sfi

Takeout of diamonds, but probably less than penalty double strength (can partner double 2C to show that hand?). 2H.

Well that escalated quickly...

Count me in.

Of course not - your best option is to explain precisely the same way every time. If you don't, you leave yourself open to the suspicion or accusation of using this opportunity to pass information to partner, which is illegal. And this would be exactly what you are doing if you started doing that - telling partner you want the opponents to bid when you explain it one way and that you don't want them to when you explain it another way. If you have started doing this, I would suggest stopping it immediately, before you earn a reputation for cheating.

Sorry, we're cheering for New Zealand down here. Not because of anything that happened in previous matches, but because the NZ team play in Australia a lot and I know those players better. England-Netherlands is only halfway done - don't write the English off yet!

You do what you like, but since you posted the link that has the same points as Kriegel's first post on the topic (both of which were edited to add the same information), substantively different versions of what happened have been provided in both the WBF bulletin and on here by one of the Spanish team members. If you are satisfied the agreed facts are publically available and uncontroversial, then good for you.

This seems to merely restate the original post, so I'm not sure what it's meant to add to a situation that is likely to see further developments in the near future.

Given that the only information I've seen published so far is from the USA team captain, it might be a bit early to make a clear assessment of what really happened.

Tough way to lose 3 imps!

One of the key things about the poker TV craze, IMO, is that a number of the commentators combine informative content and banter very well, which adds to the show. I would love it if we had bridge commentators that took the same approach, but the online broadcasts concentrate on expert analysis of the game. Not sure how much effect it would have, but it seems worth trying if the right person gave it a go.

You're right that bridge was very popular already (the figure I have heard is that 1 in 3 americans played bridge around that time), but decades later I still have people mention Sharif as the first comment after I talk about bridge. There are some stories where bridge is a key plot point (Roald Dahl's story "My Lady Love, My Dove" comes to mind), but filming it would require the audience have more than a passing knowledge of the game. (Or a better director than I am picturing, which is also possible.)

I've actually heard about the bridge TV programs. Were they any good? Impressive. When they were teaching bridge at secondary school, what was their approach? I've been contemplating how one should teach bridge, and it seems to me that if you have more than about 10 minutes of lecture before giving the students some cards, you're going to lose them. I think that getting them playing to understand the mechanics is much better than giving them any idea about strategy, tactics, how to take tricks, how to evaluate hands, conventions, etc., but I have yet to test out any thoughts.

No. Aside from there being no decision if LHO holds the king, LHO may simply have grabbed the wrong card and needed to replace it. Had declarer been paying attention to LHO's actions, it sounds like it would have been clear that the opponent was expecting a different lead - and probably another trump. It's true that the defender did not follow correct procedure, but there is nothing in the scenario as described to suggest the defender would be able to anticipate the action "could well damage the non-offending side" (Law 23). I would have a polite word to LHO about not anticipating declarer's actions, but declarer did this all to himself.

Nope, that one doesn't work either. Maybe you spelled it incorrectly?

That site seems to be down too :(:

Bridge certainly got a boost with Omar Sharif, but it's hard to see how someone like that might have the same impact these days. Similarly, you can point to movies that feature chess and poker as central to the plot, but bridge is complex enough that it doesn't lend itself well to this sort of promotion.

I don't mean to single out your comment, but I think this view is a major contributor to the problem. In my experience bridge is increasingly only played in clubs and tournaments, rather than amongst families and friends. As a result, people simply aren't learning the game as a social hobby, and that needs to change for bridge to survive as a major competitive game. My memories playing chess include playing with friends around a campfire, with large pieces in a public park, and quick games with friends of my parents. If I had to go to a chess club and take lessons there is no way I would know how to play today. I've never been either good or serious, but I know enough to be interested in the news reports of the world championships and to discuss it intelligently when meeting other people who play competitively. I came to bridge later, but it still involved many hours of sitting around dorm rooms, university dining halls, and the like - I managed maybe one club game a month even when I started going to tournaments. And the national bridge federations aren't going to be able to address the underlying change. IMO, lessons at a bridge club are a terrible way to try and hook people. They are basically lectures that reduce something that is meant to be fun to an academic exercise full of rules. The federations can (and should) find much better ways to introduce people to the game, but it's up to all of us as individuals to stop it dying out as a family and social pastime. Without this, there will be increasingly fewer people who even consider the club or tournament scene an option.

Probably, but sometimes one of the people doesn't receive the invitation and has to find the table. I may try setting that at some point and see how it behaves.

It's not about cliques - some people simply use BBO in a different way to you. For instance, I play at tables almost exclusively in set games practicing for tournaments. If I reject you (or anyone else) it is because I'm either waiting for someone who has been disconnected or we have finished and someone has left the table while we are still talking. In either case it is not a reflection on the person's profile or skill level - merely a reflection of how we are using the site.

I'm not sure why you think 2S is a rare reply. I see (and bid) it all the time. In fact I would guess it's the second most common response to a multi 2D.

Indeed. One of my personal rules is that I never complain about a choice of opening lead if there was a reason behind it. It's one area where partners almost always get a free pass if they get it wrong.

Bird and Anthias. Since I read those I've started leading doubletons and weak suits much more, and it does actually pay off in the situations discussed in the books. Not always, and sometimes the result is dreadful compared to a more standard 4th best or whatever, but on balance there is a lot of merit in their points. The moral of the story is 'opening leads are hard, and there are many different types of situations.'

Heh - that's what we use Skype for. This weekend, our table had two Skype sessions going - one for each partnership. Needless to say, any issues of UI were very much self-policed. :)

The easiest way to play against robots is to go to the Solitaire section and choose Just Play Bridge. You're playing total points, your results aren't compared against anyone else, and you don't see the hands in myhands, but you get to play as many hands as you want for free.

You're in a pretty small minority with that agreement. Most people would like to bid 2S with something like: x Axxx KQxx Axxx Where you want to play in 2S or 4H depending on partner's major.