jonottawa

It wouldn't be cheatproof, so no cash prizes. But over time cheaters will get caught and banned and life will go on. I love the idea.

What Josh said. You're not entitled to know how RHO intended 3 Hearts if they had no agreement. By your own admission you were attempting to elicit that information with your follow-up question. Of course, you're putting partner in a difficult position by asking any questions at all. I'm guessing you had a 12 count or so with decent Spades. Am I close? Edit: Whether or not they should have an agreement on 3 Hearts isn't the issue here. Of course they should. Have I ever played in an event (even a National event) without such an agreement? Absolutely. I don't ask about leaping michaels every time I fill out a CC because it rarely comes up. There probably should be a box for it on the CC. The question is: Is it appropriate to ask questions to try to elicit how an opponent intended a particular bid for which they had no agreement? The answer is no.

If Harald's reasoning is right, does that mean you as Declarer should forbid a Heart lead and have the ♥A put back in RHO's hand? Then the fact that RHO has the ♥A is still UI to LHO and he no longer has the 'legal knowledge that partner must play the ♥A to this trick' fallback position. I don't think he can justify NOT playing the ♥K under this scenario. And if Declarer misses this 'best line' does that give LHO more justification for ducking the ♥Q? I hate these problems. From an equity standpoint I'd like to throw the board out and penalize the offending side 3 IMPs, but that's not a valid option.

That seems too mild! They should be banned from international competition for at least a year for trying to play a convention that the director told them they could play. That's not the issue and you know it: 1. I think that it is patently obvious that Rick Beye / Mike Flader would not allow this convention to be played without an approved defense. I could very well be wrong: I was wrong about they're willingness to approve encrypted bidding structures. However, I'd be shocked if they threw process out the window like this. 2. The ACBL has a process for getting conventions approved. For whatever reason, Phil has made a deliberate decision to side step this normal process. I don't consider it acceptable that A. Adam follows the correct procedures and is denied the ability to blame this convention. B. Phil and Matt decide to make an end run around the system and go shopping for an opinion. They find a director who is willing to go along with their idea (we have no way of knowing how many directors might refused permission) 3. This is a National Level event. This isn't a case where a local district can impose its own regulations. Even though the event is taking place in California, you still don't don't get play Suction as a defense over a NT opening. I think Hannie's reaction was to your 'hauled off for cheating' line. I agree with most of what you say, but don't bring the C word into this. To play this treatment is really really dumb if it's illegal. If I played against a pair who played an illegal convention I'd call the director and say 'This convention is illegal. I'd like an adjusted score on this board.' And I'd deserve one. And I'd get one. Did you intend to say 'denied the ability to blame this convention' or was that a Freudian slip? The rest of your post seemed serious so I couldn't tell if this was a joke or not.

Or at least prevented from ever playing with each other again. Except maybe in midnights.

I'd also point out that Larry Cohen, who is not the guy who wrote the LAW books and plays with Berkowitz, is not to be confused with former ACBL Chief Executive, the late Ralph Cohen and that Ralph Cohen is not Ralph Katz, who played on USA1 in Shanghai. And as has already been stated, Ralph Katz is not Richard Katz. In other words, these guys aren't the same person, just in case anyone was unclear on that point. I should also probably clarify that neither one is me, either. Though I'm often confused with John Gowdy for that very reason (through the Bruce Ferguson, Bruce Gowdy line.)

Ruling could go either way here, but the guy who dropped the ♥A on the table has noone to blame but himself if the ruling goes against him. It's an interesting question (skaeran's analysis really gets at the ♥ of it.)

Given that this thread is based on a false premise, I think it's in poor taste to drudge up ancient history. Especially with so many whisperers electing to remain anonymous. I'd lock this puppy down.

I'm a former member of the NRA. I've never owned a gun. I fired an M-16 in ROTC, but that's it. I've lived in Texas for 6 years and haven't seen anyone with a gun who wasn't a cop/security guard. (Okay, Austin isn't really Texas, but still.) Yeah, I probably missed a few concealed weapons, but it's not like this is the Wild West or something. Cars, alcohol and cigarettes each kill way more people than handguns ever thought about killing. We gonna ban those too? I'd argue that the real purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make the federal government think twice before it did anything that wasn't in the public interest or that interfered with 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' That purpose has long since been rendered obsolete by the military-industrial complex and the pansification of most Americans. If you want strict gun laws, repeal the 2nd amendment, don't ignore it. We've gone way too far down the 'if you don't like a law, ignore it' path for my taste. "Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state." - Noah Webster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendm...es_Constitution http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/lib...p?document=1782

The book is 'Bridge Scandal in Houston' by Danny Kleinman http://dannykleinman.com/bridgebooks.aspx

The Larry Cohen who wrote so many LAW books and is the regular partner of David Berkowitz is from Florida, and is NOT the same person who was suspected of cheating when playing with Richard Katz. I think that there are actually three Larry Cohens. I think that the one playing with Berkowitz is not the same as the one that wrote the book. I have no proof of this, I just thought that someone told me that. The one playing with Berkowitz also looks different than pictures on the back of books, but that is not so unusual. I'm sure there are more than 3 Larry Cohens in the world, but the one that wrote the book is indeed the one who plays with Berkowitz. As far as looking like his picture, I'd say he's aged better than most. His hair's a little shorter now than it was then. For a more up-to-date picture, check his column 'The Real Deal' in the Bulletin.

Mike's right. Posting this feel-good revisionist history wasn't the best idea. Of course his comment about 'ALWAYS' hitting paydirt is a little specious since the hands were presumably selected that strengthened the case for the prosecution. I'd also differ on the lifetime ban idea. Too harsh. A few years suspension and the shame of being 'convicted' of something like that would be punishment enough for anyone. 2nd offense we can look at a lifetime ban. Maybe Senator Craig was just tapping his feet. Maybe the police officer didn't like him because he was such a successful foot tapper. Maybe he pled guilty because he was pursuing the best interest of the Minnesota criminal justice system. But I doubt it. Let these guys play. It's been a long time, long enough. But no, no revisionist history, thanks.

Guess we'll have to settle for musings about SF rather than musings from SF. My reactions from reading the Monday Bulletin: Not sure about changing the player of the year award to the Paul Soloway trophy. I don't think he ever won that, did he? More fitting would have been an award for the player who wins the most masterpoints in a decade. Soloway was a year-in year-out masterpoints machine, you'd think that's what the award to honor him would reflect, no? (and yes, I know that he considered his masterpoint achievements to be little more than an attendance record, but the POY is based on masterpoints as well.) Glad to see the Swedish girls (with some Dutch friends) kicking butt in the Women's BAM. Nice guys might finish last, but these nice girls usually end up on the podium. Fred and Cayne are tied for second in the Open BAM. Fred's got Meckwell and Grue/Cheek. That squad doesn't suck.

Thanks for the video. This is an even better example of what I'm talking about. And this is the tip of the iceberg. The thin blue line is one of those near-universal truths (at least in America) that nobody talks about (much like the snares near Cowslip's warren in Watership Down.) The kind of people who tend to desperately want to be police officers (control freak insecure sociopathic types) are exactly the kind of people who never should be allowed to be police officers. Unfortunately, for some strange reason it's the people who want the job that usually end up with it. Then they swear allegiance to a code that demands that they overlook the behavior of their fellow officers. It's a vicious cycle and has been for generations. Anyway, at the end of the day this is a bridge forum but thanks again for the video. Here's a little more on the story. http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=5271245

I'm not in SF. I probably won't get to a Nationals until Vegas next year. But I'd love to hear some live reports from SF (what's the venue like, restaurants, turnout, interesting stories, bridge results from BBO regulars, whatever) and I suspect I'm not alone. Nice to see BBOers kicking butt in the LM Pairs. Fred and Brad in 1st and Josh Sher & pard in 2nd after day 1. http://www.acbl.org/nabc/SanFrancisco2007/bulletins.php

<Insert joke about 'civilized country' and either Utah or USA here.> I don't like cops (that's not my preferred term for them, but in the interest of diminishing controversy ...). Austin's got one of the dirtiest (in terms of shooting defenseless people, and arresting innocent people) police forces in the country. I believe they're also the highest paid bunch in Texas. That being said, if I were to vote I'd only give most of the blame to the officer. I've seen arrogant, power-trippy, neanderthal cops in action (and no, that isn't meant as a swipe at anyone here, so please don't take it that way.) This guy doesn't strike me as one of those. I think he was mostly afraid, insecure, and flighty. Looks like more of a bad training problem than an incorrigible 'respect my authoritah or I'll taser your ass' cop problem. If I provoked an officer the way this guy did, I would expect to be arrested. That doesn't mean it's 'right' to arrest someone for behaving that way or that someone 'should' be arrested for behaving that way, but thousands of people a day 'do' get arrested for behaving that way. If I started to walk away from an officer with his taser drawn on me who ordered me to turn around and put my hands behind my back, I would expect to get tasered. All that being said, from the order to the taser was less than 5 seconds. Into an unarmed man, with a wife and kid in the car, whose plates you've already run (so you know with about 99.999% certainty that this isn't some serial killer on the run.) Add to that that the guy should have never been asked to step out of the car in the first place and that the officer's communication skills suck. The officer's behavior was wrong. (Btw, I also thought it was interesting how the cop was already twisting the truth (to put it mildly) in the story he presented to his buddy at the very end of the video.)

"L'homme est bien insensé. Il ne saurait forger un ciron, et forge des Dieux à douzaines." - Michel de Montaigne "Translation: Man is certainly crazy. He could not make a mite, and he makes gods by the dozen." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michel_de_Montaigne I used to be an 'Uncle Tom' atheist. But current events have amply demonstrated just how dangerous preposterous supernatural/superstitious beliefs can be. Join the 21st Century, folks.

Hey Glen. I'll take Obi-Jon, but I was thinking more along the lines of Yoda (actually, truth betold I was thinking more along the lines of Col Jessup.) "Do or do not... there is no try.” "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” "Size matters not, ... Look at me. Judge me by size, do you?” "Ohhh. Great warrior.Wars not make one great.” "Stopped they must be; on this all depends. Only a fully-trained Jedi Knight, with the Force as his ally, will conquer Vader and his Emperor.”

Do I know how to pick them or what? Voting so far: One vote for totally driver. One vote for about equal. One vote for totally police officer. ;) (As usual, I haven't voted.)

Here's an interesting video of a guy getting tasered in Utah for speeding and not signing the ticket (and arguably for disobeying an officer.) If you have a short attention span, fast forward to 2 minutes in. The story is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21921393/

Sunny days, sweeping the clouds away ... Perish the thought. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine...n-medium-t.html "Sunny days! The earliest episodes of “Sesame Street” are available on digital video! Break out some Keebler products, fire up the DVD player and prepare for the exquisite pleasure-pain of top-shelf nostalgia. Just don’t bring the children. According to an earnest warning on Volumes 1 and 2, “Sesame Street: Old School” is adults-only: “These early ‘Sesame Street’ episodes are intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today’s preschool child.”

FWIW I thought your post was interesting, if mostly off-topic. I've been an admirer of Ron Paul for a long time. Edit: By the way, Wingnut=Right-wing. There are other pejoratives for Lefties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingnut_%28politics%29

Alright, I'll give this one last crack since some people still don't get it and there've been some pretty blatant mischaracterizations of what I said or implied. First of all, nobody's saying that it's unethical to think. But if you make a 'long pause' for 'absolutely no reason' (to borrow from the language of the original post, which many of you seem to be missing) and you're in a position to know that you could be misleading one of your opponents, and damage results, an adjustment is in order. If you are a highly intelligent person (Dr. Gene, if we hope he's still playing 25 years later, was probably no dummy back then) you already know about ethics. You've probably played at least some poker in your life and know about bluffing and deception at cards. It sounds like Dr. Gene never tried to argue that he was thinking. He just said 'I took a long time before passing. What's the problem?' Just because someone's a 'novice' at bridge doesn't mean they were born yesterday. I picked up the ethical stuff in about 5 minutes (long before I could follow suit consistently.) If it's a club game, fine, the best way to restore equity and keep everyone happy is probably to let the result stand for Dr. Gene, because it's a first offense, and to either give Dynamite an average plus or the score she would have been likely to receive if she had balanced, if that is reasonably determinable. I see it as a similar case to a 'fouled board' from dynamite's perspective. Novices get cut LOTS of slack. For every 1 truly inappropriate director call (for instance, if dynamite had a hand that noone would consider balancing with but still called the director) there's probably 20 instances where people just let things slide (Pick that card back up, no problem. or Sure, we'll turn over the last trick again. or It's too late to ask for a review, but here you go anyway. or Sure, I don't mind sitting here quietly while you fumble with the pass card and then grab a bid and then look at your hand some more.) Bottom line: They need to be taught about ethics. Preferably in class or in the novice game. But if not there, then at the table, in the open game, since that's the only remaining option if they are ever to learn anything about bridge ethics at all. For those of you who missed it, there was an interesting discussion about this issue in the Water Cooler: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=22080 Edit: Two-way shots are brought up in that thread. You might be surprised who's on which side when it comes to two-way shots. I concur totally with mycroft's post below. Once again he has said it better than I could. (I chose to infer/assume that a non-ancient doctor knows a thing or two about ethics and has probably played poker a few times in his life. He chooses to investigate. His choice is the superior approach.)

That's a hint, I take it? So we're shooting for 87.5%? That seems reasonable, since 75% is not good enough and 100% seems unattainable.

You can edit your own posts here. There's an edit button top right.