OleBerg

Reading the title, my thoughts immidiately went below the belt. And then it's chess?! Anyway, I din't know the game, so I'll try 3♥.

With your psionic powers, right? :( I would. At top flights I'd recommend "Tower of Iron Will" that relies on the super-ego to build an unassailable haven for the brain.

Wtp? Some might argue that animals cannot give consent, others might disagree. OTOH in some cultures consent may not matter. Perhaps if make marriages are legal based on the consent of the families or a local board of wisemen and not those who are actually getting married. Well, the toaster can definitely not give consent. But wtp?

Pass wtp? Slams on balanced hands are not the place where superior declarer play are most likely to shine.

Just 4♥. Double 4♠.

Neither would I. I would have opened with a weak two.

I have two gay friends named Axel. We call them Front-Axel and Rear-Axel.

Wtp?

Recipee or it didn't happen!

Last spring, two blondes were found frozen to death at a drive-in theater. Subsequent investigations unearthed that they went to see "Closed for the Winter".

Does not compute.

You shouldn't. But you should consider if they were right. Sometimes telling the thruth can get you hurt, so anonymity can be a good idée. In some parts of the world, it can literally be a life saver. And you don't automatically believe somebody, just because the admit who they are. (Anyone who do, pm me. I've got a great investment scheme for you.)

That depends whether you use 'morality' to mean 'right and wrong' or to mean 'interfering with people's private, personal choices'. Sadly when a politican uses the word it normally carries the latter meaning. According to Nietzche, right and wrong doesn't exist. But he might be wrong.

A babyseal walks into a bar, and orders a whiskey. "What brand" asks the bartender. "Doesn't matter, as long as it is not Canadian ♣"

Come on: A headstrong guy with a medical condition is trailing and decides to go for a swing. The way he tries ranges somewhere betweem bad judgement and idiotic. He catches a once-in-a-lifetime layout. Then a young guy, also with a medical condition, makes some comments he should have considered a little more carefully. Next board.

Just my observations: Looking at the best players in my country, I consider some to bid really well, while I find that others are not spending nearly enough time on their system. But they are all good card-players. So definitely card-play at expert+ level. At lower levels i strongly believe bidding well is very important. Not getting to the right contract is often costly, while less than good card play is not always punished.

The TD has simply lost his sense of logic. The TD would obviously have wanted you to ask: "What are your discarding methods." (And it is indeed the correct way to ask.) BUT that does under no circumstance allow them to misinform you. Their correct action, if they felt you were trying to take advantage, would be to call the TD. I have never given a PP in my life, but this would be just about the spot. And if a TD has some strong feelings about players who ask in this sligthly incorrect fashion, he should not go on a singlehanded-crusade. Rather he should take it up with the organizing body. They might then decide to make an effort to change peoples habits. So under absolutely no circumstance, can your opponents keep their score. There might be a case for ruling that you should keep your score, but (Bridge)Law is not an excact science, and I find it beyond silly.

Of course I can not remember people doing exactly this to me, but I think I have seen similar actions in literature. The logic behind making the shorter suit ♦ trumps is to discard dummy's ♥s on the long side suit ♣s. (This is exactly what actually happened). This works only if dummy has (at least) 4 cards in ♦ and ♦ break well. The latter condition is one reason why 6♦ will often not be such a great contract. Surprisingly it still works quite often. In your example there is of course no such reasoning, which makes the 7♥ bid not just anti-percentage, but illogical. Rainer Herrmann So you consider 6♦ a logical bid? I do. All you young talented players are so used to being ahead, that you're clueless about what to do when you are trailing. I, on the other hand, has lot of experience in trailing, but is clueless about what to do when I'm ahead.

This reminds me of realising 3 tricks into the play that one of the defenders still has a card sitting in the board. You're in a bad 4H contract, getting a revoke might be your best chance of making it, play a normal line or play for the revoke ? My thought process was like yours, and I thought the person concerned might eventually (through gritted teeth) see the funny side, so I successfully played for the revoke. WDP

Play it 2-way too.

Only against a few select.

I think that's really harsh, particularly the general penalty for not being the best player in the room which doesn't really have any foundation in Law. I'm not sure why everyone is suggesting procedural penalties at all for either south or east. East appears to be making an honest attempt to expedite matters given that the move has already been called and south is simply exercising his basic rights to contest a potentially dodgey claim. 99% of the time it's a simple matter of having a quite word to east telling him to pull his head in a bit and similarly have a word to south asking him to be a bit more mindful of time and (if appropriate to the skill level of the parties concerned) to be a bit more accepting of obvious defensive claims. In the meantime you need to make a ruling about whether or not you are going to give EW another trick which can really only be done by the director on the floor who is in a position to determine whether or not east's statement was a claim and whether or not it was at all feasible having regard to all the circumstances for west to pitch a ♣. +1

Following the logic of some posters, I think I'll make my own lottery. There's 1 million tickets at each $1. The first price is $2millions. The tickets has numbers from 1 to 1.000.000 When you enter, you must specify which of the remaining numbers you want. When the time comes for the draw, I'll simply claim that the winner has cheated; How else could he guess a one-in-a-million number???

No matter how incompetent South is, then not playing the cards in tempo, at that point, is a violation. Or maybe he is trying to save everybody from a slow-play penalty, because he knows what will inevitably happen. I only suggested a stern look. If South is truly incompetent, a lighthearted, easy to understand explanation will be used instead. But like others have suggested, you really have to know the players involved, and be at the table asking the right questions, to be able to make a fair ruling.

But it isn't. South' discards from dummy are immaterial, and so is the discards from the opponents. There is nothing to the play, but drawing thrumphs, and then the ♣A and the last club. If South is considering which discards from dummy are more likely to fool the opponents, he should have done so before running excess thrumphs. I will consider doing that now a violation of Law 73.D.1. You might even argue, that he should have done it at trick 1, but that would be much to harsh in my opinion. (Which, by the way, is never humble.) If South admits (who would), that he paused to make the opponents belive a squeeze could be in progress, I would consider it a blatant violation of Law 73.D.2. And yes, I know the the best deceptive discard from dummy may depend on what the opponents discard. But this is still the wrong place for such contemplations. Edit: I've regretted what I wrote above. South must plan his deceptive discards before leading his last red card from the hand. After that, any cashing of winners should be in tempo.