jkdood

WD! but what does "not a S" mean?

Well done, Josh! (probably in an all-night poker-game right afterwards!)

couple folks picked Gromov, Congrats to you! (and of course to THEM!) and to JoshD won N A SWiss!!!

1s is my pref

Your comments are RIGHT ON the money!

well there's a DRAW and a formula (not all posted yet) and Justin just figured it out for himself (assuming likely or hopeful results along the way) the draw is at the ACBL site (see Brackets) but yes, not posted yet

Update from Jan (Thanks Jan!): There will be Vugraph from the Spingold, but they didn't know when it would start because of not knowing the number of teams. I think they're trying to start it today, but since I'm being a bridge player at least for another day and hopefully longer, I don't actually know. I promise they're planning to cover from the Round of 32 at least.

Yea! From Jan (Thanks Jan!!) There will be Vugraph from the Spingold, but they didn't know when it would start because of not knowing the number of teams. I think they're trying to start it today, but since I'm being a bridge player at least for another day and hopefully longer, I don't actually know. I promise they're planning to cover from the Round of 32 at least.

When you click on HELP ME FIND A GAME then PLAY I'D LIKE TO PLAY (as many do) very often the host at that table is afk asleep not there whatever That is why someone left an open seat, and why one gets sent there TO PLAY I've seen it happen a zillion times, if it is the hosts turn to bid or play it usually means NOTHING WILL HAPPEN for at last a while, often a LONG while. As many do, epecially whe looking for some quick diversion, I leave almost right away, to surf to PLAY elsewhere. Late at night, I can come and go 6-7 times and find this situation, and of course, get re-Sent to the same seat same table where host is asleep(?) 3-4 times. SO: Just my 2cents, it would be Nice if Somehow the BBO software can detect an idle host getting player after player coming and leaving, and remove table from IN PLAY and so avoid this annoying situation. THANKS!

Well - so far there's no mention of the Spingold 2008 semi-s or finals on the BBO VuGraph schedule, or anywhere? At the very least they should carry Round of 64 Lall vs lall!!!! (You can decide which team get's the Capital "L")

Good luck and happy VuGraphing! HAPPY VU-GRAPHING? There's no mention of the Spingold on the BBO VuGraph schedule for 2008! (Or anywhere) See thread in BBO Forum "Vu-Graphs"

Unfortunately, I am not making it to Vegas. Huge crowd it seems! Unfortunately, I do not see any mention of a Vu-Graph on BBO for this year's (2008) Spingold. Could that possibly be? I checked BBO, the Net, blogs, ACBL, Bulletins, and elsewhere for news of where it might possibly be shown, at least the semi-s and finals... ...this has to be one of the premier and most-watched telecasts. Is it possibly a notification oversight? A by-product of the new electronic-monitoring bans? Let's find out! (Please!)

OK, And thanks btw for the warning about the evil "club monster" lurking :)

When I attended nationals more frequently, without a cellphone, I FREQUENTLY went to a Payphone on breaks or if done with a round early to: a) check voice messages at work or at home b ) leave messages c) check stock or fund positions Of course these things can be done with cellphones. But I do not see a mention of banning use of the payphone (as antiquated as it may be) in the hallways of ACBL+ events... ...if cells are used to cheat so much that a new rule is needed, why is there no ban on payphone usage, where one can leave a message "4-0 trump break board 22" or did i miss it?

hey! i "posited" 3h in a different auction.... SO WAT WOULD YOU SASSY FOLK BID WITH MY HYPOTHETICAL 4COUNT?

Vul at imps the payoff to bid 3n seems much better than nv, and gives Justin's suggestion more merit - maybe 3n vul at imps is a reasonable posit.

Excellent point... will we have to (or be asked to) sign a waiver when we pay dues or entry fees?

I have the greatest admiration and respect for my dear JoshD and dear MatMat and other well-spoken friends here! But I am thinking the ACBL may have just implemented this policy, for legal reasons, to selectively enforce ONLY against the suspected abusers that may have already been seen in the bathrooms, so to speak, looking guilty. The rules, which apply to all members, must apply to all members if the ACBL can detain someone (suspected, monitored, etc) for a search of sorts and find on them a cellphone and administer harsh punishment (such as expulsion.) So I hope I am right that my sense is that it is just a tool the ACBL can use to attack a known problem that defies other measures, such as hearings and lawsuits. Now legally speaking, the ACBL can't just ignore and not enforce the rules, for a bit, against those blatantly in violation, which complicates things greatly. I almost think we should just ignore it silently and see if my guess pans out, but I suppose that is asking a bit too much faith. Sigh.

This is a very interesting and enlightening thread. The term that resonated most for me, was "selective" - as in biased selective enforcement, which we have seen far too often in bridge matters. In this case however I am hopeful and optimistic that the ban and theoretical strict punishment of it, IF enforced, will be ONLY "selectively applied" to those in late stages of top events that are under (documented confidential, priviliged?) suspicion. I would assume that it is suspected that some kibitzers or players in late rounds of top events have gone to the restroom, and perhaps sent or otherwise communicated by cellphone or personal electronic device, to their advantage. ...perhaps called someone watching VuGraf on BBO even! The new rules could be a useful tool for the ACBL to confront those suspected and if they find a banned device in their posession, use the rule as a foolproof way to prove a violation, and take appropriate action. I say "could be" and dearly hope that is the ACBL's objective, hidden or otherwise. I have no inside information, and even would appreciate private email about what the SF Women's rumor was in detail, as I would love to know :)

Even 3H after 1S-x-p has been a long-time "delicate" matter... ...seems like (depending upon pard, opps, vul, and form of scoring) it should be something like Axx AJxxx xx xxx... ...but in these days of total tricks laws, what would one do with a 4count such as xxx QJTxxx JTx x ? Could "only 2H" be right? 4H even NV seems way too bold. 3H seems sort of "just right". Maybe 3x in these auctions should be "tactical" and allow for the weaker hands with longish trumps, not exactly preemptive, but then again:)

Cherdano is CORRECT, the Wolff "Signoff" (with or without extensions) largely distinguishes between 3S "to play" and 3S forcing (And in a Texas-sense, mildly slammish) Back in the day (ahem) One did not respond 1S with Jxxxxx Jxx x xxx to partner's 1D opening, even vul. Then I guess experience showed 1S works out better, but having a way to get out (sign off) in 3S also showed its merit. ..just an M here..

"EXTENDED Wolff SIGNOFF" I was taught this long ago, and have played for a LONG time this 3-level structure by responder: 3C is a relay to 3D to sign-off in responder's first suit, OR to make a slam try in a minor... THEN responder's 3NT (higher) rebid is always the slam-try for diamonds (higher minor) the other "unused" (lower) bid is a club slam-try. Ex: 1C-1S-2N-3C->3D-3H is a slam try for clubs (3N would be for diamonds, 3S would be a signoff.) (The slam try in a minor can be support for opener's minor, or responder's own longish suit.) Yes, after 1C-1D-2N-etc; there may be an unused bid available. Responder's 3D bid after opener's 2N rebid is always checkback for a major. If opener shows a fit for one of the majors, and responder now bids 3NT, opener can safely assume (with the proper fitting hand) that the other major is of interest to responder for the partnership. Ex: Opener has Axx Axxx KQJx Ax and rebids 2N after 1D-1S. Opener then bids 3H after hearing responder rebid 3D. If responder now bids 3N, he must have 5 spades, so opener can safely correct 3N to 4S (or inferentially, show slammish values for a spade slam, with a 4-level cuebid. After 1m-1M-2N, I was taught that 3 of the Other Major by responder, could be one of two hands, by partnership agreement: 1) exactly 4 of the major being bid 2) 5 of the major being bid, promising a 5-5 or better hand I have always preferred version (2), since 3D-checkback seems to work fine for hand types (1). However, in my experience, more partnerships seems to agree the other way. Lastly, after 1m, 1M, 2N, 3M ("same major", example 1D-1S-2N-3S) this shows 6+ length and is at least mildly slammish.

I know Justin has won national championships, but there will also be many Vandy and Spingold crowns on his mantle before long. His continued excellent effort against one of the best pairs of all time, after a couple mishaps, is quite commendable. Also commendable is his and Kev's success to get to this late round, although disappointing to exit I am sure, is still a veryWD feat!

Thank you for posting scores here (ACBL brackets not updated often it seems) PS Justin on VG would be cool!!

WD Justin and Team(M) Let's Keep Justin ON VG (Justin: Keep Winning of Course, To do Your Part!!)