bid_em_up

Certainly, the odds are better if they either: All say the same number (100 chances of getting 1 number right) or, Split up into groups of 2, 5, 10, 20, 25 (pick one) and each group guesses a different number that they can see. Are they not?

Fred, Only candybar can answer this factually, but the way I interpret the post is that they have multiple CC's with the same partner. One might be used for IMP play, another for MP play, and a third for main room play, just to give a few examples. So when they register for a IMP tournament, the software might register either the MP CC or the Main Room CC, or the IMP CC, depending upon what scenario they last set a CC under. While I agree this could be "slightly" annoying, they were already having to set the CC each time anyway, and there is no reason they cannot continue to do the exact same thing as before. jmoo. For those of us who normally use the same CC with the same partner, the majority of the time, this feature is simply fantastic. My only "concern" is which partner's computer is the CC selected from? Or is BBO grabbing the CC and storing it on one of its servers in order to be able to set it later. Where I am going with this is...what if my CC is slightly different from my partners for whatever reason, but I am normally the one who sets it, or what happens if I make changes to the CC between the time BBO "grabs" the CC for retention and that partner and I then play again?

This was in my inbox this morning, I thought I would pass it along: Published: Saturday, November 17, 2007 Mill Creek man won renown as 'Babe Ruth of Bridge' Paul Soloway was so good, people paid to play with him By Kaitlin Manry, Herald Writer MILL CREEK -- Paul Soloway was cremated with a deck of world championship bridge cards in his right hand. His ashes will eternally rest in two of his coveted Vanderbilt bridge trophies. Considered the best bridge player in North America for nearly two decades, Soloway lived a fairly anonymous life in a pleasant Mill Creek cul-de-sac. In the bridge world, however, he was a giant -- known to everyone and admired by many. "You could call him the Babe Ruth of bridge," said Brent Manley, editor of the Bridge Bulletin. "Babe Ruth had the home run record for a long, long time and he was kind of a larger than life character. Paul was the same way. Everyone knew his face. He won so many things." Since 1991, Soloway had been the top-ranked bridge player in North America by the American Contract Bridge League. When he died in Seattle on Nov. 5, he had 65,511.92 masterpoints, the system used to rank players. He was more than 6,000 points ahead of the second placed player. Many players spend their whole lives trying to rack up the 300 points needed to be considered a "life master." Soloway, 66, won five Bermuda Bowl world-team titles, the Olympics of bridge. He played with Microsoft founder Bill Gates and traveled around the world playing the game he loved professionally. Soloway was so good, people paid him to play with them. Bridge was Soloway's oxygen, according to his wife of 30 years, Pam Pruitt. "If he couldn't play bridge, he didn't want to live," she said tearfully. "It was everything. It doesn't mean that I wasn't important, but I was secondary." In recent years, as his health deteriorated from diabetes, heart problems and related illnesses, Soloway played through pain. He began competing to win his fourth world championship 28 days after undergoing open heart surgery. In order to play in a national tournament in Cincinnati while undergoing treatment for a serious infection, every day he checked himself in – and out – of a nearby hospital. "Paul would spend two-thirds of the day in the hospital and a third of the day at the bridge table," said his longtime partner Bob Hamman of Dallas . "We just glued him back together and sent him into battle. That's the way he was. He was a guy who only knew one way to play and that was all out." Soloway spent his final month in a Seattle hospital, dealing with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, which is a drug-resistant staph infection; kidney trouble; and, eventually, a heart attack. Doctors amputated both his feet and a finger and stuck a tube down his throat to help him eat, but Soloway expected to get better and be back at the bridge table soon. His last phone call was to Hamman to let him know that he planned to play at a national tournament in November with their team. Since he couldn't keep his body upright, he planned to play in a wheelchair with straps holding him to the chair, Pruitt said. Propped up in a hospital bed, he played bridge on a laptop computer. Too weak to press the keys, Soloway directed his wife to push them for him. Toward the end, as he drifted in and out of consciousness, he mumbled about bridge. Throughout his illnesses, bridge was what kept him going, said Pruitt, 55, a stock trader and former Mill Creek mayor. For the last year and a half, as he flew around the world playing bridge, she went with him. At night, she'd connect him to a portable dialysis machine and help him through his medical regimen. Regardless of how poorly he felt, when it was time to play, he'd get on his red scooter and lose himself in the game. "He was like a fish being released into water," Pruitt said. "He was back in his world." Soloway grew up in Beverly Hills and learned bridge from his parents. While studying business at San Fernando Valley State College, he frequently skipped class to play bridge. After six months at a "real job," he quit and traveled the country playing bridge, hustling in bowling alleys and betting on sports games, Pruitt said. In 1962, he joined the American Contract Bridge League. Fascinated by the numbers and puzzles of the game, he quickly earned his first masterpoints. For the rest of his life, he carried the card noting those first points in his wallet. He'd sometimes show it to beginners to inspire them and prove that everyone starts on the bottom. "The No. 1 thing that distinguished him from a lot of people who were really great was that he was very approachable and very much a regular guy -- as opposed to how isolated some of the great players were," said Bill Hagen of Seattle, who played with Soloway in the '80s. "He would respond to a question from a great player or one of the people who approached him at a tournament equally. He was just a good guy." Soloway met Pruitt at a bridge tournament in Eugene , Ore. , in 1977. They married a short time later and he moved to Mill Creek to join her. After playing a few times in the shadow of her husband, Pruitt quit bridge, but never stopped admiring her husband's skill and passion for the game. They never had children, but Soloway loved his dogs, naming several after bridge terms. In addition to Pruitt, he is survived by his sister Alison Greenberg of Los Angeles . Soloway's family requests that donations in his memory be made to the peritoneal unit of the Northwest Kidney Center in Seattle . Soloway didn't want a memorial service, but he didn't rule out a celebration of life, Pruitt said. She scheduled the event to coincide with the North American Bridge Championships on Nov. 24 in San Francisco . "The bridge world has lost something," Manley said. "There just won't be anybody like him. There's never been another Babe Ruth since he quit playing and died. There won't be another Paul Soloway."

Just to register my vote, I like the automatic setting of the last CC you used with any given partner. I have several people I play with, each CC is slightly different, but always the same with each partner. Thanks for doing this. It saves me the trouble of having to set the CC each time.

I did not think you were expressing a view on what should be done, nor am I. I am simply stating that I believe that suspension from the USBF could indeed impact the ladies ability to play in other non-USBF events. For now, all I can find are the following: http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%...Section%20k.pdf (which should make Al_U_Card happy as well by insuring that we have clean, well-dressed players, see item 7 below) :) Item 2 makes it clear that if you are not a member in good standing of the USBF, you probably will not be nominated by the ACBL BoD for participation in the World Championships. Which I agree is not the same thing as prohibiting one from being able to participate in any bridge event. However, similar wording can be found in the CoC for most National events (that you must be a member in good standing to participate). Life Master Pairs: http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...her-NAP_CoC.pdf Additionally, http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/Handb..._Chapter-01.pdf I suspect that one can agree/infer that this says any person's membership in the ACBL can be referred to the ACBL BoD, who from what is currently being said, some members are already seeking blood and might certainly be apt to suspend said players from the ACBL, once they have been suspended from the USBF. As always, jmoo, which could be entirely mistaken with no basis in fact whatsoever.

Mike, I am reasonably certain that buried somewhere in the ACBL's Conditions of Eligibility (or charter, or "one of them umpteen documents"), you will find that one of the requirements of participation in such events is that you be a member in good standing in any other bridge affiliation/organization to which you may belong, in order to participate in their events. I found such wording a few days ago, but can't seem to relocate it again at the moment to quote it directly (but I will keep looking). I suspect (but could easily be mistaken) that most other NBO's would have wording of similar nature in their charters. Given that the "proferred" plea bargain stated as its initial sanction, "one year suspension from the USBF", this, to me, means once you are suspended from the USBF, you are no longer a member in good standing of a bridge organization to which you belong, which makes you ineligible to participate in any bridge events (ACBL, USBF or other NBO's). Or, I suppose it is possible that you are still eligible to participate in such events but you are not entitled to receive any masterpoints, awards, etc. should you achieve any. However, I am certain you are more versed in the law than I am, so I suppose it is also open to interpretation.

Given that I am non-native to the area, and a fairly recent transplant at that, my "alliances" to any team are pretty much: "Go any local team, Tarheels, Blue Devils, Demon Deacons or Wolfpack". If forced to choose one, its probably the Wolfpack, mainly due to schools that friends are/were associated with here in the area. But thanks anyway. :(

Josh, If you are backhandly attempting to point out that my "suggested" wording would change the nature of the petition, I completely agree with you, which is why I said it was probably too late to edit the petition to make any such change. (And if this is not what you were attempting to do, then just ignore this post.) However, given that the first paragraph of the current petition appears to indicate that all disciplinary actions by the USBF BoD needs to cease, and the last paragraph (to me) appears to state that some actions might be acceptable, just not to the degree as currently being sought, it would make more sense if the two paragraphs agreed in their statements. And while, you may feel that no sanctions whatsoever should be applied (as I think you have stated elsewhere), I personally believe that the petition would find a more supporting position from other players if it had been worded in such a manner that some sanctions (including no action taken) might be acceptable, just not to the extreme nature the BoD apparently is attempting to seek. Given that the objective (at least from my perspective) is to tell the BoD "you guys are going overboard here, lets make the punishment fit the crime" and hope to inject some semblance of reason into the matter, for the sake of all parties and the game of bridge itself, it would have served the purpose of the petition better to not demand that all disciplinary sanctions be ceased, but instead request that the BoD cease its attempts to "make an example" of the VCT team via the severity of sanctions levied against the players. With all of that said, I agree its too late to change the wording; it was just an observation on my part, and not a request for it to actually be edited. jmoo.

Of course, with my luck, the judge would then demand to see my "Amplified Noise Permit", along with my "Occupancy Permit", along with my "Fire Inspection" permit, etc. etc. etc. and it would have been cheaper to just pay the noise fine to begin with. :D

Jon, Even though its probably too late to edit the petition, I think a better choice of wording for the first paragraph would have been: I signed the petition reluctantly, and notated my objection. I do think some type of sanction needs to be applied, just not to the extremes that are currently being proposed. Change the word harshly to severely or whatever wording you would choose to indicate that the sanctions being "sought" or discussed are simply too extreme. You somewhat indicated that in the last paragraph: So I finally chose to sign it. If it was not for that paragraph, I probably would not have.

Typical. Try reading what it actually says. "and if they serve this search warrant on your doctor, lawyer, grocer, or mailman, and that doctor, lawyer, grocer, or mailman tells you they received it, then that doctor, lawyer, grocer, or mailman, can be prosecuted for a felony, face five years in jail." So, if you are under investigation and during the course of that investigation, the FBI chooses to execute a warrant on your doctor, laywer, grocer, et. al. and THEY were tell you that such a search warrant was issued, then they can be prosecuted for telling you that. It does not say you cannot tell your own lawyer than a search warrant was executed against your own personal self or that you yourself are under investigation. Who makes this stuff up?

This is quite typical of Jon, it seems. He wants free speech, but only for himself. He wants people to be able to express their views freely, but only if it agrees with what he thinks. He wants to insult people, but then takes offense when he is insulted in return. He evidently idolizes Political Pundits, and thinks he is one himself. Attack, attack, attack, insult, insult, insult, then when really challenged on their positions, they either 1) insist you are trying to put words in their mouth, or 2) they change the subject, or 3) call you names. Jon evidently is a big fan of these tactics, but they rarely actually accomplish anything. Pundits are incapable of actually discussing anything rationally with those who disagree with them. They are only capable of spewing vile rhetoric. Maybe one day, Jon will realize this isn't his blog he is writing on, nor is it MSNBC or Fox News and he will choose to actually discuss things instead of attempting to be the Stephen Colbert of BBO. You watch way too much TV, Jon. You said so yourself, Try reading a book instead, might I suggest something by Dale Carnegie other than "How To Lose Friends and Piss Off Your Enemies", which seems to be the only one you have ever read.

From some of the top class magazines I have read about parts of America, should this question not be Ever screwed your girlfriend even though she was your sister No, but I did screw one once that I think might have been your sister. :)

I, also, was leery at first of whether or not the letter from Alan Falk was factual/original or not. I questioned the authenticity of such letters somewhere around page 32 of the VCT thread. Shortly thereafter, after logging into BBO under her user id and asking for my email address, a member of the VCT informed me that the post on page 30 of the VCT thread by Hrothgar @ 4:15 is an accurate excerpt from the letter that the VCT was sent by Alan Falk. The initial one from the dutch blog had errors. Why she chose to inform me of this, I do not know, but at least, now, I am certain (as I can possibly be) that the letter is factual. I'd rather not reveal which VCT member it was for privacy's sake.

Judging from the 2004 Election controversy, you're not very good at your job. This is kind of like asking, are you the Jonathan Ferguson involved in these disciplinary hearings and why were the trophies withheld from you? http://www.ny-bridge.com/allevy/newsletter/toronto.html

Prior to converting to landscape, you might just try turning your monitor on its side. Its a whole lot easier, and much simpler to undo if you make a mistake. B)

While I agree with much of what you posted, the suggestion that the Chinese Government would have imprisoned (let alone 'executed') any BB or VC participant for any sign... including far more direct attacks on China than anything you suggested is misguided. At more or less the same time as the WBF events, some Canadians participated in the unfurling of huge banners on the Great Wall, protesting the Chinese presence in Tibet. This conduct was timed to coincide with a lot of media attention surrounding the Beijing Olympics and the beginning of the fanfare leading up to it. The protesters were arrested (as would any Chinese hanging banners on the Lincoln Memorial, for example) but their 'punishment' was being sent home. And I suspect that they won't be let back into China anytime soon :) Now, if and to the extent that there were any chinese or tibetan protesters, my suspicion would be that their punishment would be far more severe, but I really don't see the Chinese government being so stupid as to imprison, let alone execute, American, or Italian, or.... you name it... bridge players for unbecoming behaviour on the podium of an international event the government sponsored. The point was, you cannot claim to have "freedom of speech or expression" in a country that does not allow it. And if you were to go "far" enough with your attempts to do so, it could have severe consequences. It would really depend on how much you pissed the Chinese government off as to whether or not they would take such actions. International bridge event or not. It's not like they are not capable of doing so, only that they are unlikely to risk the international outrage that would result from such extreme actions. (And I was simply attempting to make a point, not claiming that they would actually do so.)

So, if one were to claim "Freedom of Expression", even though the rules of the WBF/Olympic Code of Conduct expressly prohibit such actions, according to your own personal statements, it would be appropriate for someone to display a sign saying any of the following: Free The Monks The Internet Should Be Uncensored Nuke Iran We voted for Bush Go Georgie. Kill 'em all!! 1/20/09 Viva Hong Kong Taiwanese are people too Our future president's a lesbian. Would you still be as adamant if the sign said any of these as you are being in your defense over what the ladies displayed as you are being now? Somehow, I don't think so. The only reason you are making such rash claims is that you happen to feverently agree with the message they were presenting. If however, the message they had displayed happened to offend you, you would be right here screaming for their butts in a sling, freedom of speech be damned. But in reality, that is not the issue. The fact remains that they still violated the CoC that they had agreed to follow, regardless of the message they were sending. The USBF BoD must take action of some sort. Otherwise, the next time something of this nature happened, the perpetrators would just claim "well, the VCT did it and you did nothing to punish them". Seriously, what would have happened to the members of the VCT would have displayed a sign stating "The internet should be uncensored" or "Free Taiwan"? Do you think the Chinese government would have allowed them to come home? Or come back at a later date? Or would it have arrested them, tried them and had them executed? Don't think for a moment that it couldn't or wouldn't happen. I suggest maybe if you want to insist on Freedom of Speech in a country where you are supposed to be following their rules, which does NOT have freedom of speech, that maybe sometime you try making such a display and find out exactly what the consequences of doing so are. (My apologies to anyone offended by the suggested signs. The purpose was however to show that some signs could be very offensive, either to a specific person or to a foreign government, and that depending on the message, different people would be offended by different things.)

I don't think they have the right to punish. The USBF can.... 1) Expel them as members, or 2) Keep them as members but not invite them to certain USBF events. These other ideas...community service, fines, whatever, are bullshit. Find me something, anything in the agreement the players signed (or regular USBF members signed) that says that the players agreed to be fined or 'punished' by the USBF. From the Grievance Procedure documentation: http://usbf.org/docs/corpDocs/Grievanceprocs.pdf Note the part about "vary, combine, or impose disciplines not set forth." This is where the fines and community service are defined. :rolleyes: I happen to agree with you that such sanctions are not explicitly and clearly defined, and that the possibility of imposing these as sanctions should be defined, but for now, this is how the Grievance Panel would impose such sanctions.

Unless you are a dues paying member of the USBF, I doubt they give a damn what you demand and quite possibly, they don't care, even if you are one. Don't put words in my mouth, Bid, that's a bad habit of yours. Nobody demanded anything. Virtually their entire budget comes from an organization I've been a member of for 20 years. They've brought discredit to themselves and to the game. It's time for them to go. I will make my feelings on that point clear regardless of who gives a damn about it. They portray half the team as non-apologists when noone on the team has ruled out an apology and all but one has signed off on various apologies, conditional on a reasonable resolution to the matter. They allow themselves to be swayed by one angry old man who thinks a 4-year suspension is the appropriate punishment and another one who thinks the ladies have committed treason. You want to support them, be my guest. But don't distort my position, thanks. Hmmmm, when somebody says "I hope others will join me in asking for the resignation of the board members", it usually means they, themselves, are demanding that the Board resign, and in your case, asking others to do the same. You stated those words exactly. Please don't be so naive as to insist otherwise. So I fail to see how I "put" words in your mouth, but it is evidently a bad habit of yours as well. You missed the point entirely and instead attempt to put words in my mouth as well as making an accusation that I never said or implied. I never said that I supported the BoD's action in its current degree of severity, although you obviously jumped to the conclusion that I do, which btw, I do not. I do think some action is warranted but not to this degree. I said (read slowly please, obviously you have a comprehension problem when you read too fast), unless you are a dues paying member of the USBF, I doubt the board is really going to give a damn if you (or I or anybody else) ask for their resignation or not. The fact that the USBF gets money from the ACBL has no bearing on giving you the "right" to ask for the resignation of the BoD. The only way you have that "right" is if you are a member of the USBF. So far, you have not indicated that you are. Now, you could certainly demand of the ACBL that they stop sponsoring the USBF, or providing money to the USBF and probably with more success. You could also cease playing in ACBL sponsored games which provide funds to the USBF. You could ask other members of the ACBL to join you in your protest by doing the same. You might could even convince me to do the same. But you are simply barking up the wrong tree by trying to ask, demand, or insist directly to the USBF that the BoD resigns. I'm just telling you like it is. Now if you want to say you think the BoD should resign, be my guest. Send them a letter even. But I am not foolish enough to think that my opinion, or yours or anybody elses will have any bearing on their doing so, unless I am a dues paying member of the USBF. Please don't distort my position, thanks.

Unless you are a dues paying member of the USBF, I doubt they give a damn what you demand and quite possibly, they don't care, even if you are one.

Oh come on, you were a pansy twice but now all of the sudden, you've grown balls enough to invite six? What partner in their right mind would believe this? At best this would be construed as playing 5H, making a lead directional bid on the way, for when/if the opponents bid 5S.

Nobody has been "let off the hook" as of yet. This is copied from the USBF website: "Meanwhile, the USBF Board, through Mr. Falk, offered three of the respondents—those who had submitted a prompt written apology before disciplinary proceedings were commenced—an opportunity to accept discipline and resolve the charge short of a hearing, subject to the approval of the Hearing Panel as to the sanction proposed. The Board later offered the remaining four respondents an opportunity to accept discipline and resolve this matter. No respondent has accepted the settlement offers." Three of the ladies apologized. The USBF then stated if they would accept the (outrageous, imo) disciplinary actions outlined in the USBF attorneys letter, that they would not be subject to any further sanctions by the Hearing Panel. All of the other ladies have been given the same opportunity to apologize and accept the disciplinary actions outlined. Should they fail to accept the outlined sanctions (including the apology), the disciplinary panel is apt to impose harsher penalties. At least, thats the way I read it.

Jan, I stated this before, and I will do so again. If I read the procedures for the disciplinary committee correctly, the committee can consist of up to 15 members of the USBF. As of now, I think the listed committee stands at 6 members, three of which serve on the BoD of the USBF. Is that correct? Given that the BoD's chose to proceed with the disciplinary hearing by a unanimous vote, it is hard for me to see how these ladies can get a fair and impartial hearing. It is my belief that regarding an issue of this nature, it would be in the USBF's best interest to have a full 15 member panel so that it will be clear that any action taken by the committee is not the "opinion" or "decision" of a select few who disagreed with the actions of the Venice Cup team and chose to punish them. And if the full 15 member panel chose to impose no punishment, then so be it. I also think that you, as president of the USBF, probably have the authority to mandate this as well (or at least some number greater than 5 or 6, I can't seem to determine if Ms. Meltzer is on the committee or not), although I could be mistaken or you may not wish to do so. I hate to add more to your plate, so to speak, but given that any action taken by the disciplinary committee appears to be final, its seems to me that it would be the right thing to do. jmoo. P.S. (I can't tell if the players have the right to appeal or not. In one place in the USBF bylaws, it says any decision is final, and in another place, it says an action by a Tournament Conducts and Ethics committeee is appealable?)

To the best of my knowledge, the USBF has no authority regarding the ACBL. So the majority of this letter is in error (assuming it actually meant the ACBL and not the USBF, and was not simply an error in translation). The players could be warned, suspended, barred or whatever else from playing in USBF events. Now....if the ACBL has something within its by-laws about you must be a member in good standing of any other organization which you are affiliated with, thats a different story. Furthermore, as Jan points out, the USBF discplinary committee has not met yet, and this isn't a "court" procedure. Again, to the best of my knowledge, offering a "plea bargain" is not part of the USBF procedures. The committee meets, the players will be given an opportunity to present their case, the committee then decides, what actions (if any) are warranted. Anybody posting information such as this is simply blowing smoke out their ass, imo. EDIT: I stand corrected. Someone who would know for certain has since emailed me and informed me that "Hrothgar's 4:15 post on page 30 (of BBO forums) contains an accurate excerpt from a letter sent to some members of the Venice Cup team, signed by Allan Falk who is representing the USBF in this matter. Thank you for doing so. :P