qwery_hi

I am not looking for a pass and if you think I owe an apology I am afraid you are going to be disappointed by this response. I expressed an opinion that I suspect a substantial majority of players from my part of the world who play at my level would agree with. FWIW the only other 2 regular Forums contributors I can think of off the top of my head who have won ACBL National Championships (JLOL and jdonn) seem to agree with me. Perhaps more significant is that all 3 of us (especially the other 2) are "young USA experts" (who by and large tend to be more likely to psych and less likely to be mature enough to care about the wishes of club level players than "old USA experts" tend to be). Most likely "old USA experts" would tend to be more strongly inclined to agree with me than this (admittedly small) sample of young stars. Typically in the past when I have tried to support my case by saying something like "I think most USA experts would agree", there have been a lot of responses that more or less express sentiments like: 1) So what? Why should we assume experts know anything? 2) I know better and I have the following excuses for why I don't have the bridge record to prove it. 3) Who cares? The USA is the armpit of world bridge. We bridge players in Antarctica are much more enlightened. 4) I never admit I am wrong about anything so I why would I start now? 5) I am just a troll and will continue to behave like one no matter what you post. But hopefully there are a few people out there reading this who will think something like this instead: Maybe those who play our game the best actually know something, not just about how to play but also about how one should behave when playing. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com I think Justin said that he would have no qualms psyching against you in a club game. So why would Glen have to think twice before psyching vs two stars? That is what I've been saying all along. I wouldn't call an expert's psyche against you unclassy even if it is in a club game.

If you expect us to give Fred a pass on his classy comment (pun unintended), you're wrong. Classifying this as troll bait is dishonest.

Thanks - I've been pulled in to be a mentor and my partner is transitioning from 4 card majors and penalty doubles at all levels to SA. I think Adam's scheme : After 1M - 2m, the only non-GF (but F1) bids are 2m+1 through 2M, is easy to remember and play. I'll try this out.

What do the rebids mean? 2S 2N 3m 3H? Is there a expert standard (maybe a forums agreement) on what these bids should mean? Also, is there a good webpage that explains what these bids mean and what the tradeoffs for different choices are?

so +2100 vs -1840 ? Edit - Thanks Wayne.

Does anyone have the complete hand - I cant find it in the vugraph archives.

You mean more secure as in less chance of hearing/seeing a bit of useful information from an adjacent table? I'm also a bit surprised by the frequency of bathroom and smoking breaks during a segment. Each segment is 2h 15m, that doesn't seem like an excessive time to be asked to stay at the table. And, wouldn't it improve security if the players actually did stay at the tables? As long as the other three players at the table are ok with any breaks (for bathroom or smoking or to stretch the legs), why would anyone have a problem?

I personally don't see much upside in debating Fred while the open trials are on. I guess that's where Uday was coming from, and I apologize to Fred if I took something away from the 100% focus that the trials require. I'm rooting for Diamond to be USA2, and when that happens I'll be back with my 'troll-bait'

In one case it's like taking candy from a baby in the other like taking candy from the chocolate factory. Oooooh, what fun with poetry!

I disagree - no sure why anyone would have an issue with this psyche. It's vs stars, and in a first time partnership. In my opinion... When a typical expert decides to play in an ACBL club game (online or not), he/she is typically not that interested in the possibility of winning 1.2 masterpoints and he/she typically does not get a great deal of satisfaction from scoring well (unless perhaps if he/she also gets a great deal of satisfaction from clubbing baby seals). The normal and laudable mentality that I have observed in such circumstances is that the expert is either hoping to have a nice time playing with a friend, playing with a lesser partner in the hope of teaching that person something, or just trying to "give something back" to the game by being friendly and perhaps helpful to the average players of the world that make up the VAST majority of bridge players and, without whom, we would not have much of a game to play. If your level of maturity is at or below that of Matmat's you might not care about that, but fortunately most bridge players are at least beginning to approach adulthood. Whether you think it is rational or not, a lot of players in this vast majority get upset about psychs. When experts psych it tends to ruin the game for them in the same way that people who take candy from babies tend to really upset the babies. IMO it is not only classy, but it is in the expert's self-interest to do whatever he/she can to ensure that lesser players keep coming back, especially when said experts have nothing to gain (except perhaps a moment of demented self-amusement) by behaving in a way that is contrary to such goals. If Glen can honestly say "I never would have done that if we weren't playing against 2 stars", then maybe it is different. But the worst part of this, in my opinion, is that he was acting as a sub when this happened (hence my bolding of especially in my previous post). If you still don't understand why, then maybe someone else will be kind enough to explain it to you. Fred Gitelmn Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Its funny how I, who don't know Glen except from his blog and who has never praised him on the forums, is willing to give Glen the benefit of the doubt and assume that if it he were playing vs novices he wouldn't have psyched, and therefore not question his class

I disagree - no sure why anyone would have an issue with this psyche. It's vs stars, and in a first time partnership.

If you're an expert playing against novices, why would you want to psyche and randomize the result when you can get a good score just by the difference in skill level? S.J.Simon says something similar in his book. Edit - Rather, I am just repeating what S.J.Simon said 50+ years ago.

LOL at the blanket statements you make in any case.

Yeah I'm going to call bullshit on this one. I have never seen any incident like you suggest while I've commentated nor while I've watched. Some commentators can be harsh, but there is always someone else in the booth that can draw them back and stop things from getting out of line. I have never seen unfettered criticism of a player or a team. Its always done in good taste and above board. Their decorum is commendable. The fact that you bring this up as a 'hypothetical' simply means that your discussion is either pointless or offensive or both. Can you think of a single instance in sport where the announcers show this much class? I guarantee you that if a new player who is leading the US Open golf tournament started choking like a dog and making all kinds of strange plays, the telecasters would be making an absolute spectacle out of it. Google Jean Van De Velde's meltdown at the 2001 (I think) Open (British Open if you are from the States). Oh yeah? I'm going to call bullshit on this one, and back it up with evidence - http://stacyjacobs.com/2007/10/11/bbo-commentary/ - Stacy Jacobs has said it better than I could have. Not that again. - 1. Was private chat, so Phil is correct. He is referring to public non-constructive criticism. He has no way of knowing what happens through private chat. - 2. No player was criticised. - 3. It happened 18 months ago, and the issue was resolved shortly afterwards. We have indeed had incidents where commentators have been rude to players, sponsors and organisers. Those people have not been invited again and probably never will be. Roland " Can you think of a single instance in sport where the announcers show this much class? " Class is not just what you do in public. And if Phil had done his homework, there is a way he could have known about it. After all, I didn't read Stacy Jacob's mind to find out about it. Speculating about the quality of girlfriends is no better than saying "Homeland Security is Big Brother". If the latter can be disallowed to not cause offense to 1% of BBO, the former can be too. Your point #3 is irrelevent to this discussion.

Yeah I'm going to call bullshit on this one. I've been a commentator for many years now. As a matter of fact I was an announcer at one of the very first vugraphs shown on BBO. I have never seen any incident like you suggest while I've commentated nor while I've watched. Some commentators can be harsh, but there is always someone else in the booth that can draw them back and stop things from getting out of line. All commentators are players, and their skill level varies from average to great. Comms like players misanalyze things sometimes, but there is never a shortage of other comms (or specs in private) that will step in and correct them. I have never seen unfettered criticism of a player or a team. Its always done in good taste and above board. Their decorum is commendable. The fact that you bring this up as a 'hypothetical' simply means that your discussion is either pointless or offensive or both. Can you think of a single instance in sport where the announcers show this much class? I guarantee you that if a new player who is leading the US Open golf tournament started choking like a dog and making all kinds of strange plays, the telecasters would be making an absolute spectacle out of it. Google Jean Van De Velde's meltdown at the 2001 (I think) Open (British Open if you are from the States). And Phil, you should watch chess commentators if you want true class.

Yeah I'm going to call bullshit on this one. I have never seen any incident like you suggest while I've commentated nor while I've watched. Some commentators can be harsh, but there is always someone else in the booth that can draw them back and stop things from getting out of line. I have never seen unfettered criticism of a player or a team. Its always done in good taste and above board. Their decorum is commendable. The fact that you bring this up as a 'hypothetical' simply means that your discussion is either pointless or offensive or both. Can you think of a single instance in sport where the announcers show this much class? I guarantee you that if a new player who is leading the US Open golf tournament started choking like a dog and making all kinds of strange plays, the telecasters would be making an absolute spectacle out of it. Google Jean Van De Velde's meltdown at the 2001 (I think) Open (British Open if you are from the States). Oh yeah? I'm going to call bullshit on this one, and back it up with evidence - http://stacyjacobs.com/2007/10/11/bbo-commentary/ - Stacy Jacobs has said it better than I could have. "Pointless or offensive or both?" - Good Job with the personal attack there - Did the dog eat your homework?

When commentators are critical of players, some players get angry. When players are critical of commentators, some commentators get angry. What a surprise!

Are you joking? edit: Just read Han's post above. Are you guys actually saying that playing in the semi finals (top 4 teams) of an 8 team womens event makes you a world class player? Give me a break. And FWIW I'm not saying that no women are world class players, I don't believe that, but many in this event are not and i'm sure they would agree with that. I thought being on BBO was qualification enough to make you a world class player. I'm a commentator on the forums, and while I agree that some of my fellow forum commentators need to work on their jokes, the rest of you should realize that it is your privilege to have us comment on here.

This is not true. I remember when a friend of mine, a bridge pro told the story, where he forgot the answers to RCKB in his partnership with his standard partner during an European Championship. Okay, this was an extreme example, but when you follow the vuegraph of any big tournement, you will see that this best bridge is played in the prelimaries, not in the final. So it is amazing what "horrible" mistakes you can make when you are tired or just lost the focus. There is conscious memorization and subconscious pattern recognition. RKCB falls into the former category.

That depends on how good they are at pattern recognition. Routine hands which are part of a seen before pattern would be difficult to get wrong.

Glad to know I can be a commentator. I've been working on my jokes a lot lately; and occasionally can perform a squeeze.

Yeah seriously north had the most obvious bid ever, and south had a pass. Sorry for lack of LOL clarity. If I was qualified to LOL, I would never explain my LOL's. So an unqulified LOL at explaining your LOL. LOL at having to be qualified to LOL someone Seconded. LOL I do not consider you two to be qualified to LOL. So I can only LOL at your LOL'ing me for thinking you have to be LOL. Stop LOL'ing out of your ass

What would you suggest Han? At our club the lady that signs everyone in just asks everyone "What bracket would you like to play in today?" - or just do away with brackets so that our 'C' players who very rarely score 50% never get into the money because of the several 'A' pairs who very rarely score below 55%? Why should players who rarely score 50% expect to get in the money with any regularity? Because masterpoints are free for the ACBL to award and gets beginners players to their goal of becoming a LM. About 30-40% of the pairs get MPs at my club , I wouldn't object to 50% of pairs getting MPs.

Yeah seriously north had the most obvious bid ever, and south had a pass. Sorry for lack of LOL clarity. If I was qualified to LOL, I would never explain my LOL's. So an unqulified LOL at explaining your LOL. LOL at having to be qualified to LOL someone Seconded. LOL

Comparisons like she outplayed the winning pair in the 199er pairs are invalid - the real comparison would be how would each of the winning pair of the 199ers have done playing with you as a partner.