smiffy

I have to admit i can completely relate. :(

Yes, you're right. I hadn't thought of UI. So team-wise maybe a slip of paper quietly slipped to the team captain or some such would have to suffice. I don't see though why a segment needs to be played out if conceding it would put nobody at a disadvantage. Not the opposing team, not one's own team and not (most of) the audience. And, on the other hand, a concession might be beneficial to both teams. A concession might indeed be seen as a sign of respect for the opponents. In that you trust them not to make nonsensical and game-swinging bids and plays in the remaining boards. Since this concession seems to be an incident without precedence there might be no need for an established and accepted process for mid-segment concessions as of yet. But what if other teams in other tournaments will do likewise in the future?

I don't see a (close) analogy to chess either. In chess you are usually able to see whether you still have a chance to win (or draw) or not. This - due to factor of randomness - is not the case in bridge. What bothers me a little: Bridge as it is played here is a team game. While Dr. Vladow made his wild swing attempts his team mates at the other table may have played sound and winning bridge. Of course he knew that this was not going to suffice but one might still wish for a different behaviour on his part. On the other hand, one can easily imagine that this was the agreed strategy after the 5th segment. If it was not though, I'm quite sure his actions did not earn him very much respect with his team-mates. Also i wonder whether his team-mates have been informed about their withdrawal and offered the chance to do likewise. Personally i can very much understand the notion to just give up. The case was hopeless and the last boards must have been terribly depressing. I actually think there is a proper way to "throw the towel" in such a situation. Ask the opps, ask the TD, ask the team-mates, ask the captain, say thank you, congratulate opps and head to the bar. If it was done in such a way i see not reason that speaks against it, even if it has been without precedence.

I'm not sure about punishments bridge-wise, but if these two players have a doctor in medicine i really would not want to have them as my doctors. They might walk out on me in the middle of a complicated brain surgery just because it does not work out as they had expected. :)

1. was the vietnam war a declared war? no, since the us settled for far less than a life lived by our rules 1. was the vietnam war a declared war? 2. did the US use napalm without regard for the identity of the victims? hmmmm And hasn't Al Queda declared war against Americans (among many others)? i suppose a terrorist can declare a war, so if that's so a terrorist organization can... I don't think your definition is correct. First of all individuals cannot declare wars. Secondly, a terrorist does not necessarily need to use "the most horrifying means possible". I think one can safely say that he will use that which he deems most effective from what is available to him. He still might refrain from using Anthrax or some such. Not every terrorist is by definition blinded by fanaticism. Thirdly, a terrorist might have an extremely high regard for the identity of his victims (the german RAF - Red Army Fraction - for example did pick their victims very carefully, just as the IRA; though certainly both were not bothered much by the death of innocents). Also, a terrorist might settle for much less than a life lived by his rules. For example he might use his terroristic activity to force a government to free his imprisoned comrades. Or his activities target only some certain group but not society as a whole. Or he engages in terroristic activity because he sees no other way to make his case or that of his people known to the public. And finally the ones who make up the movement do not need to die out or be destroyed. There are cases (again the german RAF) where terrorists had stopped their activity just by themselves. They simply - over the years - had lost their commitment. They are human beings after all. I have a feeling with your definition of terrorism you had islamistic suicide bombers in mind, the Al-Quaida and nothing much else.

I think in this case it depends on whether their activities are organized in such a manner as to achieve what they see as their aims. So is their "terrorizing of the neighborhood" planned or is it just a by-product; collateral damage so to speak. If the former, i think they can be called terrorists. If the latter, they are mere criminals.

"Most" Americans aren't interested in asking a question at a presidential debate either. And even if I would bet more than even money that X doesn't know Y, then saying "I am sure you don't know Y" directly to X is still patronizing. Anyway, I am sure attributing lack of knowledge is part of what psychologist call implicit racial stereotypes. I would put more than even money that McCain does have implicit racial stereotypes. Well, that's a rather easy bet as almost everyone has implicit racial stereotypes, but I would also think that it showed in this conversation. I found McCain's response quite outrageous. If only he had said "might not have heard of..." instead of "propably never heard of...". I don't know if it's racism or mere elitism or just unbelievable clumsiness. But i know that i want neither of these in the president of the most powerful country in the world. Also i found Oliver Clark to be quite a distinguished person, almost to the point of sophistication. After McCains remark i just wondered who this guy was talking to - surely not Mr. Clark himself who clearly was not the kind of person to address in such a manner - ....and just assumed he intended it for the whole audience. The debate was translated (into german) simultaneously so sadly lots seems to be lost in translation.

Maybe destructionalist?

Guess he's not "Mr. Congeniality" at the craps table either. The woman McCain addressed has tried to put his hand above the table, however friendly, via force. It then might be possible that he just panicked. He has experienced torture and still suffers from pain today. Maybe, really just maybe, what he meant when he said "Do you know who i am?" is that he presumed his conditions to be known or made known to people he deals with. Then, in the casual environment of a dice game he might have let his guards down only to experience something that he sees as an assault on his privacy and well-being. I am neither a friend nor enemy of McCain, it just struck me that it is possible for this whole situation to not be exactly as it seems. Maybe this could also be the reason why none of the journalists present made this incident known to the public. However, as President of the USA, one might want to wish someone more emotionally stable.

It is simply not true that noone will care. It is also not necessary to keep talking about "serious games". As i have said three times by now: FD could be (and of course would be) turned off by default. End of story. And i do wonder how you can say that it is not useful. Of course you have more space in the chat box. But (as i have also said earlier) it might be overlooked. And it might lead certain opps to the opinion that you are abusing it. And it might be very useful for not so experienced players. I'll keep repeating myself meeting serious opposition without any real arguments. Sorry, unless that happens this was my last post on this topic. :blink: @ jillybean: Yes, yes and yes. I have just dubbed it FD. The "official" FD is something different altogether, i know.

What are you talking about here? The complaint with FD is the unauthorized information passed to your partner. Conveying the information via the "installed and approved method" does not make it authorized any more than passing information verbally, written, by body language or smoke signals. Go back and read matmat's post :blink: No one is objecting if 4 consenting adults want to exchange information and use FD to do this but I don’t expect it in a serious game. I give up. I think i have come up with quite a few points here which speak for an "installed and approved" FD. But i have not seen as of yet anything which speaks against it. And it is really not that I am unwilling to let myself be convinced that the idea is a bad one. The danger of UI is just the same as with the chat log, jillybean. Or just please tell me in which way it might be abused more easily. Beause I have no idea, else i would not have come up with it. Of course you do not want it in a serious game, whatever that is. You might want to read one of the two posts in which i amongst other stuff suggest FD to be turned on only if desired and turned off by default. Edit: I have reread matmat's post(s). He just made a statement and said nothing about why he thinks the way he thinks. In the post you quoted i have tried to bring across my point of view. Is my english really that bad?

Yes, i also consider it unnecessary. But i also consider it an improvement. Not a big one, but it would certainly help in some awkward situations that come up far too frequently in my opinion. Anyway, you're surely right that it is far from necessary. You missed the point. Vang, what exactly prevents you from doing the exact same thing in the chat box?

See, for me it seems to be just the other way round. An officially implemented alert button is something altogether different from a chat box. One can always ask a question like: "What do you think this button is for? To enable cheating?" I actually think this point so valid - and quite easy to see - that in fact only a tiny minority will suspect you of doing "something fishy". And such people, lacking not only an understanding of BBO mechanics but also a good deal of common sense, will object to anything, whether it's FD or self-alerts. But it might just be that many people still living in the twilight zone of half-knowledge would feel much more secure seeing that it's installed and approved of by the makers of this site. This simply is not the case when people exchange the meaning of their bids via the text box. Of course there will always be people who will mistrust you and call you a cheater, no matter how good your reasoning might be and how lacking theirs. But should this really be a reason to stop one from doing what one considers right? Agree. That's why it could be turned off by default and only turned on when everybody agrees. Or there could be text messages informing the players. Or tables where it's turned on could be colour coded in the overview. Or this could be implemented only in the Relaxed Bridge Club. Also i think the vast majority of advanced players, experts and "experts" will have it turned off anyway... I think it just has too many benefits - especially, maybe exclusively, for beginners - and only little, and rather neglectible, downsides. But as you said, it might just be there already, in a way.

Because the one thing is an official feature by BBO, implemented for that purpose, while the other is not? Oh, thank you very much :). I haven't really looked at that program yet (due to a lack of conventions :blink: ), but sure will now.

What, please, is FD? Might be the language barrier. Sorry, but i do not understand. If there are to be alerts, what can be more practical than a self-alert? Not only that the person who uses the alert best knows what he wants to convey (ahem...) but also he is much more sure not to forget to alert. Yes, there is no compromise. It's quite late here and things are getting mixed up in my head. :blink: