JanM

Well, it turned out we were limited in which matches we could show by the fact that we could only have phone lines in two of the rooms. Sorry we couldn't go with our original "show the closest match" plan. But at least you got to see Justin in action for the 4th quarter. Tomorrow we hope that all the logistics will be worked out so we can show both tables from each match for a half, unless we start badly and one of the matches we didn't have on in the afternoon is very one-sided, but at this point in the event there are unlikely to be any one-sided matches.

I don't have all the exact scores, but: 1. Cayne is currently 5 behind 16. Mahaffey, but there's an appeal pending 2. Allegaert 118 - 15. Gordon 95 3. O'Rourke lost to 14. Onstott by 9 4. Katz beat Rosenthal by 8 5. Strul lost to 9. Rubin 155-119 6. Gromov lost to 11. Poland (previously known as Martens) 115-97 7. Meltzer 157 - 10. Jones 74 8. Goldberg lost to 9 Shenkin 139-101 I'm going to bed so you'll have to wait until either ACBL posts finals or tomorrow to find out who actually won the Weed vs Mahaffey match.

Since the half time scores haven't appeared on the ACBL page, here they are (and ACBL was right about the first quarter Weed score - sorry!): 1. Weed - 62 16. Mahaffey - 66 2. Allegaert - 55 15. Gordon - 60 Heading in the right direction :). Justin was out the first quarter, in the second. 3. O'Rourke - 69 14. Onstott - 58 4. Katz - 67 13. Rosenthal - 60 5. Strul - 70 12. Rubin - 80 Also heading in the right direction :) 6. Gromov - 38 11. Martens - 51 7. Meltzer - 76 10. Jones - 40 8. Goldberg - 57 9. Shenkin - 64

I don't know :-), but that's the match that will be on Vugraph this evening - it's now a 4 IMP difference (I didn't write the scores down because ACBL did so well with the first quarter, but I think it's 66-62 with Cayne leading. The only match with more than an 11 IMP difference at the half is Meltzer (30 something in favor of Meltzer).

The WBF has had this rule in effect for several years, with AFAIK no complaints. Cellphones are not being allowed in the Vanderbilt playing rooms today (I have 2 in my pocket right now). No one has complained.

After I posted this I saw that ACBL is now posting scores. Go to http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2008/01/brackets/vanderbilt.htm for quarter by quarter scores. See you in the Vugraph room starting tonight :rolleyes: 1. Weed - 14 16. Mahaffey - 30 2. Allegaert - 20 15. Gordon - 32 3. O'Rourke - 35 14. Onstott - 29 4. Katz - 32 13. Rosenthal - 32 5. Strul - 26 12. Rubin - 66 6. Gromov - 2 11. Martens - 41 7. Meltzer - 40 10. Jones - 7 8. Goldberg - 36 9. Shenkin - 37

Thanks to Jeff Johnston and Rick Beye being willing to set things up, we'll be showing the second half of the closest match of the Round of 16 starting at 8 PM Detroit time tonight (Wednesday).

We'll be showing the closest match from the Vanderbilt Round of 16 this evening, starting at 8 PM Eastern time :) Of course, those of you who are rooting for Justin will now be hoping he's not on Vugraph since that would mean his match was close.

Working on it - check tonight just in case I succeed :)

And now it's time for CONGRATULATIONS, Justin, Kevin, Win, Jaggy, Lapt & Judith!!!

1. Weed (Cayne) - 109 32. Ozdil - 118 2. Nickell - 77 31. Allegaert (Justin's team) - 105 Justin and Kevin played against Meckwell and my spies say they had a great game, although Justin said "there was a game I could have beaten." ;) 3. O'Rourke - 143 30. Jacob - 25 This one's over, as Jacob has withdrawn 4. Katz - 116 29. Araszkiewicz - 55 5. Strul - 105 28. Wolpert - 52 6. Gromov - 27. Lewis - This one isn't posted, because no-one reported, but I was told it's about 70 in favor of Gromov 7. Meltzer - 125 26. Bloom - 59 8. Garner - 118 25. Goldberg - 142 9. Robinson - 90 24. Shenkin - 84 10. Gartaganis - 50 23. Jones - 109 11. Milner - 79 22. Martens - 124 12. Rubin - 100 21. Berg - 89 13. Rosenthal - 118 20. Tuszynski - 48 14. Onstott - 105 19. Kamil - 73 15. Gordon - 112 18. Diamond - 33 16. Mahaffey - 138 17. Moss - 58 This one is also over, as Moss withdrew And again, I think these are right but no guarantees.

At the half: 1. Weed (Cayne) - 57 32. Ozdil - 90 2. Nickell - 62 31. Allegaert (Justin's team) - 63 3. O'Rourke - 79 30. Jacob - 13 4. Katz - 47 29. Araszkiewicz - 46 5. Strul - 65 28. Wolpert - 39 6. Gromov - 91 27. Lewis - 57 7. Meltzer - 53 26. Bloom - 47 8. Garner - 81 25. Goldberg - 85 9. Robinson - 51 24. Shenkin - 59 10. Gartaganis - 45 23. Jones - 75 11. Milner - 54 22. Martens - 100 12. Rubin - 58 21. Berg - 80 13. Rosenthal - 92 20. Tuszynski - 43 14. Onstott - 63 19. Kamil - 67 15. Gordon - 49 18. Diamond - 20 16. Mahaffey - 87 17. Moss - 32 I think I wrote all these down right, but sometimes I get dyslexic, so it's not a lock! Team rosters are on the ACBL website at http://www.acbl.org/nabc/view-rosters.php?roster=VAND and I'm sure the final results will be posted on the ACBL website tonight.

There is an exception for medical devices. Also, I don't know of any pacemaker that can communicate to other equipment, do you?

I think that this is part of "what are your goals" but at some levels at least it's relevant: What tournaments do you want to play at, and what events do you want to play in. For example, there's going to be a lot of stress if one player prefers to play only in (forgive me for this) "real events" at NABCs and the other wants to play every day even if that means playing in a Regional zoo after getting eliminated from the Blue Ribbon Pairs. I've also seen partnerships break up because one player wanted to go to all the NABCs and the other didn't. Finally, what makes a good partnership is very hard to judge. Having done well with the same partner is sometimes a relevant guideline but not always. Having done well with someone with whom your proposed partner also did well usually isn't (don't ask me why). Having been married to the same woman is clearly the best predictor for a good partnership (Kaplan-Sheinwold, Woolsey-Robinson, Martel-Stansby, Lawrence-Stansby, I'm sure there are others). <_<

One reason to do this is to prevent "electronic cheating." It's not just that people can't do it if they don't have electronic devices during the session but also that it is far easier to demonstrate that a person had an electronic device with him or her during the session than it is to prove that the person used the electronic device to pass or receive information. A second reason is to prevent rumors of "electronic cheating" such as we have seen in the last few months regarding the San Francisco NABC. If people aren't allowed to carry electronic devices, other people won't be able to start rumors that the devices were used inappropriately. Also, it's important to recognize that this isn't a universal ban - it applies only to the "major" (NABC+) events. Cellphones and other electronic devices are already banned at the Cavendish and USBF tournaments. At those events it has turned out to be reasonably easy for the organizers to collect cellphones, etc at the door of the playing area and return them when play is over. Obviously, with the size of NABCs this isn't going to be possible at an NABC, but we may find that some enterprising people will set up "cellphone booths" where you can check your phone and perhaps even have someone available to answer it should it ring during the session. As for your practical question about how this can be enforced unless the phone rings, there is equipment available (at a high but not exorbitant price) that will sense the presence of a cellphone, even if it is turned off, in a fairly large area. I don't know whether ACBL will be buying these devices, but they certainly can do so. ACBL is in the process of testing Bridgemates and Bridgepads to use for scoring and if the rule as written would bar them it will certainly be amended to allow them.

I asked one of the drafters about Vugraph and was told that the rule was definitely not intended to prevent it :). I'm not sure whether the way it is written at the moment exempts Vugraph operators and tournament directors and other people who might need to have a device that could transmit information, but I think that we will see some "fine-tuning" before Las Vegas to deal with those problems. And yes, I think this means that you will have to leave your cell phone in your hotel room during playing sessions.

At the moment our best guess is we'll be covering the Quarterfinals, semi-finals and finals of the Vanderbilt, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. There's a small chance we will also be able to cover the Round of 16. Anyone who's in Detroit and might be interested in being a Vugraph operator for part of the Vanderbilt, please send an email to Jan Martel (marteljan at gmail dot com) and let me know when you are available. Thanks.

Room number for the Junior Reception and Junior Committee meeting is 6516. I hope to see many of you there. :P

OK, they put in "as a general rule", which possibly would allow a change. I'm surprised if they've changed from what's been a strict rule for 20 years. I don't actually think that's inconsistent with the rule that players in the Patino Cup (U26) have to have been born in 1982 or later. I believe that a person born in 1982 would have become 25 on his or her birthday in 2007 and would therefore be 25 on January 1 of 2008.

The ECATS site, which publishes all the WBF information, says: The World Junior Team Championship for the Ortiz-Patiño Trophy This Championship is for players aged under 26 (born in 1982 or later). The teams for this event will qualify through their own Zonal Championships. The World Junior Team Championship for the Damiani Cup. This Championship is for players aged under 21 (born in 1987 or later). The teams for this event will also qualify through their own Zonal Championships. I'm fairly confident that is correct, and I would find it absolutely amazing if when a player's zone chose to hold its Trials had any effect on the player's eligibility.

I agree, unfortunately, the rules still don't allow it. Actually, I believe that this is one of the situation where the new law does allow the correction. Most people would bid Stayman over 2NT with about the same hands that they'd bid Stayman over 1NT, so there isn't any information given to the Stayman bidder's partner by the fact that s/he would have bid Stayman over 1NT.

It was always my impression that the conditions of contest in such events forbade two competing pairs from deciding that a particular result is mutually beneficial and simply agreeing to that result. I don't know about that. All I know is that the director gave us all the option of getting average plus on the board because of the procedural irregularity. I'm not sure what they would have done if any of us had objected, presumably had us bid and play the hand and try not to take advantage of the information from the different bid with the other pair at the table (AFAIR, the other person had opened 1♣ with a hand on which we opened 1NT).

I did put a "find a partner" section in the Forums on the USBF website, but I don't think anyone is using that, so Justin's suggestion is much better. Send Ron Smith a message when you're on BBO and he is too (RonSmithSF I think) - he organizes both online and ftf bridge among many of the younger SF area players and would certainly be the best contact to find a young partner in the Bay Area. If that doesn't work, send me an email (president"at"usbf.org will get me without splattering my email address around the web any more than it already has been) and I'm sure I can put you in touch with someone who can help. Of course, if you're going to Detroit, come to the Junior Reception and we'll introduce you to people there. I hope we'll see you at the Las Vegas Trials.

Just bumping this to the top so anyone who hasn't seen it will, with Detroit almost here. Hope to see many of you at the Junior Reception.

I don't know about "counting on" but surely considering possible bad breaks is a good thing to do at any form of the game. I think that anything, whether playing, watching, reading, discussing, even just thinking about possible positions, will make you a better player. Chip used to think I was wasting my time kibbitzing BBO (because when you get to see all four hands you can sort of drift), but changed his mind when we played recently after I hadn't done anything much bridge-related except watch BBO.