markleon

I grew up in the upper Midwest (Illinois) and my family played a lot of euchre. They only used the word renege to indicate not following suit when you could. I never heard the word revoke used in this sense until starting to play bridge in college.

Donald Sobol, author of the "Encyclopedia Brown" series - one of the defining book series of my childhood

I think he means "I don't want to place myself at a disadvantage to the rest of the field by going above and beyond what is required by the regulations governing the game I am in."

I listened to a lot of the audio commentary. It was great and I am really looking forward to more of it. Big thank you to all who made it possible. I agree that four commentators borders on too many. I would suggest a set up like most sports broadcast with a "play by play" announcer and a "color" commentator.

If you really want a Storm, be sure to wait for the new generation Storm2. It supposedly has significant improvements in the behavior of the click-touch screen. I like my storm, but I would much rather use my iPod Touch for web browsing. If you really want a real keyboard, wait to see what the Droid looks like. The initial reviews of it have been rave.

A very happy birthday to you, Helene!

I have a Blackberry Storm. "Support JavaScript" is enabled in the browser configuration. When I click on a table from the "Interesting Tables" screen, the result in a blank white screen in the browser.

NPR did a segment on Wednesday with the author of "House of Cards", William Cohan, which is about Jimmy Cayne and the demise of Bear Sterns. The role of bridge is featured prominently in the interview and, apparently, also in the book. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=101681538

It's more than 2 even if you don't include the title.

I seem to recall some discussion at the time that the Chicago Gay Games schedule was released (without bridge) that the auxiliary events to be included were at the discretion of the organizers. So, a campaign to the Cologne organizing committee would seem to be the next step. Ironically for this discussion, the Chicago Gay Games were held at the same time at the Chicago ACBL Summer Nationals.

A quick Google search seems to indicate that consulting with General Counsel about abstaining because of conflict of interest is not considered dangerous, but is in fact a "general principle" The Chicago Mercantile Exchange Voting. 1. In the event of any potential or actual conflict of interest involving a board member, including a director having a material financial interest in a matter to be considered by the Board of Directors, the Board, after consultation with the General Counsel and outside legal counsel if necessary, shall determine the appropriate action to be taken. As a general matter, CME believes it is appropriate for a director to abstain from voting on a matter in which he has a material financial interest. 2. In the event a director abstains because of a conflict of interest, the abstention shall be noted in the minutes of the meeting. The full Conflict of Interest policy can be found at: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/CME...WebDoc_2335.pdf

The WBF always makes the two USA teams in each event play each other within the first 2 or 3 matches to help minimize the incentive for "nationalistic" dumping.

I have this book and it is near the top of my "soon-to-read" list (which is admittedly such a long list that "soon" may have lost all meaning). But, "Godel, Escher, Bach" by the same author was a book that I read in college which continues to have an influence on the way that I think about and perceive the world today. I hope to be able to respond to you about my impression of the book shortly.

I disagree with your interpretation of dummy's rights. Law 68.D. Play Ceases After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included [emphasis mine]), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival. It seems clear from this that dummy was within his or her rights in contesting the claim. The Law has no opinion on the nature of the dispute of the claim. At that point, the director applies Law 71 as mentioned earlier.

It wouldn't be irrational to pitch a heart from dummy, but for the 13th trick, declarer needs to ruff the heart in dummy too. Agreed...didn't mention that because it was clear to me that would be the intent of pitching the heart. I had already taken that into account when I said I would rule 13 tricks for declarer. I understand the sentiment of the other posters that it may not seem "fair", but it is how my reading of the laws say this should be resolved.

My reading is that since the claim has concluded play, dummy may call attention to the improper claim. Then comes... Law71.C. Implausible Concession if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal *) play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal *) play of the remaining cards. *) For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational. Of course, "normal" is a matter of opinion, but I'd rule that it would be irrational not to pitch a heart from dummy. So, making 7.

I'm bidding 5♥. I'm always suspicious of competent opponents who "walk the dog."

For me, 3♣ does show extras since responder hasn't promised any particular strength. So, I would bid 2♥. I agree that stuff happens, but if we can't stop below game with 21 HCP's and no fit, then something is wrong.

LOL; I won't tell you what I did, but it wasn't in tempo :) I believe it...it took me about 5 minutes of debating with myself to do this. In real life, I'm afraid I may sit there for 10 seconds, not be able to decide what I want, realize that I'm taking too long, reject 3♣ as effectively barring partner after my long hesitation, and grab the 3N card as a last resort. Come close? :)

3♣... I hope I do this in tempo.

3♥

I'm bidding 3♥ over 2♠. Got to get that primary support in now.

I'm leading a heart, whichever one I'm conventionally leading in this partnership. Again, assuming declarer has the ♣K, I'm having a hard time coming up with a layout where the club lead works where others don't. On the other hand, I can easily come up with a layout where a club lead presents declarer with the 9th trick that was not available any other way. Looking at it another way, if I lead a club, I still need partner to contribute two tricks to beat this. But, if partner can contribute two tricks, I can still get three clubs without giving a club trick to declarer. The club honor lead would be a lot more appealing if there were 5 clubs in this hand.

Uhm, if you lead 4th best, partner always has 3 higher cards that the card he led, there is no need for rule of 11 to figure that out... I'm fairly sure Phil meant that once he sees how many cards declarer has above the spot. I use the rule of 11 for the same reasons. If declarer has only 1 or 2 cards higher than the spot, then it can be easier to work out those relevant holdings than opening leader's. Perhaps this is because I am in the 40+ age group and energy that I readily expended in my 20's now seems more precious to me. But in this my attitude is, as it is towards most things in life, use whatever works for you.

If East has 4 hearts, a club to the ace will only work if East started with both minor kings and has already been squeezed. In this case, playing the last spade will not hurt. However, if West has both minor kings, playing the last spade will complete the show-up. If the kings are split, then playing the last spade will give you another piece of information, before deciding whether to take the club finesse or to play for East to have been squeezed in all three suits.