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:

This is one of those things that make me want to go :blink:. Nonetheless I think just because there are people who have a wrong idea of or attitude towards this practice this same practice should not be devalued. The same might just account for "4-Way alerts". There is this one thing that might be bothersome: The practice of self-alerts is a compromise, as far as i can tell, owing to the fact that alerts by one's partner are extremely impractical in online bridge. By this BBO already oversteps a line. Any further softening of established rules then might be considered of pushing it too far? It certainly would change the face of BBO to a certain degree. Anyway, I see this huge upside of not only cancelling out bidding misunderstandings once and for all - if one so wishes - but also, for beginners and intermediates like me, being able to use different conventions in practice. The inhibition threshold that people experience in using them will vanish much more quickly when they have been forced upon them often enough. It is more convenient but i fear there are more people who consider that to be cheating than there are when the alert box is used. It also happens to simply be overlooked.

A frequent problem that occurs when playing with random - intermediate - partners is a lack of understanding whether a given bid is meant in a conventional or in a natural way. This occurs often with the likes of splinter bids or Jacoby 2NT. Often i simply do not make these bids for the fear of p raising me or passing out. A workaround might be to give a short explanation in the chat box but quite a few people, opps and partners alike, do not feel all to comfortable with that. So how about making it possible to make self-alerts visible to all players instead of just the opponents? What I have in mind is an option under the table preferences which is turned off by default but can be activated by the host. Tables making use of that might then be colour coded in the overview if needed. I don't see a need for this but maybe some do? I actually can see no downside to this but many advantages, especially for beginners and intermediates. Comments or criticism?

Assuming the contract is 6 of clubs, one propably wants to dump the spade losers on the hearts. The problem here seems to be that defenders can prevent this by holding back the queen for one round, thus killing the transportation once hearts are not 3-3. The only way i can imagine to still make, is to take the Ace of hearts in the first round, play two rounds of diamonds, dumping a hearts and duck a round of spades (playing the ten). When on lead again play Ace of spades, then cross-ruff with spades, diamonds, spades and hearts, ending in hand. Draw trumps and make. I hope. I very much hope. No clue otherwise. I see no way of making 6NT. Edit: Fixed an error Edit: Forget that about ruffing the spades. It was rather wishful thinking. To reduce the chances of getting overruffed on the fourth round i might draw a round of trumps, but i don't think that'll do. @ Free: I guess this would be some sort of a standard line. I'm quite at odds though...

I think this hypothetical question suffers a little from a lack of data. One can here construct a setting where this one innocent individual, when economically enslaved, just does not have to suffer the consequences. So assuming he'll be taxed with 100%, the rest of the world just has to provide all the natural goods he wishes for. And while everybody is theoretically able to tell him which jobs he has to take and how he does them, in practice everybody just agrees to take no advantage of that. And why shouldn't they? Everybody's happy and without any needs...It might even go so far that the people, being happy and without any needs, regard any such agreement as redundant. The same can easily be applied to this individuals total enslavement. Additionally, albeit there might not be any need for this, to garantuee his state of immunity, the penalty for meddling with this individuals affairs would be severe.

@mike777: Does it really say "not 100%" in the Encyclopedia? I have a feeling this is an addition made by you in order to make your point clear, yes? If so, you might want to quote - especially from an encyclopedia - "as is". If not, then please excuse that. "Usually a strength showing bid" though means nothing else but "unless specifically agreed otherwise". No? @ topic: The only advantage of an SJS here would be the immediate game force. I think this by no means outweighs the disadvantages of the loss of bidding space and the somewhat misdiscreption of the hand. Since the question - and aim - here is clearly wether you want a small or large slam in No Trump and not in Diamonds. Also a 2D response would tell me as opener that the responder has a game-forcing hand that might have rebid problems in achieving just that. I'd assume very strong and long (6+) diamonds and some outside honors. I'd certainly not expect a 2NT+ opener with 5 non-solid diamonds. Clearly 1D for me.

These are very interesting points you make. It seems to me that as much as rubber bridge is a very traditional approach to this game, so is the bidding. However I personally can see no advantages in playing strong 2s and making jumps unilaterally forcing. This is just crude, is it not? The method of scoring here seems totally irrelevant to me. There might be a (slight) case however with doubles being penalty orientated more often due to the players greater willingness to sacrifice. Anyway i must strongly oppose to your statement that there is something wrong with me :). Seriously, go to Yahoo-Bridge and ask anyone in which way rubber bridge bidding deviates rom SA. I promise you, chances are you might spend days until you find someone who knows what you are talking about. I myself have been playing there for years but the points made by you were utterly new to me. As said by helene: "If you ask partner "is SAYC ok, p?" he will probably ignore you, otherwise make jokes of the fact that you try to make bidding agreements on Yahoo." Dito.

I have started playing Bridge a couple of years ago at Yahoo's and only after being well into it discovered BBO. So, for those unaware, let me tell you (rant) about bridge at Yahoo's: - At Yahoo-Bridge experts play at "advanced" tables. The most prominent feature of an "advanced" player is his understanding that bridge is, above all, a game of quick reaction. Once you stop clicking on cards, rest assured at least one player at the table will tell you "Faster please", "Faster", '"Fast", "FASTER" or "FASTER!!!". If you don't immediately click on a card then he will either boot you or, when unable to do so, leave himself. This is usually followed by several people coming to the table and, seeing that you are in the middle of a hand, leaving right away. - At Yahoo-Bridge don't bother saying "Hi". Nobody else does. Unless you come to a particularly cheerful table you come in silence, you leave in silence. (The equivalent of a greeting at Yahoo-Bridge is "Clear score" or "Faster" which has the advantage of immediately marking you as an "advanced" player) - At Yahoo-Bridge don't ask for explanations or discuss bids. This is considered "table-talk" and an absolute No-No. The fact that almost no player has a profile does not count. The fact that this is just casual internet gaming with random partners does not count. Just as lighning-speed bidding and play the forbiddance of "table-talk" is sacrosanct amongs the "advanced" players at Yahoo-Bridge. - At Yahoo-Bridge beware the 7NT-bidders. In a session of about 1-2 hours, having gone through roughly 30-50 table hoppers, expect at least one 7NT-bidder. He comes to the table, bids 7NT and leaves for another open table, doing the same thing there. These 7NT-bidders have a surprising stamina. One can see them doing that for hours without end. And don't be surprised if these 7NT bids get doubled. (After some thinking) - Table hoppers: At Yahoo-Bridge a random person coming to your table will only stay if he has some decent cards. With considerably less than an opener he will leave right away and look for a table with a hand that suits him. Rinse, repeat. - At Yahoo-Bridge do not, i repeat, DO NOT open a hand with a bid of 2 clubs. It almost always gets passed out. If not, expect to get raised. - Consider any jumps to be forcing at Yahoo-Bridge ("Pass p????????????????????"). - There are no weak 2 bids at Yahoo-Bridge. Some people have heard of the concept but usually find it inferior to their counterpart. Also expect the not at all uncommon strong 3 opener. - Beware the Ad-Bots at Yahoo-Bridge! Similar to the 7NT-bidders they come to the table, post their ad and immediately leave. These ads either have sexual content or, more common, promote a card-counter. Yes, a tool designed solely for the purpose of cheating. The ad goes something like this "Tired of always losing? You will never get booted again in the advanced section! Stop being frustrated and start playing like the pros! Get Card-Counter...!" - Expect to get yelled a lot at at Yahoo-Bridge. Expect to get called a beginner a lot at Yahoo-Bridge. (You pass opener's 1NT? Beginner! You open 1NT yourself with 15 hcp? Beginner! ("1NT is 16-18 p!"). You jump to game in opener's major holding 5 of them, a void and 7hcp? Beginner!). Expect to get called an idiot, a moron, stupid, and whatnot (beginner). Expect to get booted a lot. So if you're in for a challenge or feeling slightly masochistic, try Yahoo-Bridge! It's free! But God, I'm glad I'm here! :)

Hello all! I have when i started playing bridge about 3 years ago come across a website dedicated (more or less) to this game. It has tons of information and ideas and two collections of humorous, fictional stories, each story centered around a particular hand. They were written by a canadian fellow by the name of Colin Ward. I found them not only hilarious but also extremely interesting. The first collection tells the story of "regional matchpoint event", the author being partnered by someone quite unusual. The Session From Hell The second collection is called "Bridge at the Corners: The Canadian Club" in which a lonesome traveller and avid bridge player gets stranded in some remote village and - being unable to leave - experiences in amazement a whole new approach to this game by the villages' quite unusual inhabitants. Bridge at the Corners I hope you will enjoy them as much as i did!

I think there are two possible explanations for his bids. Either he was getting excited by your reverse and was looking, somewhat awkwardly, for a slam - a very optimistic fellow :lol: - or he was just a nutcase. Either way i think the crux here is the bid of 4 clubs. If it is natural it is a very, very terrible bid. If it is a slam-searching bid i think it's "just" bad - with no (good) fit, both hands seemingly balanced and a combined point count of ~30 that he could safely rely on. I also think that after having you taken out of 3nt by bidding 4 clubs and having heard your 4 diamonds bid, 4nt, whatever it is, it's not to play. And having passed your 5 clubs response himself you have every right to pass it yourself, even doubled. No problem at all. Mind though that i am not an expert and maybe, just maybe, there is something to his bidding that someone who actually is one can analyze so that i does it make sense after all.

Wasn't Alvin Roth, together with his partner, Tobias Stone also the inventor of the so called Roth-Stone convention, aka Sputnik, aka the negative double? Just for this i think he deserves the label world class even if he hadn't achieved anything in competition... :) Anyway, it seems to me that this whole rating thing is taken way too seriously. As far as i've seen it the vast majority of BBO members have a profile listing their conventions. I consider it quite easy to judge a players strength according to the information they provide. This might be a different thing altogether on actual higher levels but on "intermediate" not much is needed to make me happy. Also i have the feeling that only very, very few people consider themselves intermediate while they barely know the basics. But, again, on higher levels the air propaby gets considerably thinner. My "internal rating" in the above post, by the way, was never meant to be taken seriously. Maybe it was "lost in translation", maybe it's the internet making irony sometimes difficult to see or maybe it just was not funny enough. :blink: Anyway, good luck to you all.