asdfg2k

a) Money Bridge isn't a contest of others B) It isn't a sporting event (now, aren't we glad that it never made it into the Olympics?) c) and it isn't, in my not so humble opinion, a game PREDOMINANTLY subject to chance. I agree with Fred that clarification will no doubt come through which defines any tweaks that may be necessary in order to conform, but I would expect conformance to be achievable. The more interesting question is whether the drafters of the law think that poker is a game which is or is not predominantly subject to chance.

There are scaling issues involved, even with Richard's suggestion, certainly with Trial's. We are already at a point where comments are obliterated because the number of bytes to populate that information is limited. Having every single BBO member's profile available seems like a disaster waiting to happen if it isn't regulated. Richard's ideas on how to regulate seem spot on. I would like to see a hierarchical prioritization (with a default, of course, so those who don't want to be bothered will still have a functional system) of: Profiles of friends Comments of friends Profiles of those identified as belonging to user-defined categories Comments of those identified as belonging to user-defined categories Profiles of those who satisfy a special search Comments of those who satisfy a special search All of the above can be filtered on online status or not, at user discretion. At a minimum, the special search should be able to toggle between online and not in addition to other criteria, of course. I would love to see BBO maintain an ability to append to the comments field a system of some sort. Whether it is the current cc or an FD file, either would be great. Maybe a configurable option to have that information automatically loaded if you sit down with that person as a partner. I wouldn't mind it if this information is stored locally. The key is that instead of having to go dig out the information, let the system load it automatically if the user has selected that option in their own options selection screen. How about BBO keeping track of the last time that two people played together and display that as part of the profile? Or not, in a user configurable option. How about BBO keeping a running track of cumulative results for a given partnership. This would be an additional piece of information available with a profile. The above comments are based on the fact that hard drive space is cheap, both at the server and for the clients.

David gave the answer earlier in the thread and ruffing a club to get back to your hand wasn't "in the cards."

My mamma taught me that this means: do not be disuaded, partner, please lead your suit. It looks to me like the 3NT bidder is 3316, dummy is 1462 or 2362, partner has diamonds and hearts with just enough spades and faith in my vul two spade opening.

Your line doesn't work with 9xx of Diamonds on your left.

Richard, While I agree with you that it would not be an "ok" thing to try and set up a hotel-wide wireless network with unlimited access from anybody and everybody, I'm not so sure that a private network amongst a few computers would violate the hotel's rules. All one needs to do is ask. It could even be made a condition of the contract when deciding where to hold the event. Hotels are extremely accomodating when competing for business.

In most hotels, it would be far less expensive to arrange for the wireless broadband I mentioned in an earlier post. The reason is that most hotels have gone to the "over an hour, pay a $1 a minute" rule. Unless you wanted to disconnect and reconnect every single hour in each room (maybe doable if short sets with frequent breaks), you'll find that dialup may cost more than any other option.

You might want to take the entire network out of the hands of the hotel. For a minimal fee these days you can get a broadband/wireless card that you can insert directly into a laptop. You can then run your own sneaker net, if necessary, to the one laptop that would then have fast access. Or, you can set up your own internal network (either wired or wireless), if the layout allows; or, you can set up multiple computers with their own broadband/wireless, which might become a bit pricey. Here's one: http://www.sprintwirelessinternet.com/

Richard, Unless I miss my guess, the WBP people are, in fact, very much interested in presenting a positive face to the general public, including the internet audience. I think the Vugraph "controversy" (a hyperbolic term, for sure, but I think you understand what I'm driving at) is an indication that they want to control their own destiny. Nobody does this unless they are interested in putting their best foot forward. Like others, I applaud their moves in that direction. It is hard for me to imagine putting one's best foot forward in an environment where the interface with the world (the web site) was as badly put together (both insofar as scheduled updates and cross-browser capability) as theirs. I think the organizers care about the perceived shortcomings. I think they believe it is in their own best interest to publicize the event in a positive way. If they didn't think this way, then the Vugraph "controversy" would never have taken place. Since I believe they care, I also believe they care just how far beneath minimum standard of care their website really is. You can call it whining if you want. I call it pointing out the facts. And whether you believe it or not, laughable was just about the kindest description I could come up with. I assure you that there were a great number of people amongst the internet audience that went to the website and found it completely disfunctional. Could some of them have bothered to fire up an alternate browser? Sure, you and I certainly did. My guess is that there were many who didn't. And I think the organizers want to control their own destiny in this area by fixing the problems.

Has anybody even tried to view the site with a browser other than Internet Explorer? This is laughable. And nowhere on the site are the full and complete final standings. At least at this point in time. If I were into predictions, I might even predict that the entire event is in trouble. But I'm not, so I won't. But I would if I were because these sorts of things tend to be systemic.

That is the understatement of the century. Jxx of trumps? Stiff spade? For the life of me, I can't understand why your partner didn't bid RKC. Both of his suits have extra trick taking ability and opposite you showing 4 key cards you have to be gin for 7 and 3 key cards you have to be gin for 6. If you have less than 3 key cards, you have a mighty strange 3H bid. Boy, I'd almost say you fielded a psyche (not really, but it feels that way, in retrospect).

Lobby chat is far from useless. Unless you can provide the equivalent of a chalkboard where people can intentionally go to see certain types of messages, removing the lobby chat would be catastrophic to adhoc table completion, such as team games organized on the fly. But private messages do tend to get lost when lobby chat is enabled. I would love to see a view option whereby a simple change would filter out all non-private chat. In fact, if I had my druthers, I would like to see the following options: 1) view all (as with current incarnation of software) 2) view this table, including kibs, and private messages 3) view this table, excluding kibs, and private messages 4) private messages only I wouldn't want the filter to be destructive. That is, if I toggle from 1 to 4 and back to 1 I want my messages to appear as if I never toggled 4, not merely start from that point collecting and displaying all messages. Just my $0.02.

I wouldn't beat yourself up too much, as there is a tremendous amount of luck. Theoretically it will even out, but that doesn't provide much immediate gratification when being beaten. I think of it like a matchpoint game. In any given matchpoint event, I usually consider the highest score I'm able to achieve, assuming perfect play, as the score I'm dealt. Sometimes (most of the time?) I boot back a lot of what I'm dealt, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a score I can aspire to, assuming perfect play. The same thing goes in these tournaments. I have played 25 minutes and found myself deep in the hole and others well out of the hole. I think anything less than 10 or so is not a terribly good sampling. Have you played 10? Until you have managed a 1/2 way decent score and approached the 5 minute mark in contention, you are unfamiliar with the best part of these tournaments. The exhiliration is quite remarkable as you are simultaneously bidding and watching the leader board. When the clock does run out and, if you are lucky enough to have beaten the others playing, you find yourself in first place, it is quite a rush. I think these things are destined for great success, no matter how they end up being tweaked by Fred/Uday and Co. They are just a spectacular idea.

Yes, both did.

You don't think that a 4 point variation qualifies as a gross distortion? Would the same be true if you opened 2nt with 16?