TimG

Someone has already posted one that applies to soccer. For bridge, how about: when an opponent is regularly holding their cards such that you can see the faces, inform them.

Along the same lines, if a pitcher leaves with a runner on first and the next batter grounds into a double play, shouldn't the pitcher responsible for the runner on first get some credit for the force out at second?

He hit one, the rest were walks. Two scored (all runs came in the same inning) while he was on the mound, and he left the bases loaded. The relief was, ummm, relatively ineffective. Here is a thought. Reliever comes in with the bases loaded: The previous pitcher is responsible for 3/4 of an ER if the guy on 3rd scores. The reliever gets 1/4 of an ER. The previous pitcher is responsible for 1/2 of an ER if the guy on 2nd scores. The reliever gets 1/2 of an ER. The previous pitcher is responsible for 1/4 of an ER if the guy on 1st scores. The reliever gets 3/4 of an ER. all pitchers only get credit for what they caused and not what was inherited. If you really want to assign exact responsibility like this, you would also need to consider how many outs there were when the runners were inherited. At least it seems that way to me.

I think that the difference in opinion here can be summed up by the difference between "the ethics of the game are defined by its rules" and "the ethics of the game are defined by its rules, both written and unwritten". You seem to be of the opinion that only the written rules are the basis for ethics. I think of ethics in the bridge sense along the lines of Merriam-Webster's (online) 3rd definition for ethics "conforming to accepted standards of conduct". So, if there is a written rule which it is accepted practice to ignore, then breaking this rule does not constitute unethical behavior. Likewise, violation of an unwritten rule can be considered unethical even if lawful. In short, I don't believe the codification of the Laws of Bridge means that these are the only rules that apply to the game.

You mean more secure as in less chance of hearing/seeing a bit of useful information from an adjacent table? I'm also a bit surprised by the frequency of bathroom and smoking breaks during a segment. Each segment is 2h 15m, that doesn't seem like an excessive time to be asked to stay at the table. And, wouldn't it improve security if the players actually did stay at the tables?

Into the round of 8 in the competition for USA 1 and still the boards are not the same in all matches. Anyone have any insight into this decision? Thoughts pro and con?

Or with the Q if you do ask. But that's his problem. I only mentioned this here as a quick example of how following the rules (in asking) could be perceived as unethical, even tho it is perfectly legal. If it is legal, it is ethical, regardless how someone may perceive it. I double.

Over time, a good hitting team will normally produce 1 run for every 2 hits. A weak hitting team will need around 2.5 hits to produce each run. I think this is a little off. In 2008, there were 10,844 runs and 20,901 hits in the AL or 1.93 hits per run. Individual teams were all between 1.81 and 2.23 hits per run. The AL hits per run ratio has not been above 2 since 1992. In 2008, there were 11,741 runs and 23,071 hits in the NL, or 1.96 hits per run. Individual teams were all between 1.81 and 2.27 hits per run. The NL hits per run ratio has not been above 2 since 1993. If you look through franchise totals, you'll find that few have hits:run ratios over 2. And, I'd be willing to bet that the historic average is less than 2.

I've been to the USBF Open Trials site, but can't find a results page. Is there a separate page I am missing, or are the results only available in the next day's Daily Bulletin?

IMPs, both Vul, you hold ♠J52 ♥7 ♦AKQT65 ♣743. LHO opens 4♥, passed to you. Do you get in there or go quietly?

From the opening post: "Dealer: East."

Surely 2♦ is a logical alternative. The question is whether pass is also a logical alternative and whether the break in tempo suggested 2♦ over pass. Right? Was west's pass of 2♣ forcing? Would west's double of 2C have been for penalty or takeout? In my default set of system notes, it says that doubles of the opponents at the two-level when they have found a fit are for takeout. As east in the actual hand, I'd have to think for a few seconds to determine whether this auction qualified as a fit auction. On this auction, it may be just as bad to make a takeout double with 3244 shape as a penalty double with 4342 shape -- the doubt expressed by the break in tempo does not to me clearly mean the double is not penalty. And, I think there would be complaints if a slow penalty double was passed by west who had a logical alternative in 2♦. It seems to me that if EW don't have firm agreements here, take a few seconds to work things out (break tempo) and get it right, there will always be a case for them to be ruled against because there is no definitive way to play the double in this situation. And, whatever they say in their defense will be considered self serving. So, I do think they should be given a few more seconds than normal before it is determined that there has been a break in tempo. (I'm not disputing that there was a break in tempo, just addressing your question #2.)

How about longest continuously running bridge game? Or, maybe even card game for that matter.

What would you suggest Han? At our club the lady that signs everyone in just asks everyone "What bracket would you like to play in today?" - or just do away with brackets so that our 'C' players who very rarely score 50% never get into the money because of the several 'A' pairs who very rarely score below 55%? Why should players who rarely score 50% expect to get in the money with any regularity?

Does this make sense? It sounds to me like 2S shows a sub-minimum and 3S shows a hand that would not bid game opposite a limit raise. Don't you want to try to play 2S with either? We don't have game points, we play that 3♠ in response to Drury... I don't believe whatever you play in response to Drury is relevant here. Relevant for the non-alert problem? No. An issue raised in the thread that might be of interest to the poster? Yes.

Does this make sense? It sounds to me like 2S shows a sub-minimum and 3S shows a hand that would not bid game opposite a limit raise. Don't you want to try to play 2S with either?

I pay no usage fee or annual fee on my debit card. It is linked to a no fee/no interest checking account which requires no minimum balance, but I think does require direct paycheck deposit of some sort. Is this type of account and debit card not available most places?

I encountered a similar situation last weekend. I opened 2N showing a weak hand with the minors. LHO gave my partner a few seconds to alert, and when none was forthcoming asked my partner if he could see his convention card. In the process of showing our opponent the convention card, my partner saw the 2NT section of the card and was woken up to our agreement. My partner said something like "I'm going to treat it as strong because I wasn't sure". At this point, the director was called. The director was a bit perplexed, but ruled that my partner indeed had to treat 2NT as strong, but that if the opponents took action he could wake up to the agreement. My LHO doubled, waking partner up, and the rest was uneventful. But, I wonder whether the ruling was correct. Suppose my partner did not alert (indicating that he has forgotten the agreement), the opponents look at our CCs so that they know our agreement and then my LHO doubles. My partner asks about the meaning of the double and is told "interest in penalizing at least one of opener's suits" or something similar which indicates the opponents are defending against something other than a strong balanced 2NT opening. Is partner allowed to be woken up by an opponent's explanation? The ruling we received basically seems to be saying: yes.

Suppose the auction goes: A) 1♠-2♣-P-2♥ P-2N-P-3N DBL- all pass Would most interpret this double as requesting a non-spade lead? Would it be specifically hearts, or could it be either red suit? How about: B ) 1♠-2♣-P-2♠ P-2N-P-3N DBL-all pass Would most interpret this double as requesting a non-spade lead? If so, there would be no hearts vs diamonds inference, would there? In this last sequence, opener had an opportunity to double 2♠: C) 1♠-2♣-P-2♠ DBL-2N-P-3N all pass Do most people play this sort of double (double of a the cue-bid of a suit we have already shown) as requesting a lead in another suit, in this case a non-spade lead? (Of course, if responder had doubled a spade cue-bid after having not supported, that would suggest something in spades.) If so, how does B ) 1♠-2♣-P-2♠ P-2N-P-3N DBL-all pass differ from D) 1♠-2♣-P-2♠ DBL-2N-P-3N DBL-all pass? Perhaps B ) should say we have this beat on a normal spade lead and D) should say we have this beat on a non-spade lead? That is, A) should be an exception to the general rule that the double of a freely bid 3N asks for a non-obvious lead. More generally, when a player has had an opportunity to double a cue-bid to suggest leading another suit and later doubles the opponents, that suggests the normal lead (my suit) will beat the contract.

Probably because they had no chance of cashing for either the session or event, and thus it would be a giant waste of everyone's time and probably looked upon very badly. Isn't whether their opponents were cashing also relevant? A scoring change involving two non-cashing pairs could also have an affect on the cashing pairs.

I'm curious: was there a complaint that resulted in the note being removed, or was this a case of bridge base administrators doing some sort of automatic review of notes? I have "I didn't vote for Bush" in my profile note on BBO. Check that, I had that in my profile for a while, it seems to be gone now. I cannot remember removing it, though I did change my flag recently and could have removed the note at the same time. But, now you've got me wondering.

It seems reasonable to me to ban drugs that can be used to mask the use of performance enhancing drugs, similar to making illegal the use of radar detectors. Though I understand that drugs have other uses while radar detectors are pretty singular in their purpose. There are multiple drugs out there for most conditions. If, as has been speculated, this drug was used for erectile dysfunction, it seems to me that there are other drugs available for the condition. Of course, I do not know if those are also banned. In the case of a condition that can only be treated with banned drugs, there ought to be a way to work with MLB in order to gain an exemption for a period of time. An article that I read today (I forget now where) reported that Manny failed two tests, one in spring training and one after the start of the regular season.

It's quite possible that he took the drug or got the prescription during the off-season when he was not on any team's payroll. Of course that would not have prevented him from getting the needed answers from the other sources listed.

Don't they also ask everyone to stand when they sing "Take Me Out to the Ballpark"? It's during the 7th inning stretch, isn't it? Yea, but they don't show it on tv. And one can sit during it, you don't HAVE to rise. And the cameraperson seems to think that they can't show anyone who doesn't have their hand over their heart during GBA. If there is accidentally someone, they quickly pan away. Do they kick you out if you don't stand for God Bless America? I'm astounded that anyone has to rise for the song even if it is encouraged. I haven't been to Fenway Park in many years, long before the playing of God Bless America became common, so I don't know if they do it there. But, they don't show it on the Red Sox TV broadcasts. Nor it it shown during away games. At least not routinely -- I will not swear to never having seen it during a Red Sox broadcast.

Don't they also ask everyone to stand when they sing "Take Me Out to the Ballpark"? It's during the 7th inning stretch, isn't it? Not only stand but at Wrigley you must sing it. Last week when I was at the Double A game, they also asked us to stand for "YMCA". And, there was no "God Bless America".