shyams

I believe he did not. If multiple doping tests over a long-ish career showed nothing, then he did not use performance enhancers. Simple. When he won so many TdF Yellow jerseys in a row, there was little doubt that the anti-doping guys would gun for him. Yet, they found nothing...

63) 1 - Uruguay 64) 1 - Netherlands

Ruff ♣x, enter dummy with ♠A, ruff a ♣ and cash ♠K - If spades break 2-2, we have 7♠ + 1♥ + 1♦. Enter dummy with ♥10 (hope we unblocked at tricks 2 and 3) and ruff ♣x. If the ♣A has not yet fallen, run trumps for a show-up squeeze on West for the overtrick. - If spades are 3-1 and West has the trump winner, play ♥x to dummy's ♥10. If West ruffs and plays ♦x, finesse for the 9th trick. If West follows to the ♥ instead, you can ruff a third ♣ hoping for the ♣A to fall. - If spades are 3-1 and East has the winner, concede the trump trick. You have 2 more entries to dummy to establish a ♣ for the 9th trick or finesse in ♦ if opposing clubs were 5-2

2 - Netherlands 2 - Spain

Penalty double! Paraguay's was poor -- I think the striker gives away his intention by glancing in the direction he intends to shoot. Spain's was weird -- there was a definite claim for a second penalty because Fabregas was pulled down by the Paraguay goalie.

Happy birthday

which was the other vote for an immediate 4H? 3H is the bid. I thought that most experts played a single raise to be stronger than a jump to game in this sequence. If 2♦ is waiting, then a 2nd round 3♥ bid by responder can still be reasonably unlimited

57) 2 - Brazil to win 58) 1 - Uruguay 59) 1 - Argentina 60) 2 - Spain

Isn't Hungarian most akin to Kazakh or some such Central Asian language?

Congrats and Best wishes

If South (instead of North) had placed a pass card on the table before East did, would that pass be also deemed out of turn? I would think not, but would like to hear the Law experts opinions.

Wow! Tevez! Amazing bullet shot! 3-0

*** KO ROUND OF 16 *** ( 2 ) 53) 1 - Netherlands to win 54) 2 - Chile to record a shock win 55) 2 - Japan to win 56) 1 - Spain, but it's close

*** KO ROUND OF 16 *** ( 1 ) My guesses: 49) 1 - Uruguay wins 50) 1 - USA wins 51) 2 - England wins 52) 1 - Argentina wins

I see no connection between the OP example and the "Blackout" example quoted here. 1. The sandwich/natural NT is a competitive bid / overcall when opps are bidding; the blackout example shows a bidding sequence where opps remained silent. 2. The OP sequence creates "real" problems for the partner of the 1NT bidder, the blackout bid does not -- all one has to do is alert it. 3. Even if it is not alerted on time, declarer can explain after the last pass and before the opening lead 4. While I have no experience of playing Sandwich NT, I'd have thought that the frequency of Sandwich NT (or even natural NT) is much higher than the blackout example. The "real" problem: The OP has described a situation where the system change is from an alertable to a non-alertable version of a call. If partner bids 1NT (natural) and I fail to alert, what would you expect opps to believe? a. I forgot to alert and it is still sandwich NT, OR b. I did not alert because it is natural NT I'd be surprised if every opp believed it is B; I'd expect most to choose A! Note that in the absence of an alert, the 1♣ bidder in the OP will find it difficult to ask without generating UI. Whereas a furious waving of the alert card, or an unsolicited verbalisation ("natural, not sandwich") by the partner of the NT bidder might do less harm.

What does "first language" really mean? - Does it mean the language you learnt first (chronologically in your life)? - Do you assume it to mean the operational language that you use when you still communicate with family members older than you? (parents, uncles/cousins etc)? - Does it mean the language in which you do most of your thinking? If it is the last option, my answer is English! I'm Indian and speak / spoke various Indian languages with my family members, but my thinking process is almost totally in English. And I often find it more difficult to express myself in my "native language" than in English.

Totally agree with the principle described here. Regardless of whether the call is alertable per se (e.g. a natural 1NT is not ideally alertable), I would think the logical thing to do would be to alert / inform opponents in an active way. Merely updating one's CC and hoping the opps will refer to it can hardly be called active.

6♥. Partner needs too many correct cards for a grand, and if he has a 3-card ♥ fit we should have 12 tricks much more often than not.

Time to blow my own trumpet (or vuvuzela?) USA has a decent chance of making the Qtr-final. If they win against England (as I chose in the Prediction Contest), they will easily qualify -- probably top the group. And even if they qualify as 2nd, there is no guarantee Germany will top Group D. The impact of Group D results is that we could easily have England vs Germany as Round-of-16 match; the other match then becomes USA vs other Group D qualifier (Serbia? Australia!) That's why I think USA has a decent chance of making the Qtr-final.

France's record in World cups: 1994 - did not qualify 1998 - WC Winners 2002 - Eliminated in Group phase; Finished bottom in their group. 2006 - WC Finalists. Lost to Italy in penalty shoot-out. 2010 - Eliminated in Group phase; Finished bottom in their group. 2014 - WC Finalists? Winners? Worth a flutter? I think so. After the current performance, the odds offered by the bookmakers must be really great!

If Thomas is #1, what number is Gordon? And Percy? And Edward?

Low ♥ I like ♠6 as a lead; but I think a ♥ will be slightly better.

33) 0 34) 1 35) 2 36) 2 37) 2 38) 1 39) 2 40) 1 41) 2 42) 1 43) 1 44) 0 45) 0 46) 2 47) 2 48) 1

3NT. Agree with CSGibson

I'd have thought passing 5♣ would be "green"er compared to bidding 5♦ After all, I agree with some of the posters and believe that West is in a legitimate position to deduce -- using bridge logic alone -- that his partner is psyching. So to pass and take a bad result is a legitimate action. West's presumption that a 5♦ bid is better because partner would psyche with a minor two-suiter suggests some level of CPU