FelicityR

EU Chocolate Cookie Law: ah, that one determining the size and shape of aforementioned said cookies, the origin of the individual ingredients, whether organic or otherwise, the number, size and origin of the chocolate pieces, and the environmental impact of both the packaging to wrap the cookies and the packaging to contain a number of wrapped cookies, i.e a cardboard box (recycled or otherwise) or plastic bag (biodegradable or non-degradable) and the nutritional content displayed concisely on the side for each individual cookie or for 100g of cookies (should you have a particular food fetish for chocolate cookies), and the E numbers for every additive used to make the cookies, etc, etc, etc. And you thought this sort of nonsense was just reserved for computer cookies? Goodness knows how we survived as a race before the EU came up with all this unnecessary bureaucracy. I come from an era where butchers still hung freshly-killed dead pheasants from hooks outside their shops without refrigeration!

With so many low cards, no intermediates, losers and 5422 shape, especially as partner can't enter the fray in second at favourable vulnerability, I'm inclined to Pass. Double could lead to trouble.

With ♠xxx ♥AQxx ♦AKxx ♣Ax I'm opening 1♦. That hand is worth more than 17 HCPs with its aces and tenace.

Best to let a tournament director give a definite answer as I not one, but knowing something that the opponents don't about your partner's 'pre-arranged' actions with a certain hand in a certain position would be in my book Unauthorised Information. Whilst it is common to open at favourable (and sometimes at unfavourable vulnerability) third in hand with a poorer hand than usual, it is extremely uncommon, virtually unheard of, not to open first in hand (or any other position) with 12+ points.

Inspiring. Perhaps if all lawyers adopted this stance I might actually like them. Sadly, from where I sit, there's far too many lawyers and ex-lawyers meddling in politics, both in the UK, Europe and America. https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/6/30/12068490/too-many-lawyers-politics When lawyers use laws, the minutiae of the law, and every conceivable trick in the book to defend human rights when the people they are defending have evidently committed human wrongs is beyond me. I wonder what the Legal Aid bill will be once all the dust has settled from the Extinction Rebellion protests. Peaceful demonstrators wouldn't have been arrested. Many of the protestors chose civil disobedience of their own freewill. They are adults. Maybe they should be held to account for their actions which has paralysed parts of London for the past week.

Difficult choice between pass and double. But as I see it, if the opponents are likely to go down and have overbid don't make things easier for them to find some way of making a hopeless contract. You hand isn't brilliant except for the ♥AK. They possibly have a double fit. They have bid 4♥ freely. Would partner lead a trump to stop a potential crossruff (if that was the correct defence) if you doubled (if he/she has one to lead)? That's not a guarantee. I'd rather pass at both MPs and IMPs. Maybe if they were vulnerable I would give greater consideration to doubling at MPs. -200 is a bad score for them. Them 'pushing the boat out' and bidding a vulnerable 4♥ game doubled or not is likely to be a bad score for you.

In a previous post on The Water Cooler I wrote For the past few months I have been following the mainly peaceful protests of Extinction Rebellion, a group highlighting the destruction that humans have caused already to Earth. Brexit or staying in the EU isn't going to kill the human race, but if we carry on wreaking the environment as we are currently doing there won't be a planet to live on in a hundred years time. Surely that should take priority over anything else, including Brexit. However... Personally I am becoming appalled at some of the dangerous 'tactics' (for want of a better word) demonstrators are adopting to make 'their point'. The police are overstretched in this country (especially London) already without needing to deal with people who are doing idiotic acts and are probably now alienating people like me from their cause. Peaceful demonstration is fine by me: anarchy or anarchic acts are on a different level. And if their acts are alienating me, surely by the same token they will alienate the people who they are trying to influence: the government departments and politicians. What do you think? And, as always, thank you for your replies.

It's so much easier dealing with (overcalling) a weak 2♣ opener than a weak 2♠ opener. Most 6 card weak ♣ suits are opened at favourable vulnerability with 3♣ these days anyway.

Like many players, I occasionally watch the JEC (Mr. Jimmy Cayne) games on BBO. I missed the best part of this session, but wondered why the opposition were so far behind, especially as they were both world class players. I didn't think much about it at the time but I always like accessing BBO records to see if I can glean some knowledge from the hands played. However, on closer inspection I just can't believe some of the bidding and results here. Am I missing anything? It looks completely insane. Anyway, your interpretation and replies are most welcome. I have looked through the hands a couple of times: some of things happening do not make any sense to me whatsoever. Your views? http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=5973-1570227916&u=jec

Pass followed by 3♠ seems right here, as invitational. If partner is one-suited, he/she can bid automatically after opener completes the xx 'transfer' to 2♣ (I honestly can't see that the opening 1NT bidder can pass here.) The opening bidder is also under my partner who should have a good 15 count for the double. I assess my hand as about an 8 count. If partner has extra he/she can bid game. HOWEVER, that is only a common sense view, not my regular partner's and my methods. I would hope partner would use a bit of logic to work out what sort of hand I have. Bidding 3♠ immediately after the XX just looks too forcing.

Cheating at bridge. Never! We're British :) [Well, not after that alleged incident in 1965...] But we have our fair share of corrupt politicians, government officials, sportspeople, tradespeople, bankers and financiers, antique dealers, second-hand car dealers, married men and women, benefit claimants, etc, etc, etc. in this so-called civilised country of ours who balance things out cheating-wise somewhat. Where there's money there's always a 'fiddle' (an act of defrauding, cheating, or falsifying.) as my husband says. And he's about right there.

The ♣ suit is longer and stronger than the ♠ suit, and at a guess the opponents are going to pre-empt to 3 or 4♥, but not bidding the ♣ suit in preference to ♠ doesn't seem right. So it's 2♣ from me followed by 3♠ or 4♠ which automatically shows 6-5 in the black suits. Double seems completely wrong when you have so much playing strength. As for a cue bid of 2♥ that would indicate a limit raise in ♦s for most partnerships.

2♠

I'm no expert, let alone an international master, and at least you admit the bidding isn't a piece of beauty, but you did the one thing that I am always conscious of at the table: pre-empting your partner. With 7015 shape and a passed partner, and a weak hand already announced by North, I feel it's more sensible in my very humble opinion to bid 2♠ here. I can understand why you bid 4♠ as your defensive values are not great, but it's a mighty hand distribution-wise. Your ♠s look very favourable given that North has announced his/her holding and that enhances your hand offensively.

I remember Andrew Robson opening a weak two or Multi on a similarly rubbish suit and, if I remember correctly, just an ace outside in the Bermuda Bowl World Championships in first position. You are in good company :) Edit. Found it. Board 19 https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=65853

I'm not a tournament director, but I'd probably would have hit South (and North, too for good measure) with my handbag! Yes, distribution is everything, but how South dragged up three bids on that pile of tramtickets is anyone's guess? And, North, must have known what was going on as after partner's X of 2♠ and the opponent's bid of 3NT, and 4♠ as he/she just kept quiet. I agree fully with the ruling. Actually the tournament director had a valid case that North knew that South was psyching, and should have awarded E/W a score of 4♠X making +790, in my honest opinion.

Another 'war' - this time a low-budget - movie based on a true story that I watched with my husband about six months and left a lasting impression is Kajaki (2014). I'm not a great fan of modern war films as many are so overzealous and filled with characters you don't empathise with, but this was different. Here is a review from the IMDB that sums up the movie perfectly:- You will cringe, laugh, cry and hold your breath in shocked disbelief and utter horror: one of the most intense and most touching war films I have ever seen. There's only a handful of so called "war films" I consider to be films about the actual reality of war. HBO's mini-series 'Generation Kill' is probably the most realistic when it comes to the depiction of modern warfare - but 'Kajaki' (also known as 'Kilo Two Bravo') gives it a run for its money: this criminally under-seen masterpiece should be considered a modern classic. The production values are fantastic; the cinematography, the script and the direction are absolutely flawless - but you won't notice them. What you will notice is the outstanding ensemble of actors, portraying characters in a way you forget you're watching a movie. They will make you cringe, laugh, cry and hold your breath in shocked disbelief and utter horror. This film had me literally on the edge of my seat the entire time, but what really grabs you by the gut is not just the suspense and the horror; it's the relationships between these soldiers and how they look out for each other. How close men become when their lives depend on each other has probably rarely been depicted on screen with the intensity and no-bullshît, keep-it-real attitude as is the case here. And knowing that what you're seeing actually happened only adds to the experience (for this film IS an experience). Definitely not the kind of war film that you come across very often. Superb. 9 stars out of 10.

The stock market is controlled by mathematicians, not economists, and politics is controlled by psychologists, not politicians. (This sentence just came to me as I prepared to write a reply here.) I wonder how true this is myself? The term 'spin doctor' is familiar in the UK. Just another name for psychological reasoning under the pretext of public relations. 'Framing' is just another spin, excuse the pun, on manipulating a situation to present a positive or negative viewpoint. Once upon a time politicians told the truth and honoured, or at least tried to honour their commitments. These days, I'll be quite happy if a fair number of them would drop dead tomorrow! (I realise that is perhaps excessive but my faith in politics has been severely shattered over the last few decades.) Psychological manipulation by politicians? Whatever next...

When there's nothing sensible to bid, bid something that looks sensible, I agree that 3♦ looks an underbid, and is, I feel, an underbid despite the unsupported ♣ and ♠ honours, but it's the nearest sensible bid without any add-on conventional gadgetry. Making up a bid with 3♣ is just asking for trouble. A hand that was made for Acol Strong Twos/Benji/Reverse Benji as we once knew it. No doubt 2/1 and SAYC face a similar dilemma with this hand. And perhaps a better hand to bid for those opening with a strong 1♣.

It's not that obscure, but my husband has it in his top 5 war films: Das Boot (1981) We watched it recently. Apparently there's a TV remake on Amazon Prime Video, but the original 1981 version without any computer enhancement or graphics scores a highly-respectable 8.3 stars on the IMDB. I thoroughly enjoyed it even though it's 'a man's movie'. There's a startling fact at the end of the movie, that I won't divulge now. Just to say it proves how utterly destructive and nihilistic war is. Here's a review from the IMDB. It's my view, too. War movies have been biases to one side or the other. This movie does not make heroes or enemies of the German U-boat sailors. Instead, it grips the viewer with realistic depictions of what it was like to be a U-boat sailor for the Germans in WWII. It starts off with young (17 year old to 25 year old) men who have been filled with propaganda about the war effort and glorious battle. After this young crew of immature sailors start to experience the true horrors of war, you can not only see, but experience with them the boredom, laughter, camaraderie, team work and death. In a world where you have no windows, where your ears have to be your eyes, where a cat and mouse game is played and the loser dies, these young men age 10 to 15 years. It makes the viewer realize the horror of submarine warfare in WWII. The most realistic war movie I have ever seen.

Small IMPs game (two tables) Vulnerable vs. Non-vulnerable. What do you feel is best here? Redouble shows 10+, usually tolerance for the other three suits, and less than 3♠s as we play it. [hv=pc=n&s=skqj864h74d3ckq87&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1sdr2d]133|200[/hv] And, as always, thank you for your replies. Edit: My sincere apologies. I should have indicated we are playing 4M Acol with a weak NT (12-14)

As a British player myself, my understanding of SAYC (Standard American Yellow Card) is similar. 2♣ is not unconditionally game forcing, even with a one-suited hand. The opener can stop in 3 of a major or 4 of a minor opposite a total Yarborough. I have even seen that written in a book on SAYC from many years ago. Even strong ♣ systems like Precision would have similar difficulty identifying one small card such as the ♣10 that would make game a realistic proposition. Here most players would bid 2♣ - 2♦ (waiting or negative) - 2♠ - 2NT/3♣ (second negative depending on your methods) - 4♠ and hope for the best. In the play the opponents could set up the extra trick in ♣ for you by leading the suit, or alternatively on any other lead you could run your trumps and hope for the opponents to defend incorrectly, or possibly find partner with a trump entry such as the ♠10 and the ♦Q for a potential loser discard. There's another way to look at this hand also, even if partner has nowt and you cannot make 4♠ and go one down: the opponents can probably make a part score possibly in ♥s, though realistically that is never going to be bid as you have the higher-ranking suit and will always outbid them. So scoring-wise it may not be a total disaster. Both non-vulnerable, and especially vulnerable, games are there to be bid, and it would be 'wussy' (as my husband says) not to be in game on the above hand.

My husband and I were watching the truly chaotic scenes in the House of Commons on television tonight. What must the rest of the world think of our government, our MPs, our country as a whole? It was dreadful to see. With foresight, if we had knew what divisions and ill-feeling the result of the Referendum would have caused in this country, we would have not voted at all. Many people on both the Remain and Leave sides must feel thoroughly let down by what has transpired. This Referendum and its result has wasted over 3 years of government, probably billions of pounds in public funds, and caused so much hatred like nothing else I have ever seen. Yes, we had the Poll Tax Riots and the Miner's Strike, but this Brexit or non-Brexit has just involved about everyone on some level. I go to a coffee shop and people are talking about it; my husband and I go out to lunch or for a drink and people are talking about it; and, not a day goes by when Brexit and its consequences are discussed in the news and in the national and online papers. Usually on a vitriolic level. Where have all the good manners gone? Actually we don't really care what happens now, but for the sake of my children and grandchildren I hope that the men and women of power - we are mere pawns in this show - finally can find some solution to the crises that face our country and the world as a whole. Brexit or staying in the EU is a mere distraction from the environmental damage that the human race is subjecting this planet to. For the past few months I have been following the mainly peaceful protests of Extinction Rebellion, a group highlighting the destruction that humans have caused already to Earth. Brexit or staying in the EU isn't going to kill the human race, but if we carry on wreaking the environment as we are currently doing there won't be a planet to live on in a hundred years time. Surely that should take priority over anything else, including Brexit.

Board 4 was just non-sensical. Whether they forgot their agreements or not, I was just utterly surprised when Andrew Robson opened 1♦ - Weinstein opened 3♦ which is my bid also. Then to 'sacrifice' in 5♣ vulnerable even if Forrester had meant the 1♠ bid as showing ♣s was non-comprehensible. Whether it was a 'gut' response to board 1 where they should have made game is anyone's guess. The session panned out like a gambler chasing his stake money in the hope of a big win - my son's words, and he's pretty shrewd when it comes to poker or bridge. But who am I to comment? How would I have reacted facing the same pressures that USA 1 put the England team under. It's history now, but I sat there thinking 'this can't be happening' but it did.

I had high hopes of England's Bermuda Bowl team doing well this year. There were some new partnerships in the team, and with the lynchpin experienced partnership of Andrew Robson and Tony Forrester it boded well. However... ...it all fell apart in Session 5 of the quarter final against the very experienced USA 1 team, and it would be wrong not to congratulate USA 1 on their victory, but from where I was sitting watching sessions 5 and 6 online it was more a case of England pressing the self-destruct button than USA 1 making a comeback (as one USA commentator said.) The disastrous session 5 saw them lose a lead of over 60 IMPs in 16 boards. There were some misunderstandings on the boards, and after the dust had settled England were only a couple of IMPs up going into the final session. Edit: https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=65842 Hope against hope I thought the rot had stopped and we could claw our way back into a lead but it was not meant to be. The USA 1 team were now on a roll, and whilst the final session was tighter, the USA 1 team deserved to win as they were more consistent especially in the latter half of the match. Well done! And all I can add to that is that there's always the next Bermuda Bowl for England to make amends. I'll just have to settle watching England's progress in the Rugby World Cup in the next couple of weeks. I think I am now 'bridged out' watching the events in China in the early hours. I'll be especially interested in how other bridge players saw it. Was it fatigue? Too much system? Trying too hard, etc. And, as always, thank you for your replies.