billw55

Or 3. North thought that 2♠ was a red suit takeout, and west just let him off the hook

Ideally the director would view the hand, make a judgment, and assign a fair result. In your case, 7♣-2. But in practice I suspect they are too busy, or simply too lazy to bother.

I see. Setting aside the question of accuracy of your data, what conclusion do you reach from this information? And what response do you propose?

In fairness, I can't really consider it a secret that we have nuke subs near North Korea. Anyone with any sense would realize that.

I'll talk about it if you want. You may of course decide for yourself if I am a lefty, if you haven't already. So what 's on your mind about Manchester?

OK, I see what you are saying. But in the play I lost two diamonds, and two spade tricks anyway. Whereas if I had ducked, I would gain a tempo when the opponent with a doubleton spade could not continue the suit. Yes, this is a risk. However, I bid hearts and Kx is in dummy, which might make it difficult for opponents to find this switch so early. Also with dummy down to the bare ♠Q, continuing the suit seems very appealing. And anyway, the heart position is one that I would prefer them to lead rather than myself, even if best of all is nobody leading it. Heck, if the suit breaks they might even set it up for me. As the cards lay, I could have made it, but would have to lead up to the ♥K myself, which I was reluctant to do. Ducking trick one would fix this .. as the cards lay. Not resulting is hard http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif

OK, I seem to have gotten all the replies I am going to. This deal occurred in a local swiss. I was declarer. I went down, and I don't imagine that my play was very clever. But it was only a few days later that it occurred to me to duck trick one in both hands. Now it doesn't seem to matter which hand holds the long spades, or which entry the short hand holds. But this is with the benefit of double dummy hindsight. Is it a realistic play to find at the table? Or even a good play?

The reality is that a great many people prefer a casual atmosphere at clubs, including a relaxed attitude toward penalties for infractions, and rectifications. They are at bridge club for a pleasant social experience and to play an entertaining game, not to engage in a fierce competition. Tournaments and leagues exist for serious play, people know this, and they choose to enter or not. Perhaps a practical approach for clubs would be to establish one or two games a week as "serious" games with all rules enforced, thus catering to those who want such events. Then see what the relative attendance is, and let supply and demand do its work.

[hv=pc=n&s=sak63hj7542dk4ck7&n=sq5hk3dqt983caj42&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1hp2cp3nppp]350|300[/hv] IMPs, none vul, if that matters. Opening lead is the ♠J. Thoughts? Plan?

Yes, that does sound excessive. At my job in the USA, we have 6 holidays per year total, and only one of them (Christmas) is religious. Although it is widely celebrated by the nonreligious as well.

Probably so. Do you think Sharia is unique in this respect? There are nontrivial Christian sects in the USA that forbid women from wearing pants. Also, in varying cases, no birth control and no divorce. Exorcisms involving beatings are less common but do happen. Yes, safe to say I fear Christian theocracy and Sharia equally. I treasure the first amendment beyond price. I hope it survives.

It certainly would be ... if it was a law. Which it isn't. I would certainly oppose it becoming law. I would equally oppose Christian doctrine becoming law.

Yeah, favorable at matchpoints I'd balance my drink on my pinky finger http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

ELO rates each individual match separately. The existing ranking system awards points for placement in an event, which is not the same thing. So that bring up two questions: do we want to deprioritize actually winning events, and do we want to consider quality of opponent(s)? For example, player A might go 5-1 at Wimbledon, defeating a few top players on the way to losing in the semifinal. Meanwhile player B might get a couple walkovers and a fortunate draw to win the event at 5-0, playing no top-10 players. ELO might well give player A better result for the event. Is that something we want to happen?

Indeed, it is astonishing and unprecedented. I hope he doesn't play too many events. I would rather see him playing well a few times than burn out his (surely now more vulnerable) body. Also I reread some of my old comments about the rankings. As a solution, I think it would make more sense to age out ranking points over time, rather than drop them all at once. Say, cut them in half after 8 months, in half again after 10, then drop them at one year. Or something like that.

I would modify this as such: 1. Protest against XY is an expression of free speech. 2. Saying "Protest against XY is an attack on free speech" is also an expression of free speech. 3. Use of violence, vandalism, or intimidation in pursuit of item 1 or 2 is an attack on free speech. and furthermore, 4. almost everything that everyone has said in this thread is an expression of free speech.

Actually, this sounds like a pretty good idea. Voluntary waiver of right to sue in exchange for substantially reduced premium. Maybe there could be a middle option that accepts arbitration - yes claims, but no courts and greatly reduced lawyers.

The USA needs to swallow its pride and give up the myth of exceptionalism. We aren't automatically better at everything than every other country just because we are the USA. Universal health care is one thing we are worse at. Many developed nations provide care for everyone - poor, elderly, very sick - at substantially lower cost per capita, and with better health outcomes overall. Let's learn to do it their way.

Cute, but unlikely. Most Trump voters will go to the grave still believing he is their savior.

Honestly, other than border control, I doubt that Trump or his administration give a crap about any of that. You thought you voted for your priorities, but in reality you were sold a bill of goods. Then again, I have been wrong before. Time will tell.

On the surface, this seems like an obvious "buzz off" ruling for SB, perhaps with a ZT penalty. However I'm going to give lamford the benefit of the doubt that there must be something worthwhile to consider here. Not sure what it is, but I expect he will let us know before too long http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

Yes, as is often the case in bridge, it is more complicated than it looks at first!

Putting their overall skill level aside, the simplest example is probably AKQxx in dummy opposite xxx in hand, needing 4 tricks to make.

Other things being equal, declarer should not be forced to lead a trump. But he can certainly be forced to lead a club per his statement. If what mycroft says is correct, then enforcing a trump lead is also ok.

Generally agree with horthgar. Business decision. From the club owner/manager standpoint, it sounds like a decision between barring individual players, or adopting hard rules about opening bids. Be aware that the latter is something of a rabbit hole: it would effectively disallow/penalize psyches by other players, and the club might find that they have to regulate all sorts of bids (one over one with 2 points ... etc). As a compromise, perhaps offer one game a week where these bids are allowed.