JanM

If I recall correctly, the winners of the WBP are entitled to play in the "real" event the following year.

The boxes in which the team and player names appear have colored backgrounds, and the colors match. So the players whose names appear in blue boxes are on the team whose name is in a blue box and the players whose names appear in purple boxes are on the team whose name is in a purple box, or whatever the colors on your screen happen to be. For some events shown on Vugraph you can also get information about the teams by going to the event website.

Yes, I know a lot of people who play their weak NT defense vs Strong NT in 3rd seat favorable (some do it vs 3rd seat NV vs NV as well). People psych a strong NT in 3rd favorable a lot :P

I'm afraid that's something I don't know :P. I'd try posting a new thread with that as the title, or else asking Roland or Uday.

It drove me crazy until I figured it out - we'd have two tables on Vugraph but only one would be saved - how could that be! And of course the fact that one is always in a rush at the last minute before a session starts and the startup screens are not exactly user-friendly, makes it more likely that we won't remember everything. Usually the easiest way to "rescue" something like this is to find someone who was watching the first session and not the second and logs Vugraph hands on their own computer - then they can send you the LIN file and you have it.

The most likely cause of losing the first half hand records was if when you restarted for the second half (from your post I assume that you did in fact close the table, or else got disconnected), whoever started it named the second half exactly the same as the first half. If there are two broadcasts with identical names, only the second one gets saved. That's why when you see broadcasts from more than one table at a time, you'll see some sort of difference in the name of the tables - not Vanderbilt semi-final 3rd quarter on both matches, but Vanderbilt semi-final Match 1 and Vanderbilt semi-final Match 2 or something like that. There's no problem with closing the table at the end of a session, and then restarting for the next session - in fact that's usually a good policy because it closes off the Vugraph file. There may be a problem with closing one table when the other table of the same match is still playing, but even that is unlikely to cause serious problems.

There have been more complaints about entry fees than about the cell phone ban. And more still about barring at-the-table kibitzers in matches that are being shown on Vugraph.

I haven't priced these recently, but when I did look they cost something like $700. I confess I don't know the cost of purchasing a table with screen, but I suspect it's in the same price range, and you need one for each table in play. Which isn't to say that using screens as early as possible in major events wouldn't be a very good thing. It would. USBF uses screens throughout all of our events. And bans electronic devices. And wands some of the time. But our entry fees are significantly higher than ACBL's.

Behind screens, I prefer to use only one bidding card for each bid, instead of taking the whole stack out - that's not as necessary now because the screens are well-designed so the bottom of the screen doesn't hit the bidding cards, but pushing the tray through can still cause them to become disarranged, which sometimes makes it difficult to see the exact bidding sequence. The reason that N & S are to push the tray under the screen is that either player on one side of the screen has the right to slow the tempo down if they think their opponent has bid too quickly. E & W (who bid second on each side of the screen) can do that by taking extra time to make their bids (the "approved" method of doing this is to take the bid you are going to make out, show it to your opponent and then hold it above the bidding tray for a few seconds before putting it down). N & S can control the tempo by waiting to push the tray, so they do that. The formal rules say that when the opening lead is made, the screen mate of the opening leader is supposed to either lift the screen or knock on it to tell the players on the other side to lift it. I don't see that one observed very often. Another thing that isn't always observed is how to alert - most screen regulations say to do so by taking the alert card and placing it on top of the bid you are alerting. Most people are more casual than this, but it is important to make it clear whether you are alerting your bid or your partner's bid and you are responsible for making certain that your opponent sees the alert. There are special rules with screens about things like insufficient bids and taking back a bid after you've made it. If anything like that comes up, you should call the director, since the options are different with screens than without. I like to see people write their explanations, at least of things that need more than a one-word explanation ("transfer" is clear if you just mouth it for instance). And I also like to see them use pens, because pens are quieter than pencils, but most organizers supply pencils. I completely agree with everyone who has said that you will love playing behind screens - at least I do and everyone I know does B)

ok. how? are they going to search my pockets? the moment anyone tries that i'm calling the cops and a lawyer. There are devices that can sense a cell phone in a fairly large area. I'm not sure whether these work if the phone is turned off, but I know I've seen an ad for one that allegedly can: http://www.cellbusters.com/product_info.php?products_id=28 http://www.evitechnology.com/c-d_intro.htm

I'm confused. I wasn't saying anything about any outcry about the electronics ban. I have no idea whether the ACBL Board will be influenced by the comments here to change the electronics ban. I was responding to the suggestion that screens should be used from the second day of NABC events on. And if you really think that the additional cost of screens would be $10 per day, you are wrong - when I said double or triple the entry fee I based that on a fair amount of experience with the cost of screens. The entry fee for an NABC event is $36 per person per day, not $5 or $10. I also have a little history to base my comment on - when screens were first introduced, the entry fee for the Vanderbilt & Spingold was raised from the Round of 16 on (that being when screens were used) and there was sufficient complaint that the entry fee is now the same on all days of those events. The screens we now have are a result of many years of experimentation. In the beginning (am I quoting from somewhere?), the "screen" part was a curtain - that just didn't work well. The current screens are well-designed, both for use and for setting up, taking down and shipping. But they're not something inexperienced people can set up or take down. And they're not cheap.

I'm a big fan of screens, for lots of reasons, but you have to realize that they are very expensive, both because of the cost of shipping and setting up the tables with screens (even ignoring the cost of buying them to begin with) and because a table with screen takes about twice as much space as a table without screens, which usually has to be paid for. I have a feeling that if entry fees for day 2 and on in the NABC events were doubled or tripled to pay for having screens, there would be a huge outcry.

We think that there used to be a footnote that asterisk referenced that described how to pre-alert, but somewhere along the way it disappeared.

I play both multi and transfer responses to 1♣. Anyone with any sense having those two things pre-alerted would surely discuss the transfer responses, right? You need to know what DBL and Q-bid are. But they don't - they just sort of shrug at the transfer response, but they very often ask lots of questions about multi, even though I explain that I have the ACBL defenses and will give them whichever one they want. I'm not saying that's sensible, but it certainly has been my experience. And of course, the ACBL defense isn't really adequate, which is a whole other issue. By the way, I could live quite happily without a weak 2♥ bid if I really felt I needed to use only one bid as a weak 2M bid. I play multi because my partner likes it and I don't care. We keep changing around what we use 2♠ for (2♥ is Flannery which I'm sure you'll all tell me is a total waste, but takes a lot of pressure off many auctions, as well as working well when one opens it). So I really don't think taking multi away for pair games is a big deal. And ACBL does have approved defenses to other MidChart methods. In fact, a method isn't really approved for use in MidChart events unless there's a recognized defense or it has an asterisk next to it on the list of Midchart methods (I can't seem to get the ACBL website to open and don't have a paper Midchart, but my recollection is the things with asterisks are constructive bids).

I think it's clear here that RDBL says "I want to run but just in case you think that's a mistake, you have the option of passing." Lew & Chip actually had this happen in the Spingold in Chicago about a million years ago (sometime in the mid-70's I guess). Dummy's hand was different (no ace of spades) and declarer had bid to 7. Dummy (I've forgotten who was which) RDBL'd and declarer, with a spade void, passed and made 7 whatever RDBL'd.

I think that most of you are missing the point of the change here, and as a multi player I welcome it. The problem isn't that players in pair events are any less able to deal with multi than players in team events, the problem is the wasted time on every single round when many opponents want to discuss their methods against multi even though it probably won't come up, and the even greater wasted time when it does come up and opponents unfamiliar with using a written defense try to do so. We can far better afford a few minutes of time wasted at the beginning of a 7 board Swiss match or a 12 board KO match than at the beginning of a 2-board round. I don't know about you, but I sometimes need the time allotted to decide how to bid or play a hand and I am unhappy to have had that time curtailed because either at my table or one ahead of me there was a slowdown to deal with the fact that a pair is playing multi.

If you get tired of playing bridge, you can volunteer to help out as a Vugraph operator :). Never too early for me to start trying to get enough people to cover as many Spingold matches as possible. And this year we also have the Junior WBF and FISU trials before the NABC and on the first weekend. I hope to broadcast from at least the finals of those events if I can find enough people to help as operators.

During the Vanderbilt, players could check their phones with the directors before entering the playing rooms. That seemed to work well. Also, someone above used the word "thousands" - remember this is only for the NABC+ events. Even on the first (or second since there are many byes the first) day of the Spingold, there are 256 players in the playing room at a time. Plus some (not very many) kibitzers. I know that the LMP has gotten very large, but I'll bet there are still well under 1000 players the first day.

I suppose the problem is that ACBL doesn't like to admit that there are "random" NABC+ events. So they can't really define the events for which security is more important than just about anything else. Of course those of us who favor this ban are worried about the "real" NABC+ events, which are every bit as high level as World Championships. The Vanderbilt, Spingold, and Reisinger definitely have fields at least as good as World Championships. The final day of the 3-day pair events isn't as strong as it used to be but it's still a "real" event. And the 2-day team games are too. We're not talking about club games here. But then if you start talking about the Mixed Pairs (I've refused to play in that since they moved it to a "secondary" position opposite the third day of the Vanderbilt) and such silly events, you're probably right that it really isn't as important that we prevent cheating as that everyone has a good time. I can't believe I said that, but maybe it's true.

Wasn't the new rule at least in part prompted by rumors circulating at the SF NABC regarding a Senior event? That was my impression from what little I have heard, anyway. It being the rumor mill, it could be completely wrong. It was the Women's, not the Seniors :) And although that may have influenced the adoption of the rule, it has been in the works for about 3 years. I know many of you seem to think this rule is absurd, but all I can say (once again) is that it is the rule for all USBF events and we haven't had any problems with it. It is also the rule for WBF events. For the USBF events, we also make certain that there are separate bathrooms for the Open and Closed rooms. In fact, whenever it's possible, we make sure that there is a bathroom in the playing room and only one table per room. I remember last year or the year before answering a cell phone and going into a room in which a player who *might* have to substitute for someone who was playing despite feeling unwell had been isolated (and before you start talking about solitary confinement, he had a TV and a friend) to tell him who had called. When the events are serious and on Vugraph, security really is very important. And although the appearance is less important than reality, it does help to prevent people from claiming that others have cheated. As for an earlier comment about wanting to play the Regional event and then take a cell phone into the Vanderbilt to kibitz, kibitzers are generally banned after the first half of each segment, so you can't play the Regional event and then go kibitz the "real" event. Usually, at the point in time that kibitzers are banned, those in the room are given a warning so they can go to the bathroom before the doors are "locked."

As usual at this time of year, I'm busy planning for this year's USBF Championships (aka Team Trials). Vugraph coverage is always an important item on my agenda, and as usual the biggest need is for Vugraph operators. So if you might be interested in an opportunity to be at the table in one of the top events in the US, plus earn my gratitude and that of our large Vugraph audience, please email me (marteljan at gmail dot com) to volunteer. The dates and locations of our tournaments are (I'm stating only the dates on which we'll be doing Vugraph; we don't cover the Round Robin stages of the tournaments because of security issues): USWBC (Women's Trials): Raleigh, NC, May 24-26. This is the semi-finals and finals of the event, so we will be covering 4 tables all of May 24th and half of the 25th and 2 tables the rest of the 25th and all of the 26th. USBC (Open Trials): West Palm Beach, FL, May 30-June 5 or 6. Exact dates will be determined after entries close on April 3rd, and I will edit this then. We'll be covering the Round of 16 through the Finals. 2 days each for the Round of 8 on, either 1-1/2 or 2 days for the Round of 16. Hopefully we'll cover all 8 tables in the Round of 8, as well as all of the semi-final and final tables. In the Round of 16 we'll try to choose the 2 or 3 most interesting matches. USSBC (Senior Trials): Sturbridge, MA, June 17-19, although if the entry is very small, perhaps only 2 of those days (which 2 depends on the exact number of teams, which will not be known until June 8th). We'll cover some of the Round of 8 tables and all of the semi's and finals. USJBC (Junior Trials) & FISU Trials will be immediately before and during the Summer NABC in Las Vegas. We will try to cover the finals of both events on Wednesday, July 16 and Sunday, July 20, so if you're going to Las Vegas and want to help with either of these, please let me know. Although we don't have enough money to pay Vugraph operators, we do have some funds to help with expenses. Thank you to anyone who might be able to help.

It's been very low - I don't know exactly how low. Probably that's why it hasn't been in the Daily Bulletins :). Not really surprising though, with this in between San Francisco and Las Vegas, so anyone who doesn't want to go to all 3 would probably choose one or both of the others. The playing site has been fine, and you can stay inside so the cold weather hasn't been a problem.

Of course you can use your own defense. The only reason I bother to mention that is that during the Vanderbilt I twice heard the director called when a pair wanted to refer to their own written defense instead of the ACBL approved defense. One time the director knew the rules and said yes instantly. The other time it took an amazingly long time before he gave that answer, but eventually he did. The ACBL defense (which is really not adequate and most pairs who have played together much do in fact have their own defense), Option 2 which is what Kevin & Justin had chosen, says: (2♦) DBL (Pass or RDBL) ? (where P/RDBL shows or tends to show diamonds): 2M = To play 2NT = Clubs (forces 3♣ with 13-15, then 3♦ = forcing club 1-suiter, others NAT, with clubs) 3♣ = Stayman, game-forcing, continuations as after 2NT - 3♣. 3♦ or 3♥ = Transfers, at least INV. The defense doesn't define the 4 ♥ bid on Justin & Kevin's auction: (2♦)-DBL-(P)-3♥ (P) - 3NT - (P) - 4♥ So I guess it could either be 54 or more in both Majors or a re-transfer. I believe that the doubler had 3 spades and 2 hearts, so even with the ambiguity should have corrected if he had realized that 3♥ was a transfer. One problem with written defenses is that you have to read them carefully at the table, particularly if you aren't familiar with them. That's why, even though we are happy to distribute ours, we tell people not to play it without some practice. Our much longer defense also does not define 4♥ in the auction Justin & Kevin had, although in fairness to us :), 3NT is not a possible bid after 3R transfer - the doubler can accept, reject, bid his/her own suit with a good hand, or cue bid the opponent's Major. Maybe we should have 3NT defined - I'll have to ask the expert, but I don't know what it should be - perhaps an acceptance and choice of games between 3NT and partner's Major.

Mahaffey - 40 Rubin - 95 Meltzer - 80 Poland - 71 Anyone want to Vugraph operate tonight? Everyone's sick so I'm one person short even though I thought I had lots. At the moment we're planning to show just one table from Mahaffey.

Mahaffey - 92 Shenkin - 64 Allegaert - 35 Meltzer - 77 Onstott - 29 Martens - 59 Katz - 40 Rubin - 76 Tonight's Vugraph matches haven't been decided.