TimG

To me, that would be irrelevant. Two bucks out of my pocket is two bucks out of my pocket.

I was under the impression that the cell phone ban on airplanes was an FAA imposed regulation upon the use of personal cell phones on commercial aircraft. Not merely a matter of courtesy. Are you saying that if there was a free and reliable checking service you would no longer object based upon the perceived accusation of cheating?

You also cannot fly to some bridge tournaments. At least the last time I was on a commercial flight they asked that cellphones be off during the flight.

If you also bid this quickly (confidently) when 6♣ is going down, won't you win from this situation on occasion? Yes. Isn't there a published appeal from one of the NABCs involving Joel Wooldridge that directly addresses this. As I recall, as declarer he took some time to decide which spot card play would best deceive a defender. But, the time taken created a (foreseeable) impression that he was considering a "real" bridge problem.

I just don't get this line of reasoning, which I have seen from many people other than Tim, including a number of letters to the ACBL bulletin. I did not mean my statement about "seemed to cope just fine" to be an opposition to change, but rather a rebuttal of those who say they cannot live without constant cell phone access. Living without a cell phone, at least for brief stretches, is quite doable* even if it is not as convenient as possible. Once again, I'll repeat that I think the ACBL's cell phone ban is a bad thing. But, the cries of "I need to be able to talk to family/co-workers at any instant" don't garner much sympathy from me. * Except, apparently, for a few who are contractually obligated to carry one with them.

Sorry to have riled some folks. I live in a world where I am frequently "unreachable" for hours at a time and I think nothing of it. I'm relatively young (at 41) in the bridge world, but old enough to remember that people seemed to cope just fine before cell phones even if it did take some extra effort. I will bow out of the discussion now with the firm understanding that my views are those of a tiny minority (perhaps as small as one) of forum posters. Tim (Who you may be surprised to learn lives in a household with no land line!)

Please do not take this as being insensitive to your situation. But, I find it difficult to imagine that 2-3 hours difference in notification (if the call had come during a session rather than between sessions) would have made a significant difference to your being able to book a flight or ability to inform your teammates of the situation. BTW, 6 years ago, I received news while I was at an NABC that caused me to cut short my stay and return home (by plane) early. I received the news upon returning to my hotel room after a playing session and checking phone messages. So, my view is not based upon thinking that such situations cannot arise. I think we just disagree on whether instant notification is a necessity or a convenience. Do you also view the use of bidding boxes as an accusation of cheating? I am opposed to the cell phone ban. I think cell phones (and pagers, etc.) should be off during a session, but I have no problem with anyone possessing one in the playing area. (I do think there should be enforced penalties when cell phones are found to be on.) But, I think reasons such as "they're accusing me of cheating" and "family needs to be able to contact me immediately should someone pass away" are rather weak.

again, bull$**t You mean it is a popular point of view?

3♠ could be a NT probe, but once we cue-bid over 4♦ doesn't that retroactively make it a cue-bid? In Precision, does 1♦-2♣-2♥ deny 5 diamonds? (It does in Polish Club where opener must rebid 2♦ anytime he has 5.) Something to consider is that partner presumably could have bid 4N over 4♠ to ask for keycards. Perhaps he did not want to hear an embarrassing two key-card response?

This may not be popular, but if an individual is required to have a powered up cell phone on their person 24/7, then I don't think they should be playing in the Spingold.

You're trying to tell me that there is a zoo in Houston that houses lions and tigers and bears (oh my) and that a single bridge player will be critical to the capture in the case of an escape? If I had ignored the rest of the article, I would not have mentioned firemen and ambulance drivers. I thought I was being kind not to mention prosecutors, utility inspectors, and parking enforcement officers. But, if you'd like to go through the list and explain to me how an emergency might arise that would require the immediate contact of these people, please feel free. I'm having a real hard time thinking up an emergency for the parking enforcement officer. I'm looking forward to reading your scenario.

I think the director is busy enough without having to watch tens of phones that constantly ring with friends wanting to chat about football results and society gossip. Just give the phone number of the venue to those who might need to make an urgent call. Heck, if it is really urgent they will find out themselves as long as you have told them what event you are playing. Perhaps emergency contact numbers should be published on tournament fliers. It's not always as easy as leaving the hotel number, especially when the playing site is a convention center attached to a hotel. But, I agree with you in principle: there are ways to contact someone in the case of a real emergency that do not involve cell phones. In the event of Richard's IT professionals, I expect they can have a pager dedicated to true emergencies to be left at a director's station. For those of you who think the director should not be bothered with this, consider that in the case of a real emergency the player will not be able to finish the session, so the director will have to get involved anyway. If the pager is going off for matters that do not require immediate attention and the player cannot delay knowing about these pages until after the session (or at a designated break if permitted), then it is my opinion that the player should not be playing.

Well, please explain what you mean by it. I'm with those who think that the case of an individual who must carry a turned on pager or cell phone while playing bridge are very rare. I can't think of one off the top of my head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Safety From your link: Are you seriously suggesting that the dog catcher should be on call while playing bridge? Or even a fireman? Maybe the ambulance is parked outside the playing site and the driver must leave whenever there is a call? So, I once again ask you to explain what you mean by public safety. Because if this is it, you've got no case.

Well, please explain what you mean by it. I'm with those who think that the case of an individual who must carry a turned on pager or cell phone while playing bridge are very rare. I can't think of one off the top of my head.

I'm curious what most people would play double as in this situation? (Whatever it means, I don't think my hand is good enough.)

I think this means "other than the first person to play to a trick".

Couldn't responder have something like Axx xxxxx Ax Axx? (Maybe that's good enough to bid keycard over 4♣, but hearing about the ♦K isn't a bad thing.) So, any void showing response to keycard that takes you past 5♥ is a bit dangerous. Switch the ♦A and ♦K, giving opener a single keycard, and bidding 6♣ to show one keycard plus the void is problematic. I recently did a lot of partnership bidding with a new partner working on a new (to us) system. We found that when someone had splintered, it was seldom a good idea to show the void in response to keycard. We do have the specific agreement that after keycard, a bid in the splinter suit asks partner to bid a grand with a void in the suit. That doesn't help when the void is necessary for the six-level, of course. But, in that case, keycard is often not the best way to proceed. If responder in the case in question wanted to know about the void, he could have cue-bid his spade control and given opener a cheap opportunity to bid 5♣ to show the void.

How about this one from Appeals Case 4? In the facts section it is reported that "North judged that the BIT was three to five seconds and South said four seconds." The director later agreed that this player (north) "had not admitted to a BIT". In the write-up, the committee wonders about the inconsistency of north's testimony. But, the inconsistency could have been that the director described the time taken (3-5 seconds) as a BIT. I suppose 3-5 seconds could be a BIT, but expect that in a competitive auction 3-5 seconds would be absolutely normal. I also think that this north player was more adamant in committee than when the director was at the table, that is his story may have changed a bit. But, I think this was exaggerated by the use of "BIT" by the director to describe what was described as a 3-5 seconds.

I'm East Coast US, just like you. I thought that the 2nd halves of the semi-final and final started about 9:00 my time (8:00 Houston). I'm quite sure the 4th quarter of the final started about midnight my time (11:00 Houston). But, maybe it was so late I had my hours mixed up... jdonn: I did not mean to suggest that vugraph audiences should be catered to. As a player, I wouldn't want to be playing into the wee hours. Obviously a significant portion of those that play in the event like it this way or there would have been a change. But still, it surprises me.

"The other four [Hamman-Zia, Meckwell] won the Jacoby Open Swiss Teams, going undefeated over the two days of the event." Undefeated sounds like quite a feat for this two day event. And, for all that, they were only 3 1/4 VP clear of second place.

For a discussion of common agreements after a (1x)-P-(1y) auction, see this thread. Not surprisingly, there is near unanimous agreement that 2y in this auction should be natural. How good a hand it shows is another matter. I wonder of this hand is good enough for one of dburn's delayed 2♥.

I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to expect that play in the main bridge club of BBO is going to adhere to WBF rules any more than expecting the same of a home game. Even in the context of an ACBL sanctioned online club game, I think it is reasonable to expect that the rules will be somewhat different from a face-to-face game. If you think such aids should be barred, consider that having it as an option is little different from someone having the option of printing out their convention card and referring to it during online play or of having a set of system notes handy. Anyway, I would suggest that removing this option is not close to a matter of urgency.

Sorry, I can't find an old thread to attach this to, the search engine seems to ignore three letter words (like "GIB"). Anyway, the other night I was playing a robot race and encountered this auction: 1♦-P-P-DBL 2♣-2♠ GIB held ♠K9x ♥xxx ♦QTxx ♣QTx for his 2♠ call, which I thought more than a bit odd.

I think the question about whether or not to open 2♠ is a purely style question for your partnership. I don't think the state of the match should have any effect on your choice. I think 4N should be takeout with something like xx46. I'd be skeptical that partner could stand the five-level with xx45. So, I bid 5♣. If partner signs off in 5♠ (and 5♣ shows 0 or 3) I might consider taking another call (I hope his sign-off is in tempo).

Am I correct that Diamond-Platnick played every board in the semi-final and final? At the time, I thought it a bit odd. I do not mean that as a judgment on their play -- they appeared to play as well as anyone else while I was watching -- but rather just that it was a bit odd that there was such an anchor pair. I would also have thought it a little bit odd if Gitelman-Moss or Greco-Hampson had played every board of the semi-finals and finals. With your reference to the US Trials, I now wonder if the idea was to get this relatively inexperienced pair (at least in terms of recent history -- I know they anchored a US Junior team to a World Championship) more time in high-level matches. On another note, I was surprised how late the matches ran. While the tournament schedule says the evening session started at 7:30, it seemed to me that the vugraphs got started about 8:00. And, it was nearly 11 PM when the 3rd quarter of the final ended. Playing the 4th quarter from 11 PM to 2 AM (or later) must be hard. I wonder why it is that there is so much resistance to playing these matches during more "normal" hours. Isn't this the way it is done in most other parts of the world? Not that this should be reason enough to do it in ACBL.