Trinidad

In a separate development, Geert Wilders was invited by the Brittish House of Lords to show his movie Fitna and participate in a discussion. In response, the British government decided that Geert Wilders is not permitted to enter the country. The Dutch government and parlement have protested this decision. They claim that a member of parlement should be allowed to do his job, which includes explaining his point of view in other parlements. Obviously, Geert Wilders is taking the plane to Heathrow anyway today (BD 104, to be precise :D). So it is expected that Geert Wilders will be an illegal alien by this afternoon. Can politics get more ironic than this? Rik

Don't wish to be a devil's advocate here, but the wording must have suffered in translation from Dutch, or maybe the text is not complete and only relevant part was quoted. Implication I get is, that inciting hatred against a majority group is not a violation of Dutch Law. That is pretty much correct. The reason for this is that the majority can protect itself against a minority by way of the democratic process. (They can simply outvote the minority.) The minority can't do that. This is part of the checks and balances in most modern Western European democracies. Rik

As a physical chemist, I would like to clarify a few things. My apologies for a long post. The second law of thermodynamics (the one about entropy) states that: An isolated system will strive to increase its entropy. For non scientists, in many cases (but not all), it is reasonable to translate entropy with 'disorder' or 'chaos'. Translated to organic chemistry, this pretty much means that in an isolated system it is impossible to create complex molecules (e.g. DNA) from simple ones. Why did I write 'an isolated system' in italics? Because it is the crucial part of the second law of thermodynamics. An isolated system is a system where there is no energy (or mass) added or removed. Every chemist knows that most reactions can be carried out "from left to right" and "from right to left". You can burn fuel in a reaction with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and water. In this reaction, the entropy increases. Perfect! But you can also let carbon dioxide react with water to form fuel and oxygen. Plants do it "all the time". In this reaction the entropy decreases. What happened to the second law of thermodynamics? Now, wait a minute. Do plants do that all the time? No! They only do it at day time. After all, this process uses light as an energy source for this reaction. In other words: The plant, the soil, the oxygen, carbon dioxide and water do not form an isolated system. Energy from the sun is added to it. Similarly, the formation of life didn't take place in an isolated system. Evolution doesn't take place in an isolated system either. This means that it is entirely possible to decrease entropy, just like the plants are doing (at day time). Since the formation of life and evolution are processes that do not take place in an isolated system, entropy can decrease. Therefore, the evolution theory and current scientific theories are not contradicting the second law of thermodynamics. And therefore, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't belong in the evolution debate. I am no expert on the field of the origin of life, but I know that there are various ideas on how life originated on earth. About 10 years ago, scientists were able to make simple organic structures from basic inorganic matter such as carbon dioxide, ammonia and water with (artificial) lightning as an energy source. Currently, the more accepted idea seems to be (again, I am no expert in this field) that the external energy source that created life may have been vulcanic activity at the bottom of the ocean. There are other ideas around. They all have in common that there is an external source of energy. And by all means, it is entirely possible that God (or another Divine Creator) is the "external source of energy". It is much easier to explain evolution than the origin of life. We see that evolution happens today. We realize that energy is needed (to account for the decrease in entropy!) and we realize where it can come from (e.g. sunlight). The energy source that we can observe every day (when it is not too cloudy and as long as we live between the arctic and antarctic circles :)) is enough explanation why evolution is possible. There is no need to search for a more complicated explanation. Scientists will look for the simplest explanations for observations. In my opinion, it is the most important law of science that the simplest explanation is the most plausible one. (Apparently here I disagree with Einstein since he supposedly thought the second law was the most important one. I would have never dreamt that I would ever write that I would disagree with Einstein. :)) As long as simple explanations work, scientists will not accept more complicated explanations. And simple explanations are focused around phenomena that we can observe. The nice thing is that we can test these simple explanations. As long as the explanations are consistent with the observations, we will trust these explanations more and more. In that way, explanations evolve into theories. Theories are explanations that, so far, have stood the test of time. When an explanation is not consistent with the observations, the explanation is discarded or adapted. When it comes to explaining the origin of life on earth, scientists will try to explain it with the simplest explanations possible. Remember that simple explanations need to be focused around phenomena that we can observe. We know that there is lightning. Lightning could be the energy source for the origin of life. We know that there is vulcanic activity on Earth. It could be the energy source for the origin of life. Apparently, scientists have determined that it will be easier to create life from vulcanic activity than from lightning, which makes it the more accepted scientific idea. Nobody knows whether there is a God (or Divine Creator). Many people believe there is one and I do respect that. As I have said above and any scientist will say, it is entirely possible that God created life on earth. There is no evidence that He didn't create life (for the simple reason that God is not observable). However, the vast majority of scientists will say that the explanation that God created life is (much) less plausible than the explanation from vulcanic activity, lightning or others. The reason for that is simple. We have observed vulcanic activity and lightning and we know that they are a source of energy. We have not observed God. I hope this clarifies the scientific way of thinking and reasoning. (Keep explanations simple, based on observables and testable.) And I hope this clarifies why the second law of thermodynamics should not be (mis-)used in the debate around the origin of life or evolution. (Because, according to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy can decrease when the system is not isolated. And the biosphere is not an isolated system.) Rik

Good for Ramms and McKiernan! I have a lot of respect for people in the military who refuse illegal orders. To me, it is pretty obvious that killing people because they are involved in the production of opium and heroin is not part of the ISAF mission. If Craddock thinks it is, he should talk to his bosses. They will certainly set him straight. Actually, given that this is out in the open, Craddock's bosses should talk to him. If what Der Spiegel writes is true, Craddock should be pulled out immediately. Rik

That was what I was trying to say when I wrote: BTW, I am aware that this is technically not restricted choice (since ruffing and refusing to ruff are not equivalent plays whereas playing the Q or J from QJ are). Nevertheless, if a defender wouldn't know what to do (ruff or refuse to ruff), that makes the plays "psychologically equivalent". In this case, I would think that most players at this level wouldn't overruff holding JTxx when they are sitting in front of Kxx in dummy. That would tend to make playing for the drop a lot better than finessing. Rik

I have no personal experience, but from what has been written thus far it appears to me some European countries extrapolate in law creation - meaning that in the U.S. one cannot actively encourage the commiting of a crime, but voicing an opinion is not considered encouraging a crime. In Europe it appears to me that it could be extrapolated that the voicing of the opinion could cause someone else to be encouraged to commit a crime. To me, that type of thinking is actually more dangerous - it grants the ruling parties the authority to suppress dissent by labeling it "hate". Part of the problem is that Mr. Wilders is claiming that he is voicing an opinion. If that would be true, people might get irritated, people will disagree with his opinion or whatever. But many people strongly believe that he is doing more than just voicing an opinion. If Mr. Wilders is saying the following sentence to his followers: "These people need to leave the country. And if they don't leave the nice way, we will have to do it the tough way.", there is no doubt to any of his followers who 'we' are and what the 'tough way' looks like. But when asked, Mr. Wilders puts on his innocent face and says that in his opinion, 'we' are the members of parliament who should pass legislature that if these people don't leave by voluntarily, the police can pick them up and push them over the border. That would indeed only be a political opinion. And, as you may understand, "These people" refers to Muslims. But Mr. Wilders never says: "Muslims need to leave the country." His actual wording is something along the line of: "Islam is a fascist ideology, an ideology that encourages violence against infidels. It is immoral, it leads to criminal behavior. We can all see that. The numbers show how crime rate increases while Islam is expanding in our country (1). These people..." (1) This is not true, crime has actually decreased over the past 20 years. But lying during a speech is not against the law. And Mr. Wilders doesn't let the facts stand in the way of his political ambitions. While talking, Mr. Wilders (on purpose) doesn't make it clear who "these people" are. But do you think he is talking about criminals, about Muslims or about criminal Muslims? And more importantly, what do you think the audience thinks he means? When asked officially, Mr. Wilders will then say that he doesn't have anything against Muslims at all, only against criminal Muslims, just like criminal non-Muslims. But in his next speech, again Mr Wilders will not make it clear whether he is talking about criminals or Muslims. This is not a case of just someone having a strong political opinion. This is a case where someone is inciting hatred and calling for violence over and over again, but always with a small escape line so that he can deny that he intended to call for violence. Logically, there are only two possibilities. A) Mr Wilders is continuously making the same mistake of not clearly stating his non violent intentions on every occasion where he speaks to a crowd. By now, that amounts to such a large pile of mistakes that that is highly unlikely. B) Mr. Wilders actually does have the intension to call for violence. But while you are reading this, please realize that all that I wrote is just a political opinion. It should definitely not be construed as a call on the legal system to get Mr. Wilders convicted of inciting hatred, calling for violence in his speeches and aaaaaallllll the other despicable things that he is on trial for. Rik

Just my two cents. I don not claim to be any good at declarer play. In principle, it seems that the two restricted choice situations cancel each other. West may have chosen to overruff with JT and East may have chosen to play the Q from QJ. But let's look at the two different possibilities. They are: 1. T65-QJ 2. JT65-Q (Grey cards played) Now, I would apply the principle of restricted choice in a different way. With holding 1 (T65), West would always overruff. With holding 2 (JT65), West would refuse to overruff a significant part of the time. Therefore, West is less likely to have JT65 and I will play him for T65 and East for the QJ doubleton. Rik

I more or less agree with Ken. If the OP is right and nothing is really forcing, this is actually a very simple problem. 3♥ wouldn't be forcing, 4♣ wouldn't be forcing and indeed, 5NT wouldn't be forcing. So the question would just be: Knowing that your partner has an 18-19 balanced hand with 5 spades, which contract would you pick? You are forced to punt. The obvious answer is that 5♣, 6♣, 4♥ and 6♥ will all work some of the time and none all of the time. I am pretty sure that the OP is aware of this obvious answer. If his question would have been: "You are forced to punt, which contract would you pick?", he would likely have phrased it like that. The way I read the OP is: We don't have any agreements about 1♠-1NT; 2NT auctions (not even which bids are forcing). What would you bid in that case? Josh' answer is that he will punt, preferring the risk that he picks the wrong contract over the risk that partner will pass 3♥. Ken's answer is that he will bid 3♥, preferring the risk that partner will pass over the risk that he will pick the wrong contract. My answer would be that in this case, I wouldn't evaluate what cards I am holding. I would evaluate what kind of partner I have. If I think partner is a newbie (or an 'expert' :)) I will bid 6♣ and apologize if it turns out to be the wrong contract. Maybe afterwards, I will give him the tip that the best way to play after a 2NT rebid by opener is that everything is forcing to game, except for Pass. (I will do that when 6♣ was right and when ot was wrong.) If I expect that partner has a basic idea of priorities in bidding, I will bid 3♥, since I expect partner to bid on, even if he isn't sure whether my 3♥ was forcing. In this case, I will apologize, but there won't be a tip. When 3♥ worked, I figure that he knows what he is doing. If it doesn't (since he passed), his idea will be that I don't know how to evaluate a hand (making a NF bid on a 0616!), so he won't listen anyway. Since we play 1NT as forcing, I am going to assume that partner is not a newbie and I'll bid 3♥ at the risk of finding out that partner is an 'expert' :D. Rik

It still works, but there is a strong downward trend in Germany for example. The costs for the health care, unenployment benefits, pensions etc. are exploded, the german goverment started to cut massively all these services at the end of the century, giving always the same reason for it : forced by Globalisation. Robert I doubt that anyone from the Nordic countries (Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland) would call Germany a Nordic country. As I grew up in The Netherlands, I wouldn't have thought of calling Germany socialist either. Not even in the end of the '70s and early 80's when Helmut Schmidt was Bundeskanzler. Other than that Germany obviously still has another problem. It still needs to put a lot of money in the joining of the East and West. Rik

Of course, the capitalism-socialism scale in the real world goes from light grey to dark grey. Pure capitalism and pure socialism are unlikely to work. Having said that, I think that the Nordic countries are very far to the socialist side of the scale. And it works. It isn't perfect, but it works. The USA, on the other hand, is clearly on the capitalist side of the scale. That works too and it isn't perfect either. I have lived in both the USA (5 years) and Sweden (7 years) with a background from the Netherlands. I think that am capable of comparing the two. The result is that both countries chose the economic model that fits the character of the country best. I am sure that the Swedish model wouldn't work in the USA and I am sure that the American model wouldn't work in Sweden. I can even understand some Americans who say that the Swedish model cannot possibly work at all. They cannot comprehend that CEO's are willing to earn a much, no: MUCH lower salary than their American counterparts while they are equally qualified. And all that these Swedish CEO's get back for it is free health care, free libraries, free education (, free etcetera...) that they have to share with all the Swedish people. They would be perfectly able to pay for any private doctor, any book they would ever want to read and a Harvard education for each of their children if they would live and work in the USA. And for some reason, these Swedish CEO's don't do that. They stay in Sweden. The reason is in their Swedish culture. On the other side, some Europeans cannot understand why American employees aren't moving to Sweden. Don't they want good health care? Don't they want unemployment benefits? Don't they want (virtually) free daycare for their children when they are working? Don't they want more vacation days? Of course they do. But still, for some reason, they stay in the USA. The reason is that they are American. Rik

what's the point of this law? is it to make society less 'hateful'? also, is it presumed that a majority cannot be hated, thus inciting hatred against them is not illegal? I thought that I already explained the point of this law: "This is a direct consequence of what happened when in 1933 our neighbors democratically elected a government." I will put it a little clearer: In The Netherlands, we have seen what can happen if influential people incite hatred in the population. It happened from 1933-1945 in Germany and had major consequences for Dutch society from 1940-1945, to put it very mildly. Because of the hatred, incitited by democratically elected officials in Germany, only a small part of the European Jewish population survived the holocaust. We don't want something like that to happen again. If, in the case of Mr. Wilders, one replaces "Muslims" by "Jews" and "Quran" by "Torah", everything sounds very much like it did in 1933. In my opinion, it is the responsibility of all Dutch to stop him from reaching 1939. I would prefer if the voters would be smarter and Mr. Wilders just wouldn't get the votes. But since the voters are what they are, we are slowly getting towards a point where it is more important to prevent a new holocaust than to uphold democracy, no matter what it costs. To get to your last point. (Presumably a majority cannot be hated...) Of course, a majority can be hated. But in a democracy, a majority is politically able to protect itself against the minority. (They can pass legislation to protect themselves.) A minority cannot protect itself in that way (as we saw under Hitler). Rik

One additional fact: Two weeks ago, Mr. Wilders was asking questions in parlement why the protesters against the Israeli attacks on Gaza were not arrested for inciting hatred... Mr. Wilders is perfectly aware that inciting hatred is a crime in The Netherlands. He is not aware that in order to incite anything you need to have influence over people. I (strongly) agree with Mr. Wilders that the phrases that were used by some protesters are not acceptable. But at the same time, it is blatantly obvious that individual protesters cannot incite anything since they do not get enough attention, whereas Mr. Wilders can (and does) incite hatred pretty much whenever he wants to. He would have the power to incite peace, love, understanding, or even tolerance but somehow that doesn't fit his political agenda. ;) Rik

How quicky one forgets. It was the War on Terror that got us into this mess. The point is that Afghanistan is actually linked to terror. Afghanistan was harboring Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The 9/11 attacks were plotted in Afghanistan. Iraq was not linked to Al Qaeda or terror. The attack on Iraq had nothing what so ever to do with the war on terror. (Al Qaeda had probably more links with Germany, the UK and the USA itself, just to name a few countries, than with Iraq.) The reason why the USA got into the Iraq war was that the CIA thought it was a good idea and the Bush administration decided to go for it. Powell was opposed to it but he was overruled and the most embarrassing moment of his life must have been when he had to show 'evidence' of the presence of WMD's in the UN. So, if Obama says that he wants to get out of Iraq and wants to do something about the mindset that got the USA into the war in Iraq, while at the same time increasing US presence in Afghanistan and increasing the focus on the war on terror, that is entirely consistent. I personally am not a fan of the phrase 'war on terror', but it is consistent to use it when referring to Afghanistan. To use it for the war in Iraq would be a gross distortion of the truth. Maybe that war should be called the "war against Hans Blix' better judgement". ;) Rik

Some extra information to put things in perspective. 1) Inciting hatred against a minority group is a violation of Dutch Law. This is a direct consequence of what happened when in 1933 our neighbors democratically elected a government. 2) Members of Parlement cannot be prosecuted for anything they say in a debate in parlement while it is in session. (An MP once was convicted for slander for calling another MP a liar, right after the chairman had adjourned the session. He was fined the equivalent of about $15, in the 1950's, I think.) 3) Loads of people (think thousands) have filed numerous police reports about Mr. Wilders inciting hatred outside parlement. 4) The DA refused to prosecute, arguing that he couldn't make a case against Mr. Wilders. 5) Citizens went to court over this DA's decision. 6) The court basically decided that the DA's argument was nonsense, that there was a good legal basis for prosecution and that the DA's office should do its job. 7) Mr. Wilders has not been convicted of any crime. The court has only overruled the DA's refusal to prosecute and forced the DA to bring this case in front of a judge. 8) Both the people and Mr Wilders can appeal many times. The highest court of appeal would be the European Human rights court (or something similar). This European court has upheld legal rulings on hatred on occasions where the hate crime was not as clear as the hate crimes that Mr. Wilders is committing. To put the case even more in perspective, another (left wing) member of parlement may be prosecuted for being part of a demonstration against the Israeli attacks on Gaza. A high profile criminal lawyer (and over 100 others) have filed police reports against this MP because other protesters were yelling antisemitic phrases and this MP didn't walk away. This MP claimed he didn't even hear these phrases. The high profile lawyer argues that it doesn't matter. The fact that he could expect that these phrases would be yelled during the demonstration is more than enough evidence that he supports these antisemitic phrases. As an aside, this Freedom Party is causing a lot of trouble in general. Another MP was recently thrown out of a parlementary delegation to The Netherlands Antilles because he just wouldn't stop insulting the officials from The Netherlands Antilles. Of course, it is completely impossible to do business if one person in the meeting is continuously calling the others corrupt liars. Whether the representatives from The Netherlands Antilles actually were corrupt liars is not relevant. The fact that it was made impossible to do any business is. Or to put it differently: Even if this MP was right (about the NA reps), he was wrong (in making it impossible to do business). My personal view is that these people shouldn't be prosecuted. They should just not be elected. But unfortunately, they did get elected. And it looks like they will be reelected too. ;) Rik

Strangely, although I would bid 2♠ for this reason also, I am actually tempted to pass, because there is some merit to allowing Opener to have cheap rebids. This hand screams that I will be making the final decision. The more space I give everyone to describe their hands reliably, the more reliable the information upon which I may end up relying. If I jam the auction, even slightly, I convert opposition bidding into under-pressure bidding, and hence unreliable bidding. I see your point and I am thinking along the same lines. The one thing that I am afraid of is that if I pass, I will be on lead against 2♣. Quite a few play 2♣ as non forcing. The fact that you hold 9 HCPs (I know they are lousy, but they are still 9 HCPs that the other 3 players don't have) is a strong indication that your opponents may play this style. Rik

I don't think that is true. From the time that I lived in the USA (mid 1990's) I know of a foreign grad student who was accused of a felony. If he would have been convicted (he wasn't) he would have gone to jail for 90 days first and then he would have been sent back home. Apart from the deportation, this is exactly what would have happened if he would have been a US citizen. The USA doesn't let foreign criminals off the hook, just because they are foreigners. There are actually quite a few Dutch citizens in US prisons. Not entirely surprisingly, most of them are serving time for narcotics related offenses. I did a very quick Yahoo search ("Nationalities Department of corrections"): The top of my list is a job ad for an Ohio corrections officer http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/ocac.htm. The first line of the job description reads: "Supervise inmates of all nationalities and cultures". How do you think those inmates from other nationalities got into an Ohio prison? Because they committed a crime in Ohio. Rik

I would bid 1♠, since I expect to be able to double the next round. That would show 5044 or 51(43). With ♠A9753 ♥- ♦J743 ♣AJ53 I would double since I get only one chance to bid. The fact that I have five spades makes an overcall more interesting, but far from mandatory. If I have three suits, I would rather show three than just one. Rik

I am sure no one construes that as meaing that the legal system if a country should make o distinctions between citiens and non-citizens of tghat country so I won't pursue that line of thought. [] I seriously am interested in how Europeans deal with this, partly because I think they have had more experience and partly because I am just interested. To start with, I would like to know what sort of distinctions they make in their legal systems between their own citizens and others. We need ot copy their ideas, but we might well be able to learn something. Ken, I am very serious here: European countries do not distinguish between different nationalities. The only relevant thing is the place where the crime took place. The Netherlands doesn't have jurisdiction in Belgium and the other way around. To Europeans, this is absolutely obvious. The idea that it could be different would be horrifying for many of us. This practice is internationally accepted and it is also accepted within the USA. (The state of New York doesn't have jurisdiction on crimes committed in New Jersey.) But the USA itself wants to extend its jurisdiction to crimes committed against US citizens. Does New York go after criminals who committed their crimes in New Jersey with New York victims? Rik

The part "Declarer looks slightly embarrassed" in combination with "but then" suggests to me that declarer came up with this after the hand was over. To me that makes it only of academic interest what the right line was (and academic interest can be very interesting). But in real life, the key thing seems to be that declarer hadn't thought about the right line while he was playing the hand and that he came up with a justification after the fact. Rik

Someone once wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal []." I think he was American. ;) And I don't think he meant that only Americans are created equal. Rik

Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution: "Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan." (My) Translation: "All who are in The Netherlands, will be treated equally in equal cases. Discrimination on the basis of religion, personal convictions, political affiliation, race, gender or on whatever ground, is not permitted." The crucial part is "All who are in The Netherlands". This means anybody on Dutch soil, not anybody with Dutch citizenship. Citizenship is completely irrelevant to how you are tried for crimes committed on Dutch soil. If you steal someone's wallet in Amsterdam, you will get the same trial and punishment as I do if I would steal someone's wallet in Amsterdam. I had the idea that the US Constitution (or one of the other founding documents, forgive me for not knowing the details of US Law) had a similar phrase. Please correct me if I am wrong. Rik

Hi Ken, The South Maluku* problem is a remnant of Dutch colonialism, WWII and American interference in international politics. Over the past 30 years, the problem has more or less faded away since the South Maluku people are well integrated in Dutch society. But I will try to describe the history of the situation below: Before WWII, the part of the world that now is Indonesia was a Dutch colony. In WWII, the Japanese occupied this. Indonesia is a large country with a divers background in culture and religion. After WWII, Indonesia fought for independence. I will put it somewhat black and white: On one side of the conflict were Indonesian freedom fighters who were predominantly Muslims (the vast majority in Indonesia). On the other side were the Dutch colonists, joined by the native Christian population. As you can imagine the cultural/religious make up of the population was different for each island in the archipelago. The South Maluku islands were predominantly Christian. (They still are, even though there has been an influx of Muslims leading to recent tensions on these islands.) Therefore, they were on the Dutch side of the conflict. On top of that, the Dutch had promised the South Maluku islands independence when the conflict was over. The Americans put a lot of pressure on the Dutch to give Indonesia independence. An ugly war broke out. Under heavy pressure from the USA, the Dutch government agreed to Indonesian independence with the South Maluku islands as one of the provinces within the state of Indonesia. (Since queen Wilhelmina could not support this decision, she abdicated.) After that, a significant part of the South Malukuns (particularly the Malukan freedom fighters) fled to The Netherlands. There they lived in refugee camps until they could move to new built neighborhoods. These new built neighborhoods had a predominantly Malukan population. They held the Dutch government to their promise of creating an independent South Malukan Republic (Republik Maluku Selatan, RMS), but what could the Dutch do? They could only offer them Dutch citizenship. Out of principle, most of these refugees (and certainly the militant ones) refused Dutch citizenship, which meant that they now had no recognized citizenship at all. They weren't recognized by Indonesia (and they would have refused anyway) and they didn't want to be Dutch. This went on relatively calmly without much attention for the Malukan cause until the second generation of Malukans were young adults. Convinced that their parents were wronged and unhappy with their situation, some of these young adults radicalized. In the Malukan neighborhoods, it was easy to get radicalized and organize. As a (white) kid I lived in one of these neighborhoods and at night, I could hear the rifles that they were using in their practice. In the second half of the 1970's this led to the violence that I described. Summarizing: Their ethnic background was lying in what is now a province of Indonesia. They were fighting for their independent republic (RMS). They were second generation and born in The Netherlands. (Maybe a few of them were born on the Malukan islands but moved when they were very young.) The Malukans did not have any recognized citizenship. They claimed to be citizens of the RMS, a country that is not recognized by the UN. Still today, the RMS has a government in exile. Their current president is Frans Tutuhatunewa. Their prime minister is John Wattilete. The fact that John Wattilete has a South Malukan father and a Dutch mother may be an illustration of how well these people integrated into Dutch society. Rik * I did some searching on Wikipedia and found that the correct English spelling is Maluku, so I will keep using that from here on.

The Netherlands is a small country where only small things happen. In the late 1970's there were a couple of hostage takings by militants from the ethnic minority originating from the South Moluk Islands. I don't know the definition of terrorism, but to me these were obviously terrorist acts (even though I had and have sympathy for the South Moluk point of view since I grew up in a South Moluk neighborhood). The motives were entirely political. I recall that twice a train was hijacked and the passengers taken hostage, once an elementary school was occupied and children and teachers were taken hostage, once the provincial administration building was occupied and there was a hostage taking in the Indonesian consulate. There was also an attempt to kidnap the Queen (but this was prevented). The point for this thread (and the answer to your question): All trials took place in the regular criminal courts. All sentences were served in regular prisons. Since you asked to be specific, and for those who are interested, here are some details that I found on the Dutch Wikipedia. I left out the names of the people involved since I don't consider it important, but if you really want to know you can find some references at the end: Train 1 (at Wijster): 7 hijackers held a train hostage for 12 days. During this, the train engineer and two passengers were killed. The hijackers surrendered and got prison sentences up to 14 years. Train 2 (at De Punt): 9 hijackers held the train hostage for 20 days. There were a little less than 100 passengers. The hijacking was ended by military force. Six out of nine hijackers lost there lives as well as two passengers. The remaining 3 hijackers were sentenced to 6 to 9 years inprisonment. Elementary school: 4 hostage takers, a 3 week hostage situation, no loss of life. The hostage takers surrendered after an armored car attack. I don't know the sentences. Province administration building: 3 hostage takers held 16 women and 55 men. 1 killed and 1 injured who died a few weeks later from his injuries. The military intervened when the hostage takers were litterally standing ready to execute more hostages (the man who died from his injuries was the first to be executed). Sentences: 15 years inprisonment. Plan to kidnap the queen, but they were caught while preparing for the kidnapping: 39 people involved. Seventeen stood trial and were convicted to different sentences. The longest sentence was 5 years in prison. I hope that this is specific enough. I would say the Dutch prosecuted "in a manner that was consistent with their values and ideals" (to quote some important guy on the West side of the Atlantic). Rik 1. Wijster 2. De Punt 3. Elementary school 4. Province administrative building 5. Kidnap attempt Dutch Queen

I grew up in an environment where only strong NT existed. So, I don't have much experience with weak NT's, but I have been thinking of starting to play it because it may fit the rest of the system well. The issue that I cannot solve and that I think every weak NT player has a problem with is what to do with a strong NT hand when partner responds 1NT. You could have: ♠AQ ♥KJTx ♦QTxx ♣AJx You open 1♦ and partner responds 1NT. What do you bid now? If partner has 6 HCP, the strong NT field will open 1NT and play it there. If partner has 9 HCP, the strong NT will open 1NT and play in 3NT, which is likely to make. Should one bid 2NT and play a level higher than the field opposite a 6 count (in a wrong sided contract)? Or should one pass and miss game opposite partner's maximum (where the odds of wrongsiding are less since the strength difference between the hands is smaller)? What do weak NT ers do to solve this? Rik

Even at IMPs you should cash out. After all, most of the time that you won't cash, you will give up an IMP. And only one time in thousand, you will beat 3NT by not cashing. Say you have this hand 1000 times where you decide to cash out and your counterpart at the other table tries to beat the contract. You will loose 10 IMPs for not beating their game, but win between 500 and 999 IMPs for stopping the overtrick. Net win: between 0.49 and 0.99 IMPs per board. It is a gros oversimplification that at IMPs your goal is to defeat the contract at any cost. If the cost is expected to be higher than the expected gain, don't make the investment. In your case, playing to beat the contract would cater to a lay-out that is highly unlikely. You expect it to cost an IMP where the expected gain is 10 IMPs divided by a thousand. Rik