BunnyGo

Yeah, playing rubber specifically, you like to stay lower (I don't know all the specifics), but playing chicago or other money bridge that moves no matter what you what some sort of EV calculation. Might this have been an issue with your poll kfay?

I'd nominate Inquiry for the B/I award. He started (and continued) the B/I defensive problems which seemed quite popular. Clee-jdonn get my vote for off-line success (in a very successful year for lots of posters). poster of the year I vote for jlogic as I usually learn from (or laugh at) everything he writes. Need to go back and think about other categories.

Second

I have the same horrible experiences against this guy. He plays randomly, such as 1♠-(4♣) with an 18 count and 7 clubs. Good luck trying to figure anything out. The only thing I realized is that he plays at least one trick worse than he deserves to, so I just double him a lot because I'm more than likely to set him.

I play a game with my wife and brother where we will e-mail each other a couple sentences or paragraph from an article and ask "real" news or the onion?

I still don't understand why Huntsman is running so distant. He's not liberal in *any* way except that he worked for a Democratic administration (horror...that sort of thing happens all the time!) The main problem it seems for Huntsman is that he is smart and refuses to hide it. I've constantly found him well spoken and clear of thought, but that doesn't seem to matter as he's been labeled tainted.

In Israel there is also tiered billing. I do not know what the second tier is (but people have warned me I don't want to find out). The first tier is approximately $2-$3 per m^3 of water.

May I add a twist to this question? What if the player sitting North had asked East if he'd be willing to turn cards while North ran to the bathroom? Does this change anything in your minds?

Huntsman who?

If you can put a shapeless "perfect" minimum HCP hand for partner where slam is (nearly) cold, then you should strongly consider inviting. Otherwise just sign off. I think: QJx, Axx, AKx, AKxx is 21 HCP. Not sure if you can do it with 20, so it's pretty borderline. I'd probably invite.

It's probably a little too high. Paul probably has about 1/3 chance of winning and Santorum another 20%. At least according to god (Nate Silver).

Talking about "Santorum surging from behind" has got to be the media purposefully making a double entendre.

You misclicked spades?

Doesn't matter how you feel (or how I feel). The people (well, their representatives) of Virginia set the law, it's been the law, and these people failed to adhere to it. Tough noogies to them

Are 'green points' in England the same as what they are in the US ('green points' = $$), or are there actual green points similar to our gold points?

Hurray! It's "simple"! This reminds me that mathematicians sometimes call something "trivial" if they can solve it (no matter how difficult the solution). FWIW I agree with the above statement of application of the laws and think it also applies to the other thread.

how? I once remembered the saying "when both sides lead the same suit on successive tricks, one side is probably wrong" when my RHO led out of turn, and I then led the same suit on the same trick.

How did Lurpoa vote this comment up twice? (Yes, I know the number is only +1, but when I click on it I see Lurpoa twice) Edit: I didn't post a comment on what I'd bid as it's a hard hand and I don't know what to do even after reading all the posts...

I don't disagree that 41D makes it clear that declarer plays dummy's cards. However, just because declarer "plays" the cards does not mean dummy cannot "misplay" (one does not negate the other). And in fact 45D makes it clear that dummy can misplay (and law 42A3 makes it clear that dummy "plays" as well). Furthermore, if law 61 only meant "failure to lead or play a card specified by an opponent" (as in for penalty cards) it wouldn't have an "or" clause to add the part about playing a card required by law. Hence there is necessarily more to 61 than you suggest. If your opinion is what the law writers intend, they should rewrite the law. As per law 42A3 dummy does indeed "play" the cards as directed by declarer. Hence failure to play the card directed is failure to play the card required by law (specifically law 42A3), hence is LITERALLY a violation of law 61. I understand your preconceived notions that dummy does not "play", in general I agree with you that it is the first of your two options. However the law here seems pretty literal and clear. It is fine to use mental shortcuts and "understandings" (this is how humans compartmentalize ideas and make connections and inferences), but when the law specifies something that is what must hold, regardless of what understandings guide us in most cases.

So you are saying that law 45D is badly written and should say "card misplaced by dummy"? If that's the case, the law should be edited as such. However as the law is currently written, it seems that dummy can misplay a card. CORRECTION: I have made a logical fallacy: just because dummy can "misplay" does not require nor imply that it can "play". However, to apply law 61 I need only that Dummy can misplay, and by the statement of law 45D dummy does "misplay" if he plays the club instead of the heart.

If dummy does not actually "play" his cards, why is Law 45D specifically titled "Card misplayed by dummy"? I understand that declarer "plays" and dummy "places" but based on law 45D clearly dummy "plays" as well. Yes? I definitely agree that when there is a specific law dealing with a situation one does not seek more specific laws, but law 45D does not deal with this situation. It only states what is done up until both sides play to the next trick. I think that after that point that law 61 is the only law that applies as these laws are currently stated. P.S. Thanks for the reply, I am merely attempting to flush out this line of logic. No offense is taken nor intended in case my wording is harsh.

Ok, fair enough. But could you please elaborate on this? I spelled it out pretty clearly and in detail. Which step do you not buy? That's a nice continuation of this route. Seems like it starts an interesting chain reaction.

I dunno. It seems pretty clear that: a) Dummy was required by law 45 to play the heart. b) Dummy placed the club instead c) Per law 45D "card misplayed by dummy" the card was misplayed and is too late to be withdrawn (technically it is only past the "mandatory" stage of withdrawing it based on the wording of the rule "must be withdrawn if..." and it doesn't directly say that it's too late to rectify the play...perhaps this is what should be done even though it no longer is required--another aside) d) Per law 61 failure to play a required card is a revoke Combining a, b, c, and d, we have by definition that dummy has revoked. This seems to be straight out of a basic logic/legal class. Going back to law 45D. It only states that the card "must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick" it says nothing about it being to late to withdraw the card if attention is drawn to it after each side as played to the next trick. While I personally think this specificity implies that it is too late, one should probably amend the law to make that clear.

True, but some friends of ours here have a whole lawn, at least a dozen fruit trees (probably closer to two dozen) a garden of tomatoes, squash and other vegetables, and as there are only 3 people living at the home, they do this all on approximately 6000 liters a month (less than the US average for an individual). Does it just come down to the fact that people in the US don't bother to water their lawns effectively, and Israelis (out of necessity) spend the effort on technology (and gray water) to save water? I'm surprised that in Utah "lawns" are mandated. Does it mandate a lawn of grass, or could you do anything that isn't overgrown weeds?

I think this discussion has left out the interesting possibility that it is DUMMY who has revoked. Since the heart is the card required by law that he play, and he didn't play it, then by definition dummy has revoked. Just another twist to add to the argument.