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?

Luis, is it fair to say that you disagree with Mike and the others that have called it a psyche? If so, can you tell me why you don't think it is a psyche? That is, what definition of a psyche do you think it fails?

No double from me.

What *IS* 2c rewound making 3, anyway?

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sakt73h85d762c765]133|100|Scoring: IMP p-(p) to you.[/hv] Close match, theoretically good teams at both tables, 9th hand of 12. And if you do open it 1S, is it a psyche, a tactical bid or "other"? Would you have opened 2s instead?

If I had a 3D bid available showing 55 in the reds, I would have made it, that's for sure. Han, at the point that I'm making my preempt, they don't know whether they have a fit or a double fit. That is, the partnership as a whole doesn't know. Sure, the opener knows they have a 9 card+ club fit, and responder knows they have a 7 card+ spade fit. So I don't think they have exchanged that much information. In fact, the information they have exchanged is what I'm counting on them taking into account. I'd love to see an analysis of final placement after 1M-p-2C without any intervention versus some intervention after that point. My guess is that many partnerships don't have much available to them other than control showing bids and that even the smallest amount of interference puts the partnership into unfamiliar territory. Note that after my partner's 4h bid, ANY inquiry that takes the opps past 4S is too far. And how many would have the ability to stop at 4s holding: Ax xx QJT AKQJxx ?? But, again, that is just specifics. I think what I'm saying is exactlt the opposite of what Han supposes and that is that once the opps have communicated enough information to know that game is on, but not enough information to know that slam is either on or off, that is the perfect time to throw a monkey wrench (even a tiny one) into their theoretically well-oiled machine. Perhaps a pass over 2NT should categorically show club support, but no first round controls of the opps suits. In that case, a pass by the 17 point hand above is the disciplined call, followed by a back in of 4S and then swish. What does a pass of 2nt show?

Well, as much as I would like to keep this discussion to the theoretical, I understand the desire to see the actual result. So, I'll let you (and everybody else) in on what happened, and assume that we can get back to discussing the theoretical advantages and/or disadvantages after that. On this particular hand, opener had two features that he wanted to show, but was unable to show both. He decided to show his 4 card club support (by bidding 3c) rather than his 6 card spade suit - KQJxxx (by bidding 3s). This turned out to be an unfortunate choice for him. I was lucky enough to catch partner with 4-4 in the red suits and, in keeping with the principle of jumping as high as you are comfortable with at the first opportunity, he bid 4h directly over 3c. Responder, not knowing about the 6 card spade suit, had his feet put to the proverbial fire by my partner's jump to 4h, and had to guess where to go from there. He wasn't comfortable just bidding 4S on his Ace doubleton in spades and six solid clubs, so he made a guess. His guess didn't work out so well (he jumped to 6clubs - I might have done the same) and we won 11 imps in the process, as our partners bid to 4 spades (the last makeable spot). But I don't really think that the result matters that much to the discussion. Yes, the "operation" was a success. But I'm more interested in a discussion of the importance of pre-empting when given a shot to do so on what appears, at first blush, to be a marginal opportunity at best, in the face of a 2/1 game forcing auction where it seems the opps may very well have 12 tricks.

While I certainly agree with the rest of what you wrote, this part I do not agree with. If one judges from the results so far that you are far ahead, this is a standout for pass. When playing what seems like a tight match against a strong team, however, the likelihood of winning imps by doing nothing doesn't seem to me to be winning strategy. I'm not even sure that I'd go along with this if we could establish consistency of envioronment (strength of opps, state of the match, etc.). Why? Well, there have been a number of threads recently dealing with the fact that, on defense, it frequently pays to be something other than be consistent. That is, if you have the QJ of a suit, you play one or the other between 60% and 92% of the time. What you don't do is play the higher or the lower 100% of the time. Shouldn't the same thing apply in this case? That is, the most important thing you have going for you right after you have made your bid is the doubt that goes through the opps' minds about whether they have 12 or more tricks. I don't want them KNOWING anything about my bid. If this means that partner is similarly in the dark, that is fine with me, because having two of them confused trumps (pardon the expression) having partner confused. Partner's actions are more limited: to support (further the preempt) or not. The opps have a wide range of potential actions to consider. Confusion has to be an advantage for the preempting side. In other words, if the opps ask about what the bid shows (specifically), I want our partnership to be able to answer something like: "It is intended as a preemptive action, so it is probably 5+-5+ in the unbid suits. However, we have discussed this sequence and we have specifically agreed that it doesn't PROMISE anything at all as to strength (HCP) or length. Your guess is as good as mine."

As Luis indicates, I was actually worred about being too strong for the bid, not about being too weak. It was my understanding, and this is why I posted, that when the opps start with (1M)-p-(2C) and are playing 2/1, that they have an enormous advantage. This is the one auction that 2/1 was built for. They can take their time (the single most important part of the 2/1 system) and therefore can ferret out the precise spot that is the limit of the hand. I am familiar with this conclusion because I've played 2/1 as my primary system for decades. Stated another way, in that particular bidding sequence, if you have anything that remotely resembles a pre-emptive hand, you have one chance to take away their advantage. I'm not interested in whether we won imps or lost them on the hand in question. I'm interested in whether the risk, in that position, is worth it. I don't really consider it masterminding, although since pass is clearly a logical alternative, if the bid doesn't work out well, all negative results are certainly to be owned up to (as an aside, whether masterminding or not, when is this NOT the case? don't we own all of our actions? and don't we bid what we think will maximize our potential for success?) Consistent with recognizing this is a pre-emptive actiion (partner has to realize that this bid is being made on shape, not strength, he heard the opps bidding as well), and consistent with my understanding that when deciding to preempt one should bid as high as one is willing to go the first time around, I thought that 2nt was a standout. Yes, it worked out well. But it might not have. Does anybody have the ability to run a simulation to see? My guess is that while I certainly would have rather been white against red, being white against white didn't change things too much. There is a part of me that says being red against red would tip the scales in favor of silence, but, again, that is a gut reaction - one that probably isn't justified. I guess what I'm saying is that it is almost impossible for the opps to double on the three level, even if this is a misfit hand. Not completely impossible, of course, but difficult enough that it tips the balance in favor of action.

Let's get a few more responses before I admit whether I bid or not. Then I'll also defend the strategy, if need be. :)

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=st9hajt65d75432c7]133|100|Scoring: IMP (1S)-p-(2C) to you[/hv] State of the match is that this is the 8th hand of a 12 hand match and things seem pretty even up 'till now. You are on a pretty darn good team, but you are facing the top seed so they are pretty darn good, too.