Elianna

do those people play "NABC Championship events" ? Not that I know of.

Seems likely this is a battle between the older generation for whom cell phones are an annoyance against the younger generation for whom cell phones are a necessity of life. And one group is a heck of a lot better represented in the ACBL... Funnily enough, whenever a cell phone goes off around me (tournament, club game, etc...) it always belongs to some elderly person who always claims that he forgot that the cell phone was in his possession.

It was mentioned as a possibility. Do you have more specific information? Like if the cell phones will be secure, or just left unattended during the game? This also seems like it might be a good money-making scheme for ACBL. Like, if they need money, you ban cell phones, then charge people a fee to hold the phones for them. Not that I'm accusing them of this.

While the third sentence may be true, I don't agree with the first sentence. The 2X cards are right below the corresponding 1X cards, it's very easy to grab the card above. Not as easy as grabbing the card to the left or right, especially since some bidding cards get sticky, but still not so uncommon. Plus some bidding boxes are arranged "sideways". But I suspect that's not the case here.

1) People were very rude in a tournament, treating bridge as a game of war. 2) Other games have the potential to be treated as war. 3) People have simulated war, this led to the (at times perceived) rise of german power. (The simulations making them better warriors) 4) There is a cause for this in nature. 5) So people play bridge to practice their war skills, to make them better at war in real life. BTW, footnotes about footnotes? Impressive.

If it's the club that I'm thinking of, I think that you're right.

Would that not indicate Iran are the good guys and anyone who is not willing to sign up to a glabal pact that is there to improve the safety of the world is not a good guy? Signing up to a treaty and then breaking it is better than not agreeing at all in the first place? OK.

Iran has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Israel hasn't. So Iran is subject to conditions under it, as a signatory nation, and Israel isn't. India and Pakistan also are nonsignatory nations. North Korea signed, and then withdrew.

It was pretty funny that in the comments, the word "therapist" was partially bleeped.

Actually, his name IS Matmat, to distinguish from other Matts! :)

I may trump you there. :) ETA: I agree with everyone. It's friendlier to use first names, especially if one knows the people in real life. However, it does create a clique-like atmosphere where those who don't know which name corresponds with each username are outsiders. That doesn't seem really friendly. I have no solution.

You're playing Standard American

I agree that it would be better, but this is how it was before the black point requirement. And for the most part, it is how the clubs sustain themselves, but they're very jealous of their proprietorship of local, everyday play, and so they get ACBL to try to maintain rules that serve to promote club attendance. Also, at least at my local club, most of the people are LMs (or joined eons ago) and so don't need to worry about black points. And they keep coming back for the most part.

For silver/red/gold, probably as jtfanclub says. Though I don't necessarily agree with the rampant cheating claim, but I do agree that's the perception for some people. For black: The black point requirement was basically to get people to go to clubs. If they're offered online, the theory is that the clubs will suffer.

So if you were trying to set this record you'd need to be a new player to the ACBL and you'd need the full 50 black. I agree that, after black, silver would be the toughest (for a WC player who could win gobs of gold at a nationals). But really 1 or 2 sectionals is enough for 50 silver. It is the blacks that come in most clubs 1 at a time that would be toughest to squeeze in. I think you could earn those 50 black points online here at BBO that would count towards LM status. ;) Those points are not black, they are colorless.

In my partnerships, failure to support X/XX does not deny three card support, it denies a hand that would have raised with three card support. In this category lie hands that: (1) Do not have 3-card support (DUH!) (2) Have a much better (more descriptive) rebid (like your sample hand) (3) Hands that lack shortness. So I will not make a support X/XX on a 4333 hand, and not on some 4432 hands. These hands will either pass or bid NT depending on strength and stoppers.

can't you make your partner a friend and the opponents neutrals and use what's already in place?

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on". THIS GUYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY. Yes, I hate him. No, you hate his partner. :) Whereas, I think that his partner is nice, and that this guy is highly annoying. I dislike both of them pretty strongly. I hate everyone. Especially people who hate others. So you hate yourself?

It's a normal junior preempt; I've seen/done worse. Why do you even need to make a poll? You probably knew at the time that it was risky and aggressive, and you decided to do it anyway.

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on". THIS GUYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY. Yes, I hate him. No, you hate his partner. :P Whereas, I think that his partner is nice, and that this guy is highly annoying.

I think that the child should CLEARLY be a British citizen. Maybe the parents should need to make some application, but it should be a formality: as others have said, this child will have all of its ties to Britain. I can understand the case for France not granting citizenship: this is not the child of parents who have made an attempt at gaining residency. I know that in the US this is different, mainly because of our unique history of being a country of immigrants. I think (in an ideal world) that the main deciding factors should be the parent's residency as relates to birth country citizenship, and their citizenship status as relates to their country of origin. So this way there would be many more dual citizens. :blink: (So speaks someone who is a triple citizen)

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

An argument came up between me and an opponent. Whom I can't stand. What's your opinion?

I have yet to be stopped from taking my cell phone into a movie (even sneak previews). In fact, I haven't had my bag searched for video camera, etc. I'm sure that if I took one out and tried USING it to record, I might get in trouble, but that's a rule addressed at actual wrong-doers. And it's enforced. So the movie theater doesn't have to make ridiculous rules, because THEY ALREADY ENFORCE THE ONES ON THE BOOKS.

Which means that more than 20 VPs were awarded in your match. Given that the threshold for awarding non-offending side an adjusted score (presumably better than their table result) is higher than the threshold for assigning offending side an adjusted score (presumably worse than their table result), this should never happen. curt I think that there's some provision for adjusting due to director's error, which seems to be what was applied here (without being said). I would say this is wrong (the guy claims to have been "confused" but that claim sounds highly suspect to me) but what is the director to do, call him a liar?