TimG

Suppose I psyche once every 24 boards. Is my partner privy to information to which the opponents might not be privy? Once every 48? 96? Some opponents will NEVER consider a psyche; they will never guess that you have psyched. Does it become illegal to psyche against these opponents because your partner will always have more information? I think that if psyching is to be part of the game (and I believe it should be) that a certain amount of pysching must be considered general bridge knowledge. I'm not going to attempt to quantify how much. Nor do I think it should be quantified. (The old rule-that-wasn't-really-a-rule allowing only one psyche per session was silly.) Tim PS Nice to meet you in Boston.

Foo?

I think you highlight the problem very well. First you suggest playing by the rules (and that the directors are there to enforce those rules). Then you offer up an opinion that "two psyches in one round is pushing things". The less "personally I think" there is in the application of the rules the better, in my opinion. The recorder process is not limited to actions that take place at the table. Activity in all public areas of a bridge playing site are subject to ACBL regulations, in fact on of the regulations specifically states that not paying a hotel bill (at a tournament site) is subject to ACBL disciplinary action. The recorder also keeps track of patterns of behavior. If someone is routinely psyching in a particular situation (with the same partner), the action moves from psyche to partnership agreement. Most likely a concealed partnership agreement. The recorder system is the way to track this -- the psyches could well be reported to a number of different directors who might not recognize a pattern and the psyches would not be documented were it not for the recorder system.

I wonder what it takes to make a bridge partnership, at least for your purposes. If I play with someone off and on for a few months and nothing ever comes of the partnership, was there a partnership break-up or did it never really form? I think partnerships fail to form primarily because of bridge reasons, be they different skill, different style, preferred system, different objectives, different temperament (which is sometimes a good thing), etc. But, that once partnerships form, the non-bridge reasons (family/relationship, career, geographic move, etc.) predominate.

I'm sure you are just joking around, but when you say this it sounds like you had to operate in order to keep the team alive, that is it was expected of you. And, of course, once pysches become expected you will run into trouble. Joking about the psyches will seldom cause those in authority (or your opponents) to feel better about them. Not that anyone should feel bad about psyches. Nor should you need to placate the opponents anymore than you do when you've endplayed them. But, it does seem to be the reality of ACBL bridge. Anyway, when the suits came to see me, I would acknowledge the psyches, thank them for letting me know that someone reported me, and move on to the next round. I believe that when a formal complaint (recorder form) that is to be kept on file, you must be notified in writing and given a chance to respond (though this may have changed, or I may remember incorrectly). I'd wait for the notice and respond if it comes. If it doesn't, forget about it.

Doesn't your daughter work for Apple?

My first reaction to #7 was that this was a double vote (and should be rejected). Then, I saw #8 which looks like an obvious vote for Franken despite the dot in the Barklay oval. So, now it seems that if two ovals are filled in, I have to determine which one is more filled in. So, I kind of lean towards require a candidate's name to be crossed out if there could be a question regarding a double vote. Which really isn't a good solution. Anyway, these two ballots cause me to think this isn't as easy I would have thought.

Do you mean: look hard enough and you might spot him?

I don't know the answer to this: has the average severity of hurricanes increased significantly, or have people just put more things in their way so that they do more damage?

The annual check for residents of Alaska isn't something new under Palin, is it? I thought it had been going on for a long time.

It's normal to respond 1NT when you have 4 spades and 6 clubs? I wouldn't think so. Yes, I'd take preference to hearts on this auction.

Today's negative doubles are not takeout bids in the classic sense of support for the unbid suits, shortness in the bid suit. They merely show four cards in the unbid major. This is, perhaps, not universal, but I think enough so that a pickup expert partner would assume unbid major only. There is probably much less agreement about whether 1C-(1D)-DBL and 1D-(2C)-DBL show both majors.

Our parents used to tell us that we couldn't believe everything we read. It seems to me that people somehow don't think this applies to something that comes from the internet. I once received one of these e-mails, took a few minutes to dig up some truths and replied. The sender said something along the lines of "yeah, I didn't think it was true, but still pretty scary, huh?" Perhaps in the imagination. Some people do think of these chain letters as entertainment.

I found this headline in yesterday's Portland Press Herald: Clearly a star: City's holiday tree stands out from the crowd. The article attracted a number of comments regarding the use of "Holiday Tree" instead of "Christmas Tree". It doesn't bother me either, as long as they are on private property. I would be annoyed by a creche or a menorah on public property, paid for by the town and erected by public employees. "Merry Christmas" is a tricky one as far as I am concerned, because it can be a loaded statement or it can be a generic greeting, it all depends upon the intent of the issuer. I'm mildly annoyed when someone says "God bless you" after I sneeze. I'm more annoyed when candidates say "God bless you and God bless the United States of America". I'm also annoyed when someone says "God bless" in response to a kindness offered.

The round was called a long time ago, move along to the next table, please.

I've been told in the past that the first bid in a potential canape sequence is not alertable so long as it is natural (ie 3+ in a minor, 4+ in a major). Regulations may have changed, or I may have been misinformed, but I don't think it is "insane" to think it unalertable.

http://www.geocities.com/helene_thygesen/Compass.jpg Looks like it would be more interesting to see this without Mbodell's point.

name econ social lobowolf -0.75 -4.46 matmat -5.38 -3.69 Elianna 1.62 -1.59 cherdano -2.88 -7.03 Mbodell -8 -7.44 effervesce -8.4 -0.345 akhare -6.75 -4.1 codo -4 -3.33 luke warm 1.25 0.36 david c -3.75 -1.28 hrothgar -3.38 -4.82 helene t -0.5 -5.49 y66 -1.12 -4.67 TimG -3.5 -5.08 P Marlowe -5.12 -4.72 MickyB -3.75 -3.9 gwnn -4.12 -2.05 Gerben42 -1 -3.74 NickRW -1.38 -1.85 mikeh -2.38 -6.21 jikl -4.62 -5.64 cphastrup -2.75 -6.62 pclayton 3.62 -4 Kimi -2.75 -1.54 sceptic -6.13 -0.46 skaeran -5.38 -5.28 Al U Card -7.75 -4.77 Rossoneri -1.25 -0.56 Askolnick -2 -2 blackshoe 4.5 -4.77 kfay -4.38 -4.62 But, I can't figure out how to make Excel label the points on a chart.

1. Isn't this one of those positions where we're supposed to play the ♥A at trick one to keep declarer in the dark about the honor locations? Maybe the Ten in dummy (and the spots we see) makes this useless. Could partner have led the six from 9864? If so, couldn't declarer, with Q75, have the option of trying to block the suit by ducking if he guesses we have K96/AJ8432. What about 986? Or, has the six marked partner with 654 and declarer with Q987? Anyway, I've probably won the first trick with the Ace and realized too late that I've only managed to confuse partner. Wanting declarer to have to work for his heart trick and not wanting to break clubs or diamonds, I switch to a spade. 2. 4♥. If we have a slam, partner needs controls in every side suit and with that he may be able to infer we have good hearts -- we have to have something. 3. Pass. Seems just a tad light for 1NT to me. 4. I'm tempted to bid 1N..2N invitational, but that's probably something of a position and I'd end up GFing with 2♣.

Second issue. Firefox frequently crashes when I try the private chat option. I've seen the private chat window, so it is not something that always causes Firefox to crash. I do have a Flash blocker installed, but allow BBO. Before I go about trying different browsers (or remove the Flash blocker), I thought I'd see if this is a problem others have had, or whether I am alone.

When I'm using BBO Flash (and Firefox), the whole right border of the window flashes. It's a very thin line and does not flash when the BBO window is not on top (doesn't have focus). I generally just position the window so that the right edge is just off the screen so I don't see the flashing, but wonder if there might be a way to eliminate it altogether.

Whatever the merits of 4S, it does not necessarily end the auction.

It might not be passed, but it will get you a director call.

It sounds to me that you are upset with the manner in which this appeal arose and was decided, not that you disagree with the outcome. If the director had been called at the right time and the directors had been allowed to rule before going to committee (or whatever was wrong with the process), I don't think you would find the result of the appeal troubling. And, you are having difficulty separating the two.

Doesn't the hesitation have to suggest something without regard to the actual hand? If we decide that with one hand pass is normal and with another bidding something is normal, the hesitation can't be deemed to have suggested not passing in the first case and passing in the second. Can it?