gerry

It will certainly be interesting to see what financial measures will eventually be put in place in the US. In, for example, Australia and New Zealand parties from all sides have given support for measures such as wage subsidies for employers and help for people who will no doubt become redundant. these measures are happening quickly and without any significant opposition. As for the US, current actions by the Federal Reserve supporting all businesses are necessary and sensible. Good. Now federal response, well I'm all a-tingle, what will happen? We're all on the edge of our seats... Will they give huge anonymous gifts to any corporations that secretary Mnuchin decides or will they help everyone who needs it? Also the GOP as going to give the unemployed a whole extra month of benefits before they are (to quote blackadder) "permitted to starve to death in one of Her Majesty's parks". As a sporting spectacle its unrivaled. What a brilliant idea having two groups of legislators who have to agree on legislation!

After starting a table and reserving seats the software no longer seems to issue invitations. This feature was particularly useful when playing with less experienced users.

I agree. I just wonder if they would have come out and voted in a presidential election, when the choice is stark, as opposed to a primary.

My step-daughter and family live in Washington. She, like many, supports Sanders but seems to believe that Biden should get the nomination as he is the candidate most likely to beat the RIC (Rapist-in-Chief). I believe she is wrong. Four years ago they thought they had a candidate who could beat the RIC. Biden is more of the same. No in my view you have to give people a reason to get out of bed. US voter turnout last time was 55% (!!). Last New Zealand election voter turnout was 80%. Almost half of US voters don't bother. This is the key for me - the 45% who don't vote. The great unwashed need an actual alternative. For the most part Dem candidates have nothing to offer poor voters. Why should they bother? Presidents come and go, parties change but their poverty remains. People will vote for seemingly unlikely candidates if they believe they will get something out of it. Yes most people are scared of change, but millions have nothing to lose. I don't believe you can fight the right by aiming for the middle. You need to take a risk and aim for the left. Sadly it seems that this is not going to happen.

Wow. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/15/trump-offers-large-sums-for-exclusive-access-to-coronavirus-vaccine

We are told that East was 'surprised'. Combined with West's bid I am inclined to rule MI. Further, am I the only person concerned about the 3S bid? Why not 3H?

[hv=pc=n&n=sa43hat5dt2cq9876&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1cp1sd2s?]133|200[/hv] mps. 1♣ is 4+, pard is unlikely to be 55.

As gnasher suspected this question came about because 1♠ was a psyche and NS accused west of fielding it. When asked my opinion I said I thought a heart was normal and most would choose it.

[hv=pc=n&w=sjt65h8da8532ck62&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1d(4+D%20pos%20bal%20if%2015+)1s2c2n(good%20raise)4cp5cppp]133|200[/hv]

Have to agree with nigel_k and fluffy. This is beyond outrageous; corruption more like it. Sounds like something the morally bankrupt board of New Zealand bridge would pull.

I think you should be quite content with your ruling. I get heartily sick of bunnies trying to play methods they don't understand and stuffing it up. Should be a good lesson for them.

At for example the Gold Coast Congress in Australia they have 400+ tables in action during the teams swiss and the boards are, of course, duplicated.

You are considering a w/r sacrifice (dive) in 7♣ over the opponent's 6♠. In order to avoid the ghost who walks (phantom) it might be useful to sort out combined defensive tricks. The idea, which I have not heard referred to in many years was that the player in the direct seat after the offending 6S would double to show exactly 1 defensive trick and pass with 0 or 2 defensive tricks. Now, partner knows what to do after a double, and after a pass s/he doubles with NO defensive trick, passes with 2 and takes the dive with 1.

The last board in the Cayne-Amoils match reminded me of what we used to call the 'negative slam double'. As I recall double in these dive auctions shows 1 trick and pass shows 0 or 2? Then pard dives with 1, doubles with 0 and passes with 2? Is this right, it seems to work provided that you don't end up diving when you have three defensive tricks! Is it all worth it? What do other people do?

OP says that "NS were not strong players". This to me is the relevant point. Why are they supposed to know that the description of weak twos is 'wink wink' 6-10 when many good players would routinely open 2H on this 4 count. Why are they writing 6-10? is this just a tactic to confuse bunnies? NS know perfectly well that pard might open 2H on A sixth and out but they write 6-10 on heir card? No wonder that so many less experienced players think that they are having the wool pulled over their eyes. Come on, against weaker players be a bit honest about what you really preempt on...