qwery_hi

If I were on trial, I would choose 12 bridge players to be on the jury. While this post may be naive and the butt of many jokes, this is how I sincerely fell.

With a singleton club, 4C would be cue'd before 4D? Regarding blame, since North did not make a 4H cue, he either 1. does not have the king of hearts, in which case he definitely has the A/K clubs for his limit raise, or, 2. has the king of hearts and not 1/2 control of clubs. In both the above cases, with the south hand, it is unwise to make a move over 4S. Even if South decides to move over 4S, 4NT ask by south would resolve which of the above is true, and therefore I assign most of the blame to south.

Sorry, we'll consider locking it only if you use ALL CAPS.

Yeah, like BBO forums is the only place where hands like these would be discussed. News and discussions of such hands cannot be censored. Maybe not. But just because someone else is going to gossip or backbite or slander or libel does not mean we should feel it's appropriate to do so. ...and by behaving "properly" we, and this site, a= avoid being engulfed in the flames or other nasties of the controversy b= avoid potential legal problems AFAIK gossip is allowed, and the OPost was not libel, nor was a public accusation of cheating made. And seeing how the thread has not been censored by the powers of BBO, who I think are quite conservative, I don't think they consider this a public accusation of cheating either.

On that note, it is NOT IMNSHO any more appropriate for Justin to be brought before a commitee, or "tried by the public" than it was or would have been of Mr Piltch. Some seem to think that because Justin made inappropriate public comments, =he= should be before a C & E. That is at least as ludicrous as the other call for a C&E was. Justin was put in a situation that charged him emotionally and he said and did some overly emotional things because of it. He overreacted a bit. We all do that. Particularly when we are younger. I'm not sure what the proper way to address that is, but I =am= sure that a "reciprocal witch hunt" is not the proper way. My hopefully constructive suggestion as to how BBO should handle this kind of stuff in the future is that BBO should simply censor public accusations of cheating in these forums where the accused can be identified. We have policies and procedures, including for when and how such information should be made public. This forum, particularly before due process has been observed, is not and should not be one of them. Yeah, like BBO forums is the only place where hands like these would be discussed. News and discussions of such hands cannot be censored.

Which position do you think I am opposed to? That posting this on the forum was in some ways good for the guy who made the 6D call. When I was told about this hand over dinner that day, I was 100% convinced that there must have been UI. Then I came back to the hotel and read some of the posts here, and now I think there is reasonable doubt as to whether there was UI or not. One other poster here has said the same thing, that he changed his mind after reading the forums.

Well I know from a previous post you are not that keen on the English legal system( insane, I think you said) but there is a bit of a premium on facts and evidence that might be missing from some of this discussion. I'm not sure that being able to rant on a public forum is necessarily a big advance but still get the ducking stool ready. We are going to need it! Another Strawman. You should read the post more carefully - I said libel laws, not the legal system. Anyhow, given your and gnashers stubbornness to see the opposing position, I shouldn't expect any better.

Definitely much better, everyone can be the prosecution, judge, jury and executor. and defender if they want to be. Open discussion is quite helpful for the non-guilty party. Just ask someone who changed their mind about the incident after reading the posts in this forums. good try though, but massive fail with your sarcasm.

Even so much as reserving your rights for a BIT or whatever comes across as an accusation of (potential) cheating. Experienced players get used to it and the lawmakers and enforcers are at great pains to point out that it isn't - but that doesn't alter that the implication is exactly that - and inexperienced people react as such. Matmat's comments upthread about teaching newcomers fully and correctly regarding such things, sure comes back to mind! To me, this case is fundamentally different from a hesitation. To me, asking the director to review the 6D bid is basically equal to a suggestion of foul play, and funnily enough, the laws seem to allow that.

I can see a whole new legal concept developing here which will certainly lower the costs associated with courts and trials. :P Luckily, this is the US, where the concept of free speech still has some meaning, and the libel laws are not totally insane like those over the pond - see, for e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ish-courts.html

Yes, that's right. The only reason that anyone might disagree with the way that Justin handled the situation is because they're too old and stupid to make rational judgements. You got that one right. The older crowd have to accept the fact that with the internet, news of incidents like this will spread much faster. I guess 30 years ago, after about an year, most top players and people with access to them would know about a hand like this. How? Through word of mouth. Posting it in a forum is much better than that in a way since everyone can have their say, indeed the partner of the guy also made a post. Do you think 30 years ago he would even have a chance to say anything much? OK, and, just so that I understand the point of the link that you posted, are you saying that those people who disagree with Justin's actions are (in addition to being old, stupid and ignorant of modern technology): - opposed to gay marriage - in favour of drug prohibition - opposed to filesharing (supposing that they knew what it was) The point of the link that I posted was to ask if, as Bridge starts becoming more modern, e.g. with the electronic pads, and with internet vugraphs, indeed with internet bridge and bridge forums, there will emerge a generational divide over what proper ethics and such stuff are in this different world of bridge. The age divide over gay marriage is well known - "According to the Field Poll, support for same-sex marriage in California reached a majority for the first time in 2008, with 51% in support, 42% opposed, and 7% with no opinion.[61] The poll also showed majority support among those under 50 years of age, with 68% of 18 to 29 year olds supporting it. Among those 65 or older, support drops to 36%. Majorities in support of same sex marriages were also found among those living in Los Angeles County, the San Francisco Bay Area and other more urban parts of Northern California, while a majority of those in the Central Valley and areas of Southern California outside Los Angeles County were opposed." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California Re Marijuana legalization - Men slightly favor Prop. 19, 48-47, but women disapprove, 50-41. The Field Poll also confirms the pattern of young voters under the age of 30 heavily supporting marijuana legalization, 52-39, but those over 65 opposing it strongly, 57-33. Support divides fairly evenly for voters between 30 and 65. - http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/07/0...ng-with-voters/ With filesharing, it is even more obvious to me, with some of the judges who ruled in these cases not even knowing what the underlying technology was, just like in software patents. The author is deliberately provocative, and I'm pretty sure the author meant it to be provocative, and in that I think there are some neat parallels between that and the OP in this thread.

Yes, that's right. The only reason that anyone might disagree with the way that Justin handled the situation is because they're too old and stupid to make rational judgements. You got that one right. The older crowd have to accept the fact that with the internet, news of incidents like this will spread much faster. I guess 30 years ago, after about an year, most top players and people with access to them would know about a hand like this. How? Through word of mouth. Posting it in a forum is much better than that in a way since everyone can have their say, indeed the partner of the guy also made a post. Do you think 30 years ago he would even have a chance to say anything much?

This. See, matmat has a valid point too. You're not wrong doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, and the other way around.

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between asking the director to investigate the 6D bid and posting the hands with the associated comments here (This bid is impossible without UI). Remember, this hand had already been discussed with most of the experts in the Spingold and would surely become the talk of the Nationals. Unlike the pre internet era, where it would probably take 6+ months for the news of this hand to reach the hog, if at all, justin was just speeding up the process. FWIW, I think what Justin did , and by that I mean his posts in this thread and his comments, are most definitely not wrong. Is there a age-divide emerging in Bridge like the one talked about here? - http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=588 I wonder if I will be penalized if I have that on a T shirt and wear that to my next bridge tournament.

What percentage of those hands find partner with the King of diamonds? I'm not even close to an expert, but with the hand in the post and perhaps with most of the hands in the simulations, I'll give thought to raising partner to 7 diamonds, especially if I take partner at his word and/or swing some myself. Imagine the problem the 6D bid gives partner on some of the hands. Surely they are as much or more than the problems LHO has.

Yup, its a tossup between great bridge and ecstasy.

Are you a troll? possibly, though I thought I was just pointing out the slight hypocrisy in your posts OP didn't see the contradiction, two months is sufficient restraint compared to the two weeks most people need to advance up from intermediate.

2H is my call, if only because partner may have 5 hearts and 4 spades

Humans are no better at reading computers than computers are at reading humans. In fact, I think in a human vs computer poker game the computer has the edge since it has perfect memory. So how well have computers been doing in tournament poker vs 8 other good players? Not too well afaik, have you heard otherwise? The number of hands is one small element of the complexity. I've made my arguments, you won't convince me and I won't convince you. Now if only the ACBL allowed 1 human + 3 computers to enter into the spingold, that would be a first step in deciding this argument.

1. Heads up limit and heads up no limit are two vastly different games. 2. "Zia may or may not have withdrawn his challenge" - http://bbi.bridgebase.com/articles/fg/ginsberg.html 3. "Currently the best computer bots aren't in that sort of league at bridge - given the speed of modern cpus they can play the cards well enough - but the bidding remains a chellenge." - I'll trust Zia more than you on this for sure.

As big a LOL as I've ever read. Do you have any idea of the research efforts invested in computer poker? See, for e.g. http://www.coral-lab.org/~marc/aaai07.pdf

Disagree. Bridge *can* be a much more complex game than poker, if the restrictions on bidding were lifted, but as the games stand, poker is much more complex than bridge. One test that I have for complexity is who would be the winner in a computer vs human WC match. In a bridge contest, I think Zia long ago withdrew his 1M challenge. In poker, only very recently have the computers been good enough to take on the pros 1v1, let alone play at a table with 10 pros.

I like 3NT non-serious only on when we have a 4-4 major fit.

I do! Let's give east north's ace of clubs, that might be something like a ONE MINUTE pause, right? Well NS still make GAME. I mean I know your point is that a minute is a very long time in this context and that is true. But that doesn't suggest east's hand is stronger than a short pause would, just that it's a closer decision. Agree 100%. Similar hand that I played had East with a spade void and a 2 minute tank. I doubled with the south hand having Ax of spades, and the opponents ended up in 3 somthing X for a big plus for us.

I am another of those young players who has given up serious bridge in favor of poker. The main attraction of poker is that it has no rules that I consider to be arbitrary or stupid. (Alert - some boring, ranting stuff follows) I had no problem getting attracted to bridge, since I already played chess from when I was 8 and go and strategic board games from 12. Unfortunately, growing up in India offered few opportunities for bridge, but I picked it up when I arrived in the US when I was 25. Enjoyed playing bridge for 3 years, this is proof for me that newcomers don't bother much with system regulations and attracting newcomers has little to do with system regulations. The problem is this - if all systems were allowed, even if only at the highest levels of bridge, I would be motivated to try to improve and try to play at the highest level. However, even if at National level open event, so many arbitrary restrictions apply, there is little motivation for me to try to play in them. This is even more true at the lower levels of the game, where the number of restrictions increase rapidly. IMO, Marston is self-serving for saying that system regulations effect entry of younger players, and Fred, Meckstroth, Chip, all of the current elite of bridge who are in favor of current restrictions at National level and International level events are equally self-serving.