Trinidad

After a weak 1NT opening you always have 2NT available as a "cuebid". Rik

At least Trump's stupidity is funny. Rik

Is there anybody who still thinks that Trump shouldn't apologize to the Swedes? Stupidity is not merely stupid and/or funny. It has consequences. Rik

Did you read this (particularly the part I emphasized), before you posted? Of course, markets will go up. But for those who are working, instead of living on capital, raising financial markets won't do them much good. And if they are going up at their expense, as Winston pointed out, it will work out for the worse for the majority of the population. Rik

Many people see JFK as a president with a vision for the future. But few people will think that this vision was so clear that he would be able to refer to Obama. :) Rik

Well, that would make you wrong... since individual well-being is the only thing that really matters. I get the idea that Zel is right... Something is said about your respective views of the world... Rik

They can... but they vote for Trump instead. Rik

Not only is coal dirty, but anybody who took chemistry in high school can calculate that the CO2 emission per unit of energy is more than twice as high (2.26 to be more precise) for coal than for natural gas. Rik C + O2 -> CO2 = 393.5 kJ/mole of CO2 CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O = 890 kJ/mole of CO2 890/393.5 = 2.26, so per mole of produced CO2, natural gas yields 2.26 times more energy, or per given amount of energy, coal produces 2.26 times more CO2.

But do you really want partner to give a false preference to 3♥ when he has some junk with two hearts? That is the reason why I would double: - If we can make game because partner has three card heart support, he will be so strong that he will come to life and force me to suggest hearts. - If we can make game because of our fit in the major, partner will be able to judge the situation immediately because I have shown both majors. - But if we can't make game, I certainly don't want to force partner beyond the 1 level. This hand is worth only one action, either double or overcall, and -to my taste- the double is more descriptive, for the reasons above. For an overcall, followed by a double, I need a slightly better hand and suit. (And for a double followed by an overcall, I need a lot more.) Rik

Ah! The "you give them one finger, they take your whole hand"-argument. [sarcasm on] Of course, these Scandinavian girls are so good looking because of their unlimited access to free cosmetic surgery. {Sarcasm off] Rik

I am not advocating censorship, at all. If I am advocating anything then it would be "Hell 2.0" for liars. I'm not really sure what form that sh/could take, but I would like it to be so that someone who flat out lies (i.e. knowingly, consciously present facts that aren't true) in a socio-political debate is properly called out with a loss in his/her social status. As an example: When Trump says that Obama was tapping his wires in Trump tower and cannot provide any evidence, I want him to go and sit in the corner with a hat that has "Dumb ass" written on it. This might: - stop him from doing it again - show the general public that he told a lie If, on the other hand, Trump says: "I think there are too many Muslims in the USA." then I, respectfully, disagree with him on that opinion, but I will not stop him from voicing that opinion. Rik

I agree with Nige1, on basic principles, but I fear that the idea of "open information leads to healthy discussions and good decisions by the population" is not working so well anymore. It worked well when the individual could sit back and inform himself, listen to discussions and form an opinion. Nowadays, the population is completely saturated with information, desinformation, news, fake news, facts and alternative facts. How is Joe Average supposed to see the forest through the trees and form a decent opinion? I am not going to advocate religion here, but in the past if one would tell a lie, one would go to hell. This made the information at least somewhat reliable, since hell didn't seem such a nice place. Nowadays, if you need to lie to sell something, it seems that you simply do that. So, who can you believe? Trump? The very dishonest media? Fox News? These two social crises, the information overload crisis and the credibility crisis, make that Nige1's idea in practice is more difficult than it used to be. Rik

That is why I take travel insurance when I am traveling to the USA... something that I don't do for traveling to other wealthy countries. Rik

I hope you are aware that this is merely an opinion, not some universal truth. I hope that you are also aware that many people are of the opinion that healthcare should be a right in a wealthy country. Details about numbers aside, you will have to face the fact that "the entire US federal budget" is an incredibly small number if you compare that to other wealthy countries (after normalization for the size of the population). I could say that my annual expenses for band-aids alone far exceed my entire sporting goods budget... well I don't spend anything on sporting goods and the US doesn't spend much on their government, federal or otherwise. To talk a little more economy: Yes, if the federal government provides affordable health care for everyone, goverment spending (negative buzzword warning) will obviously increase. This will have the obvious consequence that elsewhere budgets need to be cut or that taxes have to increase. (Ouch! Right wingers have a stomache ache by now. I hope they are properly covered.) But now take a step back and look what is happening with the money. Tax payers are paying money and it is going to people who couldn't afford health care without government help. A flow of money from the rich to the poor. As with any flow of money from rich to poor, it means that the money is taken away from: savings, trust funds, second homes on the Virgin Islands, luxury vacations, the stock market, off shore accounts, etc. and it is going to bread, home improvement, a new (or second hand) refrigerator, ... you get the picture. The general picture is that money comes off the shelves, out of piggy banks and that it starts to work in the economy by increasing consumer spending. Increasing consumer spending is one of the most powerful tools to improve a nation's economy. Pumping money from rich to poor is a way to "wake up" sleeping capital and put it to work. Some other countries, most notably the Scandinavian ones, are very aware of this. As a result they are wealthy, despite a lack of natural resources (other than Norway's fossile fuels) and their inhabitants are happy (this is true for the poor as well as the rich). If the USA would adopt this model, they would rule the world... not militarily, but in happiness and wealth. But, I know, socialism is a dirty word in American, so it ain't gonna happen. So, no, full healthcare for all wouldn't bankrupt America. On the contrary, it would make America flourish economically. Rik

Kushner is selling 76 trombones to China. Rik

Exactly my point. MikeH reasons that because dogs and cats don't have a problem with unisex bathrooms, we are driven by fear and bigotry when we do have a problem with unisex bathrooms. It's a nonsensical reasoning. The exact same reasoning that he is using to frame "problems with unisex bathrooms" is used by real bigots who have a problem with homosexuality: "We weren't homosexual in the past, cats and dogs don't do it, therefore it is wrong to be homosexual." MikeH wrote: "In prehistoric times we didn't have a problem in unisex toilets, cats and dogs don't have a problem with unisex toilets, therefore, it is wrong to have a problem with unisex toilets." And then he finishes this nonsense with "QED". ____________________ I agree with Mike's opinion, but that is another matter altogether. He tried to "prove" his opinion and took his eye of the ball. Rik

Don't get me wrong. I agree with your opinion. But it is an opinion and not more than that. If you want to present it as a conclusion from logical reasoning, then you have to reason logically. So, from the fact that we didn't do something in the past and the fact that cats and dogs don't do something it automatically follows ("therefore") that it is fear and bigotry? We started playing bridge on BBO long after the development of segregated toilets. Before that we never did that. Neither cats nor dogs worry about whether to finesse or play for the drop. According to you, we are, therefore, dealing with fear and bigotry. ?!? :o :( :unsure: It doesn't help your case when you try to present your opinion as a consequence of logical reasoning when the logic in the reasoning simply isn't there. I would leave the QED's to the mathematicians, since your flawed reasoning doesn't "D" much. Rik

The reason is simple: Followers of populists are not looking at the results. They are happy with the fact that what they think is put on the agenda. I am an engineer. When I see a problem, I will categorize it instantaneously: Is it solvable or is it not solvable? If it isn't, it isn't an interesting problem anymore. You just have to live with it. If it's solvable then it is a question on whether I want to spend my time and resources on actually solving it. Polulist leaders pick problems that are unsolvable and that the population simply has to live with. The "technocrats" ignore those problems, since there is little one can do about them and they see worrying about them as a waste of time. The populist, however mentions those problems (and it doesn't even matter whether they are real or perceived problems), and the population is happy that finally somebody is bringing this up. Hooray!! The next step is that the (real or perceived) problems cannot be solved (after all, they were unsolvable). Some would think that the populist leader would return to his voters and say: "Sorry, it was harder than I thought." But no, the populist leader knew up front that the problem couldn't be solved, so everything is still going according to plan. The next step is to blame his opponents for blocking the solution of the problem. The opponents can be political opponents (technocrats, "the elite") or foreign opponents (in Europe that means "Brussels") or others (the media, the judicial system). Whoever they are, they are blocking the solution of the problem. Blaming others from blocking the solutions is the way to keep the electorate happy: "He is working hard at it, but the ... (fill in) making it impossible to do his job." and they will vote for the populist again. The "Muslim ban" is an example: Terrorism is a problem. There are no simple solutions. So, the populist starts by placing it on the agenda and making it as big as possible. Then, he comes with a "solution": Banning people from 7 countries. (Of course, this doesn't solve the problem and the populist knows that.) Unfortunately, simply banning people is illegal and the judicial system stops the ban. From now on, terrorism is their fault, even if the next terrorist attack is committed by someone from Faroer (an island group north of Scotland). "He tried to prevent it, but the judges didn't let him." Rik

Not only did he know this before the announcement, but he has convincing evidence that he knew this before the announcement, which is of practical importance. Rik

So perhaps it wasn't such a bright idea to vote a race driver in as captain of such a ship. In essence, what you are saying is: "the USA is not a company". Where have I heard that before? Rik

I fully agree. Let's not make a big deal out of nothing. Of course, some problems are real (e.g. the problem that you are sketching of the TS/TG/TW teenager having to shower somewhere in common showers). But at the practical level, these problems don't require non-linear algebra to find a solution, as long as everybody is willing to co-operate towards one. Rik

If there are no segregated bathrooms you cannot walk into the wrong one, regardless of your sex/gender/whatever. (I think "S/G/W" could be a good term, indicating the indifference towards other people's S/G/W.) I would see it as good thing if there would be no sign "MEN" or "WOMEN" on the doors, but simply one that says "PEOPLE" (to prevent Martians and chimpanzees from scaring the heck out of innocent citizens). Then I wouldn't go to "the men's room", but simply to the "people's room" (or shortened: the "'P' room". ;) ) Rik

An additional problem is that we all have to tell and understand these jokes in English. For many of us, English is not our native language. Telling jokes and understanding jokes in a foreign language is one of the very hardest parts. There are many people who are so fluent in a foreign language that they can speak it in public, can talk it over the phone or use it to deal with complex subjects (science, culture, etc.), but they cannot communicate or understand humor in the foreign language. And then I haven't even said anything about the fact that there are also cultural issues. What is funny in one culture can be considered horrible or distasteful in another. (You can tell that even in different cultures within one country: You wouldn't tell your mother-in-law the same jokes as you are telling your drinking buddies.) So, my advice to you is: be very careful with humor. Treat unknown people like you would treat your mother-in-law. And at the bridge table: Have fun, but don't be funny. Rik

I understand why there is a problem here in American culture: Bathrooms are not only used for what they are meant for. They also serve as gender segregated meeting rooms. After all, would it really be a problem if a man would wash his hands next to a woman washing hers? Would it be a problem if a man is doing his private business in a private, closed stall next to a woman who is doing her private business in a private, closed stall? So, the fundamental problem is the fact that women (mostly) want their segregated meeting room where they can powder their noses together with other women, and gossip nicely, all out of the sight of men. The fact that this desire for women to be segregated is blatant sexism is lost on most people. If this sexism would stop, there wouldn't be a reason to decide which bathroom transgenders (or anybody else with a gender issue) would use: There would only be one bathroom. Rik (m/f, but actually m / f )

When can you pass a forcing NT? When one of your opponents shows you his 2=5=3=3 hand with 20 HCPs. On this hand, you even have two possibilities: 2♣ and 2♥. Why would you pass? Rik