fromageGB

I know CY gave that comment, but I wondered if that was your impression too. To me it seems that the Guardian is very anti-Conservative, strongly pro-Liberal, extremely pro-Green, but fairly neutral with regard to Labour, or only mildly in favour.

Yes, RT.com website, or we have a TV channel that you may not have over there. Certainly wasn't available in the hotel offerings I saw. The coverage is never in depth, but it reports events that completely escape the UK news.

You think the Guardian is pro-labour? No, what I meant was that it is very green and liberal biased. Not in the news reporting, which I think pretty good if naturally UK-centric, but in the political analytical TV programs. I occasionally catch Newsnight after bridge and usually the green liberal is given much more time to speak, and the conservative is not allowed to complete a sentence in reply without being interrupted.

Of course any contract is a guess when you do not have the strength to do much bidding, but missing game is a bit drastic. Would a 15 hcp Gazzilli help here? If you are thinking of the 15/16 opener and an 8-10 responder, the bidding would not be your 1♠ 1NT 2NT but 1♠ 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 2NT and responder is better placed to bid game. EDIT : and if responder had a 6/7 count the bidding would likely go 1♠ 1NT 2♣ 2♠.

Not in my pairs experience. Spades are obviously better than hearts, but if the opponents overcall a major they are likely to be overcalling or protecting a 1NT. In teams, opponents are more cautious at partscores. Yes, you do get the 5-2 fit but this often plays for a trick more too. Why else would everyone transfer in response to a 1NT open?

This analysis (or my analysis of this analysis) is amazing. If my sums are right opening 1NT is a massive loser. First what I read a single line to say - eg the top line - is that with the given distribution, 1NT wins (ie is the better open) and 2♠ goes off 19.54 percent of 30302 cases, while 2♠ makes on 42.94%+37.52% of 30202. Agreed? The website says that the figures are for where there are no overtricks in either contract. Now assuming the shape you are concerned with in the choice of whether to open 1NT or 1♠ is the 5{332} and you don't open 1NT on more extreme shapes, you can eliminate those other shapes. Multiply each percentage by the number of cases to give the effective frequency result, add the columns, and you get a total of 1NT winning on 8.7% of hands and 2♠ winning on 91.3% of hands. That's a huge difference in a matchpoint scenario. I can't believe it would be that different for a 1♥ open, as the play is the same, but of course opponents could intervene with a 1♠ bid.

Or present at as a fact, or a certainty.

I could say the same about USA television news channels. CNN is 100% Trump bashing, Fox is 100% Trump praising, or so it seemed to me EVERY TIME I flicked through channels. At least in the UK I can watch BBC if I want a Guardian equivalent, or Sky or RT for a more balanced view, or Al Jazeera or RT when I want more world-wide news.

Yes, self catering with a large supermarket available would give no problem. I was talking about the breakfasts available in the many hotels I stayed in (on a road trip), and contemplating taking my own cereal in. On the evening meal front, when I was dining in a decent restaurant the food was good, but when the choice was cheap chains or nothing, I would summarise it as bad. Green vegetables (other than salad) in very short supply.

Precisely. A 5 card suit has more likelihood of finding 3+ cards opposite than fewer, the suit contract makes one more trick than NT, and at matchpoints the score of 110 is vastly superior to the score of 90. Similarly 140 rather than 120. Depending on the field, you can get a significantly better percentage. For me, playing in a predominantly weak NT region, my 110 is merely a good average as the majority of the others are in the major as well. (But my benefit is in the 12-14 range where twalsh gets me 110 while the field languishes in the 1NT opened.) Playing in a predominantly strong NT field your benefit is indeed in the 15-17 range. Conversely, playing at IMP scoring, I open 1NT because the odd IMP lost in partscores is probably more than compensated by the gains when both contracts make 9 tricks and 4M goes off, or where (again when the same number of tricks are available) 2M goes one off. The major making an extra trick is more usual, of course, but here the scoring difference outweighs the frequency. If anyone is quoting analysis that demonstrates the supposed superiority of the 1NT open, I would be interested in whether the data basis is teams or not. This seems probable, and of course the conclusion is therefore not valid at matchpoints. My own experience convinces me to maintain my approach. Naturally this entails different Gazzilli inferences or treatment at teams and pairs, but I believe it is worth it.

For me, always 1NT at IMPS, 1M at matchpoints. When matchpoints, use Gazzilli 2♣ over a forcing next step (hoping this does not take it out of the "natural bidding" category) to show 15+hcp. It's a compromise but at matchpoints I think it better not to lose the major part score.

I would be delighted to lose VAT. Sales tax and purchase tax are simple to understand, simple to administrate, and are far less prone to cheating. While it seems that VAT is technically efficient in that it theoretically encourages more efficient use of resources (or whatever your technical definition is), my definition of efficiency would include the degree of time and effort involved. Nevertheless, once someone invents a new tax, let alone one raking in so much money, it rarely seems to be removed. I am really irked by cookie law, but there are many such EU rules that have helped. You can instantly categorise or choose foodstuffs as a consumer. In the USA recently I was bowled over by the number of overweight and obese people (by the number, not by overweight people) and the possibly related difficulty of finding processed food or menu choice that was less than 50% sugar (OK, maybe an exaggeration). Here in the EU you can look at a packet of breakfast cereal and instantly reject it because of the percentage sugar content. There in the USA you have to do a "complex" (for a point of purchase decision) calculation that a portion size is 43g and a portion gives you 23g of sugar (on different areas or even sides of the packet) so you can work out that it might be decidedly sugar-overloaded. In a supermarket I was doing this calculation comparison [[ long story, but I hate having to fish out all the raisins from raisin bran, which doubles the sugar load, and you never have the option of bran flakes without raisins. Try healthy shredded wheat in a hotel (healthy in the UK) and you find they are heavily sugar coated. Only once in many restaurants was I able to have a salad dressing that was not heavy in sugar, and I could rarely have a dessert ]] when a woman next to me, buying one of the better choices, asked me what I was doing. She was amazed when we worked out the calculation on her choice. All praise to the EU where it is due. Unfortunately, along with the good comes the bad. And coming along is yet more EU integration, expense, armed services, bureaucracy, "let's go carbon-zero so we can feel good while the world dies", etc.

PS : Zel, as you know, the guardian is one of the most pro-EU-biased newspapers there is. You must expect any analysis to pick the flaws and ignore the benefits.

It is better in that May's plan was to keep Britain in the EU customs zone while the Boris Bodge takes Britain out of the customs zone. Better for Britain, worse for Northern Ireland. (Note for novices : the UK at the moment is Britain plus Northern Ireland. I say at the moment, because if Boris's agreement succeeds, Northern Ireland will secede, in my view.) Other ways it is better include no commitment to future EU law adoption, or shadowing of EU rules. No doubt such shadowing will be later agreed, though. Many ways it is no better. May's was an appalling plan; this is merely a terrible plan. I will agree with commentators who suggest Boris is more about selfish power than ideology. His plan (now speaking after the plan had been non-bindingly agreed by the non-functional parliament, but they refused to enact it and we are to have a parliamentary election) was the best that was probably achievable in the ludicrous circumstances where a nominal government was forced to continue without governing because the opposition realised they could make laws themselves without being elected, while they themselves had no chance of winning an election. Why allow an election at all? Only because one part of the opposition decided they could pounce on the weakness of another part of the opposition to gain relative power. Again, selfishness wins over ideology. Nevertheless, we are now in a different ball game and the rules are different. An ideological Boris could at this point combine forces with the Brexit party to come to power with a better plan - one that Boris originally supported - but the selfish Boris refuses to "power-share". If it continues like this my expectation will be a hung parliament with a remain majority that will formally renounce leaving the EU. I have just returned from a holiday in the USA where I did not find myself being poisoned by chlorinated chicken, nor could I detect a difference. Nevertheless, I suspect a trade agreement with the USA - should Boris win - will not be possible because of his agreement to keep agricultural and biological alignment with the EU. We may have launched ourselves a lifeboat, but it remains tethered to the Titanic.

Those who don't like mixing their metaphors would never go overboard using last train.

This is of course the problem with last train. It could be taken as heart agreement and the control (or lack of it according to style) in diamonds. You do therefore not have a diamond cue available if you play last train. Playing positive cues, a bid of 4♦ is misleading, or a lie, but it is your judgement that this lie is better than a 4♥ bid. Partner will not go overboard without a good hand, as you have already in this example limited yourself with the opening, and aces can be checked. Nevertheless, without a last train agreement, I think 4♣ is a better lie, as it gives an uncertain responder some wriggle-room. He can cue 4♦ and you can then suggest a signoff with 4♥. A slam-certain responder with the diamond control would ace and king ask.

That is my point: it is a question of beliefs, desires and opinions, not of fact. Your "net positive" is a net negative to me, as I do not want a growing economy, which is your seeming measure of desirability. The country may not seem overpopulated to you (you could not live in a place like London otherwise) but it does to me. You cannot argue that there is no net increase in population caused by immigration. It is a question of desires, opinions and beliefs, and I accept that this forum does not share mine. I imagine most people contributing here did not vote for brexit, but it seems some of them lack understanding.

Is this the reasoned argument of an intelligent man? "Someone has an opinion which is different to mine, therefore he is a xenophobe." I object to your tone. I suggest you withdraw it.

Bridge is a game of probabilities, and if you are not quite certain of game, then it is usually correct to bid it. It is not normally desirable to play in a suit where the opponents have 8 cards.

Certainly I would (other) as I play transfer walsh in 2/1 strong NT, so X would show 4+ spades, and 1♠ is a relay for partner to make a descriptive bid. This is equivalent to Mikeh's suggestion. If opener rebids 1NT I have a choice of raising to 2NT, which I would not do on this hand, or in the same vein I could bid 2♥ to express that strength but suggest no top hearts. If he rebids 2♣ I am happy to pass, and if he rebids 2NT then I raise to 3NT. The problem with pass is that opener can pass too, when you have 120 matchpoints available in NT yet only 50 or 100 in defence. I would pass at IMPs. However, you did specify SAYC, and if you meant that precisely, then of course you do whatever SAYC dictates you do. I cannot answer that.

This statement is astounding. It can only have been said by someone who has not had to administer it. My company was VAT registered, and I have never known so much administration and reporting to no purpose. "We'll tax the work you do, but if you spend a good portion of your life recording in minute detail every breath you draw in, individually, and send us the documentation of that breathing, you can claim some of the tax back again." Such a bureaucratic nightmare can only have been invented by the EU. Efficiency? * * * Yes, Cherdano, obviously a lower GDP means less money for schools etc. The concomitant reduction in people would mean this has no adverse impact. But that is by the by. I think we should just agree that we disagree, and leave it at that.

Let me speak it then. Too many immigrants are a net negative on the country. Which pie you mean is critical here. The land pie is definitely only so big, and we are already a densely populated country. I moved to the north from the south to avoid being surrounded by so many people, so many big buildings, and so much traffic. I choose not to live in NewYork, Hong Kong, or similar. While we live on the edge of a town/city for the convenient facilities, open fields and woods are alongside the house, and it does not take long to walk out of sight of practically all habitation. I can drive on comparatively empty roads a short distance to be in open country. This is being destroyed by new housing that appears all the time, and each year immigration is equivalent to building a whole city. Other pies, such as supply of water, sewage, health services and other necessities may be growable, but are limited and not capable of rapid expansion. Hence there has to be a quota. To my mind, a reasonable quota would be to keep the total population down to a steady level. I see no purpose in increasing GDP, or even GDP per head, if it means more heads. If this is your definition of improving the economy, I do not want it improved. A reducing GDP and reducing headcount would be my choice.

The first is a question for the new government, of which I will not be a part, so bridge-playing might not count. I fully expect there to be points-based system of immigration qualification (together with "compassionate" entries) as there is in say Australia. The second is simply because once the quota has been reached, the impact on resources and existing residents would cause too much strain. Not knowing you personally, cherdano, I am guessing you might qualify !

Yes of course, apart from import tariffs, there is the working time directive, VAT, GDPR, and no doubt many others. Very inconveniencing. It is difficult to know who to blame in many cases, as the laws are brought in by the UK government and called "data protection act" for example, and you may not be aware that it is a cuckoo. These could have been imposed by a sovereign power and the citizens may grumble, but it's their government. It gets more annoying when these are imposed from the outside. I also object to people being able to refer to a European court if they disagree with the decisions of the highest court in this country. On a national level, I believe the restrictions on level of financial support given to key industries is damaging to us as a nation. Maybe the trouble is partly that the UK is too compliant, and other countries such as currently Poland and Hungary - on different issues - just ignore the ECJ. Naturally there are also cases where I am grateful for the imposition. Years ago I went swimming and canoeing in the north sea but was repelled by the faeces one encountered then, and that situation has improved, but even now I read the UK is being fined in this regard. No doubt we could make such improvements ourselves, but the EU has given us a push. I can't see where you are leading with the second question, but most years I holiday in inland rural France, not so often other mainland countries, Eire just recently, and have no trouble following laws. Though the Czech Republic did get me for speeding. No doubt I shall continue to do so after Brexit, and I don't mind paying a little for the additional insurance that I would need. I hardly think they will ban holidaying UK citizens. On your final point I have no problem with anyone coming here to live, in accordance with our laws, even if they are essentially EU laws at the moment. I am sure the UK will always welcome skilled immigrants on a restricted basis. Welcome! In the local clubs I have partnered a couple of Poles, and a Bulgarian is one of our better players. Playing bridge should definitely be gaining good immigration points when we adopt such a scheme.

I do agree that it would be messy, and not the way we should have done things, but given where we are now, and the poor alternatives ahead of us, I think this would be the best choice. I prefer it to a Jeremy Corbyn government probably remaining in the EU; I prefer it to another endless decision to postpone the decision. If we leave with no agreement on future EU trading arrangements I think we (most people) will survive not uncomfortably, and trade agreement with the EU will surely follow at some time. If we happen to be between governments at the time I believe the public may well be so relieved it is finally over, that Boris Johnson will gain a surge as well as the Brexit party supporters, sufficient to win the election and carry on the good work. But that is not my prognosis. My opinion is that Boris will agree a fudge to the May plan, and leave in name but not in practice, still being subject to EU law, still bankrolling the EU, with continuing EU-imposed tariffs on outside trade, for a possibly 2-year extension. My worry is that during that 2 years there will be sufficient lack of support from brexit thinkers and non-conservatives to bring him down, and we end up with May and Hammond again, or a LibLab coalition. Either way remaining in the EU permanently. I do not want this either. The no agreement scenario seems preferable to me.