PhantomSac

That's exactly what I meant you stupid semantic troll.

I'd always double personally. even gave me the t9 of spades :)

At expert levels I would say far more competitive bidding.

right cuz no one was cheating back in the day. LOL.

There are more. One more obvious one that will be cracked with this system, then after that it will be much harder but the data suggests many more. I think those will take a lot longer/maybe never get caught if people won't accept statistical/data driven analysis as proof without a cracked code or portion of the code that is like 100 %.

oh man blast from the past

Did I accidentally click on the watercooler? *shudders*

Sums up my thoughts exactly.

Aces are really not undervalued at NT unless combined with a trick source (then they are very valuable). For instance I'd pass an invite with A432 A43 A32 A32 in a heart beat. They are undervalued for suit contracts and when a trick source is available more than anything else. Of course if you hit your partner with KQxxx and a K that would be a good game!

Holdings like HH doubleton are bad (QJ doubleton especially) Holdings like HHH tripleton are bad Five card suits especially with texture are good (KJT9x is a lot better than KJ432) Tens and 9s are good especially when combined with 4 card suits (AJT9 is clearly better than AJ32)

When partner is a passed hand I like 2, if partner were unpassed I'd prefer 1.

Mike all of these pairs were cheating in multiple ways, they were too greedy to do just 1. However to "catch" them it is better to just nail one down as a lock and not present the other ones which may only be true 95 % or 90 % of the time for whatever reasons. The reason of multiple hypotheses is because they are cheating in multiple ways. The evidence needs to be so rock solid to satisfy the people even though obviously saying "here are 10 ways that they cheat, one is 100 % and the others are only 90-95%" should be more damning, in the real world it's not as smart as saying "heres a way they cheat that is 100 %" since it doesn't give people anything to latch onto in order to defend that pair. Even with this thing people are like omg 1 in 17,000 that is ridiculous how can you call that evidence lol. The bidding gap thing is real but getting enough evidence to make it 100 % is very very hard and time consuming, most likely because sometimes people mess up their code (like forgetting your system or having a brain lapse), or sometimes they don't use it (often this is because they are playing against other cheating pairs or very top pairs, for instance FS would sit EW against some pairs). Anyways lets just wait for Boye to present his evidence, it's pretty evident that Kit and Boye are not on the same team. They obviously have very different styles but it is Boye's that has gotten everything done so far. I understand as a lawyer this must be very distasteful to you but I still think of it as civil disobedience/a protest. In fact it wouldnt shock me if the WBF was disbanded after all of this or someone else made a new league.

And yeah dude I know exactly what most people do in those situations. I am not disputing that. You see the same ***** in poker all the time also. You will not be seeing me at the cavendish ever again lol, and haven't since it moved to Monaco, except maybe to bid on the players. That is not the point.

If your options are play and dump, or not play, I see why you think that not playing is better. In the real world you have an option of play and not dump. Play your best, play your hardest, do what you would do against anyone else. What if you are playing against someone you hate? Should you not play, as you might play harder against them or try to ***** them? Part of playing in the cavendish and playing bridge in general is playing your hardest no matter what the circumstances are. If you are unable to play and not dump vs your friends, then what about when it's not money but you're playing a national or world pair game and they are in contention and you're nowhere? Can you find it within yourself to not dump to them when its just prestige, not money on the line? And yes, of course I think that people cheat more and collude more and softplay their friends more when money is on the line. Why do you think no US pairs play in the cavendish since it's moved to europe? But to hear you say your only option is to not play since otherwise you have to dump is LOL. When the cavendish was here I would say that at least half of the field was my good friend. I played in it every year for many years. I have seen this situation many times and I was able to play and not dump, it must be so hard! I am still waiting for you to explain to me how it is tenable to not play by the way. How does that work? Should you write down on a sheet who you like and who you don't like on a scale of 1-10 and they should cross reference that for the optimal arrangement? While we're on this subject, I actually had an interesting thing along these lines come up once. One of my best friends was in contention for winning the whole event. I was out of contention, but there was a session prize of 10k, so my goal was to win the session (which means I need big session, ergo more swingy actions is my optimal strategy here). I don't remember if it was early on but it was not late, maybe in the middle and we were doing alright, anyways, I psyched against my friend who was in contention for the win. It was a "normal" psyche for me in a situation where I need to win the session/beat lots of pairs, maybe white red opposite a passed hand and I overcalled KQJ and out. My opps missed a slam. The countrymen of my friend were absolutely outraged. They wondered how I could call him a good friend and do that to him, take money out of his pocket (and I didn't win the session so the money didn't go to me). My friend, to his credit, argued that I would be cheating to NOT do this if I would do it against anyone else. It is cheating to softplay because it's your friend and they're doing well. Yes, I totally think this happens, and I no longer play in the joke of the event that is the cavendish. But I certainly think that it is possible to behave in an ethical manner and not have to resort to a completely untenable "i refuse to play" "solution." The fact that you cannot see that your obvious choice is to go in there and play as hard as possible rather than dump or not play is mind blowing to me bro. In both poker and bridge, sometimes you cost your friends money. Sometimes the goal of the game is to cost your friends money. Sometimes you make an awesome play and it makes them not win a national pair game, while you end 29th. This is part of the game, and the money has nothing to do with the ethics of the situation. I'll say it again, if you're gonna feel bad about possible scenarios where you cost your friends money, to the point that you feel the need to either not play or to dump, then don't play in the cavendish.

It is also completely unfair to the other pairs in contention if you refuse to play, depending on the score. Imagine you were in second and a pair was in first and their opps refused to play, wouldn't you be pissed as your best chance to be first would be for the pair in first to have a bad round? This is all part of playing in the cavendish. It happens to everybody who has played in it enough time and has any friends.

lol Fluffy, so you think the correct course of action is to refuse to play that round? And how does that work? Do your opponents get zero imps for the round, or do they get a prorated amount of imps relative to their score, imps/board? If the former you may be helping them (if they have a huge lead), or you may be hurting them (if they are in contention but need a good round to win). If the latter you are obviously helping them. The correct course of action is to man up and play bridge exactly as you would against anyone else. If you cannot stomach the thought of being in this position and behaving ethically and perhaps costing your friends a lot of money then do not play the cavendish. The fact that you think "not playing" is even tenable is laughable dude.

The WBF statement was just AMAZING. LOLOLOLOLOOLOLOL. Trying to come to terms with watching these *****ers cheat on video and looking at the ***** championships theyve won and thinking about matches you've played or national events you've been second to them in, all that, ok, hard enough. BUT THEN THE WBF COMES OUT WITH A PURPOSELY ANTAGONIZING IDIOTIC ***** STATEMENT. Time to riot.

Dont play the cavendish if you're unable to play bridge in that situation

5S says "I am too strong to bid 4S and not strong enough to bid 6S." With that being said, I'd just bid 4S. My hand is not that good.

4S

Umm, no? Where do you guys come up with some of this stuff.

LOL @ acting like people are protesting now because they are in the final. Enormous pressure was put on the WBF, the Polish NBO, and the Polish players to not play, and to not be allowed to add a third pair. There were formal petitions and there was a lot of back channeling. People were outraged that they chose to play, outraged that the WBF allowed them to play, and outraged that they were allowed to add a third pair. Get real if you think this is just all of the sudden sour grapes.

It's a ***** joke and a disgrace

haha I just wanted USA 3 for selfish reasons... I imagine it would be the team that lost the final of the trials (5 out of 6 lost the final of both trials). Was just kidding, I was laughing with Thomas bessis about what the odds when he was 9th in the euros were of him winning the Bermuda bowl and said really USA 3 should be next haha

Still sad there was not a USA 3 qualifier out of default lol