jonottawa

Grats

Gingrich would also be only the 2nd divorced president. As I type this Romney 47.4 Gingrich 37.6. I guess it's cool that we're into December and it's still a race, I just wish I liked one of the two candidates. If only Ron Paul were 20 years younger and had a better voice. While I personally can't stand Bachmann I was impressed by her grasp of the issues until her recent 'pull the embassy from Iran' flub.

Romney's dropped below 50% now. Gingrich is soaring (is America ready for a First Homewrecker? I'm still clinging to the hope that somehow Paul or Huntsman will break through.) In other news, the time may have come to ask Justin for political predictions so you can bet on the opposite happening.

Watching the repug national security debate. If you think perry's bad, apparently mitt doesn't even know his first name (it's willard btw.)

Barry's been a disappointment. I won't vote for him again (but I was for Hillary anyway, didn't expect him to deliver. Still, things would be worse under President McCain and Vice-President Palin.) Only Repugs I'd vote for are Paul and Huntsman. Romney's dishonest Obama ad precludes him from being president. The important election was in 2000; a few of us knew it at the time. Now we're just fighting over who gets to be captain of the Titanic.

Sorry if this has already been posted, it's a little late but pretty funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k

As Scottish Phil. (2♦ then 3♠.)

mikeh gave his first choice 6/10. :) I must be getting soft in my middle-age, I generously gave 4♦ 3/10. Sounds like many others on the same page. 1D slightly best but 5D might work, 4D a shot in the dark.

On Intrade Romney's almost a 2-1 favorite now vs Perry, 45%-23%. Perry almost looked like someone with early dementia at times in the debate. Of course, Reagan is the Republican hero and he had Alzheimer's for his whole 2nd term so that's not exactly a disqualifier.

Perry is looking less and less like a shoe-in. Romney's opened up a slight lead (40%-36.5% as I post this) on intrade.

Thanks for the analysis. I followed MrAce's line and this time it was unsuccessful. Movie

A non-scientific auction with silent opps gets you to 3N at IMPs Lead ♠3 Dummy: ♠Q84 ♥- ♦QJ732 ♣AQ853 Declarer: ♠AJ7 ♥AK872 ♦T6 ♣J92 At my table I played low from dummy and won the 9 with my J. Is that normal? What should I play to trick 2?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6FTWv7abjU&feature=player_embedded

Thanks for the replies. I'm surprised at, but unconvinced by, those who feel I made the greater overbid (and baffled by those who can assign South 100% with a straight face.) Give pard xxxx Axx xxxx Qx or similar. Raise with a minimum, fine, but a WORKING minimum, not with a hand you have every reason to suspect is a working 1 count. I actually put it in this forum because I thought it was too 'obvious' for the adv/exp forum. Who could know.

This is not a beginner problem. I'd have overcalled 1 ♠ Your opponent should have alerted his support X. Reasonable options now (depending on agreement) are pass, xx (if SOS,) 2H (if X is penalty,) 3C (if X is penalty) and your choice, 2S. I should only be so lucky as to win 1.5 IMPS on my 'problem' hands.

I have the best hand at the table (even if it's a poker hand.) 3♥ To bid like this, as stated, you should agree with partner that it's up to the original preempter to act aggressively at these colors and that partner should be reluctant to hang you with a flat cheesebox.

IMPs [hv=pc=n&s=s98h43dakq85cak54&w=sjt743h5d632cqj86&n=s52hkj972djt94c97&e=sakq6haqt86d7ct32&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp1h2dp3dp3hp3nppp&p=sas8s4s2sks9s3s5sqc4s7h2s6h3stc7sjh7d7h4h5hjhqd5hac5d2h9]399|300[/hv]

Happy, happy, joy, joy.

Thank-you for the refreshingly candid response. Since you 'doubt complaining will do much good' I'm glad I brought it up here rather than wasting my time complaining privately. I'm sure at least one other forum regular will no doubt be surprised to hear that yellows being rude/childish repeatedly at the table (in a 'Zero Tolerance' tournament, no less) without any provocation whatsoever is behavior that is likely to be tolerated or 'at best' mildly discouraged.

I cut and pasted the quotes (in full, no editing, hence the off-topic '>tournament' bits) directly from my chatlog. I did it in part so that the head director would see what had happened when I asked to be returned to the tournament. (I linked the thread to her, simply telling her that I was banned for being called an idiot in private chat by an opponent doesn't seem sufficient somehow.) As for protecting the identity of the yellow, I don't see the reason for it but I'm sure that anonymity and unaccountability certainly doesn't encourage this sort of behavior. If a yellow wants to be rude to me privately, that's not a problem, but when we're playing bridge, it is. Maybe others see that differently. Anyway, I didn't know that was a ToS violation and won't post chatlogs with names other than my own again. Thanks for taking the time to edit my posts. (As an aside, are verifiable chatlogs kept by the server or is this always going to be a case of he said/he said?)

So I finally get reinstated in the tournament by the chief director and arrive at my table: Just my luck, the rude BBO employee I mentioned earlier is my opponent: jonottawa: hi opps we play my profile RANDOM PLAYER->Tournament: no but it shows coming inland big time RANDOM PLAYER 2->Tournament: Juan, sos un lancero REPORTED TO BE A YELLOW: I do NOT greet rude ppl Unbelievable ...

Well, I've seen bad moderation before, but I have to admit, tonight's tournament took the cake: player Number 1: p..please faster...this hand is very easy player Number 1: p..please faster Player 2: he has 9 minutes player Number 1: nobody asked for your opinion ->jonottawa: Director zego_7 has been requested by jonottawa ->jonottawa: Director zego_7 is now at the table as requested by jonottawa Player 2: you are not supposed to talk to your p jonottawa: hi, dummy is saying faster faster zego_7: hi problem ? jonottawa: and then when my partner said 'he has 9 minutes' he replied 'nobody asked for your opinion' player Number 1: yes....... jonottawa: I find his behavior very rude player Number 1: idiot jonottawa: and he just private texted me player Number 1: keep silent idiot jonottawa: 'idiot' Player 2: he is not supposed to instruct his p jonottawa: 'keep silent idiot' player Number 1: you keep silent player Number 1: west is offending me player Number 1: idiot ->jonottawa: You have been replaced, and are no longer playing in this tournament/team game ->DIRECTOR XX: what just happened? player Number 1: lol....poor idiot player Number 1: idiot..now play alone ->DIRECTOR XX: hello? player Number 1: you must learn to talk only when asked player Number 1: dont make stupid interventions!!!.....poor IDIOT ->DIRECTOR XX: are you there? DIRECTOR XX: yes ->DIRECTOR XX: why was I banned from the tournament? ->DIRECTOR XX: my opponent was calling me an idiot, why did you ban me? DIRECTOR XX: i see you was rud ->DIRECTOR XX: I was quoting his private message to me ->DIRECTOR XX: please reinstate me, I did nothing rude DIRECTOR XX: i dont see but see what you say ->DIRECTOR XX: what I said was in quotes, I was quoting his private message to me ->DIRECTOR XX: please ban the player I complained about and reinstate me At that point the tournament director stopped talking to me. Edit: I would like to add that once I got a hold of DIRECTOR YY, she took care of the problem ASAP and I am grateful for that. She does a fantastic job.

The editorializing of the play is off-putting imo (at the very least, more suitable for a beginner/intermediate hand.) Maybe others enjoy it but it doesn't in any way simulate the situation at the table. If I know my (achievable) goal is to hold declarer to 8 tricks, I can draw inferences I otherwise couldn't. Just the facts, ma'am. For instance, rather than telling me that the diamond is 'useless', you might tell me which diamond it was. My better partners are unusual in that when they discard 'useless' cards, they still try to communicate things (like whether they hold the ♠K or not.) Anyway, I suppose I would win the 2nd Heart and violate confucius' rule and continue with the ♥ten. Edit: (Confucius was right, a low spade now is better.) Good hand. 2nd edit for crankiness.

Pass. The spots could not be clearer.

The bridge gods would have given me a T if they wanted me to upgrade. 1N