GreenMan

I believe the commentators would rather the boards be entertaining for the spectators' sake, just as some occasionally seem to be hoping for a match score to tighten so subsequent boards will be more consequential. I don't have a problem with either of those.

I had a regular partner who called the 13th card in a 4333 suit Elmer. As dummy after all followed to three rounds he would sometimes say "Who's got Elmer?" Playing with him I occasionally got to call for Elmer off the dummy. I am easily amused.

I will just note in addition to the rest of the Long Island discussion that there is a neighborhood in western Queens called Long Island City. But yes, if you're in NYC proper and say "Long Island," you'll be understood to be referring to the part of the island that isn't Brooklyn or Queens unless the context indicates otherwise.

They are indeed on Long Island, which has four counties. Many people only use the term to refer to Nassau and Suffolk, but that doesn't change the physical reality.

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn started life as a book; perhaps she might find it more to her liking. I haven't read it, though I know people who did and liked it.

Some I'm prone to: Bidding dies out at the 1 level: "Don't everybody get excited at once." Auction something like (I'm in 2nd seat) 1♣ P 1♥ 1♠ X P 2♥ P P 2♠ 3♥ all pass "Operation Push Them To The 3 Level has succeeded."

I sometimes say, "Meckwell would've bid it," especially if it's such an unlikely result that even R-M wouldn't go near it.

Once against Helgemo-Forrester, Forrester made some conventional call that Helgemo explained as showing 4 spades, but when Forrester put down the dummy he had only ♠J4 and apologized for his misbid. Then he said, "Actually, my bid showed the 4 of spades. His English isn't too good."

There was a case like that some years ago, in a Spingold quarterfinal IIRC, where opening leader with AK vs. 6NT wasn't quick enough on the draw.

Sorry, I misread you. But now that I'm caught up, I disagree: The words "not necessarily" allow for, e.g., bids that show the suit named but also something else about the hand, such as a DONT overcall showing the suit named and another one. I'd think an artificial bid is one that either denies length or strength in the named suit (or balanced strength in the case of NT), such as a splinter or Western Q, or says nothing about it at all.

Yeah, didn't think of the concise way to express it that you did, and figured it was obvious enough not to need my clumsier version.

Only in the details. barmar's hand requires us to envision a distribution that limits the tricks available in the correct contract, and to take a line that has a higher expected score value only if that distribution exists. Seems the same to me.

Here's one from 50 Winning Duplicate Tips by Klinger (tip 32): [hv=pc=n&s=saq93h97da73cakt3&n=skj72hak4dt8cj964&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1np3nppp]266|200[/hv] Declarers in 4♠ will take 12 tricks if the club finesse works, otherwise 11. You're booked for 11 or 10, respectively, if you take the finesse, so you play clubs from the top. The only problem if you do drop the Queen is that partner may keep bidding like that.

Klinger's book on matchpoint tips has a few examples. I don't have it handy or I'd provide one.

I've seen this happen. I was kibbing Jill Myers in the final of a team event, and two boards after she had a 4414 14-count she picked up another 4414 14-count and said "We've played this already." Her hand was not card-for-card identical, but it was similar enough to fool her. The players should have called the director but didn't, and no further problems arose on the board.

1NT showing points and a balanced shape is not artificial by any measure I can think of, unless you consider that the concept of "notrump" is itself artifice. That way lies madness.

That series was remade in a U.S. version, successfully IMHO. I haven't seen the original.

You have suggested nothing resembling the level of terror that the OP described. If you've simply been keeping it to yourself, then I apologize. It still doesn't mean you or anyone else ought to dismiss her concerns by saying that her well-being is beside the point and she needs to just look after herself. If that is indeed how BBO operates, then that's sad.

"this idea would definitely be letting the bad guys win" definitely feels like combating my idea. Perhaps you can explain how it's not? People who haven't experienced the level of harassment that the OP has should NOT NOT NOT be lecturing them (or anyone else, but especially them) on how they should feel about it. That's a form of trolling in itself. When the trolls are already feeding themselves, and you could stop them but you don't, you're perpetuating the problem.

I think we have completely different understandings of power. You're saying that a simple step one can take to protect herself is contrary to some spirit of BBO or something and therefore must NOT be allowed. That's you exerting power over the woman being harassed. Why do you get to decide?

This tradition of having a bar handy to the playing areas is something we Amerks need to take seriously.

So did I. B-) It had the virtue of making the Chaykin-Hutton version stand out even more. I was wishing that one would keep going till they'd done every single story.

Somewhere I read about a U.S. Team Trial where a board got played twice in succession, rotated 90 degrees (there was an arrow switch, or something), by the same players; I think the contracts were different, but the same hand was exposed as dummy both times, and none of the four players noticed till afterward. It was VERY late in the event and everyone was tired.

The William Conrad-Lee Horsley version sucked.

In my partnership, South would open 1♥ and then support partner's spades, then *North* might splinter. RKC, 6. :P