xcurt

Wouldn't this strongly support making a slam TRY, as if partner accepts on about half of his hands you will make slam 100% of the time you bid it and 30% of the time you don't? I realize the correlation isn't absolutely as direct as that between partner's judgment and slam making, but it's obviously very strong so the conclusion should be the same. Yes but which slam try? The point I'm arguing, poorly (and that's good reason not to post at 12:30 am local or during lunch at the office), is that we should never have bid 2H... 4S since the simple bashing auction is already better expectancy. Which bidding plan would you pick over a strong NT? (a) sign off in game (b) 2H...4S © 2H...3C (d) 2H...3D (e) 2H-2S-6S (f) 6S (g) Stayman (followed by what?) (h) other (what?) We already know (a) is hopeless. I'm arguing that (e) is better than (b).* I expect (e) is better than (f) but I haven't tested it. (g) seems hopeless since we don't have a way to force in spades now and the information we get won't help. I have a sneaking admiration for plan © but I would probably choose (d) at the table. *Unless partner is a madman who makes a forward-going move 65% of the time.

You're correct and again I apologize for not being precise enough in my previous posts. I should have said "partner has two or more key cards," not "partner has 2 or more key cards and 3 of the 5 key cards and CK," at least 85% of the time. You also make a good point about code so here is the code to check. I'll try to post code for simulations when I do them. # enough keys => we have 4 or 5 key cards between the NS hands # clubs controlled => partner has at least one of the CA or the CK # slam biddable => both of (enough keys) and (clubs controlled) predeal north SQJ87543, HAT, DAJ, C32 keys = hascard(south, AS)+hascard(south, KS)+hascard(south,AC) enough_keys = keys>=2 clubs_controlled = hascard(south, AC) || hascard(south, KC) slam_biddable = enough_keys && clubs_controlled condition shape(south, any 4432, any 5332, any 4333) and hcp(south) >= 15 and hcp(south) <= 17 action average "enough keys" enough_keys, average "clubs controlled" clubs_controlled, average "slam biddable" slam_biddable enough keys: 0.846463 clubs controlled: 0.882205slam biddable: 0.751074 Generated 1000000 hands, produced 33295. But, we will make slam a fair bit of the time when clubs are open if the opponents lead poorly. So I'll stand by my conclusion that the overall expectancy of bashing is higher than 2H... 4S.

My simulation suggests that if we bash slam we will make it 65% of the time assuming the opponents lead randomly from among the offsuits. That introduces a free parameter -- how good are the opponents on lead. This parameter has a dependence on our auction. The more information we transmit, the better they do. The 65% figure is across all hands. This is measurable. I measured it. Partner has at least three of the CA, CK, SA, SK 85% of the time. That's from a simulation with a million hands generated including roughly 40,000 where partner has the strong NT. It matters here what "better than a finesse" and "worse than a finesse" and "no play" mean. No play might mean no play if they cash the CAK. I had a few where if they don't cash we are anywhere from a favorite to make 6, to cold for 13 tricks. There are a few that are 5/7 or 4/7 hands now. Again, the free parameter about how the opponents might lead. You have to put percentages on making and then compute the expectation over all the outcomes times the probability of each outcome to arrive at a net expectation for just bidding slam. Computing the expectation for bashing versus 2H...4S introduces a second free parameter, which is how often partner will move over the latter action by responder. I don't have a copy of bridge browser handy so I will just take a guess based on my experience that in real life it's between 30% and 40%. For computing the expectation of 2H... 4S we also need to add in the unbid slams when opener is passing and slam is still good. I computed the relative expectation of the two bidding plans as a function of my simulation results and various values for the free parameters. I probably underestimated the chances of the opponents finding the correct lead when their choice matters, but I probably overestimated the chances partner would move over 4S. Reasonable people might disagree on the results and I didn't mean to present them as absolute. This all got away from my original point which is that the bidding problem is really just not a good bidding problem. I could have done a better job making myself clear in my original post and I apologize for that.

Sure, I'm happy to talk about this. I apologize for the long post but I want to express my thought process. To attack problems like these, first get a copy of a hand dealing program. I use Hans van Staveren's venerable dealer program (see http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku/html/dealer/body_dealer.html). If you are not a *nix guru you probably want to try one of the more recent Windows programs. Dealer can write some ugly output and you will probably want to hack up some perl code or similar to generate input files and work with the output. All of these programs allow you to randomly deal some or all of the cards, select hands based on conditions, and write the hands or compute statistics over the hands. Now you get into the philosophy of simulation. Personally I think that double-dummy solver analysis while useful is not the most direct route to the truth of a hand. I prefer to do two things. First, calculate some statistics about partner's critical holdings. Here, we can simply predeal ourselves the 13 cards we see. We don't need to impose any conditions on the opposing hands since they are probably so weak they will never bid without extreme shape. We impose a strong NT condition on partner's hand. There will be some edge cases where you look at the hand and say "I would not open that 1NT!" If you see such a hand disregard it. It will probably be infrequent enough not to distort the statistics too much. In this case, we have a bidding problem in part because our high honors are not where partner will most likely expect them -- in our long suit. We also have a bidding problem because we have a suit with two fast losers. So we need to find out at least two things to bid slam with greater accuracy than just counting points or just bashing. We need to know that they can't cash the CAK, and we need to know that they don't have the CA and some trump holding that is likely to produce a trick. If we ask the dealer program how often partner has only one key card for spades, we find out that it's about 15% of the time. So while this is a problem we would like to resolve in the auction, it might not be the most important problem to resolve. Second, deal partner a number of hands consistent with the auction and look at each one and think about where we would like to end up and whether or not given actions from us will produce the desired result. We need express the results in terms of IMPs or matchpoints against other tables that take other actions on the same hypothetical deal. I have found that this is very effective at helping me understand what is going on on a deal. In the case of this deal, I looked at 40 hands, single dummy. On each hand I looked at how would I play the hand. This was pretty easy since with a big 1-suiter there usually aren't that many lines of play. If you are looking at something like Ax, KJxx, Qxxx, AJx you would say on a non-club lead I would finesse the diamond first to set up a club pitch if it lost, then try the spade. You can figure out that you play this spade combination for 0 losers about 20% of the time, 1 loser 50% of the time, and 2 losers 10% of the time since you have too many trumps to pick up KTxx on your right with a coup. If the diamond finesse fails you make 20% of the time (edge case of 6-1 diamonds), if it wins you make 20% of the time plus 25% more of the time (spades for 1 loser and hearts to pitch the club or some kind of endpotision). There are a few additional chances in the endgame here like DKxx on and you might not need the HQ on. Since the edge cases will cancel out a little you don't need to be totally exact. So we write 37.5% for this one. We also have to estimate the chances partner would cue 5C with such a hand. If we always think partner is moving over 4S we have probably done something wrong since most of the time the auction goes tranfer--accept--game in the major it plays there. Having done this for 40 hands or however many you think has given you a feel for how things are running, you now add up the probabilities. Some of these probabilities will be conditional (eg make slam given that partner has a cueing hand over 4S) and you may need to estimate the conditional probabilities. It helps to know something about Bayes Law here. On the problem hand it becomes pretty clear quickly that when slam is bad it still has some chances (unless off the CAK or two aces -- which we know is only 15% of the time from a 1 million hand simulation so we know that number pretty accurately since the computer will count it for us). If slam is good it is usually cold or on one of two finesses or on the wrong lead or a finesse. It's good on most of the hands. So the real crux of the problem becomes how often partner is moving over 4S. I found it too hard to accurately evaluate each hand (judgement becomes colored by knowing the responding hand) so I considered what would happen if partner moves exactly half of the time. That's probably an over-estimate and you could answer that by going through a database of hands from BBO or OKB and asking how often partner moved over this auction. We now work through the algebra computing our IMP expectation against bashing knowing that 50% of the time one table is in slam and the other is not 50% of the time 85% of the time we have enough key cards and both tables are in slam (I ignore the increased expectancy of having all of the key cards since partner moved) 15% of the time one table is in slam and the other is not I won't reproduce it all here but you get something that suggests that even if (a) the slow auction never bids a hopeless slam -- and some of the slams are hopeless because partner has all the missing quacks and we have two slow losers) and (:) the opponents lead no better than against the bashing auction that you are going to break roughly even by bashing if your only other choice is to bid as given in It's Your Call. In practice both (a) and (B) are not likely to be as optimally distributed for the slow auction, so bashing should have a positive IMP expectancy against the slow auction. Finally, there are other bidding plans out there. I would have bid 6S at the point given in It's Your Call, but at the table I would not be in that particular pickle. I really wish this had been given as a MSC multiple choice style problem after 1NT-?. Curt

Sorry I mistyped. Too tired. I meant "it's right to be in 6S 80% of the time facing a random strong NT." Slam is making about 65% of the time if the opponents lead randomly from among the three offsuits. The conclusion still holds though, partner won't move enough after 2H... 4S for 2H... 4S to be the right responder action. Bashing is about a wash if the opponents lead randomly against the 2H...4S auction. It's going to be a gainer if the opponents can exploit the information gained from the auction. Bidding slowly (How? Thats my point -- the action over 1NT is the real problem!) could be a big gainer over 2H...4S if we can avoid the 20% of the hands where slam has no play on any lead or is off two cashing tricks.

We can simulate the situation after transfer, 4S by responder. Conclusion is that we have already misbid. At the point of the auction given, this was a poor choice of a bidding panel problem. Details...... Facing a random strong notrump drawn from the 39 unseen cards, we have enough key cards 85% of the time 6S is 80% or so on double-dummy defense 7S is 2% or so the lead matters about 30% of the time Furthermore, when partner moves over 4S, assuming he bids Blacke when he has all off-suits controlled and makes his cheapest cuebid otherwise, the relative frequency of his calls is 4N -- 20% 5C -- 70% 5D -- 8% 5H -- 2% What the best strategy is will depend on our assumptions of what hands partner would move with over 4S, and furthermore, how well the opponents lead and whether they can profit from listening to our auction. However, any reasonable construction of the payoff matrix for bashing vs bidding as we did suggests that partner needs to be moving much more than half the time over 2H...4S from the responding hand. He won't move over 4S on "most hands", that just doesn't fit with the definition of this auction. But if he is moving frequently, there is not much implication from his call of 5C, since the frequency of 5C dominates 4N, the other call that keeps slam in the picture. Curt

Because if partner is going to bid 5C with most hands he might hold, we haven't learned very much at all. We also aren't in any better position -- we have no way to find out about the spade tops, and we don't know which red suit partner is missing so we don't know how to help him make the final decision about slam. We have, however, helped the opening leader a fair bit.

I am not advocating blasting 6♠. I am suggesting that, if we bid this way, we are behind a hypothetical other table where the player with our cards bid 6S. If the expectancy of partners continuation over 4S whenever he has a suitable hand for slam is dominated by 5C, then our bidding plan was poor. Looking at our hand, he will be bidding 5C whenever he does not specifically have both red kings since he can't Blackwood, and without both red kings he my initial reaction is that he is a strong favorite to have one of the club tops. Give him AKx, KJxx, xx, ?? and he needs the CK to have a strong NT. I suppose he might have AKx, KQxx, Qx, QJxx, but there are no guarantees in this life. I don't have a copy of dealer handy to check all of this, but I will later if nobody else has. Yes, I'm aware that there might be a Condorcet cycle among three or more bidding plans.

Well, for about one problem per month, that's true about the scoring. Steve also likes the Law a lot and does advocate following it fairly blindly. But the problems are really, really good. Take this one from this month: mps, they vul, in 4th you have Ax, KTx, QJxxx, AJx (if i recall correctly) 1S-Dbl-3S-??? I predict there will be at least 5 and possibly 6 answers from the solvers.* Less from the experts since I think a few of these are hopeless calls, but any problem that fetches 5-6 different answers from the solvers is an excellent problem. * I expect to see P, Dbl, 3N, 4D, 4H, 5D all get called.

So I get the monthly dead tree from the ACBL in the mail today. Here are the bidding contest problems (1) IMPs, they are vul and they do not bid Qxxx, AJxx, AJ9, xx 1D-1H; 2H-3S!; ? It would never occur to me to bid 4D, yet this is the top answer. Although, 4H scored 90 so it's not like the scorer is making is an argument that either of the two superficially possible calls is actually an error. Is there a reasonable construction for the responding hand where 4D helps us get to a good slam? I can't find one easily. (2) IMPs, both, they don't bid, QJxxxxx, AT, AJ, xx Partner opens a strong NT, you show a balanced slam try with a transfer and raise to 4S, and partner cues 5C. I think the responding action to this point is a pretty clear error since we either going to end in 4S anyway, end in 5S with no better idea of how to bid the slam, or face this guess whenever partner doesn't have the red kings and black aces or 3 kings and an ace and some other useful texture (and we don't want to be in slam with that opening hand most of the time). All answers other than 6S scored less than 50, but how satisfying is bidding 6S now? Isn't that auction worse than 1N-6S-P, and let them guess the lead? (3) Matchpoints, they are vulnerable, RHO opens 4D Namyats and you have x, K9, QJT987, AJTx. The winning answer according to the scorer is to pass now and then bid 5D on the next round. Isn't that just losing matchpoints since we are taking the last guess? As a side bonus, we let LHO bid 4H to show slam interest. I don't see how the sequence P, 5D could ever be better than a direct 5D. If partner doubles 5S, we do have an ace after all. I suppose you could argue that passing throughout is better than bidding, but that's not what the scorer did. (4) Matchpoints, they are vulnerable, we are dealer with JT8xxx, Kxxx, Kxx, -- P-P-1S-2D; 4S-Dbl-P-5C; ? Again the top answer, 5S, scores much higher than the other reasonable answer, pass (50). Huh? We guessed to bash 4S and now RHO is guessing that his side has a productive minor suit fit. It's certainly possible that 5S is the winning call but again the scorer is advocating taking the last guess. (5) An old chestnut where after 1m-1M holding a 3-suiter with 3-card support for partner we have to invent a suit. Today 1x-1M is 1H-1S and we have a soft 3613 16-count with the DA. I would really like to see the ACBL run a better bidding contest. Steve Robinson runs one in the District 6 (Washington, DC area) magazine and the problems are of uniformly high quality. The ACBL problems seem to fall over and over into the same categories -- (a) a guess (B) some standard expert treatment that gets a unanimous panel © problem where the answer is Dble and the real problem is next round (d) problem where the answer is cuebid and the real problem is partner's (e) problem where we erred at a previous turn and now have to guess (f) random guess about an infrequent auction. Curt

Pass. When I opened 1♠ rather than 1NT, I planned to treat this as a balanced 18-count, and it hasn't got any worse. Show me the money.

Um what? I don't think 3♣ is stronger than 3♠, since it shows a 5-5 which will have more playing strength than a 3=5=1=4. 3♣ is not forcing. Furthermore, we aren't broke when we bid 2♠, so 3♠ shows extraaaas. Now 3♦ can potentially be a strong bid. I'd say thats forcing to 3♥. 3♠. Now that we know partner has at least 2 hearts, he can't have 4 small spades and random garbage since that hand passes or bids 1NT forcing. We need to bid 3♠ to get to the game facing SQxxxx and the HJ and some other random card.

I think it supposedly incorporates everything. When it's a save, when they let you make a game they shouldn't, etc. Anyway it's not my figure, just what I was told, and the fact that anyone good even thinks it's true should be an eye opener. The odds cited also assume an infinintely long match. Contrast this with Swiss scored at W/L after 6 totally flat boards. Discounting the possibility of a silly result from the other table, now you need 50% odds to bid the game. Re the 1 in 5 comment -- There is also the possibility of bluffing and how it shifts the odds for some later hand where you can come over the top when the opponents double your game. I think the similarities between bridge and poker are deeper than is generally found in the literature.

rofl

I think I agree with playing DA, CA, HK, CKQJ, HAQ, SA, reducing to [hv=n=skqxhdxc&s=shtdaxcx]133|200|[/hv] However, east has both black suits, you cannot squeeze him unless he needs to keep red card(s) since you have no entry in either thread suit. Let's analyze this in more detail... Since three of the suits can only be guarded by one opponent we can make the following payoff matrix, given that S are not 3-3, H are not 3-3, the HJ does not come down, and C are not 4-3, according to what east guards. black suits: you cannot make this hand, no threat over west, who keeps --, J, xxx, --. pointed suits (diamonds 7-2 or worse): east is positionally squeezed in the pointed suits pointed suits (diamonds not 7-2 or worse): you cannot make this hand, no threat over west, who keeps --, J, xx, T. major suits: oops, we needed to cross in diamonds, not hearts :rolleyes:, east keeps Jxx, J, --, -- and west --, --, xxx, T. The OP indicated we make in this case, but we don't since we again have no entry in either thread suit. We can get to KQx, AQ, --, -- facing --, Txx, x, x but that's not good enough. red suits (diamonds not 7-2 or worse): west has to keep Jxx, --, --, T, so we get to positionally squeeze east in the red suits anyway, now. Non-simultaneous double squeeze with an extended menace, nice :D red suits (diamonds 7-2 or worse): east is positionally squeezed in the red suits minor suits (diamonds not 7-2 or worse): we needed to cross in diamonds, not hearts :) allowing us to squeeze west in the majors minor suits (diamonds 7-2 or worse): east is positionally squeezed in the minor suits Hands where east has three guards are not material to this analysis. East cannot have the major suit guards and the club guard since he led a diamond. East cannot have the only diamond guard and two other guards since that implies a 15-card hand. Ignoring the possibility of using the HT8 to force a 4th heart trick on power, we go down when we might have made when east has 44,+ in the majors including the HJ, and when east has 3-6 diamonds and 5+ clubs, and 2 or fewer hearts, and 2 or fewer spades, and no HJ. Good analysis. I might try to do the payoff matrix for the other line later, but one is enought for now. What's the slow play penalty in this event?

This problem generated a huge disparity of choices. Spade splinter: 2 Diamond splinter: 4 (one bids 2NT if 4♦ is fitted) 4♥: 2 5♥: 2 Constructive heart raise: 1 2♣: 1 psyche something (probably spades): 2 The full hand: [hv=d=n&v=e&n=saqjhqxxxxdaxxxcx&w=stxxxxhxdqjtxxckx&e=skxxxhxdkxxcajtxx&s=s9hakjtxxd9cq6xxx]399|300|Scoring: XIMP[/hv] I bid 3♠ at the table. I considered 4♦ but I was concerned that splintering in diamonds would put partner under pressure to make a slam move with very weak trumps. The rest of the auction was not good bridge: 1♥ - (Dbl) - 3♠! - (Dbl) P - (P) - 4♥ - (4♠) Dbl - (P) - 5♥ 5♥ was strangely doubled by RHO, so we won some IMPs for +750. Two pairs bid the slam, but neither of their auctions was good: 1♥-(Dbl)-2♣-(P); 2♥-(p)-4NT-etc 1♥-(Dbl)-5♥-(P); 6♥-ap Curt

Random BBO cross-IMPs. [hv=d=n&v=e&s=s9hakjtxxd9cq6xxx]133|100|Scoring: XIMP[/hv] 1♥-(Dbl)-? What is your bidding plan?

Which means that more than 20 VPs were awarded in your match. Given that the threshold for awarding non-offending side an adjusted score (presumably better than their table result) is higher than the threshold for assigning offending side an adjusted score (presumably worse than their table result), this should never happen. curt

Why didn't I issue a game-forcing heart raise at my first call with this hand? OK I don't have the fourth trump I would be promising, but if this is my alternative, how bad can that be? At this point I guess to bid 7H, even though I'm laying 1530/750 or slightly more than 2:1 odds. I don't think partner can cuebid here with less than HAQ, DA, CK. Opposite that I need 3-2 hearts and nothing really awful to happen when I try to ruff 2 diamonds in my hand. Partner has to have another card which could reduce the number of diamond ruffs required to 1. Interestingly, bidding the grand at IMPs only lays 17:13 odds (they bid the small slam) or 26:17 (they miss the small slam) so in either case we need better odds at aggregate.

Low diamond. For everyone who gave partner an A, K, and a J, are the opponents really bidding this way with 21 HCP? My understanding of expert standard, if there is such a thing in this situation, is that doubling 3NT asks for, in order leader's suit doubler's suit dummy's suit leader's weaker major* *some play 1N-3Nx and 1N-6N-x specifically asks for one of the majors I predict partner has HQT8x or so, DKx or so, and wants me not to get clever.

I've never played aggregate, but don't we have to consider the chances of getting out for -1 at this form of scoring, or at least consider them more than we would at IMPs? If we lead to the J and a trump comes back, RHO having Qx, we might lose 6 tricks. That would be triple-dummy defense, but if there it's likely RHO would find it we might be better off starting with the K Extra down vs 620 is only 1 or 2 IMPs (-100 is lose 12, -200 13, -300 14). At aggregate the result at the other table on this board is immaterial. We only care that our total score plus teammates total score is a positive number. Or is 200 points not a big deal at aggregate? How big is a normal winning margin?

OK since nobody followed up I simulated this*. I didn't have strong feelings about the action over 2NT but the original post seemed to beg the question, could we abuse Puppet Stayman this way. At matchpoints, passing 2NT vs the abuse I mentioned are about even in expected value.** 3NT is almost hopeless, having reasonable chances on less than 10% of opening hands , but 2NT makes frequently enough that bidding 3NT even vulnerable at IMPs is a serious error. Interestingly, improving the responding hand to xx, xx, QT8xx, J9xx makes passing 2NT a winner at MP, but doesn't really improve your chances of making 3NT. Before I ran this simulation I would have just bid game with that hand at IMPs, not really thinking about it, but now I think thats wrong. The most common scenario is that partner has some hand where the opponents rate to set up four tricks on the lead and then have another trick somewhere. * Predeal yourself the given hand, assume partner would open 2NT with 20/21 HCP and any balanced pattern, plus any 5422 with no 5 card major; analyze 100 such hands single dummy. I removed a few very sharp hands from the sample such as AKQxx, xx, AKx, Axx. ** Not considering the possibility that part of the field might end somewhere other than 2NT-p or 2NT-3C-3X-p.

Deliberate rule-breaking is an ethical issue. And you need to re-read my post if you thought I was calling anyone here a cheater. I will simplify it to bullet-point form: a ) some people in bridge cheat b ) it's easier to catch and evict cheaters when one eliminates legitimate reasons for their (non-bridge) actions and furthermore that c ) one should try hard to avoid the appearance of impropriety d ) if you unexpectedly win something big, do you want people questioning your ethics?* * This is basically what happened to the women's BAM winners in the last SF NABC. Finally, I didn't call anyone in this thread names. Others started that. I just expressed my extreme disappointment that someone I thought I respected was advocating deliberately violating the Conditions of Contest at the upcoming LM Pairs. note: the edit is just because the board sw made my text into an emoticon

Why not bid 3C and pass partner's response. If partner bids 3NT he has at least 7 minor suit cards, so hopefully either we can get to the long diamonds in dummy directly or using the CT as a late entry. If partner bids 3M we're probably better off in the 5-2 than we would be in 2NT. If partner bids 3D we can pass and hopefully get +110 against a minus score in 2NT, or get +130 against +120.

I want to carry a cell phone and all of a sudden I'm not eligible for this "sport" that you call bridge; not eligible for real competition, but only "entertainment"? That's just ridiculous. How do I know my opponents do not have a concealed partnership undestanding? How do I know my opponents do not have a means of concealed partnership communication? How do I know that neither opponent has extraneous information about the hand? How do I know that neither opponent is taking advantage of familiarity with partner's mannerisms for his own advantage... Once people start following rules as they deem fit, you're left with the law of the jungle. What's to stop me, for example, from deciding that I'm not going to tell the opponents (via the alert procedure), perhaps, that the auction 1m (unbalanced)-1M; 1N tends to show a stiff in responder's suit, since that's "just bridge" given the rest of my system as marked on my card. I don't think these are good methods, but I have played them and I have seen others playing them. And when I'm always not bidding 2M on KQT8x as responder, the whispers will start. If you don't like this example you can make up your own pretty easily. And don't pretend you haven't been on the other side of this equation. When I was playing frequently on the west coast, there was a "methods" pair that I figured out routinely stretched by a couple of HCP, or by a step in playing strength. I remember one hand they got my partner bidding 1NT/1M for light 3-suited takeout. The guy had 4333 with 3 cards in each of the off suits and 4 cards in the bid suit, with about a 9 count. Technically their explanation, 3-card support for each of the unbid suits, 8-15 HCP, was correct. But nobody in their right mind would imagine the opponent could hold such a hand given the way the explanation was presented. Once I figured out these guys, I had a huge, huge, laughably huge edge over them, since I knew, but they didn't know that I knew. But that's not bridge. In other words, basically, once we go down this road, we're playing poker. And please don't say that screens solve these problems. They don't solve the all, for sure, and they may not solve any of them. Anyway screens can't be used in every round of the major pair games (the first day of the 3-day LMs is usually 12-14 sections, or 150 tables depending on venue) or the major team events (the first day of the Spingold is also about 100 tables give or take). I'm sure the folks on this forum aren't planning on cheating. But there are cheaters out there, no doubt. And if everyone is carrying on their person the means to cheat, how can we determine which among them is using such devices in some illicit fashion. And keep in mind that it's to your advantage, more so than for a known top player, to have everyone know that you and everyone else in some NABC is clean. Just look at what happened in the last SF NABC after the Chinese women's team blew away the field in the Women's BAM. At least some folks couldn't reconcile the winning margin with the idea that these players were that good, and some really nasty rumors got started. That's awful for the players in question, and also very bad for bridge. If you come out of nowhere to win a big national pair game, do you want people questioning how you got there? Anyway, I'm not going to respond any more to folks that want to deliberately violate some rules, particularly anti-cheating measures, no matter how poorly implemented. I'm just very, very, very disappointed that so few take the ethical aspects of bridge so lightly. I don't think that such actions belong in high-level (ie bridge as sport) events, at all.