GreenMan

kenberg has a point: People who are not RE agents would expect "wall-to-wall carpeting" to mean "Some, perhaps most, rooms have carpeting installed rather than bare flooring." Finding it only on a staircase would make me think the copy writer was aiming to deceive with more than just the expected puffery.

:) It looked as if some folks may still not be clear on it so I thought I'd restate it a slightly different way. I apologize if I was just repeating.

This. I try to do this in cases where it might be relevant.

The ambiguity is that many people say "5% fewer/less" (10% --> 9.5%) to mean "5 percentage points fewer/less" (10% --> 5%). So mathematically it's not ambiguous, but in practice one needs to be sure which is intended.

Off topic: I'm impressed you found a college classroom with tables suitable for bridge. :) Our campus club has to make do with rectangular tables about twice as long as they are wide. Is there a different department we should be checking with?

If I were North and had the agreement to pass all 11-counts, I'd "upgrade for the two aces" and call it a 12-count. Or for the 2.5 quick tricks. Easy peasy. Those of us who watch the JEC matches regularly have seen that a sensible "sound initial actions" approach can be winning bridge. But that North hand screams to be opened in any system IMHO.

Are once-a-week 4-table games clamoring for electronic scoring?

And now we're back to the club providing the equipment. I don't see the advantage of this system over the club providing all the scoring hardware. Seriously: Shouldn't the club have everything needed for the game? You don't tell your players to bring cards or chairs or bidding boxes. Why should they be expected to bring scoring devices?

As Vampyr pointed out, this scenario we're envisioning requires that at least one suitably equipped mobile device be present at every table every round. The only way to ensure that this happens is to require everyone to bring one. The Bridgemate devices may be kind of pricey (I wouldn't know), but owning them means you never have to worry that your customers will bring enough essential equipment for you to put on a game.

"You mean I have to download your app to my phone before I can play at your club? Piss off."

Some operators, perhaps most, do not enter calls until the tray is passed even if sitting SE.

I JUST WANT MY CHILDHOOD BACK

Barry: Is this rotation random when two hands have the same HCP, e.g. the original N and W each have 12? I know it's a small thing, but if (say) the rotation is always clockwise, then a player might infer that RHO is more likely to also have 12 than LHO. This isn't a big deal since the robot tournaments already have other artificial inferences available (if I have 12 neither opp will have 13; if I have 12 then our side likely doesn't have game even if CHO is max) so it's not exactly a blow to the purity of the events. :rolleyes: Just curious.

I didn't see a call for volunteers for today, so unless I missed it JEC is playing someone else today; the BBF matches don't happen every week. I'm sure the fact BBF won the last match has nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

No comparison; the "oh, *****" ruling was 10 times worse. Auken-Monaco, you can at least kind of see an argument for it if you turn your head and squint.

Especially considering the event was the Platinum Pairs.

Helen Sobel won each one at some point. A few others did in earlier days, as Justin said. Most recent in the Spingold was Rose Meltzer in 2000.

Both partners agree on the meaning, so that's their agreement. They explained the bids according to that meaning. What possible support could one find for a presumption that there WAS a misexplanation? You'd think this was so obvious as to not require comment.

Ahem. 33 losses, 1 win. :angry:

Oops. Guess so. I'm slow after 3am.

Being reminded by partner's alert that you have forgotten an agreement makes the agreement UI to you, so South had to act as if 2♠ was natural. IIRC the writeup stated that 1♦ might be 3 but was likely 4+. With a weak hand and a natural 2♠ bid in front of him, South in the absence of UI would have a choice of staying at the 2 level or going a level higher in what may not be a better fit; so pass is a logical alternative to 3♦. The UI demonstrably suggests that passing could well mean playing a 3-3 fit when a 4-4 or better fit is available in diamonds. So "South passed when the UI suggested otherwise" seems accurate to me. I was a bit amused that the same board from an NABC+ event and the same first three bids (with the same system forget) also appeared in Appeal 3.

"try and <verb>" has been part of English since the 17th century or so; at least one good usage dictionary (M-W) says it may be *older* than "try to". Language doesn't evolve according to strict rules; sometimes it's idioms all the way down. Logic is the weakest argument against any given usage. BTW infinitives don't require "to".

It's not about how one particular opponent plays a call, it's about general expectations. And in a BBO tournament I expect there are enough players who expect that a weak 2 will have six cards, that an alert of frequent 5-card weak 2s is preferred.

I would treat it the same way I play jumps to 3♣ and 3♦, whether that's weak jump shift, strong/Soloway jump shift, a Bergen structure as Two4 suggested, or whatever else you might be playing. This consistency has the advantage of being easy to remember, in addition to whatever other benefits you expect.

Yes, this. I know I err on the side of action after I take time puzzling over two equally (un)attractive options, for just that reason.