Trinidad

There is a difference between semantic and logic... Rik

I am surprised that people this stupid actually know how to play bridge. I thought the game required at least some intelligence... Rik

I can only agree with most of the reactions. Many times I agree with Mike, sometimes I don't and sometimes the debates can get quite fierce. I never have doubted Mike's integrity. I do think he is somewhat overzealous from time to time... something that I am often guilty of myself too. Mike, I will miss your posts, but I will respect your decision. In a way it is good that you realize that there are more important things to do than pointing out that someone is wrong on the internet. ;) Rik

Nill. As Helene has pointed out, the real tax rate is not 60%. But it doesn't really matter what the exact percentage is: people in Western Europe pay an awful lot of income tax (and a lot of other taxes). It is so much that it is hard to imagine for the average American (and also for the not so average American). Why aren't these Europeans revolting against these enormous taxes? Where are the Wilhelm Tells? The crucial difference is that the Europeans trust and rely on their governments to take care of the things that are in (almost) everybody's interest. And Americans don't. Ask Europeans or Americans who they prefer to manage their retirement fund: The government or Lehman brothers. That is where you see the difference between Europe and the USA. Rik

I would not object to playing sitting with my "screen mate" next to a touch screen showing what is going on at "the other side of the screen" in a standardized form, with scanners in the table that register what bids are made and what cards are played. Add a button for alerts and a keyboard for explanations (so that they are recorded), and some other features (e.g. "Do you mind if we take a break?"). In addition, some form of communication "through the screen" should be possible as long as no one has picked up their cards. I would object to sitting all alone, or sitting with all the West players in one room. I like to see my screen mate (my partner I will see enough anyway ;) ). Rik

In all MI cases, the first thing a TD should do is to establish what the correct information would have been. So, was there an agreement about 2NT? If so, what was it? If not, what agreements were in place for similar situations? Rik

IANAPST, but how about: "Scientists often want to see if two things have something to do with each other. You can think about: - what time it is and whether it is night or day - how warm it is and whether it is summer or winter - how big something is and how heavy it is (are big things also heavy things?) - color of a car and how fast it goes and a lot of other things. So, how does a scientist look whether two things have something to do with each other? A very good way to do that is to use a "null hypothesis". That is a difficult word, but it really is very simple. When a scientist wants to see if two things have something to do with each other, then he first thinks that the two things don't have anything to do with each other. Then he tries to find something that shows that his thinking is wrong. As long as he doesn't find that his thinking is wrong, then the harder he tries, the more certain he is that his thinking was right: the two things don't have anything to do with each other. But If he does find that his thinking is wrong then that means that the two things have something to do with each other. It is as easy as that." Rik

If continuing the suit is an LA (and from your description it seems to be) then the UI clearly made the switch more attractive then continuing the suit. If there is damage (and there seems to be damage), declarer is entitled to an AS. Rik

I am not making a ruling yet, but I do want to point out that this claim is obviously nonsense and can easily be falsified: A jump overcall showing 4♠ and an unknown six card minor would definitely also have been alertable. East's assumption that the jump overcall must have been weak may have caused the confusion, but this confusion was not due to North's alert. It was due to East not asking about the meaning of 2♠. So, my question to East would be: "If you had known that 2♠ was intermediate, what would your explanation have been?". (And I would only point out to East that he was responsible for the confusion, if I would point that out at all, after I have this question answered.) Rik

So, your requirement for the burden of proof is different from Helene's. But since Helene tried to prove a double negative (Csaba is not insane), I am getting really confused whether I should now label you as "naive" or "part of a lych mob"! ;) Rik

I do #$^%$ apologize. You ask why? Because I can, you @&%!@! ;) Rik

"I count to three..." "I warned you..." Just great! Rik

Actually, I would bet that the nasty players are not good players. That doesn't mean that there are no players that are good and nasty, but nastiness is typical for low level players. Why is that? To be a good bridge player, you need to have a variety of skills: you need to know your play technique: know when to finesse and when not. you need to know your bidding technique: Know what the bids mean, choose the right one and understand what partner is doing. And, and this is very important if you ever want to be a good bridge player, you need to make sure that your partner plays well, because -unlike e.g. chess- bridge is a partnership game. And you have a lot more influence on your partner's bridge ability than you would think. When do partners play well? When they enjoy the game and think it is fun to play with you! When you make sure that your partner likes to play with you, it is easy to play well. Being nasty to your partner is not going to get him to play better. It is just as silly and childish as kicking your car when you have a flat tire... Before the kick you have a flat tire, after the kick you have a flat tire and a dent. Rik

Dear Woodych, Edit: Vampyr's suggestion of joining the BIL (Beginners and Intermediates Lounge) is excellent. I understand your feelings. And I know that what you are saying is true. Some of the players at BBO are outright unpleasant (and that is still an understatement). There are two reasons for that: 1) Bridge, like any mind sport, is a stressful game. 2) People on BBO are anonymous. That means that their normal inhibitions can disappear like snow in the sun. After all, nobody can call them out on their poor behavior. It is difficult to do something about the stress of the game. I wouldn't even want to do something about it, since that is one of the things that makes the game so exciting. But there is something that you can do about anonymity. The obvious way is to start playing bridge in a real bridge club. The best way to do that is to take a bridge course first and then start playing for real. Then you know the people and they cannot misbehave without suffering the consequences (which is why they, with few exceptions, won't misbehave). The second thing you can do is play on BBO but with friends. Make a list of people who are pleasant and meet with them at regular times at BBO. That way, these players are not really anonymous anymore. You may still not know their real name, but now "Bridgebeast94" has something to loose if he would misbehave: the nice BBO game every Wednesday evening. Best of luck, Rik

This highlights a big cultural difference with many European countries where it is quite obvious that bridge, go, draughts (or checkers) and chess are sports. And there e.g. hunting is not considered a sport. Rik

No, I fully agree with your three points. However, they should be put in perspective. Bridge Laws and regulations are broken all the time. Some of these breaches are for personal gain (e.g. conscious use of UI). Some are due to laziness or convenience (e.g. when playing with screens: not follow the proper alert procedure but merely pointing at the bid, followed by putting 2 fingers in the air to indicate that the 1♣ opening could have been made on a doubleton). Some are because people are trying to be helpful to the opponents (e.g. when defenders play the cards for a dummy who left). Some are criminal (e.g. smacking your opponents). There is no doubt about it, none whatsoever, that it is against the Laws of Bridge for a defender to touch dummy's cards. However, of all the possible infractions that you can have at the bridge table, this one ranks as fairly innocent, particularly in a social setting. So, when the players at a table agree in harmony that the defenders play dummy's cards in his absence, you normally won't hear me. There are bigger fish to fry. And smacking opponents (or even merely suggesting that you will do that) is a biiiig fish. And when it comes to silliness: What do you think of getting all worked up because the opponents are trying to be helpful? Rik

I can imagine a lot of people are still in the dark, but at least in the Netherlands they owe that to themselves. TTIP pops up regularly in the media here: newspapers, radio, national TV discussion programs, the news at 7, 8 as well as the news specially aimed at 18-35 year olds. Those who only watch Dancing with the stars, Who wants to be a supermodel?, Dr. Phil and the odd soccer game probably think that TTIP is the next generation internet. Rik

I am sorry, but if you are talking about getting silly, then smacking a defender should be on top of the list. Rik

If I will ever eat fruit in that Arab country, I will say: "I am eating a womandarine in Owoman." On my trip I will probably be accompanied by a galde (rather than a guy-de). I call on all BBF contributors to actively girlcot organizations that use these male-coded terms. I vow not to use chap-stick until there is a lass-stick on the market. ... I am still torn on the use of soup lad-els... Rik

You need objective evidence if you want to accuse and convict someone of cheating []. I fully agree with you on that. The point that Bill is trying to make is that the WBF seems to have taken an extremely passive role here. The impression that we get is that over the years the WBF will only act if they are presented with a large amount of objective evidence, preferably in a nicely formalized way (so that WBF is protected in legal procedures, should the "villains" sue). We would like a more active role from "some authority" (the WBF would be nice, but a sheriff and a posse will do fine, as long as the WBF recognizes their jurisdiction, and as long as their methods can stand criticism): - When there are serious allegations of cheating, the alleged cheaters should be seriously (and actively) investigated. - Measures should be considered to prevent cheating Rik

I think that "most people" have an aversion to smacking someone who is trying to be helpful... even if that "someone" actually would fail at being helpful. Fortunately, you won't get in the position to smack a defender, since you wouldn't call a card from dummy, so your opponents wouldn't have a card to play. The fact that it would be unreasonable to you to ask defenders to play a card is perfectly fine. Nobody asks you to allow the defenders to play dummy's cards. But there is a problem with generalization: The fact that you may think it is unreasonable (and the fact that you are entitled to that view and the fact that it should be respected when you are at the table) does not mean that everybody must think that it is unreasonable. For many people it is entirely normal for declarer to call a card and the defenders to play the card. They don't think anything of it and they enjoy the game. Rik

My "Expert standard" is that you can do either, overcall or double, and it depends on a few factors. Some of the deciding factors are (in no particular order): The relative strength of the five card suit (strong -> overcall; weak -> double) The distribution in the minors (long in opponents' minor -> overcall; short -> double) The overall strength of the hand (strong: close to double and bid suit -> double; weak -> overcall) Lead directing value (if you want to direct a lead in the five card suit-> overcall; if you don't -> double) Rik

How about: It doesn't distract him and the Golden Rule. Don't worry. I believe you when you say that it distracts you. I know more people who get distracted by that, so I am not at all surprised. But the fact that it distracts you doesn't mean it distracts everybody. And if it doesn't distract you, then why wouldn't you be nice to your opponents? And about opportunistic cheating... So, you believe that: once every 5 evenings, defenders are playing dummy's cards they will have a subconscious habit of playing those cards in a certain way, depending on their holding. Now, how is that cheating? It isn't. It only gets in UI territory if partner has determined a pattern (in a series of events that happen once every 5 weeks, yeah right). And then it is still not even a Law 16 case. For that to happen, the partner needs to actually use the information from this pattern. That would be unethical and a breach of bridge Laws, but still not cheating. It only becomes cheating if both partners agree beforehand that they will play dummy's cards in a certain manner depending on their holding (Law 73B2). And as Helene has pointed out, that would be a terribly inefficient way to cheat. Rik

Nobody is forcing any defender to play dummy's cards. But in 80% of the cases, the defenders themselves will offer to play them. In the remaining 20%, declarer will reach across the table. When defenders offer to play dummy's cards, I assume they don't mind doing that. If they don't offer to play the cards then that is fine too. Personally, when I am declaring and dummy is gone, I prefer to play dummy's cards myself. But usually the defenders have already offered to play them. And, I am fine with that too. It is certainly no big deal. Rik

Yes, really. I would say that if there is a kibitzer, he will play the cards in 95% of the cases. If there is no kibitzer, the defenders will play the cards in over 80% of the cases. This is actually quite natural since the defenders are closer to dummy's cards then declarer. So, it is often simply more convenient. (I know that you have been surprised about the size of bridge tables in the Netherlands in the past.) Rik