tim_delane

People used to bid by voice; now the use bid boxes without a qualm. I don't expect my vision to happen next year.

Actually, if the folks I know in the Electronics Industry are accurate, $3000/table is an outrageous "overbid" on the costs involved. The 1st generation of Bridgemates are priced at ~$150 US MSRP. Let's assume that said price is mostly due to materials costs. Most of it in as of now expensive components like a CPU, a transceiver, a circuit board, RAM and ROM, etc The way things are said to work in electronics, if sales volumes are high enough, within 3 generations (~6-8 years depending on tech used and sales volume) the total cost to build a Bridgemate will most likely bottom out to the cost of the plastics used to make it since the electronics will be probably cost less. Which means $150 Bridgemates become $40, or less, Bridgemates. The same goes for any other consumer electronics device that does the same thing the same way for a large population over multiple generations of IC development. Right now, with no changes in technology, we could give each table the equivalent of a dumbed down PDA or tablet PC to do everything being talked about here for about $150 per table. Heck, we could probably upgrade the present Bridgmate HW and SW to have the capabililties discussed at ~ $300 per table. Not $3000. and that's now. In 10 or 20 years, it will very likely be cheaper to buy dedicated "Bridge Appliances" for the tables than it will be to buy bidding boxes, card decks, boards, etc etc. I agree that $3000 is a gross overbid. I picked a number out of the air that I thought was probably within the means of any serious bridge club -- i.e. one that owns or leases their facility, and holds games at least 5 days a week. I think the key is to maintain the F2F feel of a bridge club. If players were relegated to a booth for 3 hours without any other human contact, they might well be able to play more quickly and efficiently, but I suspect they would just stay home instead and play online rather than do this. A system suitable for a club--at least for the forseeable future--will have to maintain the model of E-W pairs moving from table to table and saying: "Hi Brenda, nice to see you."

This is belongs in Fantasyland. If the paying club duplicate player wants to play in an online environment, they will do so from home on BBO. And how is the screens-up and screens-down thing going to work? The way you describe it you would need two diagonal screens across the table and then be opening and closing windows to see your opponents. It sounds like something from Get Smart. The screens are not diagonal, but rather they are orthogonal. Your view of partner is blocked, but you can see both opponents. Think of a "plus" sign, with one leg intersecting your nose. This Idea is not the same as an online environment. You can interact with both opponents, but not with partner, during tha auction and play. You can interact with all players face to face between deals. You cannot send messages to partner by your mannerisms, such as the way you make a call or play a card. But you can draw inferences from the mannerisms of your opponent. IOW, there is no restriction on how you interact with any player at the table, except that you cannot send UI via body language during the auction and play. Is that so bad?

I think that, as he describes this, it could/would be F2F bridge. You go your club, and instead of finding a few boards on each table, there would be 4 laptops. What I envision is this: All players play at the same table, just as they do today. Before the auction period, and after the play period, they could interact just as players do today at a typical club. Screens would go up when your hand is shown to you. You would enter your call or play via a device that is similar to a keyboard, not a laptop. Very cheap to produce. When you key in your action, it is displayed on a screen for your approval. A separate keypress is required to complete your action, much like the Windows query "Are you sure you want to ...?" There is only one CPU at each table, and it has a simple task: Accept only legal actions from the player whose turn it is, keep track of the contract, the play and result. Report the result to a master CPU. During the auction, each player can see both opponents, but not his partner. During the play period, Declarer could see both opponents, who could not see one another. The software for the console is trivial. Let's say the console has an average lifetime of 3 years, and is used 5 times a week. This equates to $2.00 / session ($.50 / player) for a typical club that runs a game every day. I'd cheerfully pay that if I were club owner to get the obvious benefits.

A while back, I made the (partially tongue in cheek) suggestion on RGB that the future of bridge lay in playing electronically. That is, actual cards would no longer be used. Each player would be equipped with a console, and all calls and plays would be entered electronically, much in the same way as online play, but with the opportunity to interact with the other three players face to face (between boards, of course) Imagine a game without bids out of turn, revokes, etc. Well, of course we already have that on BBO. Tournament directors would have fewer rulings to make, but the rulings the would be faced with (UI, misinformation, etc) would demand actual bridge skills. The possibilities boggle the mind. Club games could be set up via the web, and each board could be scored across the whole time zone, country or even the world. Of course, clubs would also retain the option of scoring locally, to avoid embarassing the members. I can imagine software that enables partners to quickly fill out a convention card electronically before each game, or retrieve a previously filled out card via the internet. I think the cost of such a system would be relatively modest. Capital cost? Maybe $3000 (USD) per table, perhaps less in significant quantity. Operating cost? Just about nil, probably around $2 (or less) per person per session. (electricity, internet access, maintenance) A significant advantage would be pace of play. I'd guess that the average club could expect to play a 30 board session in three hours, complete with hospitality breaks. It would be trivial to time serious events to make sure all contestants played in the time allotted. For major events, online viewing of every board would be possible, with no need of a VuGraph operator. Imagine being able to kibitz every board of the Bermuda Bowl in real time. Heeeeyyyy Fred!

I think Justin was saying that this consideration did not influence him. I've no reason to doubt that. The reason I doubt that Howard had a wire on the board is simple. He is smart enough to realize that a successful 'operation' would be looked upon with suspicion. Had he cheated, he could easily have immunized himself by claiming that he really intended to bid 6C. He could have even claimed this after the bid was questioned, saying that he was too embarrassed by having committed a silly mechanical error to own up to it at the time. The medical fact of his manual dexterity issues would have provided adequate cover. He did neither. Why not? Was he too stupid to claim an "alibi" that could not be refuted? I doubt that. If he is indeed entirely innocent, then what can you say about his having told the plain truth, even though a convenient (and obvious) lie would have deflected suspicion? Several people have opined, as you have, that the incident just doesn't make sense. I agree. However I don't reflexively assume that something is rotten in Denmark. But that's just me.

You seem to be publicly accusing me of publicly accusing someone of cheating! I'll sue! But seriously, throughout all of this with respect to the piltch related posts (yes I got into some flamewarz in the middle, but not really related to this incident at all, and more related to personal arguments with other posters), I have followed BBF rules, had no posts edited or deleted, and been informed by a moderator that everything I have said and done has been perfectly in line and fine. And AFAIK, public accusations of cheating are against BBF rules. So at the very least the moderators (or at least the one I've been in contact with), do not view anything I have posted as a public accusation of cheating. You might, but you are not a moderator of this forum. I thought I quoted the entirety of your post, but I never saw the part that starts: "But seriously ... " Maybe I'm ignorant about how this forum works. Do I still need to consult my lawyer? If that's true I probably edited while you were replying. My bad, I should have included "edited" but I generally only do if there's been a reply since then, so we probably replied/edited simultaneously (obv I wouldn't edit after a direct reply heh). Anyways I guess you're just pissed off at me and this thread is going to end up like the last one and not end up constructive. You didn't even laugh a little at my joke? Oh well, can't win em all I guess :ph34r: I'm not at all pissed off. Actually, I suspected you were spoofing from the exclamation mark in "I'll sue!" I agree that this discussion is not constructive. I only entered it because a good friend (Bud Hinckley) was potentially tarred by the broad brush of innuendo.

You seem to be publicly accusing me of publicly accusing someone of cheating! I'll sue! But seriously, throughout all of this with respect to the piltch related posts (yes I got into some flamewarz in the middle, but not really related to this incident at all, and more related to personal arguments with other posters), I have followed BBF rules, had no posts edited or deleted, and been informed by a moderator that everything I have said and done has been perfectly in line and fine. And AFAIK, public accusations of cheating are against BBF rules. So at the very least the moderators (or at least the one I've been in contact with), do not view anything I have posted as a public accusation of cheating. You might, but you are not a moderator of this forum. I thought I quoted the entirety of your post, but I never saw the part that starts: "But seriously ... " Maybe I'm ignorant about how this forum works. Do I still need to consult my lawyer?

You seem to be publicly accusing me of publicly accusing someone of cheating! I'll sue! Since you omitted a smiley, I assume you are serious. Have at it. Perhaps this will help: Tim DeLaney 5719 Aberdeen ct South Bend, IN 46614

This is simply not true. I know I personally would have pursued this matter as far as I could (as I did here) no matter who it was who made this bid. It would not matter if Jesus Christ himself bid 6D. So my steps would have been exactly the same. I am SURE that the public outcry that happened at the nationals would have been just as loud no matter who made this bid. You don't seem to understand exactly how incredible this bid was! Oh, but I do. You don't seem to understand my point: incredible is not the same as cheating. What you have written (not just above, but in the totality of your posts), IMO, comes very close to a public accusation of cheating.

I always seem to get into trouble when I assume that people will draw reasonable inferences from what I say. I must get used to the fact that it's wise to to be explicit in my arguments, even at the risk of insulting the intelligence of the reader. Mea culpa. :ph34r: When I suggested that there was a comparison between Fred's 1NT bid and Howard's 6D bid, I never meant to suggest that they were similar in terms of bridge wisdom. I meant to point out that both were psychs, nothing more. If you wish to demolish the straw man that I consider the bridge merits of both bids to be similar, have at it. Fred's 1NT bid on board 63 was a psych by his own testimony (though I would call it semi-psychic, and others would call it a tactical overbid--YMMV). Howard's 6D bid, by any sane definition, qualifies as a psych. True, it's very offbeat in that it figures to be followed by three passes, but nonetheless it's a psych. It grossly misrepresents his length in the minor suits. It is a player's absolute right to to psych. That right would be worth nothing if a favorable result were automatically cancelled. The ruling that many people here want to propose is that the favorable result must be due to UI. But there is no concrete evidence of UI other that the argument from credulity. I'd be the first to agree that the incident merits a recorder entry. But there is nothing I have read that suggests anything more. I believe that subjecting the incident to public scrutiny does a great disservice to bridge. I think this incident has gathered momentum because Howard is not ... um, ...universally regarded as a paragon of congeniality. As a final note to this post, I am dismayed at the number of posts that generate heat, but no light.

I looks like this thread has been closed, but having read every post in the thread spawned by Justin Lall--a daunting task to be sure--I can offer an insight or two that might be relevant. I am personally acquainted with both Bud Hinckley and Howard Piltch. I know things about them that nobody here could possibly know. They are both members of the club I belong to. To start with the easiest issue to dispose of, I can tell you that Howard is not physically capable of fixing the deck. His manual dexterity is severely compromised by medical issues. It is so bad that the directors in the local club have asked Howard not to keep score. His handwriting is so bad that we cannot read it. I'm not sure if even Bud Hinckley is aware of that, but as a club director, I certainly am. So, you can simply discount any thought that Howard dealt the hand in question to his advantage. He is no more a card mechanic than Steven Hawking is a marathon runner. Second, I have absolute confidence in Bud's integrity. He is a personal friend, and you might suppose that that I would say this simply on that basis. But I have many friends at the local club who, although I would not have the slightest reason to doubt their ethics, I do not have any affirmative reason to vouch for them. But I feel I have reason to vouch for Bud. If you do not know me, that may not be worth very much; I offer it for what it may be worth. Third, I have had occasion to discuss at great length with Howard his table demeanor and his ethics in a meeting between him, his attorney, our club president and myself. (You might read between the lines that this was not a meeting I was particularly thrilled with.) It's my opinion that Howard is not a cheat. True, he can be abrasive. He is not considered lovable by many people I know. But in spite of all his bad press (mostly self-inflicted), he is an honest player. He is, let us say, imaginative. But let me draw a parallel between Howard and Fred Gitelman. (Sorry Fred) On board 63 of the Spingold final, Fred made a (self-admitted) psych of 1NT in 4th seat balancing, based partly on the SotM. (Well, perhaps semi-psych) It was a spectacular success, as we all know. Who knows? Had Fred bid 2C, perhaps Brad would not have doubled 3S. How many people questioned the ethics of Gitelman-Moss based on the very fortunate result they obtained? Zero, and rightfully so. They played bridge, and they won. It's the nature of the game. Now, if Fred Gitelman can psych a 1NT balancing bid that happened to work, why is Justin so bent out of shape when a psych by Howard Piltch (psychs don't always imply weakness) results in a good score? Piltch's bid was based on the SotM, just as was Fred's. It may not be to everybody's taste (certainly not to mine), but it's perfectly legal. All contestants are allowed to bid as the choose. (They paid their entry fee, to coin a phrase.) Justin, who is IMHO the future of American bridge, needs to chill out (to coin another phrase).

Congrats to team Diamond, and especially to Fred, whose brainchild, BBO, enabled me to follow the event. After Bd 62, there was a short break and commentator Larry Cohen made the following weirdly prophetic remark: At this point, foolishly believing his 'tame' characterization, my attention strayed and when I returned, Sonty had just gone -800. The commentators were aghast. Tim

6H is quite enough. The ♦A opposite partner's likely void is of limited value. Double. Just a guess. Tim

Thanks, Karl. These were very enlightening. Tim

Recently, in a "no adjust" matchpoint tourney, I was headed for +1100 Vs nothing our way, but a funny thing happened on the way to my Top score. Declarer simply played so slowly that the deal never finished, and we both got AVE- (40%) This is a low priority suggestion, as there was nothing at stake except pride. But it seems wrong to give a player a method to limit his downside to 40% on a board, especially when that method is arguably unsportsmanlike. The solution is to time the actions of each side. If either side takes more than, say, 2/3 of the allotted time, then the score for that hand is a predetermined split in favor of the faster side. (I'd suggest a tie for Top in MP events, +12 IMPs in IMP events) I understand that this topic may have come up before, but I'm new to the forums. Is it reasonable to revisit the topic? Tim