Trinidad

The problem is that the graph shows that Brexit voters are not able to understand it... Rik

Parliament is intended to oversee the government. In most (all except for the UK?) European countries, at the national level, government and parliament are separated. In the UK, cabinet ministers can (must?) also be a member of parliament. This means that parliament is intertwined with the body it is supposed to oversee. Would you find it acceptable if the board of Unilever would be on the British Food Safety Board, deciding whether food is safe to consume? Still, this is not relevant. The point is that things in the UK are different from things in Brussels. No big news: Things in Spain or Latvia are also different from things in Brussels. That is what happens when different systems work together. To present the fact that Brussels works in a different way than London as an argument against co-operation is silly: Or are all your colleagues clones of yourself? Rik

I was referring to the way Vampyr uses the term, which I thought was the framework of the discussion (emphasis mine): I think I watched most episodes of 'Yes, Minister' and 'Yes Prime-Minister', but the idea that this is compulsary viewing is rather Brittish. Other countries have their own way of depicting the relation between politics and administration. But, while we are talking 'Yes, Minister': Apart from showing painfully accurately how the administration influences (if not 'rules') the Brittish government, 'Yes, Minister' also illustrates very nicely how Brittish ministers are mixed (if not 'torn') between governing (as a minister) and controlling the government (as an elected MP). But all these details are not so relevant. What is relevant is that it is entirely normal for a Brittish civil servant to look upon EU civil servants as an entirely different breed. That is because there is a difference between how British civil service works and how civil service works in other European countries. Not better/worse, just different. Rik

I think civil servants from any EU country would look upon the EU civil servants as 'quite different'. The reason is simple: every EU country has its own political culture. The British political system is (alert: views from a continental perspective!) the least democratic in the entire EU: There is no proportional representation due to the district system. The cabinet ministers are members of parliament, creating a dependent relationship between the governing body (the government) and the controlling body (parliament). It is fine and understandable for a British civil servant to think that the British civil servants are best, but that doesn't mean that it is objectively true. There is a big difference between 'different' and 'worse'. Rik

The transfer payments have become politically difficult, because we made them politically difficult. Before the PIGS entered the European Community, large amounts of money were transferred from the North to the South. Nobody had a problem with those. The difference was that in those days these payments were called "development aid". When they entered the Eurozone, there didn't seem to be much of a problem helping these countries. But years (and a lot of populist politics) later, the perception in the North is that they should be able to take care of themselves. And nobody asks the question: "Why should they be able to take care of themselves?" Rik

Thanks for your nice summary of the facts, Arend. Unfortunately, my experience is that facts are not that relevant to voters anymore. There used to be 2 main factors that made voters decide: Facts and ideology. Political parties presented the facts in the light of their ideology: Socialist parties highlight the "enormous" difference between rich and poor. Conservative parties highlight the "gigantic" tax burden. And politics was solution driven. problems may be solved the socialist or the conservative way, but we are trying to solve them. Nowadays, facts or ideology play a minor role. The political "debate" has been hijacked by slick marketeers who say what the public wants to hear. They will say that the economy is in trouble (when in fact it is doing quite okay), that crime rates are sky high (when they have never been this low), etc. They are not bothered at all that their statements have no factual basis whatsoever. Each statement made attracts more voters. Getting an actual solution to (perceived) problems would be a really bad: These parties would loose voters. So, while I agree with all your facts, I am fairly pessimistic about what they matter in "modern politics". But thanks anyway. Rik (FD: Dutch, currently working in Germany and the Netherlands, living in the Netherlands, with a Finnish wife and kids born in Sweden)

I have a pretty strong opinion on this. All the agreements you have for when your side opens 1NT and RHO passes also apply when: We open 1NT and RHO doubles We overcall (a natural) 1NT and RHO passes or doubles We balance with (a natural) 1NT and RHO passes or doubles The argument against playing "System on" is that the situation changes when they double for penalties. That is true, but in how far that is true depends a lot on what the opponents mean by a "penalty double". If they mean: "I have a 16-18 balanced hand" then it makes some sense to change your agreements. However, I think that changing them to "everything is natural and to play" would certainly not be best. After all, this is the situation where you really want opener to declare because it puts the doubler on opening lead. If they mean: "I don't think you will make 1NT" then that usually means they a decent hand and a trick source. Something like: ♠Kx ♥Qxx ♦KQJxxx ♣xx And if you ask somebody who plays DONT what he would do, he would also double. So, the difference between a penalty double and an artificial double is not as big as it seems. In addition, one shouldn't forget that after an artificial double fourth hand is also allowed to pass. So, the difference between "penalty" and "artificial" is not as big as it seems. The arguments for playing "system on" are: It (supposedly) is a good system. The system is clearly defined and you have a lot of experience playing it. The probability for misunderstandings is small. This, in turn, means that you are comfortable with it. This is necessary to be able to "play the system" rather than to "follow the system". It usually will make the 1NT opener declarer. You don't need to learn a second system. It can be handy to have a meaning for redouble and to agree on what responder's subsequent actions mean when he passes first. So, you can focus on that. They say that it is better to play a bad system well than to play a good system poorly. Even if "System on" would be a bad system (and it isn't) then at least you will be able to play it well (at least better than a perfect system that you get to you use rarely). Rik

The obvious bid is to correct to 6/7NT. After all, 6/7♠ could easily go down on a club ruff. ;) Rik

Noting the global character of this community and recognizing that many posters and readers have an incomplete knowledge of English, I would move to implement a policy that encourages the use of benign and uncomplicated terminology and discourages the construction of complex multi-clause sentences. Sorry, I mean: Yo! We're from all over the planet. Let's keep the language simple, dudes! Rik

+1 Rik

But, in principle, once the claim has been made and turned out to be incorrect, declarer cannot add: "He is out of diamonds." to his claim statement. So, many claimers will acknowledge that the claim is incorrect and leave the rest to the TD. They say nothing more, unless they are asked, and wait for the verdict from the TD. These are the TD's "nice customers". The TD has to do the sorting out and gathering of the evidence. He needs to ask the questions and he needs to investigate. The players are supposed to be quiet. I don't see why the loud mouth claimer who yells a couple of things, most of them nonsense, but one of them: "He doesn't have diamonds" would be awarded an advantage over the player who trusts that the TD will do his job. Rik

This is often the case, but certainly not always. To show an example where this is not true. Say that in this case declarer starts with a solid diamond suit that he runs first, with everyone discarding. He crosses to dummy in trick 10 and his last 3 cards are: ♦A ♣AQ *Thinking* (wrongly) that LHO doesn't have any cards left in the majors, he leads a club from dummy and finesses the queen, losing to LHO's king. He now shows his remaining ♦A♣A and claims. Much to his surprise LHO leads the ♥J. In this case declarer didn't make any claim statement. But whatever claim statement declarer could possibly make, it will never include: "You are out of diamonds.", because it is irrelevant information in a claim statement based on the idea that LHO is out of hearts and spades. The fact that declarer doesn't mention the discards on the diamond suit doesn't mean that he has "forgotten". It means that he (correctly) thought it was irrelevant information for the claim that he did make. It's a TD's job to gather evidence and weight it. In the example that I gave, a TD would consider it unlikely that declarer would ever hold on to his ♦A. In other cases, it would be entirely possible that he would. Together with the statements by the players, the previous play is an obvious source of evidence. Rik

I just asked the OP to my wife (who also is a TD). She needed 10 words only: I: "How many tricks does declarer get?" She: "Probably none" I: "Why can't you be certain?" She: "Because I don't know how the play went." I think she summed it up pretty well. Rik

I am very sorry, but sometimes (many times actually) a TD simply has to go through the play to rule on a claim. When I saw your opening post, I expected that it would be a trick question since clearly there is too little information. I expected a follow up coming, something like: "But what if I told you that, previously in the play, declarer had run off 6 diamonds with everyone discarding?" or "But what if I told you that North had previously discarded on the play of the hearts (i.e revoked)?". To me it is rather obvious that the TD decision on many claims depends on the play to the previous tricks. I am undecided on what I think of the idea that an experienced TD claims that he has never seen a TD go through the play in a claim case: I am torn between Hitchcock and Monty Python. Rik

There is a pause and there is time for thought. That does not mean that the pause was for thought. There can be a very long time between the unintended bid and the change of call. (I can easily imagine a situation where this time can exceed 5 minutes.) If there was an intended bid, the actual thought was before the unintended call. That means that for a true unintended call, there is no need for a pause for thought. (But there may be need for pause for other reasons.) An example: You decide to open the bidding with 2♣. You pull the 2♣ card out of the bidding box. (At least that is what you think.) Your partner alerts. You are not surprised since your 2♣ is weak with diamonds or something strong. Your LHO asks for an explanation. Your partner replies that it "can be a doubleton". You think "?!?", look at partner and look at your bidding card and see the 1♣ card instead of the 2♣ card. You call the TD. The TD is busy somewhere else. You walk away from the table to look for the TD who says that he will be with you in a minute (which turns out to be 3 minutes). The TD comes and you explain what has happened. The TD tells you that you can replace the 1♣ card for the intended call. You put the 2♣ card on the table. A lot of time has past between the 1♣ card hitting the table and the correction to 2♣. But not a second of it was "for thought". After all, you had decided to bid 2♣ (and done all the thinking) before the 1♣ card touched the table. Rik

Punishments, in general, have three goals: 1) To educate the perpetrator 2) To satisfy society's need for revenge 3) To deter potential other people from committing the same "crime". 1) It was clear that the perp (Mycroft) was not going to be educated by a penalty. 2) There was no need for revenge. (Why would one want to take revenge on someone who only did something silly?) 3) A penalty at a bridge table doesn't serve as a deterrent, since nobody will hear about it. This would be different if the penalty would be accompanied by: "Dear players, may I please have your attention? I have just awarded a PP of x% of a board, since the player couldn't resist making an unnecessary comment. Please be advised that unnecessary comments will lead to PPs. Thank you for your attention. Please proceed." But (fortunately) I don't know any bridge clubs where this practice is followed. You must be joking. The case of the OP deals with a dummy who does something that is: clearly against the rules clearly against the spirit of the game quite possibly with the intent to make his side gain Mycroft did something that is: clearly against the rules clearly with the intent to make the game more enjoyable (which, IMO, is the spirit of the game) I am happy that TDs are reluctant to give PPs for actions that have the intent to increase the enjoyment of the game, even if they fail at their intent. I fail to see how playing a card that your partner is supposed to play (the action by OP's dummy) could have the potential to increase the enjoyment of the game. Rik

Interuniversity Society for Intelligible Students? Rik

Ken, Good TDs rarely get annoyed. And they certainly won't get annoyed for being called to a table and giving a ruling. Rik

That is one way of reasoning. There is another way: South committed two infractions: the 5♦ bid and the 6♦ bid. Each is dealt with individually. The 6♦ bid caused damage and we should adjust the score to the result obtained without the 6♦ bid: 5♥X down a couple. The 5♦ bid did not cause damage. After all, the result with that infraction was 5♥X down a couple and without the infraction it would have been 4♥X down one less. Infractions are not handled chronologically. They are handled with respect to the amount of damage they caused. This is not something odd. The same happens in everyday life: You drive your car and you need to swerve for an oncoming truck that gets into your lane. As a result, you hit the curb and break a tire. You are entitled to compensation. Now the truck driver comes back to you and -because he is nervous- hits your car and totals it. Is there anybody who would argue that a new tire would be sufficient compensation since without the first infraction you would have never gotten to the second? No. After the first infraction (back at the bridge table) you are allowed (if not obliged) to try and get the best result, an even better result than without that infraction. If you then get robbed of that possibility by a second infraction, the second infraction causes damage. This damage can be larger than the damage caused by the first infraction. In short: you always adjust for the infraction that will lead to the most favorable result for the NOS. All other infractions will not have caused damage, compared to the path through "the most favorable infraction". Rik

Ed, You are confusing weighted adjusted scores with artificial adjusted scores. In weighted adjusted scores you are supposed to: - assign a score and its weight (e.g. 4♥ = 620, 25%; 4♥-1 -100, 75%) - assign an MP (or IMP) score (e.g. 620 -> 12MPs, -100 -> 2 MPs) - weight the MP scores (25%x12 + 75%x2= 4.5 MPs) This is to clarify that you are not supposed to calculate an average bridge score (75%x620 + 25%x(-100) = 430) and MP the 430 (as if the contract had been 1♥X with 2.7 overtricks ;)). Still, the adjustments themselves are assigned in table scores (4♥= and 4♥-1). Should the result at an other table change (e.g. because of an appeal or a discovered scoring error) then the adjusted scores in table scores will remain the same (4♥= and 4♥-1). The assigned MP score might change (just like the MP scores for all other tables might change) because the MP scores for these contracts might change (e.g. 4♥= -> 12MPs and 4♥-1 -> 0 MPs for a weighted adjusted score of 4MPs). If you assign an artificial adjusted score in MPs (usually given as a percentage, e.g. 60-40), then no matter what happens to the rest of the field, that will be the MP score at this table. Rik

As Sven said, Law 12C2 only applies "when no result can be obtained". In this case a result can be obtained": Äfter all, there is a result (if that doesn't prove that a result can be obtained then what does?) So, the applicable law is 12C1. You probably confused Law 12C2 with Law 12C1d. A case can be made to apply Law 12C1d here, but IMO you should try to avoid using 12C1d as much as you can and only use it as a "desperate measure". But then too, you need to come up with a score that reasonably reflects the possible outcomes. (The standard 60-40 does not apply, even if many TDs think 12C1d gives them the right to do whatever they feel like. A TD is supposed to do justice to the situation as good as he can.) Rik

I don't think this is correct. The results at other tables should not influence the ruling at this table. IMO, the correct view is: There is damage, since the table result is worse than the table result would have been without the infraction. There will be a score adjustment to e.g. 4♥-5. The MP score happens to be not affected by the adjustment. The outcome seems to be the same, and it doesn't seem to matter. But that is not true. Just imagine that after your ruling there will be an appeal at one of the other tables: Their result is adjusted from 5♦-1 to 7♦-3. Now it does make a difference whether you adjusted to 4♥-5 at Ken's table or whether you ruled "No damage" since it seemed immaterial anyway. Rik

The claim statement makes it clear that the Rabbit intends to ruff trick one in hand and not play the ace of clubs. After all, he intends to draw the trump and take "SIX tricks in the side suits". If he plays the ♣A from dummy, it may get ruffed by East and there are only 5 tricks left in the side suits. Conclusion: The claim statement translates to "ruff club in hand with the ♥5, play ♥AQJT96, cash AK, cash ♠AKQ, cash ♣A". 13 tricks. Typical for the rabbit. Karapet, in the West seat, will complain for the rest of his life that RR would have been down on a spade lead. Blame it on the curse of 1392 by the witch of Ararat. Rik

It seems to me that Brussels is taking a sensible position there. Rik

But what does "could be a good 14" really mean? If it just means that some hands, despite being 14 walrus points, are more similar to a mundane 15 than a mundane 14, then it is just bridge, and talking about it is at best distracting and at worst misleading. You disclose your system for your opponents, not for yourself. If your opponents are (or could be) walruses, you will have to do your explanations in Walrussian. So, you could explain: "Could be 14 HCPs that s/he thinks are worth 15." Rik