gordontd

I don't think so. They might well have been expecting to rebid at the three level (or even elect to pass). I think if you gave the hand to players to ask them what they would do on the first round, many would double without considering that they were thereby forcing to game.

I seem to recall that they argued that it was because they were not married that they didn't want to let them the room. Presumably once the law is changed they'll be happy to have married gay couples to stay, though it strikes me as an odd line of business to be in with such views.

It does suggest that he doesn't have a balanced Yarborough like he might have, especially when combined with his later tempo break.

I think passing is a logical alternative, and acting rather than passing has been suggested by South's actions.

It is GF in versions of 2/1 that define it as GF When this was played as strong, I think it was usually played as rather stronger than that. This seems to suggest that there was at one time a single, true 2/1. I'm not sure that was ever the case.

Sure they wonder: why do we discard some scores, how many scores are discarded? And then less inexperienced players might wonder how it is determined the number of scores that are discarded, why they can't find a regulation to explain this, what happens to scores that fall between the IMP scales, and why an improved score on one board might make their overall score worse. By contrast, I have never known players have difficulty understanding Cross-IMPs when it is explained properly to them.

Having played for years on OKB until I decided not to renew my membership about six months ago, I tried doing this yesterday. The first thing that struck me is that that no-one talks. They don't discuss system, they don't say thankyou, they don't even insult their partners when they walk out in the middle of a hand - which they do so often that you need to keep looking to see if you are still playing with the same person who started the hand as your partner. I found it hard to imagine anyone arranging a second game, let alone developing a partnership, under these circumstances. Is there more to it than I have seen?

Since you had only played two rounds, you could probably re-organise it into a thirteen table Mitchell, retaining as many results as possible, and awarding AV+ for any that had to be cancelled. You might be able to increase the number of played boards with a late-play or two. Whether all this is better than just living with having a sit-out in each line is something you would have to decide. I would be less concerned about a sitout in each line than I would about having two sitouts in one line.

Why would they have a gap between 2D & 3D?

That's what "request" means.

When I've run a heat for a national teams-of-eight competition which is scored by adding all four scores together, I've provided the players with the appropriate IMP scale. Most of them don't notice. None of them (including Stefanie) have ever said they would prefer to have the unsuitable team-of-four scale.

The other thing is that if you are a good & supportive team-member you may well get on stronger teams than you would if you were a critical & difficult person to have around.

Yes - there are plenty of valid criticisms that could be made of LTC, but these are not.

Not if they want to play the same as their partner. If they did, they wouldn't know what partner would open with a balanced hand out of 1NT opening range, for a start.

I took ten identical items, each priced at 50p, to the cash till. The assistant rang up 5...0...ENTER ten times and then looked doubtfully at the sub-total, surprised that it came to exactly £5.

There is a small low-stakes rubber bridge game at the Young Chelsea. The most acrimonious argument I've heard there happened about ten days ago. The reason was that a player had told his opponent to take back her revoke card. Later, in a different, more costly situation, he revoked but his opponent expected the penalty to be applied. He kept saying "I thought we were playing a friendly game here". They would have been if they had all just played by the rules.

And sometimes the requirement to lead a penalty card damages the NOS.

I'd rule that way too, but it's worth noting that at least one member of the WBFLC has said on BLML that he believes you are not allowed to change your mind once you have started your designation.

I ran a monthly barometer pairs at my club for about a year, but we've had to stop it because the numbers it attracted were so low. We also have a few national events that are barometer in the final stages. These are well-received but not without problems, the greatest of which is that information is overheard from other tables due to boards being played at the same time.

I'd cash the ♣A in the hope that it encourages declarer to play the trumps to break badly the wrong way.

Crack or craic?

In the end, that was what my distinguished consultant and I decided.

Do you think this reaches the point where, whenever a player selects a middle course, it demonstrably suggests bidding more? And how does this idea apply to other situations (eg Bergen) where the call in question is artificial and not likely to become the final contract?

Neither call would be pre-emptive - 3♠ would be invitational, and 4♠ to play.

I've never seen anyone do this, and think it's most unlikely that they would put away the stop card until they have finally decided that they are not going to make a jump bid.