told, that is how I originally interpreted it too. And without a doubt, that is what Lamford must have meant. But if you think like (Lamford's version of) an SB, what Lamford must have meant is irrelevant. An SB reasons: Lamford didn't specifically write it, so he didn't mean it, because if he would have meant that, he would have specified it. In a similar way, if truth needs to be told, I think it is insane to read in the laws that a missorted dummy is: an infraction that may not be corrected without a TD present and that may lead to penalties or score adjustments The fact that you could read the laws that way doesn't mean that it is the correct way to read them. A long time ago, on Belgian TV there was a program called Rigoletto. Comedians made fun of every day things. In one episode they baked bread "according to food regulations". The food regulations contained a long list of how much of certain specified animals (insects, worms, ..) was allowed in the final product per unit of weight. Of course, for every bug they weighted in the maximum amount and then made up the total by adding a little bit of flour. They baked it into bread and offered it to the audience. It demonstrated very nicely what happens if you read regulations while forgetting to place them in the context that they were written in: reality. Rik

Law 41D clearly establishes when dummy should start spreading his hand ("After the opening lead"). It also establishes clearly how dummy should spread his hand. But it doesn't establish at all when dummy is supposed to be finished spreading the hand or when the rest of the play is started. In this case dummy started spreading his hand after the opening lead. Then declarer and opponents started the play and then dummy finished spreading his hand. Is it really dummy's problem that the other three players didn't have the courtesy to wait until he was finished? Mind you, no law says that the other players have to wait for dummy to be spread (and many players don't), but I would consider it the polite thing to do. Rik

You may not have this available either, if 2♦ is passed out. Do we really care? I think we are bound for a decent result most of the time if: We have hearts and diamonds We have a weakish hand Partner didn't have the values to balance I would think that typically we can't make much ourselves they can make 2♠ easily they don't stand a chance in 2♦ Rik

So, now we know what afterlife looks like for cheats... They have to play in Norway with wobbly tables and against SB's. Rik

That can easily happen when you have a wobbly table and, instead of focusing on bridge, you start to think about a better table design... Rik

I don't think that there is a causal relation between early death and Trump support. I think there is a correlation between high income blue collar (i.e. hard working blue collar, too hard for health purposes) and early death. Does anybody find it surprising that a factory worker doing extra hours, on average, will die younger than the nurse, teacher or accountant? Rik

Now, wouldn't that have been a reason to vote against a Brexit and to start working in another EU country? Rik P.S. Comparing salaries between countries is a silly thing to do. As an example, salaries in Sweden are very low, since the employer pays a massive amount of tax. The employee pays relatively little. In the Netherlands, the salaries are much higher, but after tax it doesn't look so good anymore. And if you then think of what the government provides for your taxes in Sweden, Sweden starts to look pretty good...

Fair enough. "Money doesn't make one happy; space and clean air do." I have some (actually quite a bit of) sympathy for that point of view. But then you will have to accept a lower standard of living, a lower pension (or a pension at the age of 75), and a lower quality health care. If you decrease the GDP per inhabitant then that simply means that there is less money. Steven's point was that immigrants are the problem. I pointed out that they provide tomorrow's GDP. And I don't know whether Steven is as eager as you to decrease his standard of living. Rik

In today's world, and in tomorrow's world too, novices and beginners do not play fit jumps. Neither do they play that 4 ♣ is weak. They bid what they think they can make. Seen in that light, I think the auction was fine. And I will compliment Brown267 on his judgement to sacrifice in 6♦. Perhaps later, when Brown267 is as hooked on the game as we all are, he might start to consider playing weak jump raises and fit jumps. (And even then, he would do just fine without them.) Rik

There is, of course, a big difference between Clinton and Trump when it comes to telling the truth. Clinton is a lawyer. Lawyers have the legal obligation to tell the truth. This is inconvenient, but lawyers quickly learn to present the truth in such a way that it looks best for them. Trump is a businessman. For him, truth is completely irrelevant. Warranties last until the door (or November 8th, 2016). Rik

The primary problem in Western-Europe is ageing of the population. This causes economic problems, health problems and social problems. Immigration is a fast, inexpensive, and relatively easy way to rejuvenate the population. So, your "problem" is, in reality, actually closer to "the solution". Rik

I read that McMullin wants to be an independent candidate. Would he be able to get a significant amount of Republican voters to support him? Rik

That doesn't mean much. My kids are, in principle, not allowed to speak Dutch (the language of the country where we live) at home. My wife and I only speak English at home. Nevertheless, the whole family is fluent in Dutch. Rik

How did you find the local language school? Let me venture a guess... A Google search performed in ... English. Now, isn't that convenient? In your own language and by your favorite medium. Rik

How do they know whom to ask? Or where to go? You are assuming that it is entirely natural for people to go to city hall / the police / the tax office / post office (to pick a few possibilities) to enroll for a nice free "How to... in England" course. Fact is that I don't know where I would have to go in the UK. And I live in the country next door and have a fair amount of international experience! (I could figure it out easily enough, because I speak the language, but that would be cheating.) Rik

Half a dozen?!? That is the amount of languages I speak myself! That is the total amount of languages that the Brits can come up with? And that would be considered "welcoming"? And "available"?!? How is a newcomer supposed to find that? If I would send you to Saudi-Arabia and would say that a brochure in English is available, how would that help you? "Availability" is simply not good enough. It needs to be delivered to the people. If you want to be "welcoming", you need to try and look through the eyes of your guest. This is as welcoming as: "Hartstikke leuk dat je langs komt! Ik ben niet thuis. De sleutel ligt onder de deurmat... of in de bloempot (ik weet het niet precies). Dag!!" BTW: The UK is by no means the only country that lets newcomers rely on the help of foreigners. Unfortunately, this is rather common. But, in my opinion, if the receiving country lacks a good quality "reach out policy" they are putting themselves on a ticking time bomb. Rik

You are presenting the exception as the standard. But please answer my question. Do immigrants into the UK get a nice, comprehensive brochure in their own language, with explanations about the UK and telling them where to get free, government sponsored lessons in English language, culture and society? I know countries that do that and I know countries where that would be unheard of. Rik

What do you mean that these communities were not teaching the women English? Where were you, the British? Did they get a nice brochure in the mail, in their language, that told them how welcome they were? Did it, among other things, tell them where they could get free lessons in the English language, culture and society? Or were they left on their own, which can obviously only result in ghetto formation, because they can only communicate in their own language? Rik