BillHiggin

[hv=d=e&v=e&w=skjhkjt72dak9ck84&e=sq7ha986dj5caqj65]266|100|Scoring: IMP W. N. E. S. ... ... 1C P 1H P 2H P 3C P 3H P 3S P 4C P 4D P 4H all pass[/hv] An aquaintance, who happens to be a much better bridge player than I, asks.

If the displayed message needs to be changed, something like "request canceled or denied" or similar would be more appropriate. The software should definitely not try to read the mind of the users (or appear to be doing so).

Look thru this thread: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=19636

But what would Han rate this? Maybe it is just a laydown. When it came up (many many years ago at a money bridge game), I claimed at trick one.

This seems to be behaving like a rated performance (diving, gymnastics) thing. The scores on the early ones tend to define the scale for later. I think that I fit fairly accurately into the Advanced rating (per Fred's definitions). I failed on the first two of these, and saw the criss-cross here almost immediately. Still, it is not clear where the lower numbers on the scale fit. Example of an easier one that is still going to stump virtually all Intermediate and many Advanced players: [hv=d=s&n=saj53hak42d743cak&s=s6h85dakq9862cj74]133|200|Scoring: Rubber North rather entusiastically raises your Gambling 3N to 7N. West leads the ♠K. Plan your play.[/hv] It would seem that there are still easier examples that are not trivial (13 top tricks ought to be the bottom of the scale).

We do not use "blown" in a sentance containing those two names :)

That is what napkins were invented for. And, if you are good then you fill in all the spot cards on your napkin (making them up works - nobody else remembers them).

I do not see anything in the OP that suggests the director was resummoned at the end of play. Of course, that might have happened, but it is not stated. If the literal reading is correct, then there is no ruling to appeal, simply an intstruction which was proper (on good days, the director might have added "and call me after the hand if you feel damage has occurred"). Did the director have a chance to rule on the possible infraction?

Since there is a book on RKC sequences, perhaps we should consider what it specifies. Kantar says that 5♦ is a 2nd King ask (about diamonds). His set of responses are (ignoring the ace): Make a 1st step response, including 6NT, to show Kxx(x). Make a 2nd step response to show Kx Raise the ask suit to show KQ(x) Note that the steps exclude 6 of the agreed suit which is needed as the "death bid".

Close. The south quadrant is indeed 1st position (i.e. bid is valid when you are dealer). But the dots represent the dealer and "you" are in the south position. So 2nd position happens when East is dealer (opposite to your guess). A dot in the north position does represent you being in third seat and a dot in west means you may be in fourth seat. Of course many bids share a common definition regardless of seat - they will be indicated by all four dots showing. Other common situations are 1st and 2nd seat definitions (dots south and east) and the complimentary 3rd and 4th seat (dots north and west).

The most common side effect from exposure to realistic levels of electro-magnetic radiation is that your children are born naked! There is nothing novel about the demonstrations in the OP. They are simply attempts to attract investments from the uninformed. My toothbrush gets recharged using this technology. Several replies here have mentioned "beams of power". The biggest defect is that the stuff does NOT beam at all - it spreads (and thus there are tremendous losses from transmitter to receiver). As for the popped corn "caused" by the ringing cell phone - the ringing is a reaction to the signals that are there whether or not the cell phone is. The phone may transmit a low level "you have found me" signal, but it is no more powerful than any other signal from the phone. Another hoax!

Some notes from a color blind individual: 1 in 12 males have some form of color blindness. Note that that does not mean that we live in a black and white world, just that we do not see all colors equally accurately. There are 4 main variations of color blindness (other than actual total color loss). 1) Green receptors that are tuned midway between green and red 2) Green receptors that are tuned to red 3) Red receptors that are tuned midway between green and red 4) Red receptors that are tuend to green Blue receptors are not affected in any of these. This makes blue the only really "safe" alternative to black. So, if this suggestion ever gets implimented, please make the color choice wisely (BLUE).

It is certainly difficult to get to 6♠ by South after a 1♥ opening. Ken's auction virtually guides the defence to the killing heart lead.

Is there not at least some conflict with: LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE ... B. Etiquette As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: ... 4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

Started about 45 years ago. Like others, there were huge gaps during which no bridge got played.

£7 per session - see "costs"

If your partner wants the single raise to be GF, then that is not the standard inverted minor treatment and it is up to him to define the agreements on how to show the invitational raise (criss-cross is one way). Invitational hands with no major can be difficult over a 1♦ opening in 2/1. Such hands might be balanced or with either or both minors. Either you cram off shape invites into 1N or use some inv+ bids to help out. A 1♣ opening is easier to respond to because you have a nice 1♦ response available.

If you have no more detailed agreements than 4 suit transfers (such as a pickup or very occasional partnership) then the expected meaning after 1N 2♣; 2♥ is 2♠ shows invite hand with 4 spades and 2N denies 4 spades. If you have more detailed agreements, then you look to those. If you want a set of agreements similar to 4 suit transfers that do not involve the "Stayman might be balanced invite with no major" issue, consider: 3♣ as transfer to ♦ either weak or GF 2N as transfer to ♣ either weak or GF 2♠ as either bal invite with no major or invite with some long minor. 2N rebid shows min and responder may correct to long minor. 3m rebid shows extras with poor (subject to agreement) doubleton. Note that you may need to find an alternative for whatever you used 1N 3♣ to show.

I am rather sure that declarer was quite aware that 6♣= and 6♣+1 were going to give exactly the same MP result. He was going to beat all the non-slam bidders and any that went down in either 7N or 6♠ and lose to any 6N, 6S=, 6S+1 or 7N=. There were not going to be any other club slams bid. The booby prize goes to the 7N-1 result. That declarer must have banked everything on a 3-3 ♠ split. Even if he failed to clear the ♥A early enough for the squeeze, the count in the minors should have steered him to the hook for the ♠J.

Which is exactly what happened at our table. I blame the undo option for that. When I wanted to rebid 2♦ I accidentally passed 2♣, which would have been a big big big top. (1♠) pass (2♣) pass (pass) ?? As I sat there looking at my 7 spades to the KQ and this bidding, I was not thinking nice thoughts about Mr Casaba! The undo request was actually a relief to see. And the silly 3N down 3 was still worth 75% to THEM!

The 300 million you see going to out of state interests needs to be compared with the status quo. This will not all be new slot machine activity. A significant portion will be in state play by people that would have gone out of state to play their slot machines. If as little as 1/3 of the activity on the new in state machines is such redirected play then the 300 million was already headed out of state and that number remains unchanged (but 600 million in new state revenues has appeared).

Anybody who fails to read the article now thinks very poorly of me :huh:

your gay mom sucks goat LMAO

I think you have three options Cash K - wins against either non-falsecard Small to 7 - wins against falsecard and Q 10 Small to J - wins against falsecard and 10 9 I cannot estimate the odds of the falsecard 10 9 should be half as likely as Q 10 (he had a choice from the former) Any play wins against all 3-3 splits as well as the grosvenor 10 from Q 10 x x (no 9)

The ugly side of any attempt at rating is the bad behaviour it inspires. A minority will seek to satisfy their ego and not let the purity of good bridge interfere with that. They will "graze" (sit but leave when they do not like the hand or the opponents), "bail" (leave or stop or just slow down when it is clear the result will be unfavorable) and outright cheat (send in a swill pair to IM them the facts). It does not take many of these to ruin things for those who just want the honest challenge.