cherdanno

Uuuuh - opener has quite a good hand given that he is limited. Not even cueing 4♦ would be criminal. Yes it's effectively a 11 count (AQJxxxxx Qxx x Qx) but WHAT AN 11 count! ♠K ♥AK and ♣A is all he needs for slam to be cold.

No rebid problem? What do you bid over 1D 1NT? Over 1D 1H 1S 1NT? I would have thought none of the top 100000 players in the world would refuse to open a strong NT on a 4243 16 count, but I see I have to make an exception for Oleberg.

Well, someone tried - more specifically Nate Silver, based on the data gathered by ESPN, and the result (ESPN SPI) is pretty good. I think it would have done pretty well on our prediction contest, e.g.

With video replays I just wonder how you make them completely impartial. My assumption is that the TV images for a game are always produced by one national TV station - I can't imagine their employees selecting the camera objectively when the FIFA official wants a replay and one angle suggests a penalty and the other a dive, and their own team is in a KO world cup match. I would rather have a completely impartial and sometimes faulty referee than a biased process. For the same reason I think the FIFA is right to ban replays of controversial decisions on the in-stadium screen - of course the referee will be biased by watching his own mistake, and may try to compensate later. Anyway, I am not at all against video replays, but it really is very tricky to get right in football.

Let me make another bold prediction and say that at the end of this world cup, Germany will have met Ghana. I will also claim that Germany did not beat Ghana easily in that match.

Thanks!

How is this a contest when 655321 is an option?

Well maybe I should have included Spain-Portugal (you may have noted that Portugal wasn't on the list of teams I offered you to pick from :) ). Spain was considered a favorite going into the world cup, Portugal wasn't, and nothing I have seen would change that impression. Maybe I am biased with USA-Ghana, but I saw USA tie against England, and Ghana lose 1-0 to Germany, and Ghana looked quite a bit better in comparison. That didn't show on the result sheet because Germany was better than England at converting their goal opportunities, and because Germany did have a goal keeper.

Josh wanna bet? You pick USA and one out of Slovakia, Mexico, Japan and Chile, I pick Ghana and the opponent of the other team you pick. If both your teams advance, you win, if both my teams advance, I win. 50 Dollars?

Looks like an above average 14 count to me.

53) 1 54) 1 55) 1 56) 1 Really the only two close calls seem to be Germany-England and USA-Ghana.

yes. it looked suspicious, but there was an earlier infraction involving the same player that certainly deserved a second yellow, so maybe things were evened out there. No way this was a flop. - The defenders leg hit Torres right foot while it was stretched out back, causing him to hit his left foot on the following step. (This is very hard to see on the picture sequence because the hit is almost at the beginning of the sequence.) - Nobody would be so silly to try a flop there - it would be highly unlikely to work, it would only give a free kick, while he was ahead of all the other central defenders and in GREAT position to score on the cross. If you want to convince me that Torres stumbled you may have a case, but a flop - not in a million years.

You know, if you post on BBF people may read it after the game is over! Better to keep it to yourself, or to your pub.

This is very unlikely during a KO-phase. I still thought you could predict the score after 120 minutes. It is corrected now to an England win. ENGLAND IN PENALTIES????

49) 1 50) 2 51) 1 52) 1

I would bid 2H.

Is double really takeout of diamonds? Opener has shown diamonds, responder has shown clubs, shouldn't this be a double for the majors?

Your partner always doubles with 6322?

Wow! I hope Hanoi is right for the remaining 12 games too!!!

I guess the problem is that there was more than one foul or cautionable offense that occurred in the incident and it seems wrong to pick on just one. de Rossi was pushing Smith Smith was holding de Rossi's shirt Iaquinta was pushing Elliot and possibly holding his shirt Elliot was probably pushing back de Rossi attempted to deceive the referee by diving There is something wrong when one of these offenses and possibly not the worst is punished severely and the others are left unpunished. It is particularly bad when the offense that is punished is picked on or at least perceived to be picked on because the opponent deliberately tries to deceive the referee. I think you still don't get it. Pushing is always unclear, and doesn't always lead to a whistle. When someone pulls a shirt, it leads to a whistle every single time the referee sees it. The NZ defender was just stupid, and the referee would have called the penalty regardless of whether the Italian would fall or not.

33) 0 34) 2 35) 2 36) 2 37) 2 38) 1 39) 2 40) 2 41) 2 42) 1 43) 1 44) 2 45) 2 46) 2 47) 2 48) 1 Edit: changed my vote, the host will win the last!

Wayne if you pull someone's shirt in the box and you get caught it's a penalty. Doesn't matter whether the other player falls or not. If you really think it didn't impede the Italian I invite you to try jumping for a header while I am holding your shirt briefly.

Mmmmm once the NZ players start learning to make a header without using their elbow you would earn the right to complain. (I think Rory Fallon was really lucky not to get sent off by a second yellow card.) Also, it was a clear penalty IMO. And the NZ goal was both offside and helped by an offensive foul.

There is no controversy, german TV resolved this situation to xx single moments, there was no offside for sure. There were 3 parallel duels>>> man to man, no signs for a foul in x single settings I haven't seen a good replay but this post claims Bocanegra committed a foul. These are always fishy situations with many borderline fouls committed either way (and the defending side typically getting away with theirs as referees don't have the guts to give a penalty).

A.