TimG

In Competitive Bidding in the 21st Century, Marshall Miles has a short section on "'Negative' Doubles at Higher Levels" in which he advocates for a pass after 1♦-3♥-DBL-P holding ♠A63 ♥AT54 ♦AT83 ♣63. He goes further and says that he would pass with ♠A63 ♥QJ9 ♦AJ42 ♣J63 (though he admits he is likely in the minority here). He cites a bidding problem from Bridge magazine where pass was the top vote getter after P-P-1♠-3♣; DBL-P holding ♠KJ973 ♥A96 ♦AQ4 ♣52. The two panelist comments that he cites are Barry Rigal's "Pass. Negative doubles should be passed with balanced hands. I hope we can beat it, but guessing which red suit to bid is a fairly arid and unrewarding pastime." and Karen McCallum's "Pass. Partner has a good balanced or semi-balanced hand. Three clubs doubles may be our last plus score. This is a much easier decision if your agreements regarding negative doubles mandate balanced flexible hands, no two-suiters, and absolutely never contain a singleton in the opponents' suit (above the one-level)."

If I was going to cheat in one of the big KOs, I'd do it in the early rounds -- otherwise I'd be out of the event before I got a chance. So what? The cell phone ban will do exactly nothing to stop you from doing so. The only thing it achieves is to make it a little more inconvenient to cheat. I think those opposing the cell phone ban would be better served by focusing on the effects on the game rather than the personal convenience. Productive discussion would center on how conditions could be changed to make cheating more difficult and how the cell phone ban does not address the problem in a significant way. Players who oppose the ban ought to be saying: I agree that cheating is an important issue and that steps should be taken to prevent cheating, but I don't think this ban addresses the real issue...here is what the ACBL could do if they were truly serious about preventing cheating and removing the appearance of impropriety. Instead, the focus has been: this rule is ridiculous, I want to be able to call my friends, be reached by family/work, etc., with little or no mention of the things ACBL should have done (and still could do) to address the issue.

If I was going to cheat in one of the big KOs, I'd do it in the early rounds -- otherwise I'd be out of the event before I got a chance.

I'm just telling you the impression I am getting from reading the various threads. I was hoping to be able to come back and tone it down before anyone had quoted my post. "Brat" was probably too strong, but I still don't have much sympathy for most of the complaints.

It's funny, I was initially opposed to the ban, not because I thought it particularly unreasonable, but rather because I thought it impractical and I thought it did not address more important issues of playing conditions that make illegal communication (with or without hi-tech devices) trivial. But, upon reading the many posts in the multiple threads, I'm more inclined to support the ban. The reasons against have mostly been along the lines of putting personal convenience above the integrity of the event. As someone else has mentioned, many of those speaking against the ban sound like spoiled brats. As such, they don't garner much sympathy.

Sure, you can enter the bidding later, but to suggest it will always be safe is an overbid.

Would you open 2♥ w/w with ♠Txx ♥QJ8xxx ♦x ♣Axx? If so, I can't see passing with hand #1.

I think standard is that double shows four in their suit and bidding their suit shows five (and is non-forcing). If you can't show length in the suit they bid, they would be able to steal with ease.

So, I have to go to the website rather than do it directly through BBO's movie/tournament results feature?

The last time I played in the Vanderbilt, my teammates played in the same room as I did and we passed boards back and forth. We also were free to leave the table and wander the halls at any point, it seemed almost every table took the "caddy call" break to leave the playing area to smoke/visit the restroom/get a beverage/stretch their legs. Maybe some players took the opportunity to call home/work/teammates. If I had been part of a six-man team, I could easily have communicated to a team member who was not playing this segment (who could then relay information to teammates who were playing). There were no restrictions on kibitzers entering or leaving the room. I'm sure security gets tighter as the event progresses. But, I totally agree with Richard that eliminating cellphones does not address the real issues. And, that ACBL could foster a different attitude amongst the players by first taking care of matters of condition for which ACBL should be directly responsible. I'll bet that if ACBL had first set up the events in a professional manner and then there were still serious concerns about cheating via cellphones, there would be far less opposition to a cell phone ban. (Of course, I don't have any idea whether there is lots of opposition to this new rule -- the opinions of a few BBO forum users is probably not representative of ABCL membership as a whole or the players who are contending for NABC titles.) In Jonathan Steinberg's Detroit Report I read that "In Detroit, the ACBL hired a firm to monitor and record players." I don't expect that was cheap. That expenditure would likely have been a nice start to a fund for dealing machines and cards.

I would think you'd scare people away with this kind of drilling if they have only been exposed to contract bridge for a couple of months. I would think things like making sure declarer always counts their tricks and creates a plan would be more important than being able to instantly recognize hand patterns. I think the most important counting lesson I ever learned was to count only the opponent's cards when declaring. If you start with eight trumps, just count the opponents' five trumps when they are played rather than the total trumps played by both sides. Not only does it make things simpler, it makes declarer think in terms of outstanding cards and how suits are distributed. Which, I think, is what you are trying to do with your drill.

I think something is wrong with your guesstimate. 8550 tables = 34,200 player sessions. If each player at the NABC plays in an average of 4 sessions, that means 8550 individuals. If players average more than 4 sessions, there will be fewer than 8550 individuals; if players average fewer than 4 sessions, there will be more than 8550 individuals. I'm guessing that the average NABC patron plays more than 4 sessions.

I don't know about floating for days, but my early thrills were winning the Open Pairs at a New Hampshire sectional, going 8-0 in an Swiss at a Maine sectional (both with my future wife as a partner), and winning my first open event at a regional (a Swiss in which my partner was my father). There have been others, but none of them were made special by the number of masterpoints (or the resulting rank change).

I played in a tourney yesterday. I don't see any obvious way to look over results from other tables. Is there a way? If so, how?

Detroit's attendance was ~8550 tables, I wonder how many individuals that represents. I would guess many less than 8500. (Not to dispute your assertion that NABCs involve many more people than the Trials -- I'm sure you are right -- just curious how the table count translates to individuals.)

My first duplicate experience was when I was about 9. The club my father took me to had an open and a 49er game. We couldn't play in the 49er game, so we played in the open. We placed. The only thing I remember about the game, other than suggesting we average my zero points with my father's points (still not under 50) and making arrangements for the point slip (whatever that was) to be sent to me, was doubling the opponents in 6H and one of my aces not cashing. I guess I hadn't read SJ Simon, at the time. The point slip was mailed to me and I saved it for years before I had accumulated a whole point and could send it to ACBL. But, I would not have known the difference if we had not placed -- I didn't know what matchpoints were. I don't see what is unfair about having the kid and his father play in the open game. If the open game at a NABC is too intimidating for the kid, maybe a different venue would have been appropriate. But really, the six-year old in the open game would have been treated kindly all day and gotten a lot of attention.

Only when it is their turn to call.

Obviously this would be impractical for for NABC team events. Even the finals of the Reisinger has ten tables -- ten rooms, each with a private bathroom would be rather ridiculous, especially when the rounds are called! This rule won't affect me -- I do take a cell phone to bridge tournaments, but do not carry it with me, it always stays behind in my room or car, even when my room is not at the playing site. I do not think it is unreasonable to ban cell phones, though it is sad that it is not sufficient to require they be turned off from a few minutes before the game starts to a few minutes after it ends. My objection to the new rule is that I think effort would be better put forth in eliminating the possibility of illegal communication through hi-tech (or low-tech) means. I am not the first to suggest that there be true closed room, that kibitzers and participants ought not be allowed to leave the playing area during a segment (or round), and boards should be duplicated and played nearly simultaneously rather than passed between tables.

Wasn't the new rule at least in part prompted by rumors circulating at the SF NABC regarding a Senior event? That was my impression from what little I have heard, anyway. It being the rumor mill, it could be completely wrong.

Also from Jonathan Steinberg's report: "On the advice of the ACBL Competitions & Conventions Committee, the Multi 2 Diamond convention (opening two diamonds to show a weak two in either major) will no longer be allowed in pair games. This is a Mid Chart convention. It will still be allowed in team games of at least six boards. Effective August 1, 2008. Carried 22-2."

From Jonathan Steinberg's Detroit report: "These devices are not permitted near the playing area, even if they are turned off. If implementation of the new policy goes well, I expect that it will be extended to regionally-rated events in 2009."

"Tits" is gender specific? Take a look around next time you are at a bridge tournament!

"Life novices" can always play within their ranks -- they're called "senior events".

I don't think the BBO postings of a few players constitutes the "wishes of the multitude".

Actually, it should. How many people think about the connotation of saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes? I can't be the only atheist who says it, totally ignoring the literal meaning. This is how language evolves. Words and phrases get adopted into new contexts. The idiom is based on metaphor, but once the new use becomes widespread the original connotation fades away. So, it's OK to offend over and over again because the offensive nature will eventually be forgotten or overlooked?