TimG

I think people know when they have a bad result, it doesn't take an instant score to clue them in.

Generally, I think this is rude. If, the first time you are dummy, you take a look at the Daily Bulletin for yesterday's results or some such, I don't think this is so bad. But, I think it rude when someone brings their book or puzzle to the table and gets it out at every opportunity.

I think you call the director back and tell him you think that pass over 3NT was a logical alternative and that the BIT suggested 4H over pass. Once you've stated your case in simple terms, let the director do his job.

Isn't the allotted time for a 7-board Swiss match more than 45 minutes? I would have guessed 50 minutes, though it has been a while since I played in a Swiss with clocks. I'm pretty sure it's 45 minutes. The actual length of each round is usually more than 50 minutes, because the clock is the deadline for starting the last board, not finishing it. So there are always a few teams still playing when the clock runs out, and then you have to wait for the pairings. If the clock is set for when no more boards may be started and the round is 45 minutes, wouldn't the clock be set for less than 45 minutes?

Isn't the allotted time for a 7-board Swiss match more than 45 minutes? I would have guessed 50 minutes, though it has been a while since I played in a Swiss with clocks.

I think lots of players chalk things up to luck the errors theydon't recognize. The better a player is, the more likely he will be able to recognize the errors. Poor players think they are better than they are because the don't recognize the errors they are making. Good players are worse than poor players think they are, again because poor players don't recognize the mistakes. Great players are probably about as good as other great players think they are and probably also have a generally accurate self-assessment of their own abilities. Whether they admit this accurate self-assessment to others in a different story.

They want people to finish in time to play in the weekend Swiss? At least, if I have my summer schedule right :). The Spingold & mini-Spingolds start on Monday. With 64 teams (or the equivalent), the event takes 6 days (the Spingold of course takes 7 or usually 8). That runs through Saturday and there's nothing to play in on Sunday, except an early start, rushed Regional Swiss, so the people in the finals are likely to go home, not what ACBL wants. Shortening the event and making it more like a regional bracketed KO in order to get a couple extra tables of entries on the last day of the NABC seems wrong to me.

This seems to me to be blatantly unethical.

I once read somewhere that it was a good idea to put down the suit led last. The idea is that if declarer sees the suit led first he will focus on that suit, but if he sees the suit led last, he is more likely to consider the whole hand rather than the suit of the opening lead in isolation. But, there's nothing saying you always have put the suits down left to right or right to left. I tend to think that all of this is much ado about nothing for any decent player. If you're playing with a partner who is apt to forget the contract you probably have other even more important issues to deal with. If your opponents do something like this because they might forget the contract, don't sweat it, you're going to do well.

I think you should enter a robot in every robot tournament. This would at least give an indication of how well the robots play relative to the players entering the robot tournaments.

What distinction do you make between the two available cue-bids in this auction: P - P - 1♣ - 1♠ 2♥-3♣/3♥?

I don't think you can do this with the flash version, something about flash not being able to access local drives. I've been watching this post because I've been hoping for a solution, but I think the answer to your last question is simply: you can't.

They wouldn't be fun without masterpoints?

That seems to suggest that 4♦ was not a mistake (or at least bidding over 3N was not a mistake). If keycard/kickback had been available to east over 4♦, I think that would have been better than 5♣. Similarly, a Turbo 4N (even number of keycards) would have solved the problem as long as west did not decide to play there.

It is unsurprising to me that a committee made up of team trials players favor a team trials format. A decade or so ago, District 25 was considering early starting times (10 & 2 or similar) instead of late starting times (1 & 7). A survey was conducted at a regional where all events were run at 1 & 7 and the results showed that players preferred 1 & 7. No one should have been surprised. This is not to say that the ITT Committee got it wrong. I just think that having the committee made up primarily of players who play in the event and may have a financial interest in seeing it run one way rather than another is a bad idea. Tim

I think I have read all of Bill's GNT match reports and I have never come away with the impression that he was ridiculing anyone. He reports on every hand, so all the mistakes are going to be out there for any reader to see. I have not been fortunate enough to be involved in a match that Bill reported, so I cannot say for sure how I would feel about my errors being pointed out publicly. But, I wanted to make sure to voice my opinion that Bill does not engage in ridicule in his match reports. I might go back and read it again to see if I feel differently this time through. It can be found here. I'm pretty sure that hrothgar (one of barmar's teammates) posted the link last year after the report was published and there was likely some discussion of the report at that time. Sorry for the hijack.

What a joke. I can't remember which Amendment it is, I always get confused between the one about carrying guns and the one about free speech, but isn't freedom of speech and freedom of the press a fairly fundamental part of the Amercian legal system and culture? While I think it was unfortunate that someone objected, I don't think anyone should have tried to force the reporting on the participants in a Flight B event. Super and A flights, I can see forcing the issue. (And, I can see writing it into the CoC so that all contestants know that it is expected.) The person preparing the reports made no issue of the matter. I think he may have been relieved not to have to attend a 3rd 56 board match, find a second recorder for the other table (I think his non-bridge playing wife actually does this), and write a 3rd report. Tim

In New England (ACBL District 25) a person has recently been publishing match reports for the GNT Distict Finals in the Super, A and B flights. This year, one of the Flight B finalists objected and no match report was produced for the Flight B final. I suggested that it be written into future CoC that entrants should expect the finals to be recorded and reported. But, this idea was seen as undesirable even for the Super and A flights. It's a shame, really, that participants are unwilling to participate in promotion of the event in which they are playing. A little sidetrack from your vugraph question, but surely a similar circumstance. Tim

Do you know anyone else ever from anywhere who admits that? And remember this is inconsistent from board to board (and partner to partner!), not day to day. After reading both books, I wondered whether players always held their cards the same way. I noticed that I did not. But, I knew I was being observed; I was consciousness of the way I held my cards which invalidated the observation (in my opinion). So, I watched the way my partner at the time held her cards. It was not always the same way, either. In both cases, the variation was much less than that shown by the pictures in Truscott's book. I think you are right that most players hold their cards very nearly the same way from hand to hand, event to event. But, I think there is a small portion of players who generally vary the way they hold their cards in at least minor ways and an even smaller portion of players who may vary their grip significantly (these are mostly those who fidget and they might vary their grip many times during a single hand).

I was just reviewing hands and selected the option "export deal" -> "send to a member". Wondering what the mail would look like, I sent myself some mail with a small amount of text. I read the mail by selecting "more" from my mailbox. The hand appeared fine, but the text that I wrote was only visible as part of the URL at the top of the window. Tim

What does this accomplish?

I don't think it does level the playing field. The person with the sorted hand is much more likely to be the one with the critical decision. Think about it this way: is the playing field leveled when my partner breaks tempo and my opponents are aware of the BIT? Perhaps you are less likely to take advantage of UI if you know the opponents are aware of it, and even further that they have been made cognizant that you are aware. It also makes clear you aren't trying to hide anything. To me it does make a difference that it's "out in the open". I agree that it makes a difference, I just don't agree that it levels the playing field.

I don't think it does level the playing field. The person with the sorted hand is much more likely to be the one with the critical decision. Think about it this way: is the playing field leveled when my partner breaks tempo and my opponents are aware of the BIT?

It works for me in Dealer. This specification is for any 4333 plus specifically 4=4=3=2 and 5=3=3=2, that is the "any" only applies to the shape directly following it. So, 16 of the first 20 hands generated were 4333.

Is it possible to have multiple card face options? I assume they'd all have to have the same aspect ratio. Even setting aside that people often prefer what they are used to rather than what is new and improved, you're never going to be able to find a card face that is everyone's first choice.