cherdanno

Frequent flier miles are worth a lot less than you think they are. I bet you would be better off with a cashback credit card (e.g. bluecash). Winston - these cards typically have no annual fees, but have high credit rates. So don't ever use them when you might not be able to pay your monthly bill, is the recommendation I think.

Well, 3♥ over 3♦ would be a good start.

Oh dear. Can we go back to imagining Palin as president, please?

Abortion is a discussion about values. Apart from the fact that most people actually have mixed feelings about abortion, I can accept when people come to a different value judgment on this issue. The debate about global warming is in part a debate about facts. It is much harder to accept when the other side manages to completely ignore established facts ("The earth isn't actually warming.") or scientific consensus ("Global warming is only due to increased sun activity."). Or, as Jimmy would say, the other side is completely living in their own spin and creating their own reality of spin and bias. Abortion is, in parts, a debate of religious versus other values. Global warming is a debate of rationality versus irrationality, about general distrust against science. The age of enlightenment settled this debate in Europe for good (and those who still disagreed with its principles emigrated to America). Now, the cap-and-trade-bill combines this issue with TAXES, the most toxic word in US politics.

1. Defense 2. Play 3. bidding.

I strongly believe vugraph should remain free. Even a small fee creates a barrier over which many potential viewers would never jump, to the detriment of the event. OTOH I am willing to pay a little for well-run vugraph coverage. In fact I did just that via the USBF website.

I was talking about the play after we return a heart at trick 5.

Actually, an endplay is imminent if declarer held this hand. You lead a heart and declarer plays ♥x (the pips in dummy are bigger). Partner has to win and is endplayed immediately. [...] * If partner returns a club, the endplay repeats after a few tricks. Declarer puts up dummy's ♣Q, crosses to hand in ♣A and runs the remaining 3 diamonds. Finally, the last club from dummy puts partner in for a lead into ♥AQ Only if partner doesn't unblock ♣K?

The health insurance market has very high barriers for entrance. Every single health insurance company in the US needs to: - Negotiate payment plans with every single health care provider they want their patients to have access to (ok, of course I am exaggerating, there are networks of insurance companies that negotiate with networks of providers - which means that becoming part of such a network is a barrier to entrance to the market) - Find his way to avoid the adverse selection problem (i.e., only people who know they will have high medical bills signing up for his plan). In practice, this means signing contracts with employers who pay health insurance as part of their benefits. Starting a car insurance is very easy compared to starting a health care insurance. You don't have to negotiate contracts with car care providers, and the adverse selection problem is much easier to deal with.

Do you think there's reason to believe that a government-run system would have dramatically less waste, fraud, and abuse? Yes. based on what? the evidence presented by other gov't run systems? For example. Gov't run health care insurance systems in other countries. Reducing profits in a non-competitive market.

I agree with it to remedy past discrimination by the entity in question (which is one case in which it's constitutionally permissible). For instance, if all promotions are based on seniority, and certain groups have less senority because they weren't hired until 1985. I also don't mind class-based affirmative action, to some extent. With respect to, for instance, public university admissions. What happens with race-based affirmative action is that to some extent, race is used as a proxy for wealth or income (as evidenced by some of the arguments in its favor). So, say a high school in a diverse district has only white non-Hispanic teachers. Would you agree with the school looking specifically for Hispanic or Black teachers? Or is that unfair preference against white teachers with equal qualification? Although this is an ongoing interchange between Lobo and Cher, I want to comment. The firefighter's case is real. The diverse (with the usual coded meaning of the word) high school with all white teachers is hypothetical. Let's look at a real system. Until I moved some four years ago I lived for several years in Prince George's County in Maryland. The schools system is county run and is frequently referred to as the wealthiest majority black school district in the nation. If this hypothetical problem of excessive whiteness in the teaching force with a diverse student body were to arise, PG would be a likely place. In fact what happens is that they have a great deal of difficulty attracting strong teachers. In the spring they announce that they will be hiring only fully qualified teachers. As the summer wears on reality sets in and they hire whomever they can get. They would be happy to have good teachers, be they black, white or heliotrope. If they had a qualified white candidate and a qualified black candidate I am sure they would hire them both and probably send out for champaigne. It's better to stick with the case of the firefighters. They are real. FWIW, I didn't mean "diverse" in the "usual coded meaning of the word". Sorry, I am not that American yet :) Sure the example is made up, but I don't think the principle is. African-Americans in the Baltimore police force? Women among the faculty in math/science departments at research universities?

no Yes, as long as we play for that shape. Don't you need to guess the spade J/10? You have to play East for ♠K: duck a club to East, win the diamond return in dummy, cash the other club, play a diamond to hand, and play two more rounds of clubs. I think you and me miscounted trick. This line gives you 2 spades, one heart, 2 diamonds, and 3 clubs.

I do not agree. Opener had a chance to show a minor, responder had a chance to show a minor, and they still have one more chance to find a minor (4NT 6m, 4NT 5NT 6m). If all those get ignorred and you still belong in a 4-4 minor suit fit, then someone made a judgment error in not showing it when he could have. What you say is in fitting with your general principles but there is no need on this auction. I think your argument is circular. If opener bids 3m rather than 2N with 5242 and 18-19, then obviously there is no need for 4m over 3N to show that hand. But if he can still have that hand, then there is obviously still benefit for showing precisely this hand at the 4-level. The benefit isn't only to find 6m, but also to stop in 4N with misfitting values. I would also take 4m as a cuebid for hearts with 18-19 balanced, but there is no logic dictating so.

Do you think there's reason to believe that a government-run system would have dramatically less waste, fraud, and abuse? Yes.

I would also try to duck a club to East. If we can do that, we will also make when RHO is 5=2=2=4. If we cannot duck one of the first two club tricks to East, we have a guess - play a 3rd round, playing him for 5=2=3=3, or cash two diamonds and exit to East, playing him for 5=2=2=4.

1♠, I can't stomach missing spades.

The health insurance market has very high barriers for entrance. Every single health insurance company in the US needs to: - Negotiate payment plans with every single health care provider they want their patients to have access to (ok, of course I am exaggerating, there are networks of insurance companies that negotiate with networks of providers - which means that becoming part of such a network is a barrier to entrance to the market) - Find his way to avoid the adverse selection problem (i.e., only people who know they will have high medical bills signing up for his plan). In practice, this means signing contracts with employers who pay health insurance as part of their benefits. The tax breaks for health benefits also make lowering costs less attractive. In theory, medical bills are tax deductible, too, but in practice for most people they aren't (because they are not filing itemized tax deductions).

Well, you may be semantically right, but this is clearly not what the ACBL meant. I think it is pretty clear they wanted to outlaw o/e signals. Obviously whoever wrote that segment of the GCC was either not aware it would apply to the common "suit preference by 3rd hand at trick one when he has shown a long suit"-agreement (explained by echo above). I.e. either they were not aware it would apply in that situations, or wasn't aware that agreement exists and is quite common.

What are the excuses of the Congressional Republicans for the non-sense many of them are blurting out? Fear of the Club of Growth?

I don't think your example is analogous at all. It is evidently desirable for a school in a diverse district to have a diverse teacher body. If you don't agree with that then we probably don't have any basis for a discussion. I still shouldn't dodge your question, but it really depends on the context, of which I don't know enough. But I disagree with your implication that two students from different racial background, but same socio-economic status and having attended the same school necessarily have the equal opportunities. For example, if that school had an all white-and-Asian teacher body, and there was evidence for implicit discrimination by the teachers against black students, then yes there would be reason to give preference to a Black candidate from that school. Vice versa if there was discrimination against Asian students. Of course, in the individual case, we do not know of such discrimination. I suppose one of the thing you are arguing against is the presumption of discrimination in the individual case "just" because discrimination exists in the society in general. Well, we will have to disagree on that one. (Nevertheless, I agree that affirmative action based on socio-economic background and schools is a better start than based on race.)

So you are even against affirmative action when it is in the employer's own interests to increase the diversity among its employee's? I.e. the employer cannot hire who is the most useful person in the job, but has to hire someone "most qualified" according to an abstract color-blind standard?

I agree with it to remedy past discrimination by the entity in question (which is one case in which it's constitutionally permissible). For instance, if all promotions are based on seniority, and certain groups have less senority because they weren't hired until 1985. I also don't mind class-based affirmative action, to some extent. With respect to, for instance, public university admissions. What happens with race-based affirmative action is that to some extent, race is used as a proxy for wealth or income (as evidenced by some of the arguments in its favor). So, say a high school in a diverse district has only white non-Hispanic teachers. Would you agree with the school looking specifically for Hispanic or Black teachers? Or is that unfair preference against white teachers with equal qualification?

I would overcall 1♠.

I double this. When both hands are balanced, showing your hand-type and defining your range is more important than cuebidding.

For those of you agreeing with SCOTUS here: do you agre with affirmative action in any other situation?