h2osmom

Not sure this is the right place to post, but it's about the Cavendish. I was watching, on the Saturday, and there was a hand where I think Weinstein/Levin, were playing against Jannsma and his partner, and there was a director call involving a 6d contract and a hesitation. The director was going to consult with other directors prior to making a final ruling. I wondered if anyone knew the final ruling on that hand. Thank you.

Another constructive suggestion offered is more predealt boards wtih simultaneous hand play.

I sent a letter to acbl CEO re electronics ban, and received the reply I posted. sorry I didn't know how to copy only pertinent parts of the e mail.

‎‎ Sent: Fri 5/02/08 7:43 AM Security scan upon download graycol.gif (0.1 KB), pic24423.gif (1.3 KB), ecblank.gif (0.0 KB) Hi Carol: Thank you for note regarding the electronic communication device ban.For those that have need to bring their phone near the playing area , there will be service available to check your device during the session.This will operate similar to a coat check area.While I understand this change may be a bit of an inconvenience to a few , I do believe a large majority of the Board of Directors feel this is necessary to protect the integrity of the game , especially our North American Championship events.As with US Chess championships , this policy will be the norm rather than the exception for many organizations. Kindest regards, Jay Baum, CEO ACBL 05/02/2008 03:38 AM cc Subject Hi, I received the May 2008 issue of the bulletin, and read the column regarding electronics ban. I attend 2-3 nationals per year, and for me it's social as well as bridge. It's an opportunity to meet with friends I don't see often. I don't stay at the host hotel, and I use my cell phone between sessions to contact friends. It will be a hardship to me, and to many others, not to have cell phones available between sessions. I do not support this rule, nor do any of my friends who are also members. I have discussed it with at least 20 ACBL members. I have also expressed my displeasure to Rand Pinsky, my district director. I think it's a hardship for many members, and does little or nothing to prevent cheating. I am also concerned about enforcement of this rule. Many people carry large bags onto play sites. Food items, sweaters, approved defenses, system notes, in addition to all that is already in a purse. There are a lot of ways to hide a cell phone. Do you intend to search bags? I am pretty sure you know that Bridgebase Forums conducted a survey asking ACBL members if they intend to follow the ban. If I recall, over 60% of repliers said they did not support it, and would carry a concealed cell phone onto play sites. Having a rule that members don't follow will weaken the authority of ACBL. If one rule doesn't have to be followed, do any? and if so, which ones? I have been a member for several years, and I wasn't consulted in any way about this policy change, nor were any of my friends. I think the rule should be suspended for Las Vegas, and membership polled, perhaps at registration. That way you can find out if members believe the hardship is warranted for the benefits of banning cellphones. Thank you for your consideration. Carol Frank Burbank, CA N969360 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it exclusion?

I wonder what the outcry actually WOULD be if day 2 and beyond of NABC+ events had a $10 surcharge for increased security. I don't imagine it would be much of a problem at all.

[hv=s=sqxxhxxdkjxcqjxxx]133|100|[/hv] Pd bids 1d, opp overcalls 1s to me. I chose 2d, and it was terrible. Was the bid terrible? Or unlucky?

Would double by partner have been takeout? And now, why wouldn't double be right?

There is another problem about the mobile phone ban that has not been addressed, and I think it's serious. According to the poll here on BBO, and conversations I have had with other bridge acquaintances, many people fully intend to ignore the ban and carry a cell phone regardless of the rule. Once people don't accept a rule, and routinely ignore it, respect for the authority making the rule decreases. ACBL exists for the members, the majority of whom will not be playing day 3 of the Vanderbilt. Without the goodwill of the rank and file members, there could exist no Vanderbilt or Spingold. ACBL needs to poll members before making a change that will inconvenience a large percentage of its members and verify that there is support for such a change prior to implementation. This rule certainly does not seem to have support of the people who are the members of ACBL.

I would also prefer to watch the team that upset the number 2 seed, wonder if they took a vote of BBO members, who people would most prefer to watch?

I really like the idea of far more simultaneous play, in team matches as well as pairs events. One of the only things I don't care for in team games is no hand records. And this suggestion is vastly superior to banning cell phones. I would not be happy at all to be frisked at an NABC, I am definitely a novice player, and yet I do enter NABC+ events, at least one, at every tournament I attend. I am tired of having my individual rights be trampled on in the name of protecting me. I think taking reasonable precautions, and then recognizing that nothing will stop all of it, is a good approach, including simultaneous play in as much as possible.

Thank you! So, I did double with this hand, and then lho bid 4d, and pd bid 4s, p p to me.

[hv=s=sjxhaqjxxdkxcaqjt]133|100|[/hv] 2D on your right, do you double or bid 2h?

We have all heard the stories surrounding near death episodes, and there seems to be some evidence that there is consciousness when the person is non responsive, and even during such things as aggressive resuscitation. but this is not death, the brain is functioning during these events. Once death has occurred, then I believe there is no further consciousness.

My husband is Jewish, I was raised primarily without religion, then when I was 13 my parents suddenly decided I needed indoctrination into religion, Lutheranism. I attended classes and went to church for about 5 years, and then I was able to stop, which I did. I don't think I got anything out of the experience. We did the minimum amount of Jewish, not enough to satisfy, but to keep my husband's family off our back. When my son was 12 or so, he told me that all the kids he knew, who were the type of people I would want him to be friends with, came from families that were religious. He said there were plenty of religious people who weren't the type I would choose as his friends, but all the ones I would be likely to choose, were religious. And, he said, I am that kind of person too, and we aren't religious. What I want to know, is, what is it about religion that most people need, and we don't? My answer was that some set of values is necessary, but that doesn't necessarily have to be attached to a religion. It satisfied him at the time. Since then, he has visited Israel, and been exposed to more, and he says he wishes he had learned about the religion when he was a kid. He feels that he missed something by not being taught the basics about any religion. I think religion has far more negative to it than positive. I think overall it's a bad force in the world. That being said, I also think it's such a basic core in the US that not to teach it is to take quite a view. But it's hard to teach it without also teaching to believe it. That was and is a quandary for me. Parents have to teach kids their values; they aren't born socialized, and the world isn't a forgiving place for someone who doesn't follow society's rules. And you can't teach what you don't believe yourself. Kids can tell if you are trying to teach something you don't believe, and they won't accept that lesson, ie when a parent is trying to justify something for another parent or grandparent etc, the kids sense that the message isn't sincere. At this point, both of my adult kids share my beliefs that religion is not a positive force in the world, that treating others well is important, and that we need to do what is right because it is right for now, not for some reward in the afterlife, and whether or not there is a God is irrelevant. So, without active teaching or preaching, they have adopted most of my attitudes, which I think is pretty common. I can't imagine raising a chold without teaching my beliefs.

It would be nice if, when someone is banned, they received an e mail message stating why, and process for reinstatement if that is applicable. I don't know how possible this would be, but it doesn't seem fair to be banned and now know what to do from there.

[hv=s=stxxxxh9xxxxd9xxc]133|100|[/hv] bidding goes, starting to your right, p you pass, 1s by lho, 2c by your pd, double, alerted. You don't ask what the double is. You pass. Original spade bidder bids 2s, your partner doubles, and rho passes to you. Now you ask what the alert was, and are told drury, limit raise in spades. So you bid 3h, bidding proceeds p p p. Dummy comes down with Kx KJ AKx AJxxxx. You play the hand and go off 2. After the hand is played, you question the drury explanation, and find out that it was actually meant as negative double, not drury. But you are running late. Opps ask you to defer calling director and play the rest of the set. You agree, play out the set, and call director after conclusion. Ruling is that you gave up your rights when you continued playing, result stands. Is this ruling correct? Is it fair? This occured at AX swiss at OC regionals. Thank you.

This is a complicated issue; clearly smallpox was eradicated through the use of vaccines. Also, there are side effects to vaccines, and it's possible that we don't know all those side effects. On the other hand, there will always be some people who cannot be immunized, because of chronic illnesses or poor immune systems. They need the community not to carry these diseases to protect them. But in the US, we emphasize individual rights over rights of the group. People can refuse immunizations for themselves and their children. Schools can restrict attendance to immunized children, but there are exceptions made for religious and personal beliefs against immunization. The schools don't volunteer that information, but if a parent is able to say that they refuse immunizations, the school will have them sign some forms and they will be able to attend public schools. This isn't the same in all countries. And in the US, children taken into foster care, for instance, will have their immunizations brought up to date, even at the objection of their parents. There are some parents who believe thatimmunizations are necessary and beneficial for the group, but count on the fact that most are immunized as a reason not to immunize their own children. Some diseases, with immunizations available, are on the rise, especially in cities, because of immigration and lack of immunization. It's not just a simple issue. Also, every year or so, there is another recommended vaccination.

When I was 14 my mother had a motorcycle accident, and was in a wheelchair for a year. She said, "I can't do anything else productive; may as well teach the kids to play bridge." My brothers were 10 and 12. I played kitchen bridge for a number of years. No one else in my family was at all interested in competitive bridge, or even in playing kitchen bridge well. I played bad bridge with friends for a number of years. Along the line, my husband got a home computer. I had no interest in it, and refused to use it even for writing papers in college when I went back for a second degree. Then one day we were at a friend's house, and he showed me the bridge games on MSN. That day, I needed my own computer with a second online service, as we didn't know about wireless systems as yet.

Interesting discussion here. There are a lot of reasons for mortality. Without it, there wouldn't necessarily be as much reason for pushing oneself; afterall, there is always tomorrow. Also, life wouldn't be as precious as it is. We take for granted what has always been and will always be. These considerations are separate from benefits of new people coming to take our places. Also, it's hard for me to imagine an ideal age. Every age is ideal for what is supposed to happen at that age. Do the people on here who have passed their 20's and 30's not feel that they have gained something that younger people have yet to realize? And if one lived without the effects of aging, I question whether all those gains would be made. I don't see boredom as an issue; we choose whether or not to be bored. But, there are different focuses as we progress through life, and these would change if we lived forever. The whole maslow thing of progressing to self actualization............. As far as how long a person should live, I have spent my adult life working with critically ill children and their families. I have come to believe that although it is sad when a child dies, it's not necessarily wrong. Of course families are devastated, and I think it's worse for them than for the person who loses their life. But every life has what it has, and it's vital and precious as long as it is. I see the advances being made on a daily basis; children who would have died just 10 years ago are thriving today, and that's as it should be. We will always strive to prolong life; that's a testament to how precious it is. But there is no entitlement to a particular lifespan, and no age that is more or less ideal than all the other ones, in my opinion. The knowledge that each part of our lives is finite pushes us to use that part more fully. I know I took this in a different direction than it had been taken previously, hope I addressed the questions asked.

Zero tolerance is a difficult thing for directors. The people who are likely to commit these offenses are the same people who will not take kindly to receiving a penalty for their behaviour. People who will accept the penalty without fussing (or worse) at the director, generally won't commit these offenses, and are not the people ZT policies were ever intended for. Directors tend to want to smooth things out and get the game back moving, rather than possibly exacerbating an already bad situation. I don't agree that this reaction from directors is optimal; I think they should enforce ALL ZT actions. Of course occasionally a person who said something with no malice intended, or taken, will be penalized, but overall, if this policy is actually enforced to that level, behaviour will improve. But initially, it will be difficult for directors to confront aggressive people.

Hi, I'm Carol, and will be there entire tournament, would like to meet for dinner. Guess you can fine me with the juggler, we are on same team. Looking forward to all of it!

Evidently, BBO administrators have decided that Gxxxxxx needs to be protected, because people in the internet bridge world ridicule him, not just on BBO, but on other sites as well. I don't understand or agree with this policy. There may be more to this than I understand, but if most of us put ourselves in a position to be ridiculed, we would not be protected in this way. However, it is a well known policy on BBO. Rain certainly had not only the right, but also the responisbility, in this light, to remove the posted link, which she did. Justin then reacted to that, and he forced her hand; she had no choice but to further delete his posts. I am certain Justin knows and knew about BBO policy to protect Gxxxxx. It was fine, of course, to have posted the link initially. Justin's response to having his post deleted was not optimal, and it was understandable. He puts a lot of thought into his posts, makes a sincere effort to help clarify understandings, and has in other instances been unfairly judged. It would have been nice if he could have not reacted and forced Rain's hand. All of that would likely blow over over time. The problem was the forum's reaction to Justin's post here. He was ridiculed, called names, disrespected, condescended to. People posting did not stick to the issue at hand. Justin's reaction was a reaction, OK. Many of the people who tried to protect Rain, (who never needed protecting in the first place) did so by attacking Justin. Things have gotten far more hurtful than they ever would have if no attacking had happened. It would be nice if the people who were attacking in their posts could see it, so that maybe in another instance they will modify their behavior. I suppose a public acknowledgement and/or apology would be too much to expect. I hope Justin returns soon; his contributions to this site, as well as his blog, are tremendously beneficial to people of all levels trying to learn this game.

Justin doesn't need me to defend him, and that is not my point. I know who Justin is, I think he knows who I am, we met one time about 6 years ago, have spoken online one time after that, and have some friends in common. You are wrong about the intention of my responses here. My responses stopped being about Justin long ago.

Sceptic's posts are not good posts; they are personally attacking. He has stated that he does not think well of the original poster as well as called him names. Nothing about this was deserved, or called for. Justin's original post, even though it expressed vehement disagreement, did not attack or call names. He never stated that he didn't like anyone. Sceptic has said that Justin will not lose sleep over this; how does he know? Sceptic has put words in other people's mouths and been disrespectful. I think if we are going to discuss who has more to offer as far as bridge discussion than Justin does, many will agree that there are few. I appreciate the clarification from the moderators posted here, and none of their posts are at all incendiary. But Sceptic's posts, and those supporting him, are personal attacks, which was never deserved.