fromageGB

When I open either type of download in libreoffice on linux I seem to get html source with a sort of mime wrapper. If I edit away the wrapper, the remaining html looks OK in a browser and also in libreoffice.

With regard to the actual south hand given, this is not a 1f bid for me. I would bid a mini splinter if I had one, or a game invitational strength 3 card support raise. For me, 1♥ 2NT = mini-splinter in a minor (3♣ asks which if opener wants a resolution for game or slam bidding), but if I did not have that, rather than bid 2♥ = 3 card 7-10, I think it worth a 2♣ bid that is not GF if I rebid 2♥ over the 2♦ relay. If your jurisdiction does not allow that, then whatever bid you use, such as 1f then rebid 3♥ over a 12-15 opener rebid. Of course, if you were not using your strength-defining gazzilli, then you do that have that alternative, either, so reluctantly, a GF.

I'm very happy with Gazzilli in all main partnerships, but would bid 1♥ f1NT(or KI 1♠) 3♦. While Gazzilli is defined as "X+ points", it does not mean that all hands of X+ should bid 2♣. Indeed, one of the advantages is that when you make a rebid >2M it has a definition that is quite tight, and the exclusion of hands of this definition from the 2♣ sequences further tighten those descriptions. For example, if 2♣ = 16+, then I would play : 1M 1f 3♦ = specifically five diamonds, and a high card strength (no adjustments for distribution) of exactly 16 or 17. This is tightly defined, so it is not forcing. 1M 1f 2♣ 2♦(positive, sets a GF) 3♦ = 16+ with a diamond suit that is 4 cards, or 18+ with a 4+ diamonds. If you subsequently rebid diamonds, then partner knows you are 18+ The answer to your "whatif" is that the bidding using Gazzilli this way is certainly 1♥ 1f 3♦ Pass, if responder prefers diamonds to hearts. Similarly assign meanings for direct rebids of 2♠, 2NT, and 3♥ rather than going via 2♣.

This is an under-emphasised point. System is very important. Playing a strong NT I will be delighted to open 1C on 3 bare aces (OK, I expect there will be 10 other cards) as it is so much more likely to end in a part score suit contract. If I was (very rarely) playing a weak NT, I would be reluctant to open, as the weak NT preempts partner from bidding. I'll probably pass.

I'm with ggwhiz. 1♦. I like a 2♣ open to be no worse than a trick short of game in my own hand. We have weak and invitational strength replies, and of course if partner responds invitational strength, we are in slam in probably diamonds or NT. If he responds 6-10, 3♦ is forcing, and heart game and 3NT come into the reckoning. But it could subside in 4♦. If he passes, I just repeat diamonds until opps give up.

This is wrong. I do assume, and indeed expect that, the home office detains people prior to repatriation if they suspect they are trying to avoid it.

Which one? I am happy to confirm that I believe the UK should grant temporary visas for study and other purposes, and I believe that on expiry of the visa or its renewals, the holder should leave the country, and - should he not do so voluntarily - be removed. The "decision to remove him was taken on 9 December last year", and I doubt that the home office failed to notify him of that fact. I also very much doubt that the "decision to remove" was not made after the expiry had failed to be followed up by voluntary relocation. I also very much doubt that a scholar who spends his life reading the writings of others failed to read the termination date on his visa. So yes, I support his removal. And the home office processes.

Much more efficient to not have an invitation. Then you can use 2♠ as minor suit Stayman to find the better fit when you are both minors, weak or not, and also when you have one minor but need to know the degree of support before you decide the direction to go in. Now 2NT and 3♣ as pure transfers, weak or strong, give the advantage of making opener play the hand that you forego if you play 2-under transfers.

Always open 1M unless strong enough for a 2♣ open (and you have a subsequent way to describe a 2-suiter). There is no problem in showing your minor after interference or not, and no problem showing strength if you have a strong hand. Provided you have this understanding with partner, bidding and repeating the minor (if it goes that way) does not imply 6 of the major.

It doesn't.

I know nothing about this beyond the article I read, but I think calling someone who studies Shakespearean history a scientist may be stretching things too far. Obviously he was detained because he was here illegally, the notification presumably being ignored, or lost in the post. If we implement an Australian style system then no doubt we shall take in people who will in some way contribute to the economy in ways we desire or need, and no doubt we shall temporarily take in students who wish to study. I think it reasonable that there should be a limit to the duration of such study, though. Is 9 years of reading English history not enough? I don't expect the economy has gained much, but I do expect I have paid in some way to his education, even if only in EU grants and the costs of social and infrastructure support.

This seems to have happened before the Brexit situation arose, so not really relevant. After Brexit has happened, we may or may not decide we want more perpetual spongers (if that is the word for history academics).

Hey, thanks Stephen. I think I'm getting there ...

Are you saying that playing 2♦=♥, 2♥=♠, 2NT=♣, 3♣=♦ is NOT 4-suit transfers?

Simulations of the missing KQ32 where LHO playes low twice, and we are at a "finesse or drop", would help to demonstate it, if not explain it, because there I would say the finesse is 6.72/(6.72+6.22) (percentage lies of any particular 2-2 and 3-1 breaks) = 52%, whereas restricted choice would (I believe) give a significantly different answer (but I don't know what - 68%?). Experience indicates to me that this might be the case, but can anyone refer me to a simulation?

FAO Nigel and Wayne I don't get this "half" Nigel : > Then the finesse wins when LHO has K2 and half the time he has K32, (13 + 11/2 = 37/2) Does it not win EVERY time LHO has K32? So wins (13+11 = 24)? > It loses when he has 2, and half the time he has 32 (13 + 13/2 = 39/2). Does it not lose EVERY time he has 32? So loses (13+13 = 26)? and therefore the finesse chances are 24/(24+26) = 24/50 ? Why the half? Wayne : > We apply restricted choice to 32 and K32 leaving us with: ...halving the values for 32 and K32 Yes, of course if LHO started with 32, half the time he may play the 2 and half the time he may play the 3, but we know (if we brought our glasses with us) that he played the 2. Why the half? I see in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_restricted_choice , talking about a scenario missing 4 cards, the KQ32, it says that "If East would win the first trick with the king or queen uniformly at random from ♠KQ, then that original lie 32 and KQ would reach this stage {2nd round and again LHO plays low} half the time and would take the other fork in the road half the time" but that does't help me. We KNOW which fork we are on, and we know the percentages of times the hands occur. You could equally argue that we are looking at the fork where LHO played the 3 first, and he could have taken the other fork. I don't accept this as an explanation. Could someone who was formerly dubious about restricted choice initially but has seen the light, please point me to whatever it was that explained it to them?

We don't and didn't. In a sense we benefit, as our non-state pensions tend to be funded by investments in global firms. Pensioners who voted out (the majority, if you still believe pollsters) are being hurt less by the EU than the working man and woman, but that does not prevent them seeing how the common market has deteriorated into invidious central authoritarian control, which is not only getting worse, but more expensive. The impact of the imported population explosion affects everyone, though.

Sheep mentality applies equally to both sides.

My understanding of the term 4-way transfers, or 4-suit transfers, is that you use 4 bids to transfer to specific individual suits. One bid which could be either minor does not count. 4-way transfers are usually ♠/NT for ♣/♦, or NT/♣ for ♣/♦. Your pattaya reference misses this last option (or so it seemed to me), and 2♠ if used as minor suit stayman does not need to be game forcing.

Some parasites are beneficial to the organism. And no, I don't believe merely voting for a party counts. You need to belong. I am not a member, but I do feel he is about the only person in the Westminster block that reflects the member's feelings, although I do agree that he should have stood by his beliefs.

Sorry, I am not following this. 26% of the time LHO starts with exactly 2 cards it is xx? I figure a third (33%). Anyway, total scenario with LHO playing the 2, what is the percentage chance of the finesse working? I have created a poll in "general bridge discussion", so you may care to reply there.

You are in a high level spade contract. LHO leads a nondescript heart, RHO follows with a nondescript heart and you, having all the top cards in that suit, win. In trumps you are missing just three cards, the K, the 3, and the 2. When you lead low towards the AQ in dummy, LHO plays the 2. You do not know whether he would play the 2 or the 3 from a 32 combination, but you do know he would not play the K from Kx (!) What is the chance of the the finesse winning if you play for it? With 3 cards missing, in 100 deals you will find the following breaks : 11 are 3-0; 11 are 0-3, 39 are 2-1, 39 are 1-2. (ie LHO-RHO) The finesse is 50% because ... Missing the K, a finesse is 50-50. The finesse is 11/23 (about 47.8%) because ... Vacant Spaces tells us that LHO has 11 cards that could be the ♠K, while RHO has 12, for a total of 23 cases, so it is 11/23. The finesse is 37/76 (about 48.7%) because ... I have left my spectacles at home and can't tell whether it is the 2 or the 3, but I can see it is a low card. The 11 cases of 0-3 are eliminated, leaving 11 cases of 3-0, 39 cases of 1-2, and 26 cases of 1-2 (as LHO did not play the ♠K) for a total of 11+39+26=76 remaining cases. The finesse works on 11 of the first 11, none of the last 26, and the principle of Restricted Choice tells me that the finesse works on 2/3 of the 39, ie 26 of them, so the total chance of the finesse working is 11+26 = 37/76. The finesse is 48% because ... Of the 39 2-1 breaks where LHO originally had equal chances of ♠K3, ♠K2, and ♠32, 13 have been eliminated (as LHO did not have ♠K3) leaving 26 cases. The finessse works 50% of these 26 cases = 13 times. Of the 1-2 breaks 26 of 39 have been eliminated (as LHO has the ♠2), leaving 13 losing finesses. 0-3 has been eliminated, and 11 winning finesses of 3-0 remain. So the finesse wins in 13+11 = 24 times of 26+13+11 = 50 remaining cases, or 24/50 = 48% Something else ...? Please say what and why

So now is the time I shall find out if the French refuse to sell me their cheese or wines, or if Slovakia refuses to sell me their cars. Somehow I doubt it.

FTSE now back to where it was 3 days ago. What a huge catastrophe. The only people to lose are the gamblers and manipulators.

If we give you a visa ...