brianshark

A healthy dose of arrogance, while it may make a few enemies, will certainly help you succeed in life. This is not an ideal world, and nice guys do tend to finish last.

While we obviously only have one side of this argument based on Ken's account, if it's true they went out of their way, over the heads of the director, to get you a warning because they felt cheated by the psyche, then I have to say that the opponents sound like big cry babies and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. Psyches are part of the game and I feel very sorry for you that you have to deal with 'suits' people who pander to the complaints of whingers. But don't feel too bad because having a reputation for psyching can be a powerful weapon against paranoid opponents sometimes too.

I think that if there is a gap in skill level, or bidding style differences, then a partnership will fail to form rather than last a long time and eventually end. So I don't think those two are the main cause of partnership break up. I don't think a difference in temperament is necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes a person who gets worked up and worried and overly focused can be complimented well by someone who is chilled and laid back. Same with dominant and submissive personality, or aggressive and passive personalities. I think one major reason that seems to be missing from your list: Sometimes a pertnership who gets to know each other better and become more familiar just gradually get on each other's nerves. And I do think that it is common enough for one person in a partnership to slowly lose interest in serious improvement and competitive bridge while the other still wants to work hard and compete in everything and take everything seriously. I myself haven't had a real serious partnership that I've played in everything with, mostly because I haven't been playing bridge all that long. That said, my opinion on the top 3 reasons for partnership break up is: 1. Non-bridge lifestyle changes, changing of free time availability, people moving to different countries/cities, etc. 2. One of the pair loses interest in serious competitive bridge. 3. Getting on each other's nerves leading to falling out or mutually agreed bridge split up.

Win the ace, come back a heart.

This policy is completely normal and is common sense. It would be stupid to have any alerts in individuals because alerts disclose agreements and in an individual there are none. (Assuming there are no additional agreements between partners surplus to the prescribed system - which I assume is the situation we are all talking about.) And I'm sorry, but I don't buy the argument that two experts should have to disclose their artificial bids to their novice opponents. It's not their job to teach the other two how to play bridge, be it in their false-card techniques, psyches, or common sense bridge auctions. If they have no system then any time they make an artificial bid, they are hoping that their partner will understand but the opponents deserve no such automatic explanation just because their bridge knowledge isn't as good as the expert's.

Oh right. I presumed they were just hooking a battery up to the water and then reburning it. I understand now.

Perhaps someone with a greater knowledge of Physics can explain what I'm missing, but surely the energy needed to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen is identical to the energy released when Hydrogen and Oxygen are combined into water, so noting that every process involves some % of wastage means that you would be better off using the electricty to directly rather than to split water and re-burning the Hydrogen?

"When Chuck Norris calls for a card from dummy, it starts moving by itself."

I'm flying out tomorrow. See you guys there.

From Wikipedia: Edited to correct missing ^ in the number.

Pass. This is a borderline minimum normally, but the fact that lefty has a couple of hearts, it's probably best to pass.

I don't mean that we don't have a fit, I mean that outside of our primary fit, our side-suit values are not fitting well.

Double of 2NT is clear. Why bother play penalty-oriented doubles if you aren't going to use it on a hand like this. I'm going to bid 5♥ after 5♦. I'm just not going to chance 6 because I think it likely pard will have a loser in each Major. Also tempted to double 5♦ because 5♥ may not make.

5♣ seems a bit much on this misfit auction, but I think it pays to bid there (via the 4♠ splinter so pard can double them if they bid 5♠.) I'm not expecting to make 5♣ a lot of the time, but it pays to be in vulnerable games and there's a chance they bid on as well. I don't really want to play 3Nt because I think it might be a bit of a cross-ruff hand.

Against 3NT people prefer a Major lead over a minor lead. But this is 6NT. The only concern for the defence is finding the lead which doesn't blow a trick. So on this hand, the inference about not leading from length in a Major is not correct.

The exact opposite seemed to be 2 years ago.

Agree with 2♠. It's common to play it as a courtesy raise after interference, but extras without. You have an 8 card fit so show it. If you Dbl again, it sounds more like a 3-4-2-4 hand with extras that failed to find a fit the first time around.

I'm indifferent about 3♣ vs 3♦ on the first hand. On the second hand, I'm going to bid 3♠. 3♠ is strong invite opposite a potential 0 count and this is exactly what we have.

2/3 way through a 16 board teams match, you are at least even but probably a little ahead based on the boards so far. I can't remember the vulnerability but it was probably nobody vul. You hold: ♠AJxx ♥KT9xx ♦ATx ♣A The auction went: 1♣ - (Pass) - 1♥ - (Pass) 1NT - (Pass) - 2♣ - (Dbl) 3♥ - (Pass) - ? 1♣ is artificial, 11-13 balanced or 16+ 1♥ is 8+ pts, 4+ ♥s 1NT is 11-13 balanced, denies 4 card support 2♣ is checkback 3♥ would have shown a max with 3 card support and may still have 4♠s absent the Dbl, but after the Dbl, no explicit agreement. Your slam methods are fairly standard, cue-bids, 1430, specific king ask, GSF, etc. Do you: - Sign off in game - Make some sort of slam try (specify what you want to bid and what you hope to hear) - Force to slam

My girlfriend and I watched Disaster Movie last Sunday. The name is quite apt. What a pile of rubbish. That is all.

You should move with a velocity such that the rain is falling directly down on you (which will depend on the directection the rain is falling in the first place). This is because the rain has the least surface area to hit you when it's falling straight down on your head/shoulders.

I have been googling it lately, and I can't find anything that looks like a comprehensive list of all the doomsday predictions. But we hear about it when one comes up. Various philosophers of old came up with ballpark theories. The Mayan calendar expires in 2012 which means people theorise the world will end then. People thought the world might end in the year 2000 simply because it's a nice round number. The fears about the LHC destroying the earth are not all that different than the fears that the first trinity test (nuclear bomb) would ignite the world's atmosphere. As for the economy of the LHC, well history have shown that investment in blind experimentation has often resulted in unexpcted rewards. I'm sure that this will be no different. Back when we realised that rocks were actually composed of different materials such as iron and salt and coal, it heralded a new era of metallurgy. When we studied the metals and materials more closely and realised that they were made up of elements, the science of chemistry came along. The we studied elements to reveal they were made up of atoms with electrons and nucleii, which led to the field of electronics and electromagnetism. Then we realised the atoms were made up of protons and neutrons which gave us the power of nuclear energy as well as more understanding on radiation used for sterilization, chemotherapy, smoke detectors, etc. So whose to say that splitting the protons and neutrons further won't achieve more understanding about science and lead to new technologies. I remember reading somewhere that the total cost of the LHC was something like 0.1% of the world's combined GDP. (Need to check that figure) But if so, then surely it is a worthwhile investment for something that could be as significant if not moreso than the moonlanding, the splitting of the atom, the discovery of the electron, etc.

Closer to 6NT than Pass. But I'll probably just try 4NT.

Trump for me too. I doubt the opponents have a problem in the trump suit.

I think I would try 2♥. 2nd choice 2♦. 3rd choice pass. I like the idea of defending doubled but the level is just too low and we're unlikely to get rich by doing so. +300 would be fortunate, +100 or -180 is more realistic. I'd be interested to hear more opinions on 2♦ vs 2♥. I feel the 4-3 moysian should play well enough. Though some may feel pard should have more than a singleton of ♦ tolerance for their responsive double in case pard has no Major. I'm not sure I want to jump when we may have no 8 card fit. Pard can still invite over 2♥ with 5♥s and I'll move then. But going higher with values but no fit seems risky to me.