You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is very close to my research area (tertiary mathematics education).

I highly recommend you check out the following book:
Inglis, M., & Attridge, N. (2017). Does Mathematical Study Develop Logical Thinking?: Testing the Theory of Formal Discipline. World Scientific.

In its appendices is a variety of logical / deductive reasoning tasks which are drawn from the psychology literature. Depending on the age of children involved in your study, some or all of the tasks will be appropriate “measures”.

A taster from page 143 of the book: Watson Selection Task (1968), aim to assess participants' ability to analyse logical statements. Four cards are placed on a table in front of you. Each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other. You see D, K, 3, 7. Here is a conjectured rule about the cards: “if a card has a D on one side, it has a 3 on the other”. Your task is to select all those cards, but only those cards, which you would need to turn over in order to find out whether the rule is true or false.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opponent's system is a standard-ish base?
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no general rule for all sequences.

On (1x)-p-(1y)- sequences such as the one you gave, it is very common to play both 2x and 2y as natural.

When you are “deeper” in the auction, it is - I believe - most common for cuebids in opponents' suits to be showing a stopper in the suit bid, implicitly asking for a stopper in the remaining suit (when 3NT is an option). This contrasts to a cuebid asking for a stopper when the opponents have only bid one suit.

Of course, in a GF auction after a major suit agreement cuebids are usually control-showing, although some pairs only allow this to begin at the 4-level (or 3S in a heart contract).
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would Law 6D2 apply here?

“Unless the purpose of the tournament is the replay of past deals no result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck or if the deal has been imported from a different session. (These provisions shall not prevent arrangements, where desired, for exchange of boards between tables.)”
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had a partner (a regular poster on this site) who used to explain to the director that his partner (me) had “spotted a revoke and wished to claim his prize”.
Oct. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Australia we seem to have a lot of written bidding due to the same logic as this. Not the only reason, but it is mentioned when anyone brings the whole “rest of the world doesn't” into view.
Oct. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And a shout out to team Helle who were leading Gawrys at the halfway stage in the RO64 (a feat only managed by Diamond in the whole event)
Aug. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is common for an academic grant application to include funding for one or more PhD projects closely aligned with the purposes of the grant.

In some fields, e.g. Astrophysics, this is the main way that PhD studentships are funded.
May 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I love the article by Fred Gitelman on dealing with standard issues in 2/1. There is a whole section called “The (misguided) principle of fast arrival”.

http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/GitelmanImprove21.pdf

What we learnt in Bridge 102 is not necessary applicable for life.
Feb. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These 5 tips are very sensible, and have the overall aim (although it's not stated as such) of moving from “system 1” to “system 2” thinking in the Kahneman sense (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow).
Jan. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like putting the focus on hearts. Does 3NT…4 promise 4 pieces? If it doesn't (any maybe even if it does), I want partner to value heart honours more highly than club or diamond honours, so I bid 4. Also, now they are captain, I have a very nice Keycard response ready.
Aug. 17, 2017
Ant Edwards edited this comment Aug. 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds like all players and directing team followed due protocol. Glad to hear it (and two cheers for screens).
Aug. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On board 27, what was the auction where East settles for 6 rather than insisting on a heart contract?
Aug. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(d) it's unusual to play your normal Keycard structure here. Something like 0/1/1/2/2 i.e.
step 1= 0 keys
step 2 = 1 no queen
step 3 = 1 & queen
step 4 = 2 no queen
step 5 = 2 & queen
Aug. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with the fit jumpers.
Aug. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
15-19 with a 3 range and shape enquiry afterwards.
July 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner opens 1m, they either have 5 cards or 15+ (ignoring those pesky 4-4-4-1s).
July 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems that WC players feel that waiving certain rights is appropriate, whether it is because they feel they will win anyway / they personally disagree with the way the rules are written / they believe it will disincentivise people from the game.

Although the above is intended to summarise the views of expert posters in this thread, the following is NOT directed at individual people; it's just some general remarks about how I have experienced the nature of “pro” players at the table.

If pro players would like to make my enjoyment of the game better then please do the following:

* do not open bent NTs in a pro-am partnership that they would not do when playing with another good player
* play at the tempo of the weakest player of the table
* don't detach a card before it's your turn;
* never claim without a claim statement unless it's on high cards alone
* have a completed convention card
* never answer a question with “it's just bridge” or “standard”

If you do all of these, then I feel all the players at the table are being respected.

I personally would not feel respected if you choose to wave the rules, however honourable your intention. I know I am the most likely player at the table to revoke, but I still want the revoke rule played against me.
Jan. 7, 2017
Ant Edwards edited this comment Jan. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have two issues with this mentality. Both are related on the idea that I believe it is impossible to define what common sense is.

(1) What happens when, in terms of common sense, world class players don't agree? I'm happy to be convinced that in OP's particular case this wouldn't be a problem, but situations must exist where WC players disagree and therefore a law is needed. How can we discover these situations in time for a law to be written *before* the incident occurs?

(2) What happens when an advanced/expert player (maybe who thinks they are better than they really are), invokes a common sense rule which makes sense to them, but is clearly erroneous to a player of a higher calibre. Who polices what common sense is, and educates such a player that they don't know as much as they think they do?
Jan. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The fact that you can remember this from when you were a beginner is in keeping with my belief that more people are put off bridge by over regulation, when compared to those that are saved from leaving due to the less regulation.

This view runs contrary to many top players who post here, and presumably those that on the C&C committee. All I know is that I would have given up bridge a long time ago if I lived in the USA, and those that have given up due to this are not likely to be posting on a bridge forum.
Jan. 4, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top