TimG

Earlier this year I was negotiating with the TD of our biggest MP event to broadcast the Final over BBO. For the Final (3 sessions) the field was broken up into about 15 sub-fields, based on Qualifying: - the Final - the Plate - the 'A' consolation - the 'B' consolation etc As the final was run as a barometer, the Final all played Bds 1-3 in round 1, the Plate played Bds 4-6 in Round 1, etc. I wanted to broadcast the Final (the top tier). The issue the TD had was a participant in the Plate or the A Con, B Con etc could, if they were so inclined, between rounds phone a friend who was watching BBO and get information on boards they had not played yet. Nowadays, they can slip into the toilet and grab a hand on their iPhone. I think the TD mulled over the issue for a few months before relenting. Security concerns are very real, but I have doubts the real threat is greater. nickf sydney This is a case of the conditions for cheating already existing, the vugraph would make it easier, but someone who is intent on getting information can do it with or without the vugraph show. Between rounds, participants in whatever room can call their friends who were kibitzing (or playing) in another room and get information on boards they had not played. Last year when the ACBL was instituting their cell phone ban, a number of people from around the world chimed in with "that's standard here". Where are these participants finding access to the iPhone for restroom hand viewing?

Yes. And yes. How long does it take before it's out of my system? Like I assume if I sleep 8 hours I'm fine. What about 4 hours? How do I know (because it feels different from being normal drunk)? I think it is about one hour per drink. But, there must be someplace on the internet where you can get a more reliable answer than BBO forums. It strikes me that whether you are an alcoholic or not, the behavior described in this thread indicates in an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. It can't possibly be good for someone to be so drunk when they go to sleep that they're not sure whether they're drunk the next morning. And, driving this way is just plain stupid, not so much because of what you might do to yourself, but because of what you might do to someone else.

I seldom watch vugraph other than the really big events. And, I'm not watching them so much to study the hands as I am too see the results. For instance, I don't watch much of the JEC matches and I think that is in large part because these are exhibitions, not because I would never learn anything from watching the play. I am more likely to watch one of these matches if someone I know is involved. I have almost never looked through the vugraph archives. A 30-minute time delay is not much different than reading the archived files whenever you want, except that with the 30 minute time delay the pace is forced upon you where as you could easily skip a dull deal when looking through the archive. NESN (the station that carries Red Sox games) replays Red Sox games (condensed to 2 hours) within 24 hours of the original broadcast. I do watch some Red Sox games live, but never watch the rebroadcasts. NESN also rebroadcasts "classic" games. These I might watch a bit of if I recognize the game and know that something good is going to happen soon. Watching baseball is not the same as watching bridge (though sometimes they both seem to crawl along at the same pace). I mention this as supporting evidence that watching live does make a difference in my baseball viewing habits. I think it would be the same for bridge. In short: I think I am less likely to watch if the shows are delayed 30 minutes and my viewing habits in other areas support this notion. On a side note, I have little sympathy for organizers who are worried about security but who are unwilling to keep players in the playing area for an entire segment.

What ***** would that be?

Well, since it is on video tape I'm betting the government's side will pretty closely follow that representation. Interestingly enough, the shooter's statement did not match with what the videotape showed. According to press reports, the videotape shows the pharmacist running outside to chase the second robber, returning inside, walking back behind the counter with his back to the injured robber, picking up a second pistol before walking around and emptying the second pistol into the unconscious man's abdomen. As Keven Bacon said in "A Few Good Men": "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed." It does not seem possible to fully understand the pharmacist's state of mind from the video (which I have not seen and I have only read a description of in this thread). I doubt I would be acting rationally after having my life threatened and then shooting someone. I do not mean to say that I think the pharmacist should not be charged, just that I don't think it is quite so obvious as the rest of you do. And, I can imagine situations where as a juror I would find him not guilty.

I think 4♣ is a non-specific high-card raise to 4♠, that is, it does not promise a club control. I'm having a little trouble coming up with a hand without spade support that would want to bid 4♦ after not having acted over 3♣. (A bad hand with long diamonds would just pass over both 3♣ and 3♠, right?) I suspect a good argument could be made that 4♦ should be some sort of fit bid or cue-bid in support of spades, but I would not expect to be on solid footing if partner and I had not specifically discussed this. EDIT: funny, four posts advocate for 4♣; four poll votes and only one of them is for 4♣...and that one is mine.

Could there be some sort of claim coup with GIB? Suppose you have AKJxxx a opposite xxx in trumps and claim. GIB will only reject the claim if trumps don't split 22 (or there is a singleton Queen) so that playing them from the top is not good enough. Once you know that line is not working, you can take the finesse. This sort of thing won't work against humans (usually), but GIB won't recognize the nefarious nature of such claims.

That seems to be a popular opinion, but I'm not sold. A dynamic rating system could be used in addition to masterpoints. And, other incentives could be used to encourage participation in tournaments. There would surely be a bit of turmoil during any transition, of course. Consider that many players drop out after reaching a certain level and/or play much less often once they are forced into a nigher flight/bracket/strat. A dynamic rating system could benefit these players by keeping them in an appropriate flight for their skill level and end up increasing attendance as a result.

Think before you type. If you unintentionally are rude, a simple and contrite apology usually does the trick.

If partner opened 1♦, I would support diamonds; if partner opened 1♣, I would bid 1♦. I think both are obvious.

Let's go back to this situation: 1N-2N-DBL-3D P-P-? Shouldn't a double by responder here be penalty? Also, wouldn't opener's double have been penalty. With 4423 shape and enough values to start with double, shouldn't responder now bid 3H? Opener's pass of 3D said he couldn't double 3D for penalty, we can't double 3D for penalty, so we should be taking out and can do that by bidding. It seems to me that the double of 2N sets up a penalty hunt situation (similar to 1M-(2N)-DBL and 1M-(DBL)-RDBL) so that responder's next double shouldn't be takeout, it should be penalty.

You must be sitting NS, when you're EW it's always the opponents that have bid and made the slam. The funny part to me is that when board 13 is like this, both boards 12 and 14 are normal. It's not like your table is ahead of the field.

I can understand that there are some things that must wait for political reasons. But, to me, this is one of those issues where delaying action is perpetuating a wrong...and that's just not right. This is not deciding whether highways should be repaved this year or next. This is about putting an end to systemic discrimination. I suspect strongly that those being discriminated against don't view the neglect as benign. I guess what it comes down to for me is that tolerating the discrimination is nearly equivalent to taking part in it.

A couple people have suggested that 1♠-2♥-2♠ denies three hearts. Is this a generally accepted agreement? Can the same be said of 1♠-2♥-3m? I would have though that a possible interpretation of opener's actions in the original post was a 6=3=1=3 hand stronger than what would be shown by 1♠-2♥-3♥.

Can't just about anything be an allergen?

Are you saying that there is a difference in average HCP held depending upon whether you are always south or switch back and forth between south and west? That the seat switching changes the variance of HCP held? I'm sure you will agree that the expected HCP are the same whether you stay in the same seat or switch. And, that the expected variance (in any set of X boards) is also the same regardless of position. So really, the only problem with switching seats is a perception that the "cold streaks" are somehow following you. This is really the same sort of thinking as watching a flipped coin come up heads three times in a row and thinking that it must be "due" for a tails.

I just heard on Sports Center that there were over 9000 entrants in this year's US Open (golf). One player interviewed told of local qualifying and regional qualifying. I don't know if there was a stage between regional and the actual US Open. And, the US Open is not really open to any player (as the US Team Trials are). To participate in qualifying events, a golfer must have a low handicap -- I think 1.4 was the cutoff this year (though it is the first time I've ever heard of a handicap that wasn't expressed in whole numbers, so you shouldn't quote me). That's sort of like saying a bridge player must have 5000 masterpoints and compete in regional qualifying stages before entering the Team Trials. As others have pointed out, you might consider the initial stages of US Team Trials as a qualifying stage with the "real" event starting at the round of 16. Some teams are automatically qualified for the Trials and some teams get a 1 round or 2 round buy in the Trials. The remaining slots are "open" to qualifiers. If the qualifying stages were held at separate venues and times, I don't think the bye to the semi-finals would appear quite the same.

They'd probably have to change their clothes, too. And, once you get to the smell/hygiene issue, you'll also have to address such things as perfume and cologne. Then, if scents are going to be regulated, how about sights? Dress codes? Daily shaving? I doubt any regulations in this area would be simple, easy to enforce, or popular.

It would probably be easier if you posted, or provided a link to a picture of, the signature.

??? The Woodson two way NT was 1. A one NT opening 2. A bid that showed a balanced hand with either 10-12 or 16-18 HCP This is simply a codified version of a comic NT Nitpick: Isn't a comic NT an overcall? The OP stated a "1NT-opener".

I agree, right down to not being sure legally, but not caring much about knowing, either.

How good do you have to be to start with 2N instead of a non-forcing 2♣? I can understand this hand not being quite good enough, but it is close, isn't it?

You seem to be suggesting that 1N-(2N)-DBL-3D P-P-DBL is takeout, and that 1N-(2N)-DBL-3C DBL is penalty. Shouldn't they both be takeout (or penalty)? As you suggest, it seems to me that you can penalize the opponents when opener has 4 clubs and responder 2 clubs, but with that split either can double 3C. If responder has 4 clubs and opener has 2, neither can double 3C. As for the actual hand, I would have passed if 1N had been passed to me and I will do the same here. I like double to show at least invitational values and I think this hand is just shy of that.

The opponents are presumably playing in hearts, so the doubler is going to be on lead. In that case, I would expect the first double to suggest a sacrifice rather than be lead directing. The doubler is still going to be on lead when he later doubles. Maybe he's hoping the opponents will switch strains and manage to put his partner on lead?