paua

Can I add here that I think the boys on BridgeWinners have given you an unneccessarily rude response. When it started down the anti-semitic name-calling part of the thread I think there were double-standards by BridgeWinners. It seems that groundless accusations can be made of "uncivilised / Muslim" countries on BridgeWinners, but any suggestion that the Israelis were expecting special treatment ("special snowflakes") is abhorrent. I think they should rename BridgeWinners.

You have no proof of this, just hearsay. The muppets on BridgeWinners have their own agenda. It is unlikely that the Indonesians are going to present their side of the story on BBOForums or BridgeWinners. Have we not learned anything in the last dozen years about USA and Israeli spin on terrorism ?

I like to clean any bits of fluff, hair etc from the table in front of me.

I met a pair, husband and wife, where the wife making her first discard would tap it on the edge first, "wake up dear". I would report this to the director now. I had another woman who called the cards from dummy, "the three please luvvie". Every card ! I hate declarers playing from dummy before LHO. I realy hate defenders making comment on the dummy. I really really hate dummy playing a singleton, especially on the first trick. I've even known a defender to play the singleton for dummy because they didn't want to wait !

You can make your own hyperlinks in Word.

A conversion is two points. A try is five points.

He definitely doesn't get the beer unless it was the first thing mentioned in the claim.

I laughed.

"it depends" Carding agreements should be taken as guidelines, not a legally binding contract. If I choose to play fake count then declarer has no recourse.

I meant UI for your side. You can't ask a question and then pass or double or bid based on the answer to the question. Well, you can, but at the risk of creating UI for partner. Most bridge is not played with screens.

I think that's stepping into dangerous UI territory. Either you double or you don't. No questions.

Jon Pertwee was the best Dr Who, IMHO.

(a) A weak hand with short clubs e.g. 4351 OR (b) a weak hand with 5-4 in the majors OR (c ) an invitational hand with at least one 4-card major OR (e) a game-forcing hand with at least one 4-card major OR (f) a weak hand with a 4-card major and a 5+ card minor. :D

Why can't sci-fi be comedy ?

I love Red Dwarf. You're missing out, world !

That wasn't the entire sentence. It referred initially to what was *said*. But I'm not really sure we should be writing "Stayman" on a systems card either. rgds

Really, even saying "Stayman" is incorrect, we shouldn't be naming an agreement.

"I bid 7NT. And I'm claiming 13 tricks. I'm not showing you our hands because we're still in the auction period. Wanna double me ?" Or they could play poker.

I think you all need to get out more.

that's a NO then ?

"Honour" is spelt incorrectly.

I think this sort of thing should be handled via the Recorder. It gets reported by the Director and the incident goes in a book. If a pattern emerges of certain minor misdemeanours by a certain player, then they get a formal warning. Could be at club or regional level. Once they're on a formal warning then the next instance is an immediate PP. Could be weeks later. Should be only for the same type of misdemeanour. A formal complaint from another player may or may not be recorded.

Two types of Weak or Garbage Stayman. 1. Drop-Dead Stayman where you intend passing any response. 2. Crawling or Creeping Stayman, where you pass a major but bid a 5cM over 2D, to play.

It was a bad decision. Declarer has all top tricks, no entry problems. The TD needs to go back to school.

I agree. Law 68 footnote doesn't apply. To me it's obvious to all four players that the top hearts are still outstanding, and therefore W overtaking is not a normal play under Law 70D2. It would be interesting if the outstanding highest hearts were 8-7-96 and East played the 8, but I still see no reason for W to overtake.