Walddk

Post deleted by Walddk on July 23 at 21.10 CET

What on earth are people finding so offensive about this? It makes a perfectly valid point that the commentary is unlikely to be the reason people are choosing to watch different vugraph to the onsite presentation. "Don't flatter yourself" is normal English idiom, and a totally inoffensive choice of phrase. It simply means "beware not to present this as evidence you are doing something right." Fine David, but we must be doing something right. History speaks for itself. The WBF, however, does a lot of things wrong. First of all because too many are pretty clueless and don't realise what's in the best interests for BRIDGE! One issue is that it's not in the best interests of bridge to stay in suites in 5* hotels with family attached! Roland

Exactly my point. I am not amused by the load of rubbish fskoul pours out. For a start I pay all my expenses myself and I work 100s of hours on BBO for absolutely nothing. Next summer I am going to help the juniors for a week at a camp in Bristol, England. I insist on paying all expenses myself, and I will not get paid to give talks, lectures, whatever. Do you too, fskoul? Roland Obviously you are expert in twisting words - otherwise you wouldn't 1) cut a phrase in the middle, and 2) accuse somebody for a personal assault that never happened. Let me refresh your memory: You invented a post stating that there will be no BBO coverage in Bangkok (proven untrue). Later you showed uncalled sympathy for the tons of outrageous and insulting remarks that were posted. Later you invented that last year in Syndney there was some kind of attack on the BBO transmission (when it was very clear that the problem was with the Internet connection). You insulted the onsite commentators, i.e. people with much longer history than yours, like Barry Regal. And finally, when someone dared to tell you that it was not the comments that attracted people but the opportunity to watch their country playing, you CUT A PHRASE IN THE MIDDLE and twisted it. Excellent job sir! Is this some kind of standard? Don't worry, you can easily release your pets on me - I have no problem at all. Especially when they come and invent some additional phantasies to back up their claims (like the 4 directors, for example). Rest assured that it is only YOU that claim that you are the only one to care about this game. All others that have invented much of their personnal time, many times without a fee, can't be compared with you. Sorry I can no longer watch your line of thoughts - I am currently busy on trying to take advantage from bridge for my personal benefits (for your standards that wasn't an insult, of course). And (not to make the effort to look for my name in BBO, where it is clearly stated), I will include here for your convenience. Fotis Skoularikis For some reason you didn't answer the very interesting question: Do you also pay all your expenses yourself when you work for the WBF and EBL? I can reveal that I have inside information, but I will be happy to hear it from yourself. Roland

Exactly my point. I am not amused by the load of rubbish fskoul pours out. For a start I pay all my expenses myself and I work 100s of hours on BBO for absolutely nothing. Next summer I am going to help the juniors for a week at a camp in Bristol, England. I insist on paying all expenses myself, and I will not get paid to give talks, lectures, whatever. Do you too, fskoul? Roland

This is the "Beginner and Intermediate Bridge Discussion" forum. I think all beginners and intermediates are lost by now. Roland

This is offensive and uncalled for. Never, and I repeat never, have I put myself before the cause, and I did not do it here either. I let other decide if I do a good job or not! Roland It was YOU that clearly implied that the commentators in the onsite Vugraph were not good enough, not me. Just read your post. I didn't imply anything. I stated a fact after years of experience all over the world. If the commentators are good enough (and not least entertaining), the spectators will flock to the on site theatre. Try to get the likes of Zia and David Burn, and you will see. Nowhere did I write that Roland Wald's commentary on BBO is great. You were the one who wrote "Don't flatter yourself ...". That's what I find offensive and uncalled for! Roland

This is offensive and uncalled for. Never, and I repeat never, have I put myself before the cause, and I did not do it here either. I let others decide if I do a good job or not! I even take the full blame if "my" commentators make an error. I feel that I'm responsible. Roland

And that EXACTLY was the reason why it was FORBIDDEN to the players to watch VG on the provided PCs - which happened quite early in the event. Thus leaving only one place to watch VG - the VG room. Come on, be real now. You just don't forbid anyone to watch vugraph on the computer in order to make them go to the vugraph theatre instead. This is a simple question of supply and demand. If the internet coverage is better, you should certainly prefer that, and vice versa obviously. No-one should decide what's best for the juniors (or anyone else for that matter). They are old enough to decide for themselves. If the commentators are good enough, the spectators on site will flock to the vugraph theatre. The only positive I can deduce from this is that people must have thought that the BBO presentation was better. That makes us all feel good. Roland

Glad to see that the WBF has found the money. One table is better than no table. Perhaps we will be able to find volunteers so that we can broadcast from the closed room too. By the way, $450 a day can cover the expenses for more than one person. Roland

Pass. Moth-eaten spade suit, passed partner. Double followed by 3♠ over 3♥ shows a much better hand in my opinion, and often 5-3 in the majors. And even if a direct 4♣ shows both blacks, the hand isn't good enough. Sometimes pre-empts are effective. Live with it. When fixed, stay fixed. Roland

Excellent initiative which I strongly support. The camp in Slovakia recently was a huge success. This is great opportunity for bridge youngsters from all over the world to get together and make new friends. It's good for you and it's good for bridge! I will try to get a couple of English experts to go there for a day or two and perhaps give a lecture. Frances Hinden is one of our regular posters and a strong candidate, and I will also ask David Burn - one of the most entertaining persons in the game. Don't hesitate, contact Kerri (kezzerz) and sign up! Roland

Anyway, we got one segment. Two were planned, but one team conceded after the 3rd quarter. Roland

3NT next. You don't want to play in diamonds, so forget about showing them. Spades and notrump are the only options with this semi-balanced hand, so give partner a choice of games: 3NT and 4♠. If I had a singleton, I would bid 3♦. It's game forcing but not necessarily slam invitational in my methods. First priority: look for the best game. Roland

I don't like that approach at all. We don't know if we want to play in hearts yet. I'll give partner a good hand for a change (although only a 15 count): ♠ AKxx ♥ Ax ♦ Axxx ♣ xxx 6♥ is not a good contract, but 6♠ is fair. And now I will give him a hand with a great fit for both majors (still only a 15 count): ♠ AKxx ♥ Axxx ♦ Axx ♣ xx 7♥ has no play whereas 7♠ is excellent. Roland

Pure guessing if you do it that way. I would like to see how well the hands fit first, and get spades into the picture: 1N - 2♦ 2♥ - 2♠ Shortly, I will be a little wiser. 2NT is not what I like to hear. Then opener has 3 spades and 2 hearts and I will probably sign off in 4♥. If he has 4 spades or/and 3 hearts, I will like it much better. Then perhaps I can make a slam try. Mind you, even if we have a fit, perhaps two fits, it's not at all obvious that we belong in slam. It will all depend on how many wasted values he has in diamonds. We could have a grand on, but game may also be the limit. Roland

I agree with everything fred is saying, but let me add one thing he doesn't mention. You may be for or against his or my views, but no matter what, you can't do what the WBF has done here: Step 1. "Go ahead and broadcast. It's fine with us" (the e-mail I got from Dimitris Ballas) and the promise of "comprehensive coverage" Mark Reeve got in Slovakia. Step 2: "Sorry folks, we withdraw. There is no money". That is breach of faith, unfair, absurd, outrageous. It takes no Einstein to figure out who is responsible here: the politicians obviously. If no-one tells them, they won't get any wiser, will they? I have said it before, and I don't mind saying it again: Drop one of the posh dinners at thousands of $$, and stay in hotel rooms like everyone else, not suites with in-laws, etc. One dinner less will provide plenty for a 10 day event. Roland

hmmm, it had to happen some day I guess: I agree with Richard!! Anyway, BBO does *not* decide which matches are shown on vugraph, but I am often asked for advice. I have been too this time around. Regarding the Wagar Final I have suggested that we get one segment, the 3rd, or the 1st after dinner if you like. No promises, there is no confirmation yet. It may not be technically possible since the women are playing in a different wing of the hotel far away from the open series area. Roland

I disagree wholeheartedly. If BBO does what you suggest, the politicians will be giggling and whispering among themselves: "Finally, we made BBO do our job". It's WBF's responsibility, not BBO's! And we need to make that clear once and for all. Roland

From the lobby: Explore Bridge --> Bridge Library --> English --> Help! How to use this site Roland

Jose Damiani: president@worldbridge.org Panos Gerontopoulos: youth@worldbridge.org I agree with Fred. Bombard them with e-mails, and if that doesn't work, there are easy ways of embarrassing them on BBO. It's about time that we all tell bridge administrators what is good for bridge now that they don't seem capable of finding out themselves! Roland

Various interpretations regarding the 9 of diamonds, The Curse of Scotland, none completely authoritative. The Bridge Magazine once listed 6 possible origins for the term as follows: 1. That in the once popular round game 'Pope Joan', the 9 of diamonds was called the Pope, the antichrist of Scottish Reformers. 2. That the 9 of diamonds was the chief card in the game 'cornette', introduced into Scotland by the unhappy Queen Mary. 3. That 'Butcher' Cumberland wrote the orders for the Balle of Culloden, 1746, on the back of the card. This is very doubtful. 4. That the order for the Massacre of Glencoe (1692) was signed on the back of this card. 5. That the dispositions for the fatal field of Flodden (1513) were drawn up on it by James IV of Scotland. Both these last have only the slightest authority. 6. That it is derived from the nine lozenges that formed the arms of the Earl of Stair, who was especially loathed for his connection with the Massacre of Glencoe and the union with England (1707). ... The following comments are to be found in the "Dictionary of Phrase and Fable", Dr. Ebenezer Cobham Brewer, 1870, revised edition, Ivor H. Evans, 1981: The phrase seems to be first recorded in the early 18th century, for in Houston's Memoirs (1715-1747), we are told that Lord Justice Clerk Ormistone became universally hated in Scotland, and was called the Curse of Scotland; and when ladies encountered the nine of diamonds at cards they called it Justice Clerk. Among the suggested origin of the phrase are: 1. It may refer to the arms of Dalrymple, Earl of Stair (see (6) above). 2. As in point (2) above. 3. As in point (3) above. 4. The word 'curse' is a corruption of cross, and the nine of diamonds is so arranged as to form a St. Andrew's Cross; but so are the other nines. 5. As in point (5) above. 6. Grose says somewhat inaccurately in his Tour Thro' Scotland (1789); "Diamonds... imply royalty... and every ninth king of Scotland has been observed for many ages to be a tyrant and a curse to the country". Roland P.S. Since the tradition regarding ♦7 (The Beer Card) is of Danish origin, I will give you a few details if no-one else does. Will wait a day or two to see.

1NT. I have diamonds stopped. The only thing that worries me is that I won't be able to claim 150 honours in a diamond contract :P Roland

The 9 of diamonds is known as The Curse of Scotland. A true Scot will try to get rid of that card as soon as possible, at all costs. One player (and he is not even a Scotsman) in the Spingold took this literally when he defended on this deal: [hv=d=s&v=b&n=s5432ha8732d10c1043&w=saj10h105da87542cq9&e=sqhkqjdqj3cakj875&s=sk9876h964dk96c62]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] If you want to be in slam, 6NT played by West is superior. However, at both tables they arrived in 6♦ which seems strange considering that they are off 2 key cards for diamonds. One would have thought that it's virtually impossible to get to that slam nowadays when you operate with 5 "aces". Anyway, in 6♦ they were. At one table, ♥A was led and hearts continued to dummy. Declarer advanced ♦Q and it went 6, 2, 10. Another diamond and the 9 from South. Too bad, down 1. In the other room the lead was also ♥A followed by a low heart, and again declarer asked for ♦Q. We don't know what happened to South, but to this trick he inexplicably followed with ♦9!? Tick, 1370 and 16 IMPs. Some called it the "blunder of the century". We don't know yet, but we do know that his partner wasn't happy. The ending was happy enough though, because the team went on to win comprehensively and is now in the quarter-finals. In a way I think it makes us all feel a little better when a blunder like that happens to one of the top 5 pairs in the world. Roland

Notrump. He has hearts stopped, no? Roland

Reverse Smith by both, against NT only. Roland