fromageGB

1 - yes, it seems acceptable to me. If you passed as dealer and bid spades over hearts, then partner will not be able to judge what to do. 2 - there is a big split in approach that you need to agree with partner. One says a raise to 3♣ needs a good hand, say 15+, while without those values you make another bid but no higher than your opening suit, which does not show 6 cards. The other approach is to disregard strength and 2♠ would be 6 cards while 3♣ can be weak. Each way has advantages and adherents. However, in your case you have a very simple rebid of 2♦ whichever style you choose. This does not deny clubs, and if partner rebids hearts, spades, or NT, you then can rebid 3♣. I would be tempted to bid 4♣ rather than play in 3NT, unless he bids 2NT first and then 3NT over your 3♣.

With respect, I think you are missing the point. Or maybe I am missing your point. We are talking about matchpoints at the local club. If the players making these bids find it successful, as I do , why is it not a good bid?

Natural, exactly as Cyberyeti said. If 10 hcp only, it should have good spades.

As I'm a random club duplicate player I do overcall on a non-classic hand. 5 cards with some values is biddable, and can be weaker with a better suit, but this hand is about minimum because of the poor values. I have found this helps us or disrupts them more often than it leads to a disaster. Partner's bidding assumes you have a 10 count. (1♦) 2♣ (p) 2NT, (p) p (p) In advancer seat we play transfers from opener's suit up to 2 of overcaller's, so while with this hand we would prefer overcaller to play in 2NT, we can't get there. It might even make on a diamond lead. Clubs may be a better contract, but this is matchpoints.

Of course she is, it is the prime minister in this country that makes decisions, and is almost as important as John Bercow (joke). She can make MPs stand up, but what she does is entirely what she wants to do (rumour is that vote number 4 for the same plan nobody agrees with is coming early next week) and is not in accordance with party policy, nor in accordance with the manifesto, nor in accordance with the referendum result, which means that she does not command respect. So leadership by definition, but not in the interests of the people. Corbyn has the job of opposition leader, and regardless of manifesto pledges (you are permitted to drop those if you are not elected) his prime purpose in life is to oppose the government and bring it down. I hope he succeeds, rapidly. Edit : After a successful vote of no confidence, Theresa May has 14 days to regain "the confidence of the house" and there is no limit to the number of times she can ask for a new vote on the same motion. I reckon that's 28 votes then.

Nope. Rescinded. Having already voted twice against the botched May deal as being "worse than staying in", he on the third time of asking the same thing has voted for it. There's integrity for you.

One of the problems with a common market is that it needs to serve its members' interests, and that means the size should be limited to an area of similar countries. When UK joined the Common Market, it was West Germany, France, Italy, and Benelux that we joined, France formerly not wanting us in. Ireland and Denmark came in at the same time, and you could say it was pretty homogeneous. By the time it gets Portugal, Spain, and Greece, and then seemingly the whole of Europe, it could be argued that it is too big for purpose, and each country's objectives and needs are too dissimilar to be served by the same customs arrangements. If it was purely a common tariff area right now, without any political overtones, I would probably still prefer to make separate arrangements. However, I admit that for me this is not the main purpose of Brexit, but being able to make sovereign laws is. A number of times decisions made in our highest court and parliament have been overruled by Europe, and this is while trying to keep within those constraints, and following our laws which are largely created by the EU. However, the last few years has caused me to lose much faith in our country's management ability, and I was hoping independence would bring about a revival.

I believe there are some very well educated and well informed remainers, as well.

But the use of bidding boxes is an aid to memory. By this law, surely a call, once made and perhaps followed by the next player's call, should be removed and placed back in the box. Do we not also have trumps laid down in dummy on the right? Do we not write down the contract on our score cards if we so wish? If laws are so inconsistent it is easy to see why they are ignored. We have a player at the club whose memory is fading, and the contract is always displayed for her (and all). I see no problem with this.

If you and partner can agree that rebidding 1NT might have a shortage in responder's suit, then the problem is considerably lessened. If you can also agree that it is acceptable to support a major with 3 cards, when you have an unknown shortage in which to get immediate ruffs, then the problem goes away. Nothing is 100% ideal, but these two points make life easy. Rebidding a minor shows 6 cards, which is a useful result, and responder feels no obligation to rebid a 5 card major.

A classic case of continental drift. @Winstonm : The repression is not in the form of compulsory membership (in the current format, though membership would be compulsory with no escape in the prime minister's plan), but in the form of laws which are invented in the EU commission and have to be adopted by member states with no choice in the matter. Restrictions too are a form of repression. You have hit the nail on the head with "mutually beneficial decision making". This is what I would like, and this is exactly what independence can give : one state enters agreements with another that are mutually beneficial, because otherwise they would not have that agreement. Decisions are made in the EU that impact us, and where we have not previously (years ago) agreed an exemption, we must obey. We (some of us) were happy to work in unison to the end product that was then. Subsequently the product evolves in ways "we" disagree with, and having made a foolish decision to adopt in advance whatever unknown and unthought of rules the EU would come up with in the future, and having a higher court outside the country be the final arbiter of domestic decisions, we are now suffering. I call this a yoke.

Do you need 13hcp to open, or is 12 OK? You are probably unique if you need 13 to open, so let's say 12 is possible. Raising to 3♥ with 8/9 hcp when opener has 12hcp and there is only a 4-4 fit is not something I would like to do. This is why I (and many) think that the range needs to be limited to something more manageable, but that adds artificiality. Assuming opener would have jumped to 3♥ with 19, 12-18 is a range that makes life difficult. If you put a split in the range to say that in general if above the line opener will accept a game invitation, then you would say 12-14 declines, but a 15 accepts. If partner has 15 or 16 then I would like 10hcp to make that invitation, stretch with only a good 9, and all 8s would pass. 12+10 makes 22, so the minimum opener will have a playable (but not good) chance of making 3♥. 8+12 has no chance.

You get that impression because the BBC, the civil service, and others that have a beneficiary interest in the EU or have pro-EU biases deliberately present it as such, and there is no defined "post-brexit" scenario that can be pointed to confidently by those who prefer independence. It is uncharted waters, and future relationships cannot be defined because it is "by future agreement". As the prime purpose of the EU commission is to expand its empire of "big government", it is of course refusing to assist in breaking it up. However, once UK has declared UDI, it is in the self-interests of states to cooperate with each other. It is not "giving up" anything than the yoke of repression, but there will inevitably be short term turmoil if it happens. This is why it would have been sensible to say two years ago that "we will leave and make our own laws, regulations and trade agreements in two years" and then those two years could have been spent organising the future. Or fewer than two years, of course. The colony of America declared UDI some years back, and has since recovered. Southern Rhodesia declared UDI more recently and has not recovered. There are no guarantees, but I believe UK UDI will not be a disaster.

And the only way the Conservative party can respond to that if they want to survive is to get rid of them (if they have not already left).

Your 1♣ is not that different from mine, which is a 12-14 NT, 17-20 semi-balanced no 5 card major, or 12-20 3-suiter short in diamonds, or 6+clubs Over a major overcall we like to distinguish between 4 and 5 cards in the other major, and show the strength range. Our normal methods uninterrupted are to have 1♠ as a relay, effectively being a transfer to NT (distinguishing the 3 opener ranges) or a minor, which rebids over the normally elicited 1NT to show whether the minor is weak, invitational, or GF. The transfer to NT can be raised if invitational or better, so the 2NT reply is freed. The methods we adopt may translate to your opening. After interference, it is even more important to right-side the NT, and we keep the same basic methods : over (1♥) 1♠ is still the relay, and over (1♠) X is the relay. As minors are shown after the relay, immediate minor bids are used to distinguish the length and strength of the majors. After 1♣ (1♥) : X = 4 spades weak 1♠ = relay 1NT = 5 spades weak 2♣ = 4 spades invitational or better 2♦ = 5+ spades invitational or better 2♥ = 6 spades weak 2NT = both minors 3m = preempt The same after 1♣ (1♠) but you can no longer distinguish 4 or 5 weak hearts : X = relay 1NT = 4 or 5 hearts weak 2♣ = 4 hearts invitational or better 2♦ = 5+ hearts invitational or better 2♥ = 6 hearts weak 2NT = both minors 3m = preempt In both cases, a 2♠ bid can be used for a different hand, maybe 2-suited major-minor. We have not got into that yet. Opener knowing both the length and strength of responder's major makes it very easy to take the correct action after a 4th seat opponent's bid such as a raise, ie support or perhaps X for penalty. It works for us, and it's an idea for you.

The main suggestion being you jointly agree what 1♠ means. I have a lot of respect for Cyberyeti, but I think he is a minority with bidding on the East hand. Most would say 1♠ shows 4, and to detail my choice of method in general, it is that advancer (East) bids a 4 card major or failing that, a 4 card minor at the same level of bidding (ie 1♣ X XX 1♦), or failing that a 5 card suit that raises the level. Pass denies that distribution. A bid is a definite "show" of length, (and not strength), because pass is available.

Now that Raab has thrown his hat in the ring, I hope he gets the leadership if and when May gives up. Then at least the Conservative party can start again, - but only if it purges itself of the existing members of parliament who were elected on a promise and then voted against that promise. Failing that, I think they are dead in the water. Given where we are now, the best hope for people who believe that life would be "better" without being a vassal state is not to finally accept May's plans on the third time of asking (will there be a 4th, 5th, 6th? How many will we have before May is kicked out in December?) as is now espoused by Esther McVey (a former May rejecter), but to cancel Brexit completely. Then at a general election a party may stand that has Brexit as a key policy, and we can all start again with a new triggering of the famous article 50.

You can always bail in 5NT if you use kickback/minorwood type of ask.

My methods are that 4NT is to play in an ace asking sequence over an insufficient reply, whether or not someone has bid 3NT naturally. I don't play RKCB responses, but if you did, then as pescetom points out you can no longer ask for the Q if playing in clubs after a 1 ace response. Then you would need to have some other method, such as when in clubs include the Q as a 6th ace, or include the Q among the kings that can be discovered if you are committing to 6 and looking for grand. The latter prevents you bidding a small slam conditional on the Q, of course, but if you expect a good number of kings, then it can be reasonably safe. A simple way to do this is to use 5♦ as asking for kings (should all aces be present) only if asker has the Q. If he doesn't, asker can continue over the ace reply by bidding HIS kings (a bid >5♦). The understanding here is that if teller has the Q and sees all kings are present, he will bid the grand, but with any missing, only 6♣. Including the Q as a sixth ace can work with normal methods when teller is known to be short in keycards, but otherwise a different method is better. I use a modulus 4 compression (cf RKCB uses a modulus 3) such that the step replies to 4♦ ace ask are "1 or 5", "2 or 6", 3, "4 or 0". This translates as a very simple and logical "steps = number of keycards" and "with none, sign off in trumps".

In linux you often need manual action to do updates, but in Arch the latest version of chromium is fine (72.0.3626.121 (Official Build))

I'm happy with 6♥ here. Going via cue bidding of any sort will pinpoint the weakness, while pure unspecified aces leaves the likelihood that E will not lead the weak suit with A or K. On your hand, with a non-diamond lead you make +1. Moreover, if opener showed one ace he could easily have 2 kings and it is more likely to be cold than risky.

Have I got this right - North opened 1♥ and South has ♥AKQJ63? If North then showed a spade shortage, he must have ♠x ♥xxxxxx ♦KQJ ♣KQJ at worst, so 5 is solid, and it is simply a question of aces and kings. No alternative I can see to a simple whatever ace asking method you have agreed, and then kings if he has two aces, or 6♥ if he has one. Why make a slam TRY? If partner has psyched and tried to rescue to spades, you are doomed already, so just go for it. EDIT : skip kings. Just ask for aces then bid (5+ace count)♥.

What was the connection between Brexit and shooting? I missed that one.

I didn't mean the "politics" or "management" should be left entirely to a chief negotiator, but the technical detail and the management of it are different tasks probably best suited to different people to make the best use of their respective strengths. They need to have common beliefs, which is where it went wrong at the very start. If you are asking me, the EU are welcome to keep their red lines, and good luck to them. They need it. Until the current debacle I thought we were quite capable of running our country ourselves, and that an independent state should make it's own decisions as to laws to adopt. Ireland is a red herring, not a red line. I am sure both Eire and UK would agree - once the separation was announced - to a workable border control. It doesn't need barbed wire and machine guns when both sides want the same thing. The EU will accept a local flexibility to keep their political dream alive, as they have in other areas. I can't see Eire refusing to sell us beef and dairy. If they do, well, we will revert to other countries' trade that the EU tariffs currently deny us. We do not need a "single market". With common quality etc standards where we think appropriate, there will be no problem with a generally tariff-free trading agreement. They might not choose to buy our higher powered appliances (for example) if that is against their regulations, but it will not affect the lesser powered. If we choose to import (or develop) genetically improved food, they do not have to follow suit.

To answer the question posed, I think the deadline will cancelled (Brexit postponed). After that, I feel there will no leaving at all, and Brexit will be abandoned. In my view, this is what the remainer in charge has been aiming for all along, so she can publicly say "I tried". Taking issue with Cyberyeti, May has not handled the negotiations well. She should have let the ministers she appointed do their job and not taken it on herself. The Brexit ministers would have succeeded in a sensible exit agreement, but once she effectively shut them out, the Conservative party - that promised to uphold the result of the referendum - should have moved to restrain her and didn't, and later failed to remove her. The initial error was Gove's greed compounded by Boris's tantrums. The whole Westminster political scene has failed. How people can be elected on a policy and promises, then completely face the other way when actually elected, astounds me. Edit - sorry Cyberyeti, I read your post too quickly. Maybe Cameron would have been better, maybe not. Agree with you that Davis and Leadsom are the obvious people, and Raab looks as if he could, too. Leader : Leadsom. Head negotiator : Davis.