effervesce

Taxing fuel may be all well and good in theory, but in practice not as effective unless the tax makes the price high enough to be sufficiently painful. It is also a quick way for a government to lose votes for the next election. When buying cars, or anything else for that matter, the initial price is a very important factor. You can have the most efficient laundry machine, which in 2 years recoups its extra expense over a less efficient laundry machine - but if the more efficient one costs $500 while the cheaper one is $200, most people will probably buy the cheaper one even if it is more expensive over the long run. Same thing with cars - say there is a $20 000 vehicle that consumes $100 per week in petrol, and a $30 000 car that consumes $50 per week. The extra expense is recouped in 4 years, but I'd imagine the majority of consumers will still buy the $20 000 dollar vehicle - simply because the initial cash saving is a more important factor for the average consumer than the overall cost. That is why subsidising the price of efficient cars may be a much more effective way of reducing CO2 emissions. Tax the inefficient cars, and use that money to subsidise the efficient cars. If both cars were similarly priced, there'd be many more consumers buying the efficient cars.

Out of interest, what would a double of 4♠ by partner instead of bidding 5♦ be? Extras certainly, but what kind of hand. A double-then bid type hand with a misfit for diamonds? Or just optional? Is x KQJx AQxx AKQJ a double or a 5♦ call?

I would give long odds against a diamond lead.. I agree with the fear of ruffs, but not at trick 2... think about it: I would guess a diamond lead would be the 3rd choice of opening lead. One of the reasons tbat most winning bridge players bid aggressively is that defence, and particularly the opening lead, is difficult. It is losing bridge to firstly imagine that a losing layout exists and then, to compound the problem, expect double-dummy defence in what amounts to a blind guess. Oops you're correct-for some reason I thought LHO would be leading. Leading from Axxxx(x) would be very unlikely. It's closer now, but I think 3♠ is still enough at MP.

KQxx in diamonds is a warning sign for me. It looks like diamond lead, diamond ruff, heart lead, diamond ruff. I'm bidding 3♠. If LHO does not have a diamond singleton, but partner instead, then you have diamond tricks coming in defense, which are wasted in a spade contract.

The 1♠ opener has at least 7 spades, probably 8. Partner is almost certain to have a singleton/void spades. What can partner's hand be? x Axxx AQT8 Axxx and slam is good, and that is nowhere near a 5♦ bid. If partner has a singleton spade, with extra values, surely partner can make another X. Partner is very likely to be void spades, and if not, holding a singleton spade will have a rock crusher. I raise to 6♦. They may make the wrong lead in any case, allowing a losing heart (or club) to be pitched on the other suit. I won't be surprised if 7♦ is cold either. I'm tempted to bid 5♠ as a grand slam try given my previous bidding. Partner certainly doesnt expect you to have such a good hand.

Wouldn't have had this problem. 7-4 hands I open game-in this case, 5♦.

You cant ruff a club and two hearts, AND take the spade hook so that line is out. In any case RHO can win the 2nd club and return a trump. The ruffing finesse in diamonds seems to be a near-certainty to work, given LHO opened the bidding - he may have opened on a 9 count, but that's unlikely.

Sure, it is also possible that it is in society's interest (as perceived by a majority) to force black people to occupy the rear seats in the bus only. Wrong analogy. Let me improve on it. Say that darker skinned people are more likely to produce children-and that suntanning will make you have darker skin and therefore more likely to have children. If the government decides to give tax breaks for people who suntan as opposed to people who don't, is that wrong? Now, where this analogy breaks down is due to choice. In the above scenario, people can choose to suntan or not. Being straight or gay may not be a choice at all-nobody knows. But, I imagine for the majority of Californians, especially those who voted against gay marriage- they believe that being gay is a choice.

I don't think you got my point. I totally agree with you that you shouldn't oppose gay marriage simply to try an eliminate a supposed 'gay gene' - in any case it would be totally ineffectual. For example, if a recessive deleterious gene has a frequency of 0.02, and we want to halve its frequency - it would take 50 generations of wiping out each and every single one expressing (ie having both alleles recessive) the deleterious trait. If, as Hrothgar points out, that there is such a so-called gay gene, which indeed increases the fecundity of females, it would make eliminating such a gay gene a nigh impossible task. My point this entire time is not about genetics-instead, about the environment (society). Preserving the ideal that marriage is a union between man and woman may be a worthwhile goal, if indeed environment plays a role in deciding a person is straight or gay, by reducing the chances that the next generation is gay due to environmental considerations. Not everything is passed on genetically - a large proportion is in fact transmitted from generation to generation in other ways, such a cultural values, or characteristics from parents to children. I'll make this clear-I'm not against gay marriage because of evolutionary reasons or whatever - or eugenics (Holocaust #2 anyone?). Society as a whole is designed to circumvent evolution- supporting the weak, elderly, valuing helping others, etc. I'm simply trying to make two points - it may be in society's interests to promote straight unions over gay unions - and that if a particular society decides to vote against gay marriage, then so be it. They have spoken and decided their values - that marriage is a union between a man and woman. A similar issue in America are gun laws-America's people have decided that guns are ok for individuals to own. Most other societies in the world, however, have decided the opposite-that guns are not ok. It looks like California has decided that gay marriage is not ok.

This is one of the most offensive posts I have read on BBF and that is really quite a standard. You don't discriminate against a minority just because you have a weird theory that it might beneficial for the society in the long run. If you don't think that is a good standard then I have some theories developed in the 1930s in my home country to sell you. And one doesn't discriminate against the rich with taxes, or subsidise those with no job by having welfare either, on the theory that such would be beneficial to society in the long run. In Australia, we have what we call the 'baby bonus', whereby mothers who give birth are given $4000. Such a bonus was given as an incentive to produce children in an aging population. Such a bonus seems to be universally ok by society as a whole. Why, then, are so many people taking offense at straight couples being given certain tax breaks while individuals do not? Doesn't such a bonus discriminate against gay couples as well, since it is impossible for them to have a baby, but must instead rely on a surrogate or adopt a child? A very obvious case where your point is proved wrong is in immigration, both in Australia and America. If you're from Canada, Australia, England, it's easy to immigrate to America. But if you're a refugee, you're automatically detained. Indefinitely. 90% of the thousands of so called 'boat people' who have arrived in Australia are legitimate refugees and under Australian law eligible for asylum- however, the majority are refused entry and detained indefinitely at a mandatory detention centre (at taxpayer's expense and more expensive than to simply allow them to immigrate-in fact it costs Australia $100 per day per person-a large amount of money considering that 20% stay in detention for a year or longer) until they are deported to their country of origin.

The 3♦ bid sounded too much like a 5-5. 2♦, then bidding clubs, then bidding 6♣ would probably stop partner converting to diamonds - as well as indicating your heart shortage if 2♦ was natural, stopping partner from running to NT.

Perhaps you meant to say "majority" instead of society because gays are very much part of the society. Secondly, as tax paying citizens, they have every right to voice their opinions in the matter. BTW, substituting "left handed" (or some other minority trait) instead of gay in your argument makes for a very interesting read... Apparently society wants to help some groups more than others. Why does that surprise you? In Australia, there are numerous scholarships/subsidies for Aborigine/Torres Straight Islander minorities. Why did they choose them in particular over, say, Afghans or Iranians? Society feels that lower-income earners should be taxed less than higher-income earners. Society feels that seniors should have pensioner benefits, and students have student benefits. Society similarly feels that straight couples should have couple benefits. Does any of the above surprise you? As for the left-right handed comment... In fact, I was initially left handed (or shall I say, sinister :unsure:) when very young, and wrote left-handed. One of primary school teacher persuaded me to write right-handed, and thus I did. I, in fact, now am right handed when writing, even though for everything else (eg sports) I'm left-handed. Society's influence does play a role. Evolutionarily, there is nothing wrong with marriage per se. Gay genetics will be disadvantaged. However, some characteristics are passed from generation to generation not by genetics, but from culture/society. Thus, there may be an evolutionary disadvantage for a society that includes gay marriages. I'm not arguing that such a position is correct. I'm just stating that cultural/societal aspects/values may be just as important as genetics in whether a person becomes gay in future generations - and thus from an evolutionary standpoint, being against gay marriages may be beneficial to society as a whole.

Why is KJ with LHO more likely than KJxx with RHO? Both have exactly one layout.

Looks like we want to play the spade suit for 1 loser. Outstanding cards are KJ72. The possibilities: - KJ72 ----- double hook 2 KJ7 ----- double hook J K72 ----- doublehook or A and another K J72 ----- doublehook or A and another J2 K7 ----- anything K2 J7 ----- anything KJ 72 ----- A and another KJ2 7 ----- A and another The possible lines: Doublehook A and another Looks like double hook and A and another are equivalent for making the contract.

How about what society votes to consent to do with its taxpayer money? The government isn't sticking their nose into what two adults do with their lives - rather, the government is sticking its nose into what the goverment is concerned with - its own taxpayer money. If the government decides to subsidise straight couples but not gays, then it can choose to do so. If gays want to be gay, sure-they are free to do so-but why should gays tell society what society wants to do with taxpayer money?

I guess by that you mean that two men in a relationship can't reproduce. However, how different is that from saying that men can't reproduce on their own? Does the relationship suddenly develop a societal/evolutionary benefit if they hire a female surrogate for that purpose? What are the societal/evolutionary benefits from hetrosexual couples that can't reproduce? What about those hetrosexual couples that don't want to reproduce? To extend that further, what about individuals? Individuals cant reproduce. However, how different is that from saying individuals can't reproduce on their own? Why cant individuals hire a surrogate for that purpose? What you're arguing is about where to draw the line. You have a point-perhaps such tax breaks should then be for couples with children. You could set it up such that all couples, straight or gay, have a tax break only if they raise children.

Lose two spades and 3 clubs. What's wrong with leading a club first to see what RHO returns? RHO's lead may be helpful. If RHO returns a diamond (pitch a heart), cash another top diamond (I think diamonds are 5-3, pitching a club) then play another club. RHO has to lead something else. If RHO has to open up hearts from 9x, Tx, or 9xx or Txx or spades from Qxx will help you pick up the suit.

Pass, planning to pass partner's X or cue after partner's diamond cue. Your hand is good, but not great. You want to encourage partner, but not that much.

Disagree with south's initial double - it doesn't have the correct shape. South should pass. North's 5♥ bid is optimistic, but reasonable. After east doubles, south should know north is likely to have a two suiter. Just pass and let north pick a suit.

Just so we're clear: No one is trying to force the Latter Day Saints, the Roman Catholics, or the Southern Bapists to conduct same sex marriages. No one is suggesting that the government punish the LDS because they want to discriminate... People are arguing the following: If the act of marriage conveys special legal advantages, then some avenue for marriage needs to be granted to all citizen. This could take the form of a civil ceremony. Alternatively, it might be a religious ceremony via some church that has chosen to sanction same sex marriages. I certainly don't like this solution. I've been arguing for years that religious sacrements like marriage shouldn't be granted special status under the legal code. However, if you're going grant special privledges to married folk then you shouldn't deny anyone the right to marry. To play the Devil's (Angel's?) advocate - If, as many suggest, that marriage (evolved and is) is beneficial to society to keep stability and keep a family together to raise children, then perhaps it is correct to keep the special privileges as you mention for straight couples rather than gays. The tax benefits (and other benefits) may be in a sense considered a incentive for people to be straight and therefore have children - for society's benefit to keep the population replenished and stop an aging workforce. Gays, who cannot reproduce and have children therefore should not have these special privileges-as there is no societal/evolutionary benefit for such relationships. This may be considered a form of epigenetics (well, I can't remember the correct word so I'll use epigenetics here even though epigenetics means something quite different). Traits that are passed on to offspring via genes are due to genetics. Keeping people straight is an obvious evolutionary advantage. Being straight/gay is likely to be partly genetic. However, straight/gay may also have environmental factors - ie society promoting the usual 'straight' relationships. Therefore, society favoring straight relationships vs gay relationships may be considered as epigenetics- traits passed on to offspring due to other factors, NOT due to genetics. Cultural/religious views passed on to offspring about straight/gay relationships can therefore be viewed as epigenetic.

2♣ opening. You have nine tricks in your own hand, solid 6 card suit and all 4 aces to boot, along with a 3 loser hand. Partner won't expect this good a hand to be opened 1♣. Now that you've opened 1♣ and partner responded 1♥, you're really kinda stuck. KQxxx of hearts and you want to be in the grand. With just KQxxx of hearts and nothing else, partner won't be able to see any possible hand that opened 1♣ would want to be in a grand slam. Hmmm-I'm going to fake a splinter by 3♠ then RKCB for hearts - partner's almost certainly not going to cooperate with any slam try you make.

Just posting out of amusement really.

Two-suiters are notoriously hard to handle after a 2♣ opening, as it is difficult to show both suits. They're much easier to bid by showing the two suits. To open the first hand as 2♣ I'd need a king extra. For the second hand I'd need an AK extra. 1♠ opening then jump-shifting in hearts for the first hand, and opening 1♦ jump-shifting to clubs on the second hand if partner responds 1♥ or 1NT or rebidding 2♣ if partner responds 1♠.

23 Zars - unless you're relying on opener having 5♥s and counting a bonus for an extra trump - but Acol players sometimes open minimum 4=4=4=1 shapes with 1♥ - unlikely of course, but possible. But, whatever, even at 23 Zars it is definitely pushing into the 3♥ response range. The thing that makes me feel slightly conservative is that hands with relatively high loser counts like this one are usually better off having the aces in the side suits and the quacks in partner's suit(s) where we know they will be useful. I'd be a whole lot happier with ♠Axxx ♥Jxxx ♦xx ♣Axx Alternatively I'd also be happier with a 3♥ call if we were vul at imps where pushing for the game pays real dividends. I suppose this would be a good one to run a sim on, but I can't be bothered just now. Nick You get +1 ZAR for each honor in partner's suits up to a max bonus of 2 per suit. Thus it is 24 ZAR.

The problem with 4NT is that it's quantitative isn't it? There are minimums where slam is good, and 20-22 counts where you're off two aces.