PeterAlan

The HCP distribution of pairs of hands is normal, for all 'normal' purposes. It is, of course, symmetrical about its mean of 20: for every pair of hands with X points, the other pair of hands has (40-X) points.

On a seating detail, what I have observed in virtual club pairs games is that the partner who Invites in the Registration process gets to sit S / W, and the invited partner N / E: I've yet to notice an exception to this.

Pilowsky, on, I hope, a more constructive note, I thought I saw a remark of yours somewhere about developing a spreadsheet for the numbers of hands of certain shape(s), points, etc. If I'm not mistaken in this, I may well already have what you want and I'm happy to share it. If this of interest, please let me know. Peter

This is nonsense: the problem lies with your comprehension skills. mike said no such thing. Nor did Gordon claim to "know what other people 'think'" when he said (my emphasis) "I don't think it is what you said". All that Gordon and Mike have done is to remark on what your statements appear to them (and to me as well) to be saying. If this is at odds with what you intend to convey, then I suggest that the problem lies with how you are expressing yourself.

The Wikipedia article claims that the Latin phrase was also used in Judaism and gives an example from 688/689 AD to support this.

Thank you for your insights. There are 330 million or so Americans. I never realised before that they are all the same.

I have the same issue, but was able to log in using the old Flash-based interface. I have no idea why this worked whilst the usual login did not.

I have the same issue, but was able to log in using the old Flash-based interface. I have no idea why this worked whilst the usual login did not.

This seems to me to be rather facile "analysis". The whole poll (and I've only seen your summary) is pitching apples against oranges, and these statements are promoting false equivalences. I'm not pretending this late at night to provide any deep insights, but surely you have to start by recognising the very different current status of the two: Trump has been in the White House for the past 3 1/2 years, exercising what passes for "leadership", and pursuing his own agenda (which you will regard as issues / policy if you're a supporter). Additionally, he seems to spend at least half of his time tweeting various insults, numerous lies, and boasts with little grounding in reality, and by virtue of his position gets to have all this plastered all over the news and social media, including those ("fake", "nasty", etc) elements that are "stupid" enough to differ from him from time to time. In contrast, Biden was Obama's VP for 8 years; from our side of the pond it seems firmly to be the case that the President rather than the VP is the embodiment of the country's leadership both in general and in policy. The Democrats ran Hillary Clinton, not Biden, when Obama stepped down in 2016. Here in the UK there's a formal role of Leader of the Opposition; the US's nearest equivalent would seem to be the House / Senate leader, but only if either chamber has a majority for the non-Presidential party. This, and the whole political process of nomination races etc, means that there can have been no comparable standard-bearer role for Biden to have held for those 3 1/2 years. Whilst he's been prominent, his media exposure over these years also doesn't begin to equate to Trump's. Given these marked contrasts, it's hardly surprising, for example, that "leadership" and "issues / policy" are going to weigh more heavily than other topics with Trump' supporters, and vice-versa for Biden's. Quite frankly, I'm astonished that "he isn't Biden" scores as high as it does with Trump's, and wonder if this is heavily weighted by those "leaning towards" rather than "supporting" him. I'd also be very surprised if a significant proportion of the pro-Biden pollees had a good grasp of his policy platform. Given what an appalling President Trump has been, and the swathe of damage that he and his Senate enablers have done both to the US's institutions and to its standing with the rest of the world, it's also hardly surprising that the overwhelming reason given for voting for Biden is to sweep this all away: this is a phenomenon seen all over the world when a democracy realises that it's time for a change. Other important reasons are always going to be subservient to this imperative, and will score materially less in such polls as a result. I don't see any significance in the "American people & values" differences, partly for that last reason, and partly because the deliberately divisive nature of Trump's pitch, that seeks to rally "true" Americans against the rest of you folks, is obviously designed to highlight this "issue" with his supporters. Finally, the poll is presented here as if these constituencies are of equal size, and - mercifully - that doesn't seem at the moment quite to be the case. 19% of a larger number of Biden's supporters could well be a larger proportion of the whole population than 23% of Trump's (one can only hope).

I confess that I just gave a quick response to the double-dummy position, but I think you can always guarantee 4 tricks after W follows to ♦Q and you overtake. If E has followed to this ♦ (leaving the possibility that it retains ♦J) then either: you decide to play W for that card, as before (♠K, ♦), or you accept 4 tricks by playing another ♦ without cashing ♠K. If E wins this, then a ♠ return gives you all of dummy, so E returns its only ♣. (At the start of the 6-card position, E held the 3 remaining ♠s because of the 2♠ call, so 2♦s means singleton ♣. Presumably E will have pitched a ♠ on ♥Q.) If you duck this, then either E holds the trick and must play a ♠ or W overtakes and is endplayed in ♣s. Covering minimally works too. If W doesn't follow to ♦Q you're guaranteed 5 tricks by overtaking and playing another ♦, as E can't have a ♣. Nigel, I don't see how a possible squeeze on E needs to come into your picture. After ♥, ♦, ♠, ♦ with W on lead there are only 2 cards left: a ♦ return gives the rest to dummy, and a ♣'s into S's AJ. Paul had already lost the ♠ and ♦ Aces, so needed 5 tricks for his contract.

♥Q, ♦Q overtaken, ♠K, ♦ and you'll make 5 tricks rather than 4.

I must still have been half-asleep earlier - there was also a return address label for the box, which I had affixed.

My courier's apparently Menzies Distribution rather than Yodel. They texted me at 9:30 today to say they'll come between 11:00 and 15:00 Whilst better than nothing - and reassuring that it's going to happen - the text was too late for me to change when I took the test, leaves little time to do anything before the time window, and provides relatively limited narrowing of the overall timeframe. Time to stop moaning!

I've just done the test, and had similar reactions to yours, but should have done enough for a decent sample. The most awkward part of the whole exercise was the origami required to assemble the return box. Regarding the box, I don't think you missed anything - the only instruction is to add the security seal. I'm now waiting for the courier, and given your experience probably won't bother to try and find out when that will be.

Thank you for relating this, in particular your experience with the swab. I too am taking part (I was able to get online to do the survey questionnaire when I booked the courier), and the courier (and hence my self-test) is due tomorrow.

Are you talking about the History display on the right of the screen? You can enlarge the whole History panel by dragging its left-hand margin to the left (making the main part of the screen display a bit smaller). As the panel size increase, so does the font.

Quite a lot of people who play Benji favour a 2♣ opening followed by a 2NT rebid as showing 19-20 balanced, with the 2NT opening reserved for 21-22. I'm not a fan (I don't like opening 2NT with a balanced 19 count, and still less to go via 2♣ to do it), but it's prevalent and you'll continue to encounter it. It's a point to clear up if agreeing to play Benji with a pick-up partner. PS: I suspect that discussions of Benji topics would normally belong in the Natural Systems forum.

On possibly a lighter note, I have a twin brother, but we have different birthdays. His is today, and he shares it with Donald Trump. Mine is tomorrow, and I share it with Xi Jinping. Sometimes you just can't win.

Since ♥K is onside, you have 1♠, 2♥s and 6♦s.

Try Ctrl+0 to return your screen to its defaults.

I have several machines and use a Microsoft Surface Book as my testbed for an initial installation. It's relatively straightforward to restore that machine if need be. My experience was that KB4556799, to which the Forbes articles refer, was installed some time earlier under the regular monthly update of the previous Windows 1909 release rather than this later feature update, and didn't give rise to problems on any of my kit. My choices are my own, and I've been fairly relaxed about early adoption in this controlled way on what is just my personal kit. I'm not recommending it for others, just suggesting a possible cause for Winstonm's issue. Incidentally, I also chose the option to install the new Chromium-based version of the MS Edge browser, and it may be that this optional step was the trigger for the reset. That option was presented as part of the installation process for the feature update, but, as I understand it, is also now available as a download for earlier Windows 10 versions too, so possibly that, without the feature update, would have had the same effect.

Some or all of mine were reset when I installed the very recent Windows 10 feature update (version 2004). Could that be the reason?

Actually, no. Some games (cricket, bridge) are governed by what are labelled their "Laws"; for other games (eg baseball) the corresponding label is "Rules". Both terms have the same meaning, and neither has the same standing as, say, an Act of Parliament. In any event, you have clearly failed to understand the very first section in the book: If you don't understand what is meant by "Tournament Organiser" and "Regulating Authority", refer to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (in particular 78-80, 92 & 93). If you don't understand what is meant by "regulation", "interpretation" or "scope", refer to a dictionary. You're apparently a well-educated academic physiologist. Why do you choose to appear as a fool on these forums?

Robert May.

Andrew Rawnsley wrote this piece on Sunday for The Observer's / Guardian's website (and presumably the print edition). I expect there will be others to be found.