foo

the ♥T is very likely a stiff. If it is, and you duck it, They start by winning ♥K then getting a ♥ ruff. Followed by Them getting 2 or 3 more tricks in the minors. -1 or -2. Does not look like you can afford to hope the ♥Q will win the opening lead.

That would slow the pace of a round to ~ 1/2 - 1/3 present speed. IMHO, the "solution" is worse than the "problem" OTOH, there is nothing stopping us from having removable board numbers for boards and prepping for an IMP match by making as many sets of the same board numbers as needed for the size of the field. Protecting against the boards from one match being mixed up with boards from another match could be implemented by the simple expedient of having different colored boards or differing patterns/colors/etc for the removable board numbers. Thus every table would play only the boards that belong in their match and every match would play the same sequence of board numbers. 8 boards rounds, of course, are the other solution. OTOH, most seem to feel that 8 board rounds would result in events taking too long to play. ...and the era of "some board sets are better than others" and attempts at gaming the system for the kind of board set you want for your match would be over.

If you want to improve swiss movements, the single best thing that should be done first is to make sure that either a= every match uses the same sequence of board numbers or b= have 8 board matches. Why? because when you use less than 8 boards per match, some sets are more "swingy" than others due to having unequal amounts of each vulnerability ratio. Compare board sets 1-6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-24, 25-30, and 31-36 for an explicit example of the problem. As we all know, 6 (or 12 where the same 6 are used each 1/2) board matches are very common at IMPs.

Actually, if the folks I know in the Electronics Industry are accurate, $3000/table is an outrageous "overbid" on the costs involved. The 1st generation of Bridgemates are priced at ~$150 US MSRP. Let's assume that said price is mostly due to materials costs. Most of it in as of now expensive components like a CPU, a transceiver, a circuit board, RAM and ROM, etc The way things are said to work in electronics, if sales volumes are high enough, within 3 generations (~6-8 years depending on tech used and sales volume) the total cost to build a Bridgemate will most likely bottom out to the cost of the plastics used to make it since the electronics will be probably cost less. Which means $150 Bridgemates become $40, or less, Bridgemates. The same goes for any other consumer electronics device that does the same thing the same way for a large population over multiple generations of IC development. Right now, with no changes in technology, we could give each table the equivalent of a dumbed down PDA or tablet PC to do everything being talked about here for about $150 per table. Heck, we could probably upgrade the present Bridgmate HW and SW to have the capabililties discussed at ~ $300 per table. Not $3000. and that's now. In 10 or 20 years, it will very likely be cheaper to buy dedicated "Bridge Appliances" for the tables than it will be to buy bidding boxes, card decks, boards, etc etc.

The X is neither for T/O nor penalty. It is "cards". Say ~ a 12-15 NT hand with ♥ values.

Agree with jdonn

Any bid you make is going to be a lie to some extent 2S gets the strength right but lies about ♠ length 2N shows a flatter hand, or at least one with more scattered tricks 3C is an underbid playing SA or 2/1 without special agreements otherwise. Dorothy Hayden Truscott used to say "tell the least lie". In this case that means your partnership should discuss this kind of hand and agree which lie is most acceptable. I can think of partnerships of mine where each of the choices was the preferred one for that partnership; and where what was preferred in one was the absolute worst thing to do in another.

The folks in Europe, specifically England, have a better Gambling 3N opening than those in the US. ACOL style Gambling 3N =promises= stoppers at least 2/3 of the side suits and a decent long source of trick with 7.5-8.5 tricks in hand. some examples of minimums a= Kx_Ax_AKQxxx_xxx b= Ax_Kx_xx_KQJxxxx c= Kx_KQJxxxx_Kx_Kx etc IMHO, this is both more frequent and safer than the US style Gambling 3N

yep I made a typo. I corrected it and apologized for it. Can't do much more than that. As for "I don't see anyone else as being emotional in this matter", you certainly seem to be. Your reaction to me saying a bunch of things in one post that others had said most of over a few posts was to accuse me of some sort of inappropriate relationship with the Accused and make an Ad Homenium attack on me. I have to reluctantly conclude you want the Accused "burned at the stake" and a= you do not give a darn what anybody else thinks or says on the matter. b= anyone whom you perceive as being too supportive of The Accused is to be attacked if you think you can get away with it. Which is ironic given that I've been mostly saying that people need to calm down and be careful about what they suggest with regard to either you or the accused. The use of bold letters is not an attempt at shouting or whatever you seem to be calling it. It's an attempt to make it easier for admins to find the request in the middle of what is clearly a lot of text. Maybe I'm misreading you and you are every bit as phlegmatic as you claim. I certainly hope so.

I've been running forums like this one for nearly twenty years. IME, the only way to do that is to have the software intercept all posts, and require manual vetting by an administrator. That's very manpower intensive, and in 90% of cases a waste of time. I very much doubt it's ever going to happen. well, I am not a "computer geek", but it seems to me that one should be able to set up SW to notice if a thread is wildly busy compared to most and then have the SW call an admin's attention to that thread via an email or something. Participation in threads like these are clearly similar to behavior in "flash mobs". That should be a Red Flag all by itself. Combine the above with a quick filter on inflammatory terms like swear words or "cheat" and I'd hope you'd get a decent "auto magic" way of noting that there's a thread on where someone is being talked about as a cheater? But like I said, I'm not much of a computer guy, so maybe it is more complex than that in some way I do not as yet understand.

a= my primary sources of information about this are not on any of the teams involved. The whole Bridge world is discussing this situation. That is more than a little due to your efforts to "spread the word". It even got to me ;-) If anything, I am late to it compared to most (consider the dates of the incident, the beginning of the online threads, and when I first posted in them. Page =4= of this thread IIRC.) b= I have never been "laughed off" RGB c= MOST IMPORTANTLY, I am not defending either you or Mr Piltch. -I called for fair process. -I pointed out what the typical playing pro's attitude and responsibilities are. -I reminded some of some bridge issues that I thought were not being given enough credence or weight. -I said one data point does not a pattern make. -I have pointed out other such actions and noted the furor they caused in their day. -I said that a public forum is an inappropriate place to try a cheating accusation. None of these statements is unique to me. Others have also said some or all of these point in this thread. and on rgb. Now you seem to be attacking me because I am not "supporting" your PoV strongly enough to satisfy you. That's really bad. It implies that your emotions are so out of control on this issue that it will not matter what decisions are made or advice is given to you. You've made up your mind and the rest of the world had better conform to Justin's PoV! That is a very dangerous attitude. I am sure you are more logical than that at heart. Given the emotional reactions of some involved, this thread really does need to get locked.

enough. I've said my piece. time for me to exit rather than repeat myself or have the thread go off topic. It's clear that some nerves are still raw and some emotions still too high. IMNSHO, this thread should be locked. So should the rgb one on this topic. and we should be DONE with this unless or until the appropriate folk make a ruling or otherwise public statement. The way this is going I do not envy those whose job it is to properly deal with it.

you do realize that's an impossible standard right? unless I can find a situation that is an exact clone of this one, you can always claim it is not "close enough" to be valid to you. I simply do not have that kind of database available to me. I do not know if anyone does. 40 years from now we might if the present ability to record every board and every card played continues to be used and expanded. But even if we had such a thing, why should I spend hours or days hunting for something to satisfy your curiosity? Go do your own homework! :D If people taking what looks to be anti-percentage actions in high level competition is the issue, it's easy to bring examples to the discussion. If you want this =exact= situation, the laws of probability make it very unlikely since what you are asking for is a= an exact match to this board plus b= an exact match to the conditions of contest and state of the match plus c= a similar player to be sitting in each of the decision makers seats.

Sure, everyone tries to. It should still be known what those biases are. Was Mr. Piltch involved in your wedding? Did you used to play bridge with Mr. Piltch? Etc. These are useful things to know for people reading your posts, thanks. WHAT IN THE WORLD?

This is a complete lie. They were down ~45 after the first quarter, and WON imps in the 2nd quarter (including on this board), to be down only ~25, not 50. As I (who played the match) have reported here, Mr Piltch did nothing that would be considered insane on this level by most until the FOURTH quarter. That means the rest of the 2nd quarter, and all of the 3rd quarter, nothing. Starting the 4th quarter he was now down ~50 with 16 boards to go (a lot different than ~45 with 45 boards to go). He was indeed swinging at that point. Foo if you would like to report the facts of a match you did not play in in an event you did not play in at a tournament you did not play in, at least get them right. Also, Foo I will ask again are your posts on this matter biased at all? I think it is important for people who might give credit to anything you say to realize that other than being your usual foo self, you are also completely biased in this matter. Thanks. pardon the typo. I said last half when meant last 1/4. and was too busy answering another post to notice and edit it fast enough. *sigh* I am not the world's best or fastest typist. Justin's account is indeed what I was told about the sequence of events.

If I have any bias, I am trying very hard not to have it affect me. 1= I waited quite some time and did some investigating before I made even one comment on this. I did not post "knee jerk" or emotionally. Nor did I post until I had a reasonable grasp on the facts. 2= I am "calling the dogs off" you just as hard as I am off Mr Piltch. Neither you nor Mr Piltch should be hauled before a C & E because of public outcry to do so. Nor should either of you be "tried by the public". I repeat. We have established formal procedures for dealing with these issues. They should be used instead of what amounts to public lynch mobs. 3= Over the years I have heard about or seen a number of miscarriages of justice with regards to cheating or unethical behavior in Bridge. In some cases a guilty party got away with it (at least that time) because of politics or a breakdown in the process. In other cases an innocent party was railroaded due to the same causes. In still others, we can =never= be sure what the truth is because of those causes. So if I have any strong bias, it is towards the Bridge community dealing with these issues "in the right way". In short, I am biased towards there being a fair and objective process; and towards that process being rigorously enforced. What's going on here, on rgb, and elsewhere doesn't look to fit the bill to me. Just the emotional extremes of the some of the positions ("lynch Piltch!" "no, lynch Lall!") is IMHO adequate evidence of that. How about we don't lynch anybody and not go off "half cocked"? How about we let those who are trained and authorised to deal with this do so?

What Mr Piltch did is not anywhere as unique, or even extreme, as some things that have happened in high level bridge over the years. OK, foo. You have the book. Please provide an example of an action similar to the one taken by Mr. Piltch in a serious tournament. I =read= the book. Some time ago. if I still =had= the book, would I have been so unsure as to the spelling of the author's name? I may still have at somewhere and will look around for it. OTOH, ask Mr Rodwell about the 3-3 "Rodwell" fit and the history of support doubles. ask Alan Sontag to tell you some stories about "frisky" actions ATT. go look up some of the more notorious actions Zia has meade ATT. etc etc. There are players whose forte' is to "generate action". They are not the Bill Root's or Norman Kay's of the Bridge world. ...and just about any time they do something unusual that works spectacularly, they get accused of being unethical or cheating. One of the thing this thread has NOT said is that Mr Piltch's team was about -50 at the half and then proceeded to be every bit as aggressive in the last half to try and get back to parity. It did not work. =THAT= is why they ended the match <= -100 IMPs. None of those actions are being discussed or examined. Just the one that worked. The very definition of biased sampling.

This incident and the furor it has created in both real life and online is what brought me back Justin. I do not know if it is still in print, but if people want lot's of examples of unusual bridge actions and the controversy they inspired, I highly recommend _Fair Play or Foul?_ by Cathy Chua (I may have mispelled the author's name) What Mr Piltch did is not anywhere as unique, or even extreme, as some things that have happened in high level bridge over the years. Terrence Reese, IIRC, once underled AQx on opening lead vs a suit contract. It was the only lead that could set the contract. the 3-3 fit is called "The Rodwell", and Support Doubles exist, because Eric used to so aggressively insert =3= card suits into some auctions that he often ended up playing his 3-3 "fit". etc etc. High level players have always done things based on Table Feel, visualization, and sheer gall that the rest of us simply do not consider.

No there was not when you are already -40 or worse vs a team that is objectively better skill wise. At -20, there is "plenty of time". not at -40. Nor, was there a reasonable chance of "going slower". Your team had the Spades at Favorable vul and with +40 "padding". You can, and should, stomp on any "slow" auction that you think has ANY reasonable chance of ending in the right spot for Them. They have slow auction to 6m. you simply bid 6S on top of it anytime you think it rates to have even 1/3 of being right. ...and any decent pro KNOWS that, and is therefore not going to give you the chance to evaluate a slow auction in this situation.

a= some gossip is far more dangerous than others. As I said previous, just the ACCUSATION that someone has cheated at Bridge can destroy their reputation irrepairably. For teachers and pros, that literally means destroying their source of income and livelihood. For a Bridge pro, a cheating accusation is every bit as nasty as taking a club to the knees or hands of a professional athlete. Either can permanently cripple or destroy the career of the sportsman in question. For that reason, accusations of cheating MUST be handled extremely carefully and not as an exercise in public lynching. b= "...nor was a public accusation of cheating made"? Who are you trying to kid, yourself or the rest of us? The Hog and others have posted the quotes that make it very obvious that Justin felt he was robbed by unethical behavior that he felt could only have resulted from someone being in possession of information they could not possibly have legitimately. ...and that he "shopped" that opinion very aggressively both at the tournament and online (both here and on rgb). IOW, Justin accused Mr Piltch of cheating. To a =world wide= public audience. I am sure that one of his motives for doing so was to "blow off steam". I am also sure that one of his motives was to use the court of public opinion to "nail" Mr Piltch and "see justice done". I'll leave it to the professional lawyers here to discuss the finer points of what constitutes slander or libel. I am not a lawyer. However, the major point remains that as of now, the entire process of investigating this incident is tainted. Worse, to some degree so are any possible future investigations into the accused's Bridge actions. The pool of objectivity has been tainted. The tree of logic and evidence poisoned by so many having a pre-set bias. ...and all of that could have been prevented if there had not been public accusations of cheating and attempts to use "the court of public opinion" rather than the established due process.

So does this mean bashing with most 12's opposite a 12-14 1NT opener? I was inviting with these back in the day when I still played weak NT, and I often invite with 12 opposite an 11-14 1NT rebid. "An Opening bid opposite an Opening bid means We should be in Game." An adage as old as the "Bridge hills". So a= if you play WNTs where a minimum 1N Opening is guaranteed to be a reasonable opening bid (see KS for a decent systemic definition- 12+ HCP, 8- losers, 2+ Quick Tricks, etc) and b= if you as Responder are holding a 4+ cover card 12+ HCP opening bid, then you should GF. If your partnership considers sub-minimum 11's or 9 loser 12's as an acceptable part of your 1N openings, then you have to "stiffen up" Responder's requirements for a GF. ...and you sacrifice the opportunity to bid odds on 24 HCP 12+12 games. Nothing in life is without cost. The price for "lighter initial action" is needing more HCP between the two hands for game to be odds on.

Possible Standard sequences come to mind: 1D-1M;3D or 1D-1M;3N or 1D-1M;4D Some pairs use 1D-1M;2C! as an artificial "catch all" for hands with 6 D's rather than 7 for jump rebids. ...and what hand types use which sequence is Partnership Agreement. with Kx_AKx_KQJxxx_xx a= after 1D-1S;?? I'm bidding 3N usually. b= after 1D-1H;?? I want to use 2C! if it is available. If not, I rebid 3D.

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

"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly" Macbeth. Act 1 scene 7. I think Ben made the best of an unfortnate situation, but such a thread would have to be removed extremely quickly and this is often difficult. 100% agree. But there should be a way to stop inappropriate posts ASAP. ...and a BBO policy about what happens to you if make such.

Kx_AKx_KQJxxx_xx is opened 1N? (!!) With such a nice suit, this is a 1N opening only if you are "operating". Change the hand to something like AQ_KQx_xxxxxx_AQ (admittedly an extreme example) ...and I have a lot more sympathy with a 1N opening. But when ~1/2 or more (~ 5/7.5 in this case) of the hand's tricks are in one 6+ card suit, that should not be a NT opening.