qing

My client crashed last night, which was the first time I saw. I don't remember the version on my home laptop, but I didn't upgrade to a test version lately. The crash happened when I registered for a $1 MBT and then was clicking around. At the time I clicked on the money bridge room, and meantime the MBT I registered started. It briefly showed the interface for playing without cards, then it crashed. Not sure if this is reproducible. But just thought I should report this in case this is a real problem.

Concerning stories about GIB, I have one. Playing real $, in one hand vul vs not, I opened 1♣, my lefty human overcalled 1♥, GIB pd jumped to 2♠, presumably strong. I had Axxx of ♠, but a minimum hand so I bid 3♠. Lefty tried 4♦, and GIB cuebid 4♥, which gets doubled enthusiastically by my righty GIB. I have low doubleton of ♦, and am still not very interested in slam, so I retreated to 4♠. Now lefty persists with 5♦, to which my GIB cuebid 5♥again, and again righty doubled. This time I think, oh well this GIB is just going to carry to slam anyway if I retreat? So I tried the effect of passing -- after all in that 5♥ it said it's forcing to 5♠ -- and lo and behold, so did GIB! So instead of playing in our 8-4 ♠ fit, we played in this wonderful 3-1 fit, and GIB went down 8 (-2300) when we could make 5♠ (but not 6♠). That is an expensive lesson with GIB!

Looking for experienced and serious teammates for Chicago Spingold. Partner and I are both serious and decent players. We have very few masterpoints so will likely be seeded very low but we have reasonable experiences. Of the latest placed 23rd in the Blue ribbon pairs last Fall in Denver and 17th in silodor open pairs this spring in Dallas. Please send email to qing4yang@yahoo.com if interested.

In terms of raising the standards of commentating, I'm wondering perhaps having a voting system would be helpful. I think there are many potential good commentators out there but maybe they don't have a chance to prove themselves or try: after all to succeed in such a task, the skill is just part, maybe a small part, so there might be marginal experts but with good personality, sense of humor, etc, who can entertain the crowds better. With a voting system and hence chances to try more samples, maybe this can increase the pool and the natural selection process will leave only the best. The results of such votes may not need to be viewable by public, but feedback should be accessible to individual commentators. The data may start to make sense over a long period. And perhaps Roland can use the data to better select the commentators. And for events that simply have no commentators, new faces can be tried rather safely. The voting system might run the risk of de-motivating some commentators. But speaking of myself, I wouldn't: I'm donating my time completely for entertaining the crowds -- with wife and kids shouting at background, usually -- if the crowds now tell me I suck I'd rather sit quiet. And again, if the crowds enjoy my service, I'd do it more often. So at least for me, or persons of similar mentality, this should encourage on the positive direction. Just my $.02.