Leaderboard

Round 2: maximusg vs Chuck11 50% each http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:4bb159f8.25e4.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1492704811&u=maximusg

gordontd - barmar 50% http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:b76795c5.2592.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1492669773&u=gordontd

Round 3: maximusg vs gordontd 50% each http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:2cc26ea2.259f.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1492675123&u=maximusg

Have you ever taken a look at the correlation between unmarried teen high school dropouts and political governance? The 10 states with the highest rate of teenage pregnancies are almost all Red states, while the 10 with the lowest are almost all Blue states. You do keep trying to convince us with your superficial right wing talking points, but the problem for you is that many of us understand that reality is a little more nuanced than O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck et al appear to think. As for your assertion: show me who, on the 'left', says that unmarried teen mothers make good parents? Show me someone advocating for unmarried teenage girls to become parents. You know who does? Right wing 'pro-life' people. Sure, they all say that the girl should not get pregnant, but they all also say that sex education is bad, contraception is bad, and abortion is bad....and then act all horrified that girls get pregnant. You really ought to think before pressing send on some of your posts...take a little time to think about what you are writing and ask....is this correct? Virtually every factoid or proposition you post is easily falsifiable. Don't you ever get tired of learning that reality isn't the way you think it is? My guess: no, because you aren't interested in facts, only in repeating alt-right nonsense. Prove me wrong.

Round 1: maximusg vs Ovncylmz maximusg - 55% http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:799f2e43.257f.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1492661508&u=maximusg

JJ_ / Chuck11 30 - 70 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:6336a8b1.2584.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1492663618&u=JJ_

ArtK78 over jexa_ 70/30 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:3c68234e.25b7.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1492685458&u=ArtK78

ArtK78 over Eagles123 60/40 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:507572cc.25b7.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1492685491&u=ArtK78

Rd 2 JJ_ / Gordontd 35-65 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:9fcefd01.2584.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1492663720&u=JJ_

Hijunny132-frank0 65-35 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:81490718.2587.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1492664957&u=hijunny132 Hijunny132-artk78 45-55 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:c068b686.25be.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1492688686&u=hijunny132 I'm happy to play any and all matches, so just challenge me and I'll accept

ZZmiy 6 : 4 impfdich

wow a 3 page debate on whether AJ AK9 AQT7542 2 is a 2 club opener lol what has become of this forum!!

THE CONTINUING FALLOUT FROM TRUMP AND NUNES’S FAKE SCANDAL By Ryan Lizza

This is proof of the fact that clubs should have a rule prohibiting sticky or greasy foods at or near the tables. You can eat these at the bar, but should wash your hands, and probably your face too, afterwards. :)

If dummy had done as asked and played a small diamond and declarer had said "No, I meant (another) top diamond!", preferably immediately, but at any rate before playing from his own hand, I can't see why the director would not allow the change of card. (It's not as if making an inadvertent designation and then changing it could have worked to his advantage.) In this instance dummy's intervention has probably not alerted declarer to the fact that he should have played a top diamond - he knew that before he called for the card. It may have rescued him from playing on if he was unaware he could have changed his call. I think I would allow the change, and quite probably fine dummy, although possibly just give a warning.

Many play a 2NT rebid in 2/1 as a split range either 12-14 or 18-19. Opener will not pass 3NT with the higher range. This would then show 18-19 HCP with a reasonable 4 card club suit. Something like ♠ATxxx ♥AQ ♦Kx ♣AJTx If partner has 4 cards in clubs 6♣ could be a better contract than 6NT Rainer Herrmann

Look up the quiverfull movement. Hint: it is a Christian sect. Second hint: it is arguably one of the most misognyist religious sects on the planet. Also: take a look at the power structure of the RC church and ask yourself whether women have equal rights within that religion. It is an interesting question as to whether subordination of women arises because of religion, and the drive to obtain and maintain control over society, or whether subordination of women arose culturally and was adopted by (most) religions for the same reason that all religions coopt the myths and traditions of religions they seek to replace. It is clear that religions tend to slowly adapt to cultural change in order to maintain control of their flocks. Look at how Catholicism has slowly accept d some scientific thinking. Islam will almost certainly follow suit, but as a younger religion, its attitudes on many things are reminiscent of how Christians believed several hundred years ago, when women were the property of the men within their family until married off to become the property of their husband. And as with xianity, different sects will proceed at different speeds.

Yes, since you ask. They certainly improve the hand significantly, but I don't bother turning that into a number. That doesn't matter since I don't use a set number for a 2C opener. Call it 'game in hand' or thereabouts, and one where the auction will be able to proceed sensibly after 2C. This hand doesn't have the fillers that screams 'open 2C' and it's a rare construction where we won't be better off on the next round after a 1D opening. If we get passed out in 1D I'm not going to be all that stressed either, since we probably aren't making game. Besides, if you open 2C on this hand you are going to be lucky to stop short of slam on the actual deal. That's not going to go well.

Indeed. It is almost like the game is not entirely defined by simplistic numerical evaluation methods.

Err, no, none of this. This is nowhere close to a 2♣ opener. If you open it 2♣ and rebid 3N, you will find partner had xx, Qx, KJ, Axxxxxx and play 3N with 7♦ or 6N rigid. If partner passes 3N on his hand, he'll find you had AKJ, Axxx, Axxx, KJ plus enough cards to make it a minimum 2♣ opener and 7N will roll.

I do agree, but please don't put all those caps in your text. It doesn't add anything, but it makes the reading like listening to someone shouting his head off.

What's difficult about saying "I've made a claim and if it wasn't clear enough we should get the director to adjudicate"? I think the motivation was simply to say "don't expect the TD to come and sort it out when you've all gone ahead and effectively made your own ruling". It's the logical progression from the last change which said "if you play it out we may treat this as evidence of what you would have done". Both things are in reaction to the Hallberg case when he was awarded the benefit of a squeeze he had failed to execute correctly after putting it in his claim statement.