Trinidad

Ken, the underlined part seems a little unfair to me. Can Joe Alien simply knock on the door and say: "I would like to live, work, eat, sleep, love, be happy and sad in the USA. I can mow lawns, clean toilets, paint, you name it... I know the Pledge of Allegiance, the lyrics to the Star Spangled Banner, God Bless America as well as Take me out to the ball game. Where is the line to get in?". Would Joe Alien get in? Or does Joe Alien need an employer who will state that Joe Alien's skills are crucial for the US economy? So, how is Joe Alien going to get in legally when Joe Average has the same skills as Joe Alien? I am not criticizing the US immigrations policy. I am just pointing out Joe Alien's perspective who doesn't have the same possibilities as Joe Average for the simple reason that he was born on the wrong side of a line on a map. Rik

These things are rare in the USA, but in Europe they are less rare since there is a free labor market between countries. Helene just moved from the UK to the Netherlands (after having moved around before). Gwnn now lives in the Netherlands (unless I have missed something and he has moved to yet another country) and has lived in several other countries. People with some professions (e.g. scientists) move from a job in one country to a job in another country like Americans move from state to state. And at some point they settle somewhere... they may get married, have kids and a dog, or they just find their home for themselves and the traveling from job to job stops. So now they are in their fourth country of residence, which is not their country of citizenship, possibly with a "significant other" in his/her fourth country of residence and they call it home. And their kids may have been born somewhere along the way. Apart from the dog, that is the story of my life. What citizenship do you think would be appropriate for my kids? And remember that citizenship has consequences... which country is allowed to draft my kids to serve in their army when they are at war... with one of the other candidate countries? Rik

if you obtained citizenship by fraught or if you ask to have it revoked, typically because you need to have it revoked in order to obtain citizenship in some other country Or, as some expats have found out, when the Dutch government revokes your citizenship (without notification) because you gain citizenship to another country. These expats (born and raised in The Netherlands as Dutch citizens) tried to travel back to the Netherlands to visit friends and family and couldn't enter the country because they didn't have a visa. I agree it is very difficult to define a citizen. But I think that the concept of citizen is somewhat alien (and outdated) to some people. I can think of myself as a Dutch-American-Swedish-German francophile. I do not feel much more for the Netherlands than for Sweden or the USA. I don't know how e.g. Helene_t feels about that, but I doubt that she would be filled with joy to join the Danish army if there would be a war against the Netherlands. And for other people their citizenship is so obvious that they don't even know what it really means. Archie Bunker is obviously an American citizen, but since he barely acknowledges the existence of anything across the border, this citizenship isn't really relevant, is it? Rik

Exactly. And a South who leads a diamond with the MI would lead two diamonds without the MI. Rik

Sorry, but that is not good bridge. You hold 5 clubs. Your opponents have bid and raised the suit naturally (according to the explanation). You expect partner to be void in the suit, not to hold Kx. If I would be in this situation (and I wouldn't since I would have known the meaning of 4♣ before I passed), I would curse myself for not doubling. After cursing, I would lead the ♣J, expecting partner to ruff and to get back in with a spade for a second ruff. I would have had good hope to have beaten the contract by two in trick 5 while still holding the ♥A. Of course, it is possible that the opponents were a bit creative in their bidding and then partner might have a singleton club. Then I still expect to beat it with the club lead since I have the ace of trumps and can give partner a ruff when I play clubs the next time. The MI practically forces the club lead on you. If you don't lead clubs with the MI, you are certainly not going to lead clubs without the MI. Rik

So, Wombatica may well be Australian. I grant you that Dutch "Acol" has little to do with British Acol. But why is Acol relevant to begin with? Unless you have agreed on something conventional (like Namyats or South African Texas), 4♦ is a preemptive opening, whether you play Acol, SAYC, 2/1, Precision, Viking club, Carrotti, Magic Diamond, Crazy Diamond, Polish club, Swedish club, Ultimate club, Regress or Säffle Spade. In any of these systems, you can play a variety of preempting styles that are mostly unrelated to the system. Whether Wombatica plays Acol (British, Dutch) or anything else is less relevant than the fact that he is probably having a snack in front of the TV while I am typing this. Rik

So, the secretary bird wants to have his snake and eat it too? Rik

Why didn't SB forbid the lead of a club at trick 2? Did South lead to quick at trick 2? Was the TD still at the table (as he is supposed to be as long as there is a PC)? Rik

No. And this is not a test for citizenship. It is a test for residency. So, if you want to be an alien resident in the Netherlands you have to pass the test before you enter the Netherlands. (Nationals of certain countries, like EU countries, etc., do not need to take the test. Refugees do not need to take the test either.) This test is a result of the influence of xenophobic politicians in the Dutch government. The reasoning goes like this: - We need to help foreigners to integrate into Dutch society. - We give them a course about the Netherlands and the Dutch language. (So far, so good) - We make the course mandatory. (It starts to get difficult.) - You need to pass the test before you come to the Netherlands. After all, if you don't pass the test, you are not serious about integrating. - You can take the test at selected locations abroad. You need to pay a large amount of money to take the test. - The test is so difficult, and filled with useless trivia, that most Dutch citizens will not pass it and it has little to do with every day life in the Netherlands. - The integration course is not available. I find this sickening and it makes me ashamed that I am Dutch. (My brother is married to a woman from Madagascar. She will not be able to get any resident status in the Netherlands. She would probably need to travel to the Dutch Embassy in South-Africa if she wanted to take the test. They are living happily on Madagascar, but when they are visiting the Netherlands, their time here is limited by her visa.) Compare this to what I got when I came to Sweden. - After a few weeks, I got a booklet in the mailbox: "Welcome to Sweden! Sweden explained to foreigners". I think mine was in English, but it was available in 20 languages or so (Arabic, Chinese, Persian, Serbian, ...). I guess it was about 60 pages thick. It explained the whole Swedish system, from the parliamentary democracy to christian holidays, from banking to food and from the Swedish attitude and culture to their legal philosophy. - One of the things it mentioned was that there was a course "Swedish for immigrants". If you would like to, you could take that course. - I took the course, two mornings a week. The course was free. It was also adjusted to the student's level. (I was well educated and from the Netherlands, and Dutch and Swedish are fairly similar. There were also illiterate people from China. They needed to start with the alphabet. My course took half a year. Others take 7 years or more.) - This course didn't just teach the Swedish language. It also taught the Swedish culture and attitude to things. (One of the most important words in the Swedish language is "lagom", which is impossible to translate, but it roughly means "sufficient" or "moderate". Swedes are happy with "lagom": enough is enough.) - After the course, you do the test. You do need to take the course, or take the test, but it obviously is a nice addition to your resume when you are applying for jobs in Sweden. - There are follow-up courses that you, again, could take for free.

I am Dutch (from the Netherlands). My wife is Finnish. We met in the USA where we got married. Our kids were born when we lived in Sweden. They have dual citizenship: Dutch and Finnish. By coincidence (because my Finnish wife found the perfect job there), we moved to the Netherlands when the children were in their preschool age. When we were in Sweden, I always felt that my kids were Swedish: they spoke fluent Swedish (well for preschool kids), they lived Swedish, ate Swedish, did Swedish, had Swedish friends, and no one could notice that they weren't Swedish. They didn't speak Dutch or Finnish, didn't know any of the Dutch or Finnish customs. They didn't have anything with those two countries (other than that their grandparents lived there) and yet they had that nationality. Now, the kids are in high school in the Netherlands. They are as Dutch as can be. They don't know how to speak Swedish anymore (though there pronunciation is still perfect) and don't have a clue what Swedes do on May 1st, Easter or Lucia. For them, hockey is a game played on Astro turf... So, they are as Dutch as can be, and they have Dutch citizenship! But the reason for their Dutch citizenship is that their father (who would have been happy to stay in Sweden) happened to be Dutch, not because they "walk like a Dutch and quack like a Dutch" (or whatever the saying was). Rik

Dbl This is one reason why you preempt. Rik

So, you would like it to be so that if Meckstroth claims in the Spingold, the claim is awarded, while if he makes the exact same claim (potentially against the exact same opponents) at his local club, the claim would not be awarded? That is not what the law book asks from the TD. The law refers to the standard of the player (the claimer), not to the standard of the field. Rik

I would say initially that this doesn't exist. But what if the auction comes up? What could advancer have? I would think something like: ♠ x ♥ Axxx ♦ xxx ♣ Axxxx I can imagine that advancer is underbidding a little initially, fearing that he might play in a 4-3 fit, given that some partners might double 2♦ on a 3334 distribution. Once the doubler shows that he wants to be in 4♥ opposite a 3-4 HCP hand with 3-4 hearts, this hand is huge. Rik

Do they? Who? In any case both tables don't need to stop play. I am with Vampyr on this one. If there is a need for a TD, as in when attention has been drawn to an irregularity or in the case of a disputed claim, the laws are clear: You get the TD involved. In this case, there was a disputed claim. Who you're gonna call? The TD! There is (or shouldn't be) any need to involve anybody from the other table. Play only continues after the TD has instructed the players to continue. When are you calling? At the point when the claim is contested (or attention has been drawn to the irregularity) not at the end of the session. The fact that the TD call is made by phone shouldn't matter for the timing of the TD call. If it does matter, it isn't bridge in the sense of the Lawbook. Rik

Perhaps the suit wasn't blocked, but East's mind was. I am arrogant enough to think that my bridge level is higher than that of a BBO expert (aren't we all?), but my mind can block too and then I don't see things that I would normally never miss. Just this week, I made sure to give up a trick I had to lose anyway early in the play. I did it to rectify the count for a squeeze. Then I ran off my long trump suit. With 3 or 4 cards left to play, I found out I had 12 top tricks from the beginning... Does it mean that I can't count to 12? No. Does it mean that I am a novice? I don't think so. Was I perhaps a little bit tired? Most likely. Rik

If I understand correctly, the EBU has basically said that, in order to be eligible for masterpoints, the competition needs to be fair. The EBU has not said that unfair competitions are banned or that -to take the unfair movement to the extreme- rubber bridge is forbidden. If a bridge club wants to run an unfair movement, e.g. because the players would get really unhappy when they need to share some boards, they can still do that. But the players won't get EBU masterpoints. I would expect that the masterpoints are not going to be a deal breaker for these players, since you describe them as "not keen competitors". Should it be a problem anyway, then I would suggest that the club calculates the masterpoints the old fashioned way and keeps a record of these points that are not recognized by EBU. Nothing stops them from recognizing these points at the local level (e.g. for the club's masterpoint race). However, if you want your masterpoints to be recognized in "London", you need to earn them in fair competitions. But I guess that these players never get to "London", at least not to play bridge. Rik

Yeah, similarly for 100 tables or 1000. Or 1000000. This is silly. It is not silly. It shows that there will be a point where you need to share boards or duplicate them to have a proper comparison within the field (or give up and play multiple fields). Once you realize that there is such a point, you need to decide where to put it. This is, of course, arbitrary. The EBU put it at "everybody plays 75% of the boards in play". That seems like a reasonable value to me. Rik

The point of duplicate bridge is that the same boards are played over and over again (hence the name "duplicate"), to get a decent amount of results on the noard. To me it seems fairly obvious that one of the criteria for a good duplicate game should be to have a board played as many times as possible. There are other criteria too, so sometimes a board is not played the maximum possible number of times, but somewhat less. But it is entirely reasonable to set a minimum and 75% of the possible maximum seems like a minimum requirement to me. So what would you do if you would have 27 tables? Put out 27 board sets on the tables and play 8 rounds of Mitchell? Rik

So far. so good. Now, I can see three possible "something elses": North doesn't know better and takes out the takeout double. North thinks the hesitation indicates a very distributional hand, and therefore (using the UI) takes the double out that he would otherwise pass. North thinks the hesitation indicates a flat hand or a minimum take out double, suggesting him to pass. He is actively ethical and bids 5♥, the LA that was not suggested. Now, I am reasonably sure that the first one applies, but it could be either of the other two. What makes you so sure that it was the second and not the third or the first? Rik

Well, if you have 11 tables and less than 11 board sets, you don't need a PhD in math to figure out that you need to share boards. Rik

You were talking about 8x3 boards. There shouldn't be a problem sharing 3 boards between 2 tables. Rik

South couldn't have had the hand he held, since he would have bid 4NT quickly. This shows how nonsensical all this theorizing is. To continue the nonsense: South could have held something like ♠ Kx ♥ Qxx ♦ KQJx ♣ AQJx With this hand, South would typically make a slow takeout double (or a slow pass). Rik

Your axioma is false. BITs, particularly long ones, almost always suggest that the person was thinking of making an alternative bid call, which may well have been pass (or double/redouble when applicable). Rik

Absolutely not. Objectively, the BIT tends to suggest either a minimum double or a big balanced hand. Either way, that would suggest pass over any bid. Your reasoning that the BIT must have suggested a twosuiter since that was what South held, is circular. What do you suggest an ethical North would do? He knows that the agreement is that double is takeout. He has the UI that the double was slow, which may well suggest that it is "not as takeout as it should be". This suggests a pass over any LA. North decides to take the ethical route and bids 5♥. By coincidence, this turns out to be the correct action on this hand, since this time partner doesn't have what the UI suggested most (i.e. a big balanced hand or a minimum), but a two-suiter. You cannot use the circular reasoning of: I don't believe in coincidence. Therefore, North would probably use the UI. Therefore, South's BIT will have suggested a hand that fits the 5♥ bid better than the double does. Therefore, North used the UI. Now, let's put all theory aside and get real. This North was not so much ethical. He was simply clueless. The BIT didn't mean anything to him. By accident, he took the ethical actin of not passing. And, by accident, he got lucky. Tough luck for EW. Rik

So you want a plain, simple Mitchell movement for 8 rounds and 11 tables? How about a 9 table Mitchel with 2 appendix tables, curtailed after 8 rounds? Rik