FelicityR

What do you find hilarious? My sincere and heartfelt apologies if you really feel that I am not worthy of commenting on here. I was only illustrating to a new(ish) commentator that there are other science fiction books out there with a similar plot. I have found the book by searching online: Eyes of Darkness, by American author Dean Koontz, published in 1981. As I now understand, Mr Koontz is a very prolific horror/science fiction writer. The book is a work of fiction, and was published nearly 40 years ago. It's just another one of those conspiracy theories that someone has put on the internet and other people have latched on to it. I am neither a Sinophobe, nor a racist, I just remembered vaguely that it was mentioned some months ago in the national online press. I really didn't take any notice at the time: it's only a book. As for H. G. Wells, he was nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature several times, and many of this books have been very accurate of how the future would turn out, and yes I acknowledge others have been off-the-mark. The plot of The Shape of Things to Come (which I read a very long time ago) makes interesting reading. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shape_of_Things_to_Come On a more positive note, it does look like that the epidemic has plateaued in the UK: fewer deaths over the last few days than previously. I just hope that other nations will see their own covid-19 statistics begin to look better as time goes on. Edit: Today's figures - deaths - have worryingly gone up again to over 780. Previous days were approx. 450 and 600. Let's hope it's only a temporary deviation

I'm no director but Dealer called for the King and having made that decision it should precedent over any other action that happens after the call, in my opinion. By the way, if Dealer called for the King, why did you then ask "Didn't you say 6"? 'King' and 'six' are hardly similar tonally.

An interesting grand slam hand came up in a JEC challenge match. Both declarers failed to make the slam. Maybe, not being an expert or world-class myself, I am missing something but I thought it was quite straightforward to make (as the cards lie but I had the luxury of seeing all four hands): set up two menaces in the North hand in ♦s and ♠s, and have a third menace in the South hand in ♣s and upon playing the last trump (♥) both East and West are squeezed. I'm quite prepared to accept criticism if I am completely wrong. The end position would be [hv=pc=n&s=sh3dca63&n=sqhdtck8]133|200[/hv] Here's are the North/South hands. Assume the ♠ finesse fails (which it does on the actual hand) and trumps are 3-1, can the slam be made against any distribution? Or does another lead, such as a ♣ defeat it? A small ♥ was led by East. North is playing the hand in 7♥ after opening 1NT and South transfers in ♥. No opposition bidding at either table. [hv=pc=n&s=sa4hakt6532d7ca63&n=sqj2hq7dakt6ck872]133|200[/hv]

In the UK with old-fashioned Acol bidding, there was the Weissberger convention available, similar to pescetom's 3♦ bid in his sequence, also showing 5-5 majors. 1NT (15-17/16-18) - 2♣ (Stayman) - 2♦ (no 4 card major) - 3♦ (5/5 majors, asking for 3 card major support). Old-fashioned Acol didn't have voidwood or exclusion, though, which are useful additions :)

I'll put my pension on most expert pairs stopping in 3♦ or 4♦ whatever bidding system they use. Yes, there will be some in a 3NT or 5♦ but I am sure they will be in the minority. Opener has a good hand but no fit for partner; responder has a poor hand. That's it. Between them they should be able to pull the safety brake before ending in game. 4♦ could possibly go down, but there are various chances that it will make, too.

Some other writer was also credited with a viral epidemic originating in China, I think even Wuhan, in a book that was 30-40 years old (?), though for the life of me I cannot remember the author's name. Sadly, coronavirus is science fact, not fiction, and neither was the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918, and the only science fiction writer I know from that era was H.G. Wells.

I haven't answered the poll because it's easy enough to construct hands, depending on HCP count, suit quality and distribution where any of the above rebids could be in the equation. Though part of the priority, I feel, is to concentrate on emphasising to partner that your major suit is a 6+M if you don't fit with his/her minor, as a doubleton will suffice (if only 6M) to bid the major suit games. I wouldn't hazard a guess between the frequency of four of a major and five of a minor games but expect the former to be far, far higher than the latter.

I'm with you some of the way here, Nige1, because as sensible as it is overcalling 1NT here as the hand warrants it, opposite a passed partner at adverse vulnerability it sometimes pays not to do it. Furthermore, should you end up defending, it also alerts the opposition where the majority of the points are. However, all things being equal, I would have opened 1NT (15-17) with the South hand every day of the week, so denying yourself a bid in a competitive auction is, to me, going against the grain. It's not even a borderline in my eyes as the intermediates cards are in the longer suits, and potentially there's a double stop in ♦s. With that slight inference that the ♦A is potentially on your right, too, the hand looks better than just a 15 HCP count.

As we all have, I have had plenty of time to think over this coronavirus pandemic, and whilst many people have, and in some cases surprisingly, shown their altruistic sides, it seems (to me) that the whole world seems so geared to the economy, or perhaps more accurately, an individual country's economy, that beyond the medical and ethical questions raised by this pandemic, we should also be asking why the world cannot work together so that an economy, any economy, is not disadvantaged in any way? I am truly surprised that both Spain and Italy have effectively fast-forwarded an opening up of restrictions, even in a small way, when there are still people dying, and more importantly perhaps, people still out there who can pass on the virus and cause further deaths. I acknowledge that even if lockdowns were extended further - and even just these three weeks in the UK have been problematic for many, and without any shadow of a doubt we'll be seeing an extension to that this week - there will still be some deaths because until everyone is tested (an impossibility) we will never know who has or hasn't had the virus. Whilst not welcoming a further lockdown myself, like so many others, surely the priority of any government is to protect its citizens. However does money and resurrecting the economy take preference over people's lives? My father used to say 'money doesn't grow on trees' but billions have seems to be able to generated out of thin air to prop up the economy. People are substantial, tangible, material. That's the difference.

From my experience I would say yes. Only alert if asked. As far as I understand - please correct me if I'm wrong other commentators - most bids over 3NT are not alertable. And whilst your partner cannot see your explanation and the opponents can, the bid is still (I presume) highlighted in yellow in the online bidding box. So, whilst not telling your partner the actual meaning of the bid, your partner would have some notion that it is conventional in some way.

I'm in agreement. When South shows doubleton ♥ support with 3♥ instead of 3♦, North with the 6/5 (come alive!) hand definitely must now make an attempt at slam with 3♠. If they can't reach 6♥ after that, then they are erring on the side of caution. South is control rich and has extras beyond a game force, North is distribution-ally beautiful. Probably the worst that can happen from North's point of view is that they reach 5♥ when South has just two aces and only game can be made. South's hand just improves immensely when North bids the second suit ♣s. Kaplan and Rubens evaluator confirms the potential of the hands, valuing North as just over 16, and South just under 18 and 1/2. 34 Tiotal points seems slam territory to me.

This raises an interesting medical and ethical point. When faced with an epidemic like this, are control groups - patients that are given a placebo instead of the actual drug - necessary? Surely if a drug is found to work in part then the protocols for mass laboratory testing with control groups should at least be postponed. And aren't covid-19 patients who are given a placebo rather than remdesivir, or for that matter any other drug available, being given a potential death sentence by not having access to medication?

Yes, I couldn't agree more. There should be an option for individual players to disable this facility. And neither do I want to know - please read that as being disturbed when playing (not that I play much on here these days) - that there's a Vugraph game between Mars and Venus starting soon either You can move the scroll bar to disable all chat whatsoever, but then you also lose the chat from your own table, and chatting in a relaxed game is part of the social process, too. It's probably the only chat some (elderly) single people who are now playing online will have the whole day during these difficult times.

Thank you y66 for all the informative and diverse range of news articles that you have posted on this thread. They certainly give a comprehensive overview of what is happening around the world.

Benji the Dog? :rolleyes:

Maybe looking at your ♠ fit, and that the opponents will have to bid at the three level with a suit, or protect with a X that doesn't include ♠s, they can be forgiven for not competing vulnerable I wouldn't take much notice of them not bidding as ♥s are more likely to be 4-2 anyway. Having arrived in a poor contract with your methods when they probably have 3♣ available as a contract, it is imperative to try to only go one down at most :) How you would try to play the hand to try to go down only one at most is entirely another matter. Even if you do not bid as West, I doubt whether you will find the ♠ fit as East overcalling an opening bid by North is dubious.

There's a big difference between profiteering and providing a service. Profiteering is selling £2 hand sanitiser on Ebay for £20. Providing a service is different. Having someone experienced to show you how to navigate BBO's extensive site if you are not familiar with it for a set fee, especially if you not too familiar with the internet generally sounds sensible. Anyway, here's a bridge club owner not making any income from their actual bridge club due to lockdown. The fee ($20) isn't excessive given that it's one to one-and-half hours. I would pay if I were inexperienced in such matters. https://www.sagamorebridgeclub.com/ Their website seems completely legitimate and bona fide.

Making the contract as declarer is the primary consideration at IMPs, especially a game or slam. Similarly defeating the contract, especially a game or slam, is the primary consideration as a defender. Being a solid declarer or defender matters. At MPs overtricks or extra defensive tricks matter. Having a bit of flair and a gambling spirit will sometimes pay dividends, in both the bidding and the play.

I agree. An excellent read and analysis. This article makes painful reading. There are plenty of 'Brainless Brits' who will make this lockdown longer that it needs be. It's about time the Police issued serious fines and arrested people for this type of behaviour. Telling them to 'disband the party and don't let it happen again' isn't getting through to the morons who have no conscience. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-52221688

"...And if hydroxychloroquine is a risk factor, it may be only administered as a last chance medication when the patient is desperately ill, by which time it might be too late anyway." Pilowsky says: Unfortunately your comment is incorrect. The problem is that Trump is recommending a drug that people can buy over the internet. You might be used to going to a Doctor and going through exhaustive screening and careful checks before you take any drug but in the real world in the middle of a pandemic that is not how it works. I'll be honest. I was not fully aware just how over-bullish Donald Trump was about this drug, and, how readily available hydroxychloroquine was online. That really surprised, actually shocked, me. I suppose in this scenario, there are genuine online pharmacies who won't prescribe to a person with Long QT syndrome, but there are probably others that won't be so conscientious, and there are also all the fraudsters cashing in online, too, not forgetting the patients who will willing lie to get hold of this drug. I was unaware that this drug was being touted as a prophylactic as opposed to an acute or critical care drug used by doctors in hospitals. That truly is a disaster waiting to happen, but guessing Donald Trump's way of thinking, a few 100 deaths here and there would be a price worth paying to keep, let's say, 10-20% less of the population having to use acute/critical medical services in hospitals. Hospital beds cost money, and ICU units are very expensive to run.

Britain's finest bridge player, Terence Reese, also died of salicylate (aspirin) poisoning, as you might already know. I can't imagine that they even knew in 1918 what dose of aspirin caused death. Add to which there were no big pharma/biotech companies with other drugs available in 1918, or the internet. So, it was a case of trust your chemist or doctor and hope for the best, which turned out to a contributing factor to the mortality in the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. I'm not a Donald Trump fan, as you all already know, but as I said in a previous post, it's the doctors and consultants on the front line who will make the decisions, and in our first world countries, they should have the patient's records available before making decisions. And if hydroxychloroquine is a risk factor, it may be only administered as a last chance medication when the patient is desperately ill, by which time it might be too late anyway.

1. Hospitals in the state must be able to safely treat all patients requiring hospitalization, without resorting to crisis standards of care. 2. A state needs to be able to at least test everyone who has symptoms. 3. The state is able to conduct monitoring of confirmed cases and contacts. 4. There must be a sustained reduction in cases for at least 14 days. A sensible benchmark but quite flawed when faced with the reality of an epidemic: I've heard from my friends in both the UK and Ireland how difficult it is managing with the surfeit of coronavirus cases they are treating. Beyond covid-19, hospitals have to treat all other patients, too - so who then gets the priority? cancer, covid-19, road accidents patients, etc. Testing for everyone with symptoms is standard: testing all healthcare workers whether they had symptoms or not - which the UK was slow to do - would stop the spread inside and outside hospitals. Monitoring confirmed cases and contacts requires extra bureaucracy. Expecting to have a sustained reduction of cases for at least 14 days, as we have seen in other parts of the world, just doesn't happen until the spread is brought under control. As for eliminating guesswork, here in the UK, it has been predicted by some epidemiologists that the daily number of UK deaths will peak this Sunday. It will be interesting to see if this prediction is right. I hope it is, but with 5400 new cases testing positive yesterday, I seriously believe that we are a long way from being out of the woods just yet.

Yes, I agree that Donald Trump is usually way off target, but nobody actually knows the true numbers killed by Spanish Flu itself (or complications caused by Spanish Flu) because statistics weren't readily available in 1918, and many of the deaths were probably attributed to other causes. As for QT syndrome and SADS (sudden arrhythmia death syndrome), many other drugs affect these conditions, not just hydroxychloroquine, but all patients with this will be wired to specialist ECG machines whilst in intensive care units. Patients with QT syndrome, if conscious, would automatically tell medical staff they have the condition, and doctors and consultants would try to use drugs other than hydroxychloroquine if covid-19 was present. Even Donald Trump can't overrule medical practitioners at the bedside of a patient. Thankfully.

Bid 2♦ (it's not two-suited in my opinion) in response to partner's X, pass opponent's 4♥ bid. I wouldn't even contemplate 4♠ even non-vulnerable, let alone vulnerable. If they go down in 4♥ it should be a reasonable, even good MP score. Why make a (bad) guess and give yourselves a bottom score? It looks like the opponents have the majority of the HCPs, even though you have good shape. For all you know, East's 4♥ is a guess, too, and it could turn out badly.

The XX is the icing on the cake :) Talk about rubbing salt into the wound.