Lovera

Since we are talking about "a" positive answer (where there is something either in the suit of the query or in the suit of trump) i.e. 5 ♥ in the sequence indicated above in #8, the responder sees what he has in those "two" colors and responds accordingly, giving rise to an ambiguous response. The opener, in turn, controls what he has in those two suits to know what to exclude: in fact if he has the Queen of trump or the King in the suit of the answer then the responder is giving information in the suit of the query but if he has the Queen in ♦ or the Ace to ♥ is having informations from the Queen of trump (with the indicated King). These queries in the classical RKCB, the "Queen's Query" (= QQ) or suit specific (= SSA), are bidded in different declarative phases, are known and clear. I, on the other hand, am hypothesizing to use an SSA together with the QQ which implies, indeed, a complication in the answer (besides having a further series of other eventualities) that give rise to the need to "go step by step" in the explanation. The above, i hope, should serve to clarify how the initial ambiguity of the response by the opener would be resolved, at least in this case.

Let us try to clarify: what you said and I agree would be the current RKCB with questioning of the step following the first answer to know about the Queen (with indication of the King aside). What I proposed concerns, at the same time as the request of the Queen, the request concerning the King / Queen into the same suit. This involves a plurality of answers -constituting ambiguity - and where some of these answers can be eliminated. This fact is a novelty that, however, involves the problem of resolving this ambiguity, since there is an implementation in the information(=not only the Queen+ a King aside).

With ♠ as trump, the sequence 4NT-5♣, 5♦(=?) is ambigueous if the answer means: 5♥ Q of trump+K of heart/Q in diamond suit and A of heart. So with Q in spade by RKB bidder remains Q in diamond plus A in heart suit.

Maybe we're not understanding each other. The requests in the two suits mentioned above follow the same mechanics as those i.e. a 5 ♠(=?) with agreed trump ♦. The answers, in this case, are only for the King, with No Trump in response, while for the Queen indicating a suit (where there is an Ace) and in this way it differs. Instead, with 5 ♦ (after 5♣) and 5 ♥ ( after 5 ♦) asking, in addition, for the Queen of trump as is usually done, they become ambiguous. If the interrogator has i.e. the Queen of trump one of the options than can be excluded.

What I ask is that, in the request only for the suits of 5 ♦ and 5 ♥, the answer given contains information that does not concern the presence or absence of the Queen of the agreed suit as trump but also the simultaneous information about the King or the Queen in that one (thus replacing an initially ambiguous response). In this way the sequence 4NT-5 ♣, 5 ♦ (=?) - 5 ♥ (= Trump agree, negative) means that there is no Queen of trump but there is also no King or the Queen in the diamond suit. The ambiguity would be apparent if i.e. the interrogator has the Queen of trump.

The step following the first answer, as everyone knows, asks if you have the Queen (with a corresponding answer). What I'm interested in knowing is whether, from some system, the possibility was raised, in this convention, of the interrogation in that suit with other meaning than the usual one (as some players sometimes asked why they wanted to know about the presence in that suit of the King or Queen) and without, however, having a series of artificial answers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46393399

https://www.theguard...-as-key-to-deal This is the full interview:https://youtu.be/lrmyHHvN2Yk

(to follow from the previous post) "The nodal point of the question has, therefore, pre-eminently political character beyond that economic and answers to the objective to avoid that a" rigid border "is recreated, with customs controls on persons and goods, between Ireland of the North and Republic of Ireland. (*) The parties, in fact, in order to safeguard the economic integration between the North and the South of the island, undertook to respect the peace agreements of 1988 (Good Friday Agreement) and to keep the Common Travel Area ..(..continuing the text, in order, in posts # 125,132,134) (*) = It seems appropriate to state in this regard that the Draft Agreement provides that in the event of a future failure to reach an agreement on the Irish border, a customs union will be established between the United Kingdom and the European Union and that, consequently, between the two areas there will be no tariffs or duties, with the possibility for people and goods to continue to move freely in the "barely detectable" border line that separates the United Kingdom (which will no longer be an EU member state) and the Republic of Ireland. The Draft Agreement contains a second provision of particular importance whereby the agreement cannot be terminated except with the consent of both parties. In this way, on the one hand, the traffic of goods will be made simpler but, on the other hand, the United Kingdom will be potentially linked to the European customs area with obvious difficulty for the British government to negotiate trade agreements with third countries non-EU."

Could it then be the "old proposal", indicated by President D. Sassoli, the "Political declaration on future relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom"? In particular, with this EU and United Kingdom Declaration they recalled "their determination to replace" the safeguard clause of the back stop solution provided in the Draft Agreement (which, in the event of failure to reach further agreements, ensures the opening of the border after the end of the transitional period with restoration of the status quo for the Irish borders), "with a subsequent agreement providing for alternative provisions to ensure that no physical borders arise on the island of Ireland, on a permanent basis"(Cfr. " point 4 of Part II: Economic Parnership The compromise solution reached in the Draft Agreement provides for the stipulation of a customs agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom, called the "single customs territory", within which the "degree of regulatory alignment of the Northern Ireland to the EU is m "More than the rest of the country". In this sense v. F. MARONGIU BUONAIUTI, F. VERGARA CAFFARELLI, The Brexit and the question of the Irish border, in Federalismi.it, 18 December 2018, pp. 134. The proposals presented by the European and British delegations and mutually rejected until the aforementioned agreement, can be summarized as follows: as proposed by the EU, Northern Ireland should have been part of the customs territory of the Union, while the the rest of the United Kingdom would have been excluded. The British government, with regard to future relations with the EU, foresaw, instead, the creation of a free trade area with the Union, which included the whole country and a customs control mechanism that would allow the British customs to also carry out the customs functions of the EU, thus making further controls on direct trade flows between the UK and the EU superfluous).

Since the situation seems to develop in an unexpected and interesting way, I try to complete what was said in the previous # 132: "Therefore, after a careful examination, the mentioned compromise solution adopted by the European and British negotiators appears to take up the aforementioned solution to the back-stop originally proposed by the European Commission in March 2018 and based on the substantial impossibility for the EU to delegate the implementation of its customs policy to a non-member State (*). Regardless of the more technical aspects of the Irish border issue, we are allowed to do a general consideration: although the EU has on several occasions declared itself confident on the possibility of reaching a "better agreement" on the Irish border during the transition period, having already achieved the result of the issue of the safeguard clause of the back-stop solution in the Draft Agreement, testifies to the undisputed compactness of the EU-27 and ensures a particular negotiating force against the United Kingdom (not satisfied with such a forecast) also in view of the negotiations on future reports(**)." (*)= (**)=

FIRST PAGE 12 SEPTEMBER 2019 / 13:48 / ONE DAY AGO Sassoli: Backstop must be part of the Brexit agreement Reuters Staff 1 IN. OF READING The President of the European Parliament David Sassoli during the meeting with the press held today in Brussels. REUTERS / Francois Lenoir BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The president of the European Parliament has said that the EU will not accept any Brexit agreement without the 'backstop' of Ireland, but is still willing to review an old proposal that would leave only Northern Ireland within the EU's orbit so as to maintain a border without barriers. The European parliament must ratify any Brexit agreement to be officially approved by the EU, President David Sassoli said at a press conference, adding: "I would like to highlight this point: the UK has not provided alternatives ... or at least something that was viable." On the site www.reuters.it other Reuters news in Italian. The top news also on www.twitter.com/reuters_italia --- Here the video of the Press Conference with David Sassoli:

For ultheriorly explain about #125 i have to report:"More specifically, the establishment of a "single customs territory" between the EU and the United Kingdom including trade in goods, with the exception of aquaculture and fishery products, and providing for a differentiated degree of regulatory alignment between the Northern Ireland and Great Britain, higher for the former than for the latter. The United Kingdom as a whole will, in fact, be solely required to impose the same duties on third countries and to apply the same EU customs regulations. (Cf. F. MARONGIU BUONAIUTI, F. VERGARA CAFFARELLI, La Brexit and the question of the Irish border, cit., Where it is further specified that: “with regard specifically to Ulster, full participation in the union is also envisaged customs law and the application of all those single market rules necessary to maintain the open border for goods)".

"In this regard it is hardly necessary to recall that with the consultative referendum on the United Kingdom's permanence in the European Union of 23 June 2016, for the first time since the beginning of the European integration process, the willingness of a Member State to withdraw has emerged EU; in fact, it ended with a vote in favor of leaving (51.9%), against 48.1% (remain) who voted to stay in the Union. The vote showed a split between the nations of the United Kingdom, with England (73%) and Wales (71%) in favor of withdrawing from the EU and Scotland (67.2%) and Northern Ireland (62.6%) which they voted to stay. There are those who, with reference to the outcome of this referendum, spoke of the "most serious crisis in the English political-institutional system since 1688". So D. GALLIGAN, The Constitution in Crisis 2016, at the Conference held on December 8th 2016 at Wolfson College, Oxford, whose summary can be found online on the website of The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society; v. also in this sense F. BALANCE, Brexit: the most serious nationalist symptom of the crisis of freedom of movement of people in the EU, in Eticaeconomica.it; S. AMADEO, Question 1.1.1 Brexit, available online at https://moodle2.units.it/pluginfile.php/112979/mod_resource/content/1/Brexit_Treccani_def2.pdf;"

I too am of the opinion that D. Cameron called the referendum to keep faith with the promise to say so, considering that for his part nothing would have changed except to find a strong protest (however minority). And so it didn't happen. But, I believe, such a referendum that had as its object something to impact so deeply on the interests of a nation, needed an intense and objective campaign on the risks connected on one side as on the other (if to stay or if to go) for the purpose of full awareness of the choice and I am of the opinion that, in this case then, a more qualified and not a simple majority (=of 50% + 1) would have been necessary.

What are you saying was told also previuosly by Donald Tusk and you can see it in #12 here.

"Common Travel Area (area of ​​free circulation without any physical infrastructure and controls) allows that citizens of the United Kingdom and Ireland to continue to move freely between the two countries". It is seems as you said about minimal/flow controls.

Than anything as the "Common Travel Area" ?

What do you mean when talking about :"the preference would be a soft border between NI amd Eire managed like some other borders with pre authorisations (and that would certainly be the DUP's preference)."?

Can help this one ?https://www.theguard...-break-deadlock

Probably E with 1♠ (..)- 3♠ wanted to show a hand that showed strength that likewise had counting points with its unbalanced distribution. But in doing so with the bidding made he also indicated a different (and smaller) length in the suit of spades that may have led W to believe that he did not have adequate support in the suit which would not have happened bidding immediatly, with jump, 3 ♠(=7 cards / +) more indicative for this type of hands.

 FOREIGN Brexit, Merkel: An agreement can still be reached of MAD11 September 2019 Berlin (Germany), 11 Sept. (LaPresse / AFP) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she believed that an agreement could still be reached with Great Britain on an exit ordered by the EU, and undertook to fight for an agreement. Speaking to the Bundestag lower house, the German leader said there is still time to find an agreement. © Copyright LaPresse - Reserved Reproduction

https://www.theguard...r-boris-johnson Now it is obvious that everyone prefers to have an agreement, but to do this we need to implement actions in this sense and not just to ask. But why don't you accept an agreement? Because once realized and seen, we want to change it further in our favor, as I think is the position of the EU when it says that it cannot be renegotiated (but only interpreted, clarified or deepened). Or perhaps it is not accepted because there is something "serious/grave" in it that the counterpart, having made explicit, is resistant to change? But in this case, perhaps this can be a point to legally attach to the competent office.

Thank you for clarifying a doubt I had (and this is why I was still going around with that bidding) regarding the use of the "Interdiction Response" (practically the opening partner has a "barrage" opening hand only that he is in answer position) with the (strong) answer of "splinter" which are one complement to that other, confirming that the first can still be used when the bidding is contested while the other in the bidding at two (by doing so they can, for those who use splinters, both be used). Therefore we would thus have a more suitable bid that, having the opener an Ace in spade suit, in this case will lead to game.

Effectly this bid is on the line of opener. But it is to remind that once time hands with this shape - more weak - used to be bidded with a double jump (1♣-(1♥)-3♠) ending in game or not too ( faced a minimal opener hand) but today, with the splinter useing, the bid level becomes higher (to consider expecially if you are vulnerable).