Clinch

I don't *know* either of these things. Self-ratings, imho, don't suck, but they are meaningless as measures. The motivation of someone who self-designates expert is endlessly debatable, but one clear possibility is that such a player is passing a message - "I do not wish to play with or against novices and/or intermediates". In general, those who designate themselves expert (but are not) tend to forgive their own errors and be scathing about those of partners and opponents. Self-rating does not, for that reason, make for a friendlier game amonst strangers, as one is constantly stumbling over people whose self-judgments differ from one's own. I also question that independent ratings make people want to cheat. I agree that the desire to improve ratings when one hits the ceiling tends to make people believe that others are cheating around them, or to engage in unsavoury strategies such as annihilating poor opponents to improve ratings and self-esteem, but I don't think ratings themselves increase cheating, except in very few cases. If used judiciously, I have found them to be good ways of finding compatible games. Peter (Quite good, although I say so myself). New York, NY.

Yes, whenever I pick up a balanced 14 count I have that thought :) Peter. New York, NY.

I tend to agree. What is unclear to me is what the long term business plan or vision is for BBO. Uday refers to Swan as a "competitor" in an earlier post. In what way? Why is it not a good thing to have more bridge, wherever you can get it? Are local clubs competitors? Is the vugraph available in Estoril a competitor? I get confused when I read some of these threads. I'm sure I can't be alone. This whole thing about being invited into someone's home (presumably because the service is free) just doesn't reconcile itself with a description of swan as competition (presumably because BBO wants to make money). There are also a lot of statements in "management" responses that I feel are designed to curtail discussion, rather than to encourage it, along the lines of: - That's a pretty low priority for us right now. - It doesn't feel right to me, so we are not doing it. - I'm not particularly interested in whether anyone agrees or not. These are not direct quotes, but they are typical of several littered across threads. Maybe they are ok when the enterprise is a couple of guys in a room seeing if they can build a good product that will fly. When the enterprise gets bigger, questions of civic responsibility do arise. Like just about everyone, I think the majority of the time, BBO gets it right. That is why it is so popular. I still don't see the end-game, though. When I see threads that say the World Championships were a triumph for BBO, then I really don't see the end-game. What good thing does world domination give us? Peter. New York, NY.

I think the answer may first require another question: "what is the function of the BBO vugraph co-ordinator"? I don't mean that fatuously. Clearly if the only role is to gather up enough commentators and operators, make sure they are signed in and be a genial virtual host, then this function can be achieved from anywhere in cyberspace. On the other hand there is value in someone being on site, being able to describe conditions, gather additional player details to the audience. At present, that will only be achieved by chance, not design, if the appropriate commentator is available. I wouldn't begrudge Roland's being rewarded for his efforts by an expenses-paid trip to Estoril, and I am sure he would be diligent in trying to add extra value. That being said, I wonder if the role he envisages is a little different from the bare minimum required of a coordinator. And maybe somewhere near the heart of this is the difference in general perception of the role Roland is required to perform, and the value that he - and maybe others - perceives he can add. My personal worry is that if this isn't resolved, Roland may somehow end up feeling underappreciated, and we may ultimately all suffer from that. Peter. New York, NY.

Youknow more about the specific context, but I don't think that asking whether it's ok to claim on a squeeze is necessarily mocking the opponents. I can see two possibilities - it was serious (the only chance) or it was a mild joke (along the lines of "I make this if the king-queen of trumps are singleton"). Especially in a timed tournament, it makes sense to finish the hand quickly. This does somewhat backfire if the opps continually refuse the claim, but that's life. I have seen many occasions in online bridge where declarer asks the position of a particular card to see if a finesse will work, then claims accordingly. Asking about a squeeze is a little more obscure, but seems ok to me dependent on the circumstances. Peter. New York, NY.

I take greatest pleasure when a technical play I have read about actually occurs at the table, and I recognise it. I've been lucky enough to be declarer twice in my life when a smother play has emerged at the end of the hand; I would like to say I conceived the play early on, but on each occasion it was developed late in the game, and could have been avoided by better defence. Those textbook hands so rarely crop up; when they do, they are a joy. Makes all that reading worthwhile. I also get a big thrill safety playing for a particular layout of the cards which then occurs, despite being highly unlikely. Peter. New York, NY.

FWIW, Here are my thoughts on each question: 1. What do vugraph spectators want from commentators? I appreciate: - insights into bidding systems or history of the players - strong explanations of plausible technical actions or treatments (rather than "I think it may be makeable", following a rather obvious glance at DF) - genuine wit that in some tangential way relates to what is happening in the play - cross-reference to useful sites giving tournament standings, bidding systems, player profiles I do not particularly appreciate: - banal chitchat between commentators, including tedious running jokes, or descriptions of how they have just awoken, what the weather is like where they are, what a lot of spectators there are, or some domestic detail about what is going on in their home - commentators who *always* get things right, and who then explain how they would have done so at the table - phrases which demean the play such as "s/he is doing his/her best to give the contract" - players in some events did not volunteer to be on display, and to have their actions decomposed by a panel of experts. 2. Should there be a formal BBO feedback channel that allows spectators to commend excellence in commentary and make comments on what they deem to be the reverse? Remembering of course that commentators volunteer their time - just as players are essentially volunteers to the broadcast as well. I expect such feedback channels do exist, but I don't see a need to institutionalise them. Without being too cynical, I would guess that many commentators enjoy their voluntary job, though I am sure some of the less glamorous events still probably require some prodding to get a full complement. I also suspect some tables in events are more popular with commentators than others - this is just a guess . Do players really volunteer to be broadcast? Do they have a right of refusal? 3. Should there be a code of conduct for commentators? Despite all my preferences above, I don't support a rigid code, and I don't know of any commentators who have been grossly offensive. All I hope is that commentators remember there is an audience, and that players are doing their best. 4. In many sports broadcasts there are expert commentators and color commentators - would this be appropriate for BBO? I don't know how easy it is to implement, or how well commentators would take to such a stratification. It does seem as though some fit naturally into the role of host, but I am sure many want their say - even some of the vugraph operators like to chip in with some analysis every now and then. There does sometimes seem to be a race to say the obvious, with three or four saying simultaneously "5 IMPS to X", but that's probably tough to avoid. 5. Is there a difference between critical review and criticism? Yes. Here is a critical review.."In that position, my partnerships would normally jump in hearts here to show ....." Here is criticism : "1 heart? What kind of a bid is that?" The first invites debate, the second invites derision. Peter. New York, NY.

Definitely not a ♣ -on this bidding, declarer often has longer clubs than hearts. There is something to be said for a ♥, and that may be the best chance to beat the contract. Trouble is, it probably requires partner to have two ♥ honours, one of which isn't the ace. At MP it could give up a tempo in just establishing our optimal number of tricks. So I just lead the ole ♦K. At MP this gives us the best chance of our ending with all the tricks that are rightfully ours. Peter. New York, NY.

An incredibly diverse schedule, and just tremendous to watch. As the diversity increases, though, hopefully the commentators will give due attention to the fact that not every player on display is likely to carry off the Bermuda Bowl. The first session of the Japanese event yesterday was marred (in my opinion) by some hypercritical remarks about the quality of play - one pair, in particular, was singled out. It's true that some plays were not of the highest standard. Having said that, as we all know, we can all see all four hands, we are under no pressure, we have Deep Finesse to ensure that our counterplays are not themselves flawed. On a positive note, I found that shoeless was excellent in not engaging in this kind of banter, and gave us some good insights into some of the less familiar names at the table. Steve Robinson was also steadfast in focussing on the positive. Thanks, Peter. New York, NY.

Actually, Justin, in the UK a couple of the larger pairs finals are played as barometer events in the final session. The fields have been narrowed by a qualifying and semi-final session, just like the Blue Ribbons. I'm thinking of the Autumn Two Stars and the EBU Spring Congress Pairs. The TDs drop small slips on each table showing where you stood at end of last round - usually takes about a board to get them ready. IIRC, this only happens in the second of the two sessions in the final. It might lead to wild swinging, but in my experience it doesn't. It can lead to an added intangible to deal with as the slip gets dropped, though :ph34r: Peter. New York, NY.

1. I never keep score, unless I absolutely have to do so. This has helped me in pairs events - I used to find myself going back over past results, estimating and re-estimating quality of score. Complete waste of time, as I am never good enough to know whether we need extra-good scores at the end of the session. 2. Related to #1, even without the scorecard I tend to be overpessimistic and overemphasise bad scores. I try to remind myself that we are a good pair and if we play our normal game, the good scores should come. The bad results are just anomalies! 3. Don't forget that, over a multi-session tourney, everybody is suffering from fatigue. The final session is almost invariably a place to pick up speed, even if you are in a lowly position. 4. Easier said than done, but if something distracting occurs, ask yourself "could I have done anything about that?" If the opps get a lucky score or start arguing, or are late, then this is outside your control. Let it go. Amazing how many things can be rationalized away like this. 5. Think of practising the "Keller" approach, i.e. saying nothing related to bridge except what is mandated by the laws. No post-mortems, no speculation, no discussions of hands with the opponents. If you have a disaster and say nothing, this can unsettle any opponent. Incidentally, I've never succeeded fully in this one, but I find that for as long as I can keep it up, it works. 6. I agree entirely about eating too much between sessions. The food literally weighs down evening performance, and saps energy. I actually don't find that it helps to be in a group, discussing bridge; I prefer quiet time. But of course, for others, discussing the hands is very enjoyable - my personal feeling is that it doesn't help the evening session performance, though. Peter. New York, NY.

Sorry, I misread the context. I definitely agree that the "abuse" channel is needed for that type of extremity. The only thing I would say is that a lot of the rights and wrongs of less clear instances can be very subjective. For instance, I played a while back in some random individual tournament, and my mayfly partner said "well you sure know how to floor a cold contract" (or something similar). Now, to me, that seems harmless, and he had a good point on the hand in question. I could imagine, however, that others may take offence and complain at abusive behavior etc etc. They might even think this person is a jerk. I tend to agree with candybar - in some senses it makes sense to boot rather than to get into lengthy, fruitless discussions about whether the opponents are of the right standard, or whether you like the quality of their connection, or whatever. Or to bail if you just need to go, for whatever reason. There seems to be something of an underlying assumption that people who "boot or bail" do so randomly or with some kind of malicious intent. I would guess that these happen mostly on the emotional spur of the moment, and are unaccompanied by pathological tendency. Peter. New York, NY.

If I may say so, I think words like weirdos, crazies, jerks, are too judgmental. Life is not binary. Let's face it, bridge can be an emotional game, and most of us say and do things on the spur of the moment that we later regret. I know I do. I have been known to shout at motorists, rollerbladers, even sometimes randomly at life itself. I guess I think that makes me human. Peter. New York, NY.

It used to be possible to get full system notes from International Popular Bridge Monthly (IPBM, no longer with us). You might try contacting Brian Senior, its last editor - you can find his email address by looking at his profile on OKBridge where he is brianace. I don't know his handle on BBO. The system was played by Forrester with John Armstrong in the Bermuda Bowl in 1987. Unfortunately, there are relatively few insights in the World Championship Book, which was not covered by Kokish. Peter. New York, NY.

If I have a balanced 18-19, opps can go ahead and overcall most of the time; I don't need to open 3NT to preempt myself. When you are sitting with 15+ in 4th after 3 passes, the last thing you should be worried about is opposing interference. You should think about constructively bidding to the best contract for your side. Maybe you haven't been burnt badly yet, but that isn't the point. How often have these high level notrump openers kept the opps out of a making part score? Peter. New York, NY.