GreenMan

Perhaps former British colony vs. former Spanish colony is a factor? EDIT: It appears it is. From Phillip Alder's NYT column in 2008:

I've told this story before: A friend described a night where he averaged about 3 HCP on his first several hands, and decided to keep track of his average holding for the whole session. He averaged about 5 HCP for the night, even with a 2♣ opener and a 2NT opener in the mix. He also won the session easily, and credited it to paying attention to the bad hands instead of losing interest.

You also have to look at what happens when rent-control laws are cut back or removed: Rents triple or more. Happened in Boston some years back; my cousin had to abandon his apartment because his rent increased 400% overnight.

That would be true if there were only one kind of fish. But when the fish you can sell at a profit are a small portion of what you haul onto your boat, you throw everything else back over the side, usually after it's died in the open air.

I would say the opposite: Male stereotypes are overwhelmingly positive. But we don't notice it because such things are ingrained in the culture. When a negative male stereotype appears, it receives disproportionate attention because it's unusual, and seems more common than it is; this is knows as availability bias.

My favorite married-couple story (secondhand) was when the wife was repeatedly telling the husband "I swear you don't have a brain in your head." The husband was a Nobel laureate in physics.

It's not the case so much anymore (as far as I can tell), but in the game's heyday women and men were effectively socialized differently; Patricia Sheinwold wrote in her memoir that she and her women friends were discouraged from bidding notrump ahead of their husbands to allow the men to hog the hands more easily. Once when her social bridge group broke up the usual couple-partnerships to put men at one table and women at the other, she expected that the men's typical auction would go 1NT 2NT 3NT 4NT 5NT 6NT 7NT 8NT Even if this sort of socialization doesn't go on anymore (I can't say so with authority), the effects probably linger to this day.

Good evening. Tonight on 'It's the Mind', we examine the phenomenon of deja vu. That strange feeling we sometimes get that we've lived through something before, that what is happening now has already happened. Tonight on 'It's the Mind' we examine the phenomenon of deja vu, that strange feeling we sometimes get that we've ... (looks puzzled for a moment) Anyway, tonight on 'It's the Mind' we examine the phenomenon of deja vu, that strange... http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=monty+python+deja+vu&FORM=VIRE2#view=detail&mid=12F16F2E5ED0D6C1B58712F16F2E5ED0D6C1B587

I know that with a thread this old experienced I sometimes forget I've already posted some story that's a propos and may well do it again. Apologies (in advance if necessary) if I do that.

The vugraph operator in the open room got South's discards wrong; he pitched spades, not clubs. At the end he had the ♠A and three good clubs.

Two players get paired up at the partnership desk. As the bad boards pile up, one starts criticizing the other's play. Finally he says, "You must be the worst player in the world." His partner replies, "No, that would be too much of a coincidence."

Over on the right you can click on the "other tables" tab to see results by other pairs playing the same hands. For cumulative numbers, you can go to myhands, enter your username, and look at the results of hands you've played, including total and average scores.

Seems unfair. If someone is acting like an #$^*(@!!! they should be treated like an #$^*(@!!!, not an @$^)(!%^!!!. That kind of overreaction doesn't do anyone any good.

Creating a nonplaying table requires already having people to chat with; I think the OP is looking for a drop-in space comparable to IRC and similar artifacts of the online days of yore.

There's a recent thread on BridgeWinners about Kit Woolsey doing this in a tournament.

A teammate of mine once got as far as "How did the" before he caught himself. :D

You're not helping. :P (Yes, I know I'm not either. :rolleyes: )

Truscott wrote about a similar hand, where after the ruffing and overruffing went on awhile, a defender switched to a trump (first time the suit was actually led) and it went 2-3-4-5.

Thanks.

Story goes that a couple of tourists staying at a hotel where a tournament was going on chatted with Mike Lawrence during an elevator ride, and after they got out one said to the other, "He was so nice. Are you sure he's one of the bridge players?"

And partner's explanations etc. are UI, so if partner correctly explains or announces our bid, we now have UI that partner understands our action and, since his future actions will be based upon that understanding, we are thus constrained from certain logical actions of our own (since UI overrides all other information). Do I have that right?

A = 8, K = 4, Q = 2, J = 1. So 3+ means at least QJ in the suit. As I understand it, this is how GIB "knows" to evaluate honor strength -- e.g. when cuebidding it doesn't think of Ace vs. no Ace in a suit, it thinks of 8+ (Ace) or 7- (no ace).

It's still no excuse. Just sayin'. :)

This actually biases the pool of hands that actually do get played. My partner and I open some 8-point hands and most 10-pointers, and we've chosen our system with some care. If we aren't at the first table to play that deal you're throwing out, we won't get to play it at all, and we won't get to enjoy the advantages (and drawbacks) of the work we've put into our partnership. Unless everyone at your club plays the same system, there's no such thing as a deal that will be passed out at every table. Your method favors the standard systems against the nonstandard ones, not on their merits but capriciously. That's not bridge.

Passouts are normal in duplicate. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ignorant or lying.