TimG

And the chance of the auction dying in 1♥ when the opponents have 23 HCP and only four hearts is astonishingly small. I was thinking that the chances of finding 3N were pretty small, I'd sooner expect 4♥ down 1. But, I was clearly wrong about "1♥, wtp", maybe there is an obvious route to 3N after a 2♣ opening.

Are the results available online? (Yes, I've searched and come up empty.)

I agree with those that open this 1♥ and think it is sort of a "wtp" opening bid choice. One question about the 2♣ auction: what is the difference between 2♣-2♦-2♥-2N-3♥ and 2♣-2♦-2♥-2N-4♥?

Did you check the author of this report? The spelling bee report you are citing is written by Andy Borowitz, a famous comedian who makes his living writing cutting sendups of current events. Examples of his humor can be found at the Borowitz Report website online, including such recent articles as "Sanford : I'm Too Sexy For My State" and "Madoff to share Cell with OJ -- who promises to find the real swindlers". So I don't think this "source" helps your point that transparent cheating via an electronic device is hard to detect. I thought the loss of millions of dollars in endorsement deals was a tipoff. I'm sure Richard was just playing with us.

I was struck by Roddick's classy, post-game, on-the-court interview.

See page 4 of this thread.

and maybe that is the wrong approach, then. I wasn't endorsing the attitude, just saying that it is the reality for some.

That doesn't mean that you can tell when they IM each other, it just means you can tell when they have another application open (and on top). Of course you are not the only one. But, I'd be willing to shut down those other apps during a "serious" tournament.

To some people, the entry fee constitutes "money on the line".

Playing a 10-12 1NT and agreeing that some 9 HCP hands should be upgraded is just what you say is not legal in your last paragraph "a partnership agreement to open some 9 HCP hands". Yes but I did not say there was any agreement about the potential deviations. I don't think you had to say it, I think it is simply an implicit partnership agreement. Your contention that you might somehow randomly pick 9 HCP hands to deviate with doesn't really do anything for me. Given the regulations in place in ACBL (barring the use of conventions after a 1NT opening which may be made on fewer the 10 HCP) the old guideline/rule about establishing an agreement seems reasonable to me.

I know from experience that there are some recorders who keep track of psyches and even speak to players about it. No, a director will not have access to the records when he comes to the table to rule, but that doesn't mean the recorder process let's everyone slide. I do not mean to suggest that the process is at all efficient.

Playing a 10-12 1NT and agreeing that some 9 HCP hands should be upgraded is just what you say is not legal in your last paragraph "a partnership agreement to open some 9 HCP hands".

ACBL's convention charts have many references to HCP. Like it or not (I'm in the "not" camp) this is the evaluation technique essentially made official by the ACBL. If there is a regulation that says "no conventions after a 1N opening which, by partnership agreement, may be made with a hand containing fewer than 10 HCP" then players should not be able to get around this regulation by saying their range is 10-12 and choosing to "upgrade" certain 9 HCP hands. This really isn't a question of "upgrading" but rather of prescribed evaluation method.

There is a guideline to the effect that opening a 10-12 NT with a 9 HCP hand establishes an agreement and that agreement carries with it some restrictions regarding what conventions (none) you can play after such an opening.

ACBL has long barred psyches of a strong artificial 2♣ opening.

I sent a note to Jerry and got a reply which started with: "You are 100% correct that the math was flawed." He also said he is planning a correction. I ran a simulation with some very basic conditions (44 in minors open 1D and 33 in minors open 1C; 1N = 15=17, 2N = 20-21; opening bid = 12-21; 5M332 always opened 1M, 5m332 always opened NT when in range; 54 and any 6-card suit never opened NT) and came up with 4.28% of 1D openings were 4=4=3=2.

I don't think regionals, and especially sectionals, qualify as "major tournaments". It is all relative. I meant from an organizational standpoint. The online sectional or regional will not be one of ACBL's major events. It could well be a major BBO event. And, it could be a major event on the calendar of some of the participants. I don't mean to put down anyone who thinks of an online sectional, or local face-to-face event, as a major event to them. I think of the Maine State Championship as a major event in my bridge year, but don't think it comes close to major status as far as ACBL is concerned.

I don't think regionals, and especially sectionals, qualify as "major tournaments".

So you don't want sectionals and regionals at all; you just want higher quality tournaments? I understand they're not necessarily mutually exclusive... but... maybe we're discussing totally different things? I want higher quality tournaments. If they are called sectionals and regionals, that is fine with me; if they are called something else, that is also fine with me.

I don't see why online events should be tied to 7.5 minutes/board. I find that quite slow for an online event, but not particularly slow for an in-person event. Online events should be more efficient. I also do not think that online events should be tied to 26 boards (lots of regional events, even at an NABC are now 24 boards). If a 3 hour online session can reasonably be based upon 30 boards, then I'm all for more than the in-person norm of 24-27. I think rather than base the events strictly on number of boards, they should be based upon time and then how many boards can be played in that amount of time. I agree with you that a sectional or regional online event should carry with it a time commitment of more than 60-90 minutes. I would expect more along the lines of twice that for a single session and would hope that most events would comprise two sessions of approximately three hours each.

I think what the column wanted a figure for was: what percentage of all opening bids are a 1D opening with 4=4=3=2 shape? Not: what percentage of 1D openings are made with 4=4=3=2 shape? But, I don't think either is 0.44%. I think that number is what percentage of all hands are opened 1D with 4=4=3=2 shape.

For me personally, it has nothing to do with masterpoints, or at least nothing to do with any desire on my part to amass masterpoints. I think most people long ago realized that masterpoints were a better measure of attendance than skill and it does not matter to me whether people earn their attendance points in person or online. I will not think that my masterpoints have been cheapened because it becomes easier for people to win masterpoints once the ACBL starts running larger online tournaments. The masterpoints I have now and win in the future will still be a good reflection of how much bridge I have played. Nothing more, nothing less. If offering more masterpoints in more colors for online tournaments means that higher quality opponents are available more regularly in a greater variety of games, I'm all for it. Your contention that online sectionals will be full of "intermediate at best" players does not really matter to me as far as awarding masterpoints goes. The field at a game in Augusta, Maine is not going to be as strong as the field in Boston, Massachusetts, but they pay ACBL masterpoints on the same scale. The ACBL also awards masterpoints differently for identical field depending upon whether the game is a at a sectional, regional, or club. Not all masterpoints are created equal. (Before you say "but, they're a different color" when was the last time an event was flighted or bracketed based upon gold points instead of total points?) Pay less money and play at any hour of the day? GREAT! Playing bridge really shouldn't be a chore, if it is made more convenient by making more variety in starting times available, isn't that a good thing? Reduce travel (and thus make the overall time commitment less) that's great. Heck, maybe I can play MORE bridge in the limited time that I have available. Cheating? I find it amusing that you suggest cheating would happen "if he was having a bad round". I imagine the cheater to be one who will cheat from the beginning, not to salvage something. I think it is less a factor relative to in-person bridge than most people imagine. But, I'm not real concerned about it. Perhaps a significant difference between online results and in-person results will act as a flag for online investigators. The difference in rules is minor, in my opinion. There are different disclosure rules for in-person bridge depending upon whether or not screens are in use. It does not seem to me to matter whether I alert my own bids or my partners bids. Losing table feel? That old Black Magic? Or, like when an opponent pays attention to the location of the card you remove from your hand? Sloppy dealing in Swiss matches (watch next time and I'm sure you will be able to see a few exposed card over half the time)? No revoking possibly changes the game? Give me a break. Never misclicked in real life? You are lucky. Very lucky. I have pulled the wrong card, taken the wrong card out of the bidding box and seen opponents do both of these things. I've seen people drop cards on the floor and table. Never happens online. Sure the set of such problems is different online and in-person, but so what? Who says there won't be such events at an online sectional or regional? I sure hope there will be. (Of course, I'd rather it be determined by a new fangled dynamic rating system, but that's another story.) Ah, so what it really comes down to for you is the value of the masterpoints you have "earned". I don't care of they call them sectionals and regionals and award colored masterpoints as a way to promote the events and attract more players just as they do for in-person tournaments. I wouldn't care if they called them something totally different and awarded plasma points. I'd simply like to see the online tournament options (and quality) increase.

I think the issue becomes one of whether ACBL can more readily obtain sponsorship for events if they are being broadcast in vugraph as opposed to selling advertising during a vugraph. I would think that it would be very different from a company's perspective whether there were signs, CC, mention in Daily Bulletins, etc. at the physical site as opposed to a logo being automatically displayed at the vugraph table and/or linked advertising always displayed during a vugraph presentation. And, it would seem to me to be easier from an organizer's point of view if they could present a complete package to a potential sponsor rather than telling them that they'd have to talk to BBO separately regarding any logo placement/advertising during the vugraph presentation.

Do you mean "for the game" or do you mean "for in-person ACBL sectionals"?

Around here, a sectional draws the same quality of player as a local club. So, what's the point? It would be my hope that online sectional and regional tournaments would mean longer, higher quality events. Also, through Swiss movements players can percolate to the level which they belong during an event, so for some the quality of bridge would end up being higher in these events.