shyams

1) 2 2) 1 3) 0 4) 2 5) 2 6) 2 7) 1 8) 1 9) 1 10) 2 11) 1 12) 2 13) 1 14) 1 15) 0 16) 2

New kids movie: Saw Space Chimps 2 yesterday after my child dragged me to it. Review: Horrible. Not worth the time or the money. The 3D effects are poor as well. And this is not an adult's review of a kiddie movie. My kid was thorougly disappointed as well.

Spade to the king, heart back. This makes 10 tricks -- declarer will still lose a club in the end despite both his majors being set up after trick 2.

I would rule that the hand needs redealing. That is a serious answer to your question. I think this is an inaccurate conclusion -- you assume that the hands were not properly dealt. At the risk of guessing dburn's intention, I'd claim that his post implicitly assumed that hands were properly dealt. A simple exercise in probability: Assuming no dealing error, which hand do you think is more probable as a 13-card dealt hand? Is it: ♠AKQJ1098765432 ♥None ♦None ♣None OR this: ♠A6532 ♥KQ74 ♦96 ♣82

The voting so far has one peculiar trait. Of the 14 votes cast so far, we have ZERO votes for Brazil. Actually Brazil is the #1 team in Ranking. And it is most likely to win according to a couple of large Investment Banks.

France just shot themselves in the foot. Laurent Blanc has been named national coach starting after the World Cup. Why would anyone from the France team, esp. the current coach, take this World Cup seriously? ...especially after they know some large-scale changes are happening soon.

I was East. This is one of those deals where my thought process was surprisingly well organized (even if misguided) at the table. I still remember most of the things that I considered in the 7-8 seconds after the 2♥ bid was put on the table. 1. I thought the vulnerability was vital on this board. If they were non-vul, I had a very easy 3♦. I realise that many top posters said it is obvious to bid with the East hand; but one of the reasons I considered pass is because I was OK playing 2♥x 2. I thought if partner has 0-1 ♥ card (and 4-card ♠) he will reopen with a dbl. My plan was to bid 4♦ (invites game?) or pass for penalty if this happens 3. I thought partner has a decent chance he will double if he had 4-2-3-4 with xx in ♥. 4. I also thought partner will surely bid with 5-4 or 6-4 in the black suits and a minimum 5. I honestly never considered what happens if partner held a 3-card ♥ suit. I agree that passing was probably wrong. This time it worked well as most people who bid 3NT went down (although partner was in top form and would've made it).

[hv=d=w&v=b&w=sajt2ha83d53ckq72&e=sk53ht952dakt984c]266|100|Scoring: XIMP[/hv] At our table, the auction was brief: West (dealer) opened 1♣, North overcalled 2♥ which was passed out How would you have bid the E/W hands? Please comment on our auction...

Agree with double. I don't think it depends on the opponent's long pause.

Yes, you seem to have got it right. An unofficial rating site: http://chess.liverating.org/ shows Anand still at #3 position

Is Anand projected to overtake Carlsen's Elo rating with this win? The top 4 were very close before the match started, but Anand should surely improve on his 4th. The question is whether he will be 1st in the next FIDE list.

At the table, I'd play 4 rounds of diamonds (opp ♦ not 5-0) before I do anything else. This forces three discards by opps, and should guide our future action. I thought finessing twice in hearts (running Jack and then finessing 9) should be good enough odds. But the play by Simplicity possibly gives much better odds. However, in either case, there is no hurry and we should play diamonds first.

A bit of point counting: If I have 6 HCP, LHO has 0-11 HCP, RHO (2♠ bidder) has 4-9 HCP, the odds favour partner not to hold a balanced 12-14 HCP hand. Pass may still be the correct action, but isn't it closer than what all replies so far suggest?

Can we see all 4 hands? Or at least both E/W hands? e.g. ♠Kxxxx ♥Qx ♦xxx ♣xxx with West where he/she was thinking of passing. This time ♠Q was onside and spades were 3-2, so E/W made 12 tricks.

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sqt4hq3dt632ckqj7&w=sak752hj98654dct2&e=sj8hkt7dj875c8643&s=s963ha2dakq94ca95]399|300|Scoring: XIMP[/hv] When dummy went down, South spent less than 5 seconds to call low. East put up the Jack, checked all cards twice when it won and returned the ♠8. Down 1. At the table, North (N/S are a husband/wife pair) was annoyed by South's bid (3NT) and "thoughtless" play to trick 1. I agree I found the 3NT bid odd, but thought the play was correct albeit unlucky this time. The voting so far is almost unanimous that the play of a low card was superior. The more interesting feature of this deal is that E/W are cold in 4♥ as the cards lie. The contract was bid at 3 tables, doubled & making on all 3 tables. a. Would you open the bidding with the West hand? At the 1-level? b. How would you reach 4♥?

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sqt4hq3dt632ckqj7&s=s963ha2dakq94ca95]133|200|Scoring: XIMP Bidding: West North East South Pass - Pass - Pass - 1♦ 2♦* - 3♦ - Pass - 3NT (end) You could not open 1NT because that would show 12-14 2♦ is both majors West agonises over his lead for a while and then tables ♠2. Opps play standard leads (4th best vs NT etc). [/hv]

I think Paul Krugman argues in the NY Times that the long-term success of the Euro requires a Europe administration. This is something most countries in EuroZone would never accept.

Can anyone, esp. the law experts, explain why Law 53A begins with "Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead" instead of "... played out of turn ..." Is there a distinction? Is there a phase/gap between a (potentially erroneous) designation of a card and the "facing" of it? Just curious.

The company I work for specializes in risk, so the concept isn't foreign to me. My undergraduate education was in business, so I have a very fundamental understanding of financial risk. What sort of risk do you think I'm looking at? The whole idea that a 5% average unoccupancy rate is subject to some standard deviation and that if I hit rough times I will certainly go bankrupt is something I totally understand. Some thought below. But before I get to them, a BIG disclaimer. I am a foreigner with zero working knowledge of the US property market. So please take my views with a pinch of salt. 1. If you have done all the right research, you should go for it. 2. Based on your education and your current occupation, I'd guess you would be walking into this investment after a lot of thought / planning. This gives you an edge over a lot of others who start new ventures on a dream 3. Your cash-flow projections should consider some "downside" events. The property market has a 5% average of unoccupancy; but how does it translate it to 3 rentable units? e.g. if 1 of 3 remains un-let for 6 months, your unoccupancy rate is > average. If you can cater for such downsides, you should go for it. 4. My last suggestion probably applies to the one related to risk aversion etc. Although we are logical people and usually know how to manage risk, we often miss the warning signals when we succeed (maybe, beyond expectation) with our first foray. If your venture starts off very well, you are likely to try for more success (e.g. more renovation for higher rents, one more duplex purchase ...). It is when you desert logical reasoning in the face of "success" that you are likely to create situations where you can fail.5. Finally, talk to the experienced. There may be people you know who own property portfolios, big or small. Seek their opinions and refine your plan based on their inputs. Then go for it. Good luck!

I thought the match was a great spectacle. It was a gripping and tactical battle. I did not actively support either team but I thought the sending off ruined the game. And to be honest, after the sending off, I was cheering for Inter to win the tie. I think Inter were set up to play the second leg in a fashion very similar to the first -- soak up the Barca pressure at the start, then play a midfield game and take every opportunity to launch a counter-attack to score. The difference between the first and second legs was that the "soak up pressure" phase lasted longer at Camp Nou. However, the minute Motta was sent off, Inter removed all other elements of their strategy (no counter-attacks, no recapture of the midfield etc) and merely sat back and soaked up the pressure. I thought Inter deserved their victory in the end. Congratulations to Inter and Mourinho

1♦ is my choice

I agree with Codo's reasoning. This was most probably a "creative" bid and N/S were lucky that West made one more bid I'd hope the director ruled "table result stands" and did not bother with PPs to N/S

Then when you claim you should say so. ... but in this specific example, the claimer said so. Her claim statement included "cash 2 top diamonds", yet...

Not sure about this, but it is probably Zia and Andrew Robson EDIT: Some further search led to this: http://www.angelfire.com/games2/pbnarchive...ip/capgem00.zip The text files confirm it was Zia and Andrew.

In my opinion, the answer to this question should be: * No matter what someone does, it should be impossible for the State to revoke that person's citizenship. * I guess historically, high treason would be enough reason for revoking citizenship. * In the current world, naturalisation obtained by fraudulent methods can be a basis. Barring these, it should be never -- the individual has rights to surrender, the State should not have rights to revoke.