Leaderboard

In the old version I was able to define the category for each player I want to. I was able to enter Notes for that player too. After that, I was able always to see what category I marked player with (with color that I defined in the same time when I created corresponding category). I was able to see few line of the Notes properly formatted. I don't see how, in the new version: - I can manage categories (create and define color for it) - How to assign the category to the player - How to see the category for each player (by color) - Better format Notes

I can understand being in favour of Brexit (even though I firmly believe it is very wrong, and harmful). I cannot understand voting for a politician who fought for decades for Brexit and then resigns the moment there is a chance he'd have to take any responsibility for the *****-show that was inevitably bound to happen. (Blame May all you want, the fact is that there is no majority in parliament for any Brexit option, and certainly not for a suicidal no-deal one.)

Nigel Farage is actively pursuing policies (a no deal Brexit most prominent) that a lot of people think will be terrible for his country. Yet he seems to be able to convince large numbers of citizens to vote for him using a combination of charisma, untruths, and lack of competence in his opposition. He seems increasingly likely to get what he wants. The overwhelming sense I get from Corbyn is a lack of leadership. He wants to be on both sides of every issue, from Brexit to anti-semitism. Would it be better for Britain if Labour was lead by someone more willing to state clear positions and fight for them? Quite likely. But it seems harsh to classify someone like Corbyn as more dangerous than someone trying to wreck his own country’s economy (and winning).

I agree that the N/S bidding was bad (at least South's bidding, 2♥ seems reasonable to me), but the number of tricks taken and the results from the other tables leaves the impression that the general level may not be very high. The initial double would not be my choice, but when that was chosen it does seem like it was misinformation that created South's final problem. I believe her when we are told she would have bid 3♦ if 1♦ had been correctly alerted and explained. An experienced/strong player may have found that something was wrong if East had shown 12+, West 6(?)+ and North 9-11(?) when she herself got 15, but this player didn't. While we can dislike the pass, she now got a bidding problem with no obvious solution. The link between subsequent and consequent doesn't IMO depend on how big an error that is made, but if the error is directly linked to the infraction, and that seems to be the case here. Also, if you consider this a "very serios error unrelated to the infraction" (§12C1e) then you shold normally award a split (non-balancing) score.