Leaderboard

[hv=pc=n&s=sq2h93dkq8652c973&w=st5h874dcakqjt862&n=shaqjt652daj943c5&e=sakj987643hkdt7c4&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1h1s2d5c6d6sppp&p=h9h4hahkhq]399|300[/hv] It was a goulash tourney and at the second trick when the Q♥ is played East claims 12 tricks without stating a line of play. I am sitting South and refuse the claim after about a second. Now the fun part. East (an Expert) tanks for a few seconds and ruffs high thus promoting my Q♠ into the setting trick. He starts drawing trumps, sees the situation, stalls, calls me a 'liar' and tells me I was not correct to refuse the claim. A few moments later he quits the table. He is the one who made the claim it is not my fault if he inferred the wrong information from my refusal, he dug a hole for himself. Had he not claimed he would have probably ruffed low and made the contract. Am I supposed to accept the claim?? Was the tempo in which I refused the claim ethical? Is bridge evolving this way? I even fear there maybe bad TD's out there who would rule in his favour!

Why? You're allowed to choose an offbeat action, as long as it wasn't demonstrably suggested over other actions. For example, it would be legal to bid 6♣, because plainly that isn't suggested by the pause.

♥A lead also gains over ♥Q when declarer has ♥Kx and your natural entry is ♠K over declarer's ♠A(Q). On this layout, if you lead ♥Q declarer may be able to strip squeeze you.

That's not right. The pollees weren't asked there what was demonstrably suggested. All the poll told you was what the LAs are. You have to decide separately what could be demonstrably suggested, which is this thread.

It may be that a hesitation has several plausible interpretations, some of which make a particular action sound good and some of which make it sound bad. If so, that action isn't demonstrably suggested. But if there are some interpretations which make a particular action sound good and none which make it sound bad, then it is demonstrably suggested IMO.

a slow double suggests that partner's double wasn't obvious, but as we have no idea why it wasn't obvious we shouldn't feel constrained at all. is he lacking shape? values? considering 4s?

Yes, it does... In order to drive said vehicle on a public street you need to 1. Possess insurance 2. Have a driver's license Thanks for playing!

Please stop playing "Minorwood."

Hog, haven't you read the thread? PhilKing provided you with a link with some evidence, but my opinion (yes, just an opinion!) is based on a combination of what I think works for me, what the top players actually do, and the logic of the thing (playing a strong club allows you to open light without partner becoming over excited, so deliberately passing a fair chunk of openable hands makes no sense). Saying it is silly to claim that passing these hands is wrong is, well, silly, and your having read a 30-odd year old analysis claiming that passing these hands is the way to win imps doesn't influence me at all, sorry!

Whether the 2♣ bid is legal depends on what conventions are allowed where you play. It's not legal anywhere to describe it as a "game force" if it's not.

I don't think he's admitting that at all, or even implying it. I suspect he would equally refuse to accept a study that came to the opposite conclusion until he had vetted it.

Actually, we agree here. Somewhat at least. I quit hunting because I realized that going out in the field every once in a blue moon with a lethal weapon was really not a very smart idea. I am not sure if Dick Cheney considered, or did, give up hunting after his little mishap, but there would be a point to it. He may have grown up in Wyoming, or maybe Nebraska, but that was in an earlier life. There is a lot to be said for knowing who you are, who you have become, and who you are not. Still, a guy like me, living in a very quiet residential area, retired, seldom in conflict with anyone (except maybe on bbo threads) should show some restraint in telling someone who is living in vastly different circumstances that he, or maybe particularly she, does not need some protection close at hand. With a little restraint, and some thought, I think some proposals could get very broad support. Background checks are obvious, and there is wide support. Money talks, so the NRA has won a temporary reprieve, but I do think that it is temporary. And I will repeat my suggestion that gun owners should be required to learn the laws governing the use of such weapons and be tested on this knowledge. Most people that I know are not big on guns, but there are some who are. Their views on their right to own guns is one thing, but their views on their right to use guns are, in sme cases, downright scary. Take the story Charles tells. He answers the door, gun in hand, some boys are there. There has been some trouble about which girl his son is dating. Sounds crazy. Sounds like 16 year old boys, who are often crazy. Ok, first possibility, maybe one of the kids pulls out his own gun and shoots. Oops. Or maybe the boys, who as the story was presented sound pretty nuts, push on in anyway. Well, what good is a gun unless you use it? So Charles shoots one of them. The others come at him. He shoots them. One or two of them die. Far fetched? Not really if you come to the door with a gun in your hand. Now the police come. Charles is protecting himself and his family. Sure. But maybe a cop says "You felt sufficiently threatened so that you brought a gun to the door with you but you still opened the door? Did it cross your mind to not open the door and, instead, to dial for help from the police? " I have no idea where this would go legally but I much prefer not to find out the hard way. I read recently, although I did not study it in detail, about a guy who was being let out of jail after serving some years for knifing someone. As I got it, everyone agreed that he was not the instigator of the trouble, he was defending himself, but the way things had gone he could have safely backed off before killing his assailant so he ended up convicted of some form of manslaughter. Something along these lines, I did not pay attention to the details. Mostly I think that gun enthusiasts far overstate the security a gun gives them and far underestimate the legal difficulties that can arise from using the weapon. Not all do, but many do. If we had background checks, and if we required proof of good solid knowledge of legal responsibilities arising from gun ownership, I think we would cut down sharply on the craziness.And I think a lot of support could be had for both approaches. Enough to overcome the NRA. Eventually.

Do you think that parents in countries that don't allow guns don't face this kind of problems? (Or parents in the US that don't own a gun.) How do you think they solve that? Are houses burning down all over Europe because teenage boys are having a beef over a girl. Or do you think that teenage boys in Europe are sharing girls peacefully ("How about if I will take her to the movies this week, then you can take her out to eat next week?")? No, of course not. Other teenage boys are facing the exact same problems all over the world. Jealous punks are ringing doorbells everywhere. Yet, the houses are still standing, despite the fact that their inhabitants don't own guns. I am very sorry for you, but if you can't manage a jealous teenager and two of his friends who ring your doorbell at 11:30 PM without a gun in your hand, you lack a few essential skills (which IMHO makes you unfit to own a gun). What would have happened if these punks and their fathers would have been as "smart" as you and come back the next evening with their guns? You should thank the good Lord / FSM that they were smarter than you. And what did you teach your son? -Your father's .357 will solve all your problems? -Make sure that your father's gun is bigger than all of your rivals'? -His .357 talks better than he does himself? You call that responsible gun ownership? And what do you think your son got to hear the next day? The whole school knows in no time that he needs his daddy with his .357 to solve his problems. That's always good for a big laugh. Let me guess: The girl dumped him pretty soon after this incident. You are trying to come up with a reason why you need a gun on your night table and you give an example that demonstrates that you are unfit to own one. Rik

If you are playing with a partner who knows what he's doing, you do *not* have a spade fit, and 4nt is *not* RKC. Traditionally 4nt after using stayman is just a quantitative invite to slam *without* a spade fit. With a spade fit (and assuming transfers are in use, so 3♥ does not have to be used to show a hand with hearts not having spades), there are two methods that are most popular among advanced+ players to set spades as trumps and ask key cards: Method 1: Partner bids 3♥, 3 of the other major. Since transfers are available, this is not needed with just the other major, so it's used to show a fit in the major, a game force, and interest in slam. Subsequent 4nt will be RKC. Alternately partner can bid 4 of a new suit to splinter. Method 2 (attributed to Grant Baze): Partner bids 4♣, RKC Gerber. 3 of the other major shows *any splinter*, next step asks. 4♦ shows a fit in the major, without a splinter, quantitative slam try, not appropriate for RKC. Be aware though, that there are a ton of (usu less experienced) players who *don't* know these things, and did actually intend 4nt as RKC. There's not much one can do about this, my policy with a pickup would be to assume method 1, if partner wanted it to be RKC after the hand, tell him he's wrong.

Then it must be the explainer that is at fault. It reminded me of a pair in Birmingham who played revolving discards. The way they turned the card indicated whether they wanted the higher or lower suit. They understood this was not allowed when it was explained to them.

I think she is pretty close to a professional translator, being an Italian academic who has spent the last few years in Scotland doing her PhD while trying to play bridge. Unlike many, not only is she finishing her PhD this month but she represented Scotland last month at the Home Internationals.