Leaderboard

I suppose that if the president were to lead by example, and show us how to inject and/or drink an effective dose of disinfectant, one of the world's major problems might be solved at a stroke. :lol:

[hv=pc=n&n=sj832hkjt62djc863&e=sa7hq875d942cq742&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c(can%20be%202)1sdr(Hx%20in%20spades)1n(17-19)2ddp2np3nppp]266|200[/hv] Welsh Online League. South is a fine player and a regular international for the Welsh Lady Milne Team. IMPs Your partner leads the six of spades (fourth) and you decide to win with the ace and return a high diamond. Partner plays the king after some thought (which you are not entitled to of course) and returns the five of spades to declarer's king. Now declarer leads a heart to partner's four and dummy's jack. Do you duck or win?

[hv=pc=n&s=sak3h932dq9cqj654&w=sq762hj75dj54ct83&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1np3nppp]266|200[/hv] IMPs scoring, 1NT is 15-17, partner leads the ♠J (standard honour leads) and dummy ducks. What's the plan on defence? If you are ducking this, your agreement in this situation is that your card would be standard count.

The king of snake oil can raise a "misson accomplished" banner now: my emphasis

I saw a re-run of the daily briefing by Trump his team. The presentation by Bill Bryant (lasting approx. 6 minutes) was extremely interesting and I thought it provided useful indicators for actions the average corporation / person can take to reduce the risk of Covid transmission. However, Trump's insane remarks immediately followed the presentation by Bryant thereby immediately relegating all useful information from the presentation to oblivion. Not one TV programme or News bulletin even mentioned the salient points from Bryant's presentation. Unfortunate!

Duck looks best. That fifth ♥ in dummy could well be the 9th trick. As partner didn't lead a ♦ in preference to a ♠, his/her ♦s aren't that solid. I would expect partner to be 5-1-5-2 shape from the bidding and the play so far. Though I would like to know if the opponents open 1♣ with 4-4m as opposed to 1♦ here for clarity.

Another of those you can't make this sh*t up moments: Trump Suggests Injecting Disinfectant, Shining UV Light Inside Patients to Kill Coronavirus in Bizarre, Rambling Tangent The title of the article pretty much speaks for itself.

[hv=pc=n&s=S954HKQ8DAK82CA92&n=sak3h932dq9cqj654&e=sq762hj75dj54ct83&d=e&v=b&b=4&a=p1np3nppp&p=SJ]300|300| manudude03 "IMPs scoring, 1NT is 15-17, partner leads the ♠J (standard honour leads) and dummy ducks. What's the plan on defence? If you are ducking this, your agreement in this situation is that your card would be standard count." ++++++++++++++++++ Deal rotated to make South declarer. Prospects are bleak. I suppose you could overtake with ♠Q and switch to - ♥J, hoping that partner has ♥AQT or - better, perhaps, ♥5, hoping that partner has ♥ATxx or better. But, on this layout, declarer could succeed by winning the opening lead.[/hv]

I am confused. The message apparently from 9 April that is linked here says that the start limit is 11am Eastern Time, which I think is 5pm CEST. The current effective limit is (was) 4pm CEST. But the title of this post says changing from 7pm to 5pm CEST. Could you please spell out what the new start time limit is in Eastern Time and CEST?

I will note that sometimes there are directors in the online tournaments. If the non-conceding partner has a sure trump trick, or a high card that is always going to win a trick, would you say it would be trivial for the players at the table to agree that was the case and simply adjust the number of tricks for each side? I think it should and would be the case in almost every instance. That way you can get the correct result on the board. If you let an impossible concession happen, the board is over and if there is no director to adjust the score, that's the final result. Isn't it better to not let that bad concession happen in the first place?

Thank you for sharing, cherdano. I read both the articles; it made me feel de Blasio would make a great President!?! Maybe in 2024? :blink: :wacko: :rolleyes:

More importantly, the mayor of New York is nuts. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/nyc-mayor-coronavirus-asymptomatic-statements-978553/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/how-bill-de-blasio-failed-new-york-city/609379/

I think it is interesting that the OP did something incredibly stupid, seemingly knows it was incredibly stupid, and yet gives the impression of not having learned anything from the experience. From a game theory perspective, this kind of illogical actor is in my book highly interesting. :P