TimG

If partner has encouraged without the ♠K and with the ♣K, you are right, this is just a carding problem.

Hmmm, I would feel pretty comfortable playing clubs if my partner discouraged in spades. Am I alone in thinking that partner's trick one attitude signal could be chosen based upon something other than just the ♠K?

When I wore one of those helmets, it didn't seem like a good idea to run into something headfirst. At least not full speed into someone running at you at full speed. But, maybe that's why I mostly stood on the sideline. But, it doesn't seem to me that the ones getting injured are the ones doing the hitting. It's those that are getting hit. And, the head injuries are more the whiplash variety (because the helmet protects against the blunt force injury).

I don't think that is quite true. Kids are not taught to lead with their helmet. Probably some, somewhere, but not the vast majority. Leading with your helmet in the NFL leads to a penalty (and possible fines) I believe.

Wouldn't partner encourage in spades with nothing in clubs?

Does the "auction period" start before the "auction"?

I think it's convenient to have them quoted in the threads where they are being discussed.

When the points don't add up and partner has made a penalty double, you can be pretty sure it's one of the opponents that doesn't have his bid.

I think your partner should not have led the Queen, he doesn't want an unblock, very probable that he would like to find an entry to your hand to play something through declarer. So, he'd really rather you give attitude about the Jack, probably that means lead the King. If you encourage, he cashes the high ones and then leads to your Jack. If you discourage on the lead of the King, he can next cash another high honor and you will play present count. He should be able to tell the difference between 875432 and 8532 (because the Jack will have fallen). I think once your partner led the Queen and didn't see the Jack, he just had a block and didn't consider J87542.

We in the US like: 1) Scoring; and 2) Commercial interruptions.

I believe it was the last time the Olympics were in London and that it was a British rower that threw a preliminary match. The article that I read that mentioned this (not in the NYT) said that Londoners supported the athlete's efforts.

The quote was in the context of making a (preemptive, though not bust) double raise of a major suit overcall with 3-card support. I think the auction was (1D)-1H-(1S)-3H and advancer was 2326. I'm not really interested in the merits of this particular raise with respect to "The Law", I'm more interested in the expert opinion of "The Law" in general. Though I did think the bread and butter of "The Law" was exactly in this sort of competitive situation.

I don't, but maybe that just means I am naive.

I'm curious to know whether the line on these matches changed significantly after the other strong Chinese pair unexpectedly lost a match. I guess where both pairs had incentive to lose the line might not change much. But, still curious.

The rules (that have been cited in this thread) refer to a pair doing their best to win a match, not to doing their best to win the event. You and I may have a simple hierarchy based upon winning a tournament being first priority, but these pairs were playing under rules which did not follow that hierarchy. Most of us can agree that CoC should be written such that dumping a match will not increase a pair's chance of winning an event. But, I think we can also agree that pairs playing under what we consider to be flawed CoC must still follow the rules (or be subject to the penalties proscribed).

I know that the law of total tricks has its non-supporters and that there have been books written disputing the usefulness of following the law. But, this quote by Fred has me wondering just how much reliance there is on the law of total tricks in expert circles. It seems to me that there is still "9 trumps = 3 level safety" sort of thinking amongst experts even if they are not counting everyone's trumps and applying adjustments. Is Law of Total Tricks thinking passe?

I wonder if there were people betting on these matches. Sports betting is legal in the UK, isn't it?

Is BBO masterpoints a rating system?

A related situation. The auction is over, with South about to declare. East asks for a review. It being West's turn to act, East is told that it is not his turn and is not given a review. West now asks for a review.

It is my opinion that the success of such programs (any bridge teaching program) is too often measured in how many students immediately appear at bridge clubs or local tournaments. The real success of such programs comes from exposing people to bridge -- exposure that they no longer receive in their homes (or grandparents' homes) -- so that years from now when they are in a position to spend time and money on a leisure activity they'll think "yeah, I learned to play once" or "yeah, I've been playing bridge now and again on the internet for years, I'm ready to spend some time playing face to face". Bridge really requires significant time and today's teens, 20-somethings, and 30-somethings are too busy with other things (like career and family and pursuits that involve physical activity) to commit to bridge, but there will come a time when a pastime like bridge appeals more and prior exposure to bridge will help lead them in that direction.

Is this like dialing a cellphone, or were you really using a VCR?

Don't be too private about things. I'd like to here what people are doing (and imagine I am not alone). Tim

I'm not 100% confident that you've said what you mean. I believe that once attention has been drawn to an irregularity, dummy may call the director. I do not believe that concern that such a director call might draw attention to another irregularity should preclude dummy being permitted to call the director.

Back in the day, if someone wanted to learn to play bridge, they might be handed a copy of 5 Weeks to Winning Bridge. Is there a contemporary equivalent?

Isn't there often a notion of "restoring equity"? That sounds to me like deciding what score a contestant deserves.