shyams

The West hand is too weak to qualify as a Strong 2♣ opening. Most national bridge authorities have guidelines on what qualifies as "Strong 2♣". * Mycroft wrote about the rules within the ACBL. * The EBU rules are very similar. (Quote from EBU Blue Book) "Partnerships who agree that an artificial opening (such as 2♣) may be made with a hand with a lot of playing strength but limited high cards must disclose this clearly * My cursory search of the ABF website was not helpful. However, one of their documents (link) clearly states that "The psyching of a conventional bid, which is unequivocally forcing and systematically indicative of the strongest possible opening hand (e.g., a Game Forcing 2♣ or a Precision 1♣) is strictly forbidden." If E/W described the 2♣ opening as "strong" with no other caveats or clarifications, I feel that N/S have a right to claim that West psyched. I cannot see why a Director would then not rule against E/W and in favour of N/S.

Many countries prohibit the use of a strong 2♣ bid with this hand. It does not have sufficient HCPs and (if this were a serious tournament) N/S may have redress if they refer to a Director. Edit: I meant the West hand with the long club suit.

There are numerous lines of play available in the first hand. I'm afraid this is too tough for me. I would flip the first two ranks. I prefer a 3♣ bid over a pass. It is likely that partner does not have more and will pass, but there is no harm in hoping for a great hand with partner and a 3NT bid. If I choose to pass, then I too would probably lead a diamond.

I bid 5♥ As to what if opps bid 5♠, my (old) partnership agreement was: * My (i.e. the 5♥ bidder's) double indicates a desire to bid on --- leaving partner to make the final call. * My partner's double (say, over West's 5♠) is penalty oriented and strongly suggests that I don't remove it. I would double 5♠, especially if West bids it and partner passes. I don't know what I would do if my 5♥ is followed by two passes, then East bids 5♠. I think I will pass.

There are numerous WBF vugraph videos available on YouTube, many uploaded by Traian Chira. The table talk is often clearly captured by audio. These are the most prestigious tournaments in the world. One can confidently say these players qualify as "experienced". Want to guess how often they clearly name the suit and rank when designating cards?

There is another causal/associated factor, right? Money! The Wuhan Institute of Virology is actually designed to be world class in terms of its safety standards. Its BSL4 facilities are among the best in the world (Bio-Security Level, 4 being the highest). BSL4 is available even though research under BSL4 is slow, cumbersome and expensive. * If the Chinese Govt. were funding the research at this lab, they would not worry much about the cost implication of BSL4. * If the US Government were directly funding research at the lab, it is reasonable to say that they too would not worry about the cost implications of BSL4. However, when the US National Institute of Health wants research done on potential viral threats, they always award the grant to intermediaries. The intermediaries then subcontract the actual work to WIV. In my mind, the equation is simple --- if the intermediary can charge the NIH a BSL4 quote but can somehow convince the WIV to conduct the research at BSL2 or BSL3 levels, the resultant "savings" are for the intermediary to keep. How is it then the fault of the "government-run research labs" in China? Alternatively, why are they alone to blame?

I am not sure the below precisely addresses your requirement. The EBU White Book has this clarification -- link (https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/white-book/white-book-2019-final.pdf), page no. 131. I do not know whether this was based off a WBFLC minute or was a decision made independently by the committee for specific application within the EBU.

It's been many years since I played bridge in the club. My usual practice was to use the words "small", "top", "ruff", "low", "club", "diamond", "heart", "spade" when the lead is not in dummy. My usual practice was to designate in full when leading from dummy OR when I wanted a specific card to be played from dummy. The meanings of each of those words was incontrovertible: "small" or "low" was to follow suit with the lowest available card, "top" was to follow sit with the highest available card, "ruff" was to use the lowest available trump, and any suit designation was to discard the lowest card in that suit (obviously when dummy is void in led suit). I believe that the EBU rules (EBU Blue Book?) permit such designations and specify their meaning (thus eliminating disputes on meaning). The advantage is that adjacent tables don't hear the full designations of cards and consequently have a lower chance of unintentionally overhearing UI. BTW, pran has addressed the question in the OP. Although I too would not use such a phrase, I know that declarer can ask dummy to stop and can change track midway through the "run the suit" procedure.

It is possible that he is in a huff because he feels neglected by the Green Bay organisation -- e.g. the GM hiring, changing the coaching staff, other reasons. However, I feel that the main reason for his theatrics is money. Rodgers has a contract that runs upto 2023 end with a pay typical for an average QB ($25 million per annum) and much of it is NOT guaranteed. If, for any reason, Rodgers cannot play or the team decides they have their rookie QB (Jordan Love) who they would rather put on the field, Rodgers will be left with only $7 million (all in 2021) and the Packers can trade him / cut him for no cost. The Packers don't want to cut him but they also don't want to tie themselves into a 4-5 years binding contract with a $150m - $200m guaranteed outlay. This is especially true if they feel Jordan Love is progressing well and can take over pretty soon.

OK, here is another example - a seemingly innocuous one. I post it here because something is not right about West's first action. Board 5 from my set of yesterday (link here). West holds ♠-- ♥76 ♦AKQ9743 ♣A542. North as dealer opens 1♠, partner passes, South raises to 2♠. What should West do? I am relying on my hunch and my past experience with advanced Robots to say that an advanced robot would bid 3♦. The Zenith robot chose to double with the West hand! I found it so strange that I was planning to post here immediately (i.e. before I played Board 6) but then I decided to wait for everyone to finish.

NFL fans, can we talk about Aaron Rodgers and Green Bay?

“Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India#Independence,_population_transfer_and_violence

Yes, I am. The discard of the club Queen at that critical juncture allows me to squeeze West and score the 13th trick. 4♠ +2 scored 42%, 4♠+3 scored 76%

Here is an example from yesterday's Zenith tournament: https://tinyurl.com/yfaytcoy Let us ignore my (South's) silly jump to 4♠. While it may affect the choice of opening leads, there should be no impact once the South hand is exposed as dummy. After the first 8 tricks have been played, the situation is (North to lead): [hv=pc=n&s=shk52dact&w=shqjtdcj7&n=s7ha963dc&e=sh74dt2cq]399|300[/hv] When I led the ♠7 from the North hand, East GIB knows the exact layout in both minors and can guess the possible layouts in hearts. Here, East chose to discard the ♣Q --- which, IMO, is completely illogical. I also don't recall encountering such an error in other adv. robot tournaments (e.g. Robot Rebate 55%) The robot's play can be right (in the sense of equivalent to any red suit discard) only if its sampling set shows all hands where North holds ♥AQxx or ♥AJxx --- which double dummy assures 13 tricks. In all other situations, the club discard is the only way to allow declarer to score a 3rd overtrick. This foolish discard enabled me to score 76% on the board instead of the 42% that I deserved for my bidding atrocity.

If this is where we are going, I say let's go. Notice that no college degree is required. She can, for example, read War and Peace. Or not. [/size] How dare these poor people start their own businesses and escape the yoke of their min-wage jobs? This is absolutely not what the cash was for. This is exactly why the GOP has been protesting hard about handing over hard-earned cash of the billionaires back to those in need! Imagine these poor people receiving freebies from the Federal Government, then having the temerity to set up their own businesses! If they are rich enough to start their business with stimulus money, they were rich enough not to deserve the stimulus in the first place. What exactly are the Democrats doing here? Are they trying to hamper the wealth-growing potential of the donor-class this great nation and instead allow these small, inefficient businesses to pop up everywhere? Such inefficiencies are bad for the United States. An inefficient US will eventually be attacked by our enemies -- this could soon turn into a national security issue. This has to stop! The establishment must not be allowed to lose control over resources like cheap, captive labour, not even an iota. So what should the establishment do to stem this rebellion? Oh, I know! Let's get the Fed to allow a spike in inflation -- maybe lasting 12 to 18 months(?). It should be enough to quell the resistance and restore the "natural" order back in the Great American system. Please don't read the spoiler

The latest exposé of how the BBC deceived Princess Diana appears to have rocked the foundation of the institution. * I don't recall any member of the Royal family ever use such pointed language to criticise anyone -- words like "deceitful" and "incompetence" are powerful and potent, and probably unprecedented. * It is also highly unusual for a member of the Royal family to directly address the cameras instead of issuing a written statement ( ). I fear the end is nigh for the BBC. It might take many years, but it does feel like the dismantling of this global institution is highly probably.

Thank you, Diana. I don't have any concrete examples to quote; I will aim to make a note of anything going forward.

I am with mycroft on this. Precision is a useful system for the given scenario.

I don't play the above tournament all the time so I might be completely wrong here. My hunch is that the advanced Robots on Zenith Daylong have a slightly different take on bidding and cardplay --- especially bidding. a. Have any of the other frequent players noticed anything unusual about these bots? b. Can anyone from BBO shed light on this? Perhaps their sampling size is different even if the code isn't? Any inputs appreciated.

Open 2NT? At MPs one is willing to risk missing out a making 5♣ and landing in a non-making 3NT. The hand is too light for 2♣ opening unless you have a partnership agreement which allows such hands. As for the rebid, I am with apollo1201 who points out the risks of bidding a major suit next. 2NT does look acceptable at MPs. If it were IMPs, I might open 1♣ with the hope that it does not get passed out.

Enjoy the event, folks. I wish I could have joined but I have been very busy lately and was unsure if I will be free to play my rounds on time. Looking forward to the next one. As always, thank you smerriman for organising the event. I thought I must highlight the below :) 17 hours! Nige1 deserves a special award for this feat!

This was probably the original intention for the preferential structure (I can, but I'm not going to Google this). If (e.g.) the lower tax rate on capital gains was incorporated into the tax structure in the '60s or '70s, the landscape of capital markets was significantly different at that time. Long-term investments usually would have meant investing into the economy, into some form of capital investments, and into businesses that generate jobs locally. I'm afraid this is no longer true of most "investments" that qualify for capital gains tax treatment.

Wrong answer! ;) The rich deserve tax breaks. And the super rich deserve super tax breaks. How else will they "invest into the economy" (i.e. adopt the grand illusion of doing good for the economy)? :P :P

I think OO got it right at the table. There is a demonstrable bridge reason for West's BIT. Also, the fact that the BIT may have caused South to misguess was not the material factor for the board. What mattered is that East had to return a club, which East did for Rueful Rabbit Reasons. That the BIT and/or declarer's misguess were directly contributory to East's club return is not an argument I would buy.

A friend recently stated on our classmates WhatsApp group that his son is more intelligent (IQ) than three other kids combined. Another person retorted that --- assuming the other 3 kids have at least average IQ --- it is impossible for 'boy-wonder' to have a 300+ IQ i.e. my friend's remarks are full of hot air. To which my friend (who I have known to be very intelligent) responded "LOL, you don't ADD IQs, you only ADD standard deviations". Apparently his son has an IQ of 149 (more than 3 SD above average). So he set about convincing others that he won the argument. Does that sound right to you all? Please opine :) PS: I post out of curiosity; I was not the one who challenged the friend's assertions or subsequent logic.