slothy

Guggs, i have never played bridge in a rocking chair, because 1) it would send me to sleep faster than i would do normally and 2) clicking the mouse is like trying to lick a lollipop in a rowing-boat on a choppy lake and 3) i have to deal with enough swings playing the contracts, so a self-induced pendular motion is unnecessary. I agree with everyones opinion about what constitutes an expert - except Jimmy of course agreeing with him is painful. IMO, it is easier to identify an expert in a team game (or similar scoring). As declarer, they know the safety plays, endplays, other play techniques and thus see their way to X number of tricks taking a surer line. It may be the wrong one on a particular occasion, and a lot of people are very willing to point that out (of course to prove their own expertness) :D, even though, say, 7 out of 10 times their line would have succeeded. As defenders they also appreciate the dilemmas facing declarer better than others. They are able to get 'inside their heads', read the possible layouts of the two unrevealed hands better, and thus are more likely to find a defence to either get the contract off or make it more difficult for declarer. They dont tend to defend instinctively - unless it is obvious ( and when it is obvious lesser players tend to think and they dont :) ) - but think (more) about the potential ramifications of pursuing a particular defensive strategy. Temperament (if we talking about on line play in particular) of course plays a part in evaluating a true expert, in the sense that no matter how good S/HE is it is the overall performance of both players that determines the eventual result. A TRUE expert does not spend 8 paragraphs of precious window space saying how unlucky s/he is when a line s/he took is wrong or how if the 9 of diamonds was with West she would have pulled off the coup... she would apologise and accept that she was wrong (notice SHE :) a male expert would use other words that would insinuate he was sorry but never categorically) hoping that her p understood her line (damn, showing i agree with Lukey :D ). her philosophy being: if my p didnt appreciate my line of play then why bother explaining?????? When i play with experts, self-confessed or otherwise, who i KNOW are better than me, i am very willing to take criticism and advice but, the thing is, a true EXPERT would say it in such a way that it would be instructive, constructive and non-threatening where the benefactor is you and not an self-ego-massaging opportunity. He appreciates that the more comfortable you are and the more confidence you have the better your scores will be for the remainder of the match. Most of the time he is willing to discuss a badly-played hand or deduction AFTER the match. Of course, he has to be aware that this is what YOU want. A bad expert doesnt appreciate this...he launches into a tirade of expletives that would make my grandmother turn in her grave, bless her false teeth. He makes one feel like [EDITED - uday] , so one plays like [EDITED - uday] : that simple equation unfortunately seems to elude them. (and this happens when 2 experts, apparently, play together). SO i think it is a combination of 3 things...technical knowledge, 'card sense' and temperament. Sloffy

Quite right Ron..why get out of the habit of being unpopular :P Anonymous

I am not a genius i am afraid :( Because I don't understand a word of Dean's last post! :) Bene Ma Chere Bene, es-tu obligé d'etre aussi modeste, huh? il y a des gens tres doués de naissance....tous ceux qui peuvent me comprendre quand je parle en francais, comme toi, encore un peu, doivent etre genies B) Alexandre PS il t'aide se tu es un excellente cuisiniere- en ce cas, ne pas importante que joues SA forte o faible :P

[edited: uday]

(presuming xxx's are crap) Agree with Frederick Low to Q... if it holds and have entries cash A and play up to T x covering any card that W plays... (caters for sexy low play of x from K x by E: a good player will read the situation and do so) if W wins with K finesse T when i get lead playing him for KJx. Jx with East no good as gives Kxxx with W. if K with E any 3-3 distribution yields 3 tricks... and 4-2s with Jx with W may allow endplay against E later on if J appears (and true card) on first lead from dummy guarantee of 3 tricks by cashing A and leading up to dummy. (caters for J stiff and KJ with E) Alex

A good philosophical 'concept'... If you are asking whether i am my own father...the answer is NO...would have been easier, believe me, in my teenage years when i needed paternal consent to go out with my girlfriend (ok she was a NUN twice my age but that is another issue) if you are asking whether i somehow slept with my mother (i just asked her and she confirmed that i never did) ..the answer is NO....i certainly aint entering a hole i came out of.... Yours Faithlessly, Oedipus I hope that answers your rather personal, i have to say, inquiry, Ron.

1) with no disrepect, hotshot, you havent been reading the forums it seems!! There is a groundswell of people on this forum at least who DONT want a rating system and they swamp those that do! 2) You just shot yourself in the foot :lol: Nothing AT ALL to do with ratings, but style....these people will not perform well together whether a rating system was in place or not 3) ??? Dont understand!!! Players (most of us), strong or otherwise, DONT change their partners OFTEN because they are comfortable with each other and enjoy each others game. If it aint broke dont fix it.... NOTHING TO DO WITH RATINGS!! it is only those who see their partners as a potential handicap and where the result rather than the game is important. With them, to extend the metphor in red, if a wheel comes off once in a while they perceive the car as worthless. They, most of the time, are shooting %ages and perceive themselves as better and they naively believe that finding a better partner than the one they dumped will make them better too and that getting a higher rating will make them more attractive to others. Alas, they are oblivious to the fact that some people know their history and would rather share a cell with Hannibal Lector than a bridge table with them... Forging a reputation is NEVER more important than forging a partnership. On an individual level, the latter gives birth to the former. Believe me i am an obstretrician. :rolleyes: (in fact i started this profession very young and even gave birth to myself) Alex

Just go to Gwenys TD page, yusuf it is all there..but Mark i believe is right in his configurations, the web-page address eludes me at the moment i am sure someone may be kind enuf to add Sloff Ummmm Mark you havent stayed around after one of my Fig Syrup and Baked Bean Candelight Suppers hee hee

Luckily, Frederick and Jilly, there are not many people who have the self-effacement and humility as myself to name themselves after an animal that is so far down the evolutionary pyramid... Nonetheless, it is nice that i only have to look at first page to find my name :( hee hee

A facade, i am sure, that would enhance any urban cityscape

Dear Frederico, hope this isn't a 'Road To Damascus' moment for you :) and you just realised this :P (and of course i am sure you didnt *) (although i believe you are comparatively young enough to be a lot of the posters' grandchild) If (some) people, and i mean this seriously in an ironic, paradoxical oxymoronic sorta way, just step back a bit and see that the oven of bridge has room for a soufflé as well as a madeira cake, and that sometimes things said in humor are more instructional, memorable and absorbent than things grease-proofed with the seriousness of card combinations, safety-plays and probabilities, we will all live longer yes and be able to bug people more often and for more time telling them exactly this... if anybody remotely understands this culinary metaphor than you doing better than me Sloffy (MasterChef) Culinary Thought For The Week: Oven Gloves protect you from getting burnt but make your hands look totally and pathetically disproportionate to the rest of your body * walk any toll-roads in Syria, i mean

You mean I never made you LOL before? Gotta look at the 'ingredients' of this post to see what makes it so definitive... Gotta talk to Sheri about this... Anyway, nice to know i made you LOL, must be a nice change from all those people giving you grief (u know Luke warm, spwdo, Ron and verbal hoodlums like that :lol: [if any of the 3 niks take offence at this: i achieved my goal] ) Anyone remotedly interested, i have - reluctantly as it happens and against the advice of my 'social coach' - Luke warm as a 'friend' but every time he posts (in response to my post) his colour goes a lighter shade of purple to a darker shade of black..... :P Slothy (swishing his sword across Luke warm's thermal pajamas in the form of a Z)

Sorry my meeting was one of those interminable ones where the short outcomes were inversely proportional to the length of thime spent discussing them....(a bit like my bidding sequences) OK i proposed that BBO users should have 6 types of friends, all represented by the main characters in the comedy series FRIENDS and to be visualised in different colours. It assumes that any person with even a cursory finger on the pulse of modern entertainment understands at least superficially the characters of Friends. Personally, i think Fred should take this proposal very seriously:- ROSS FRIEND: The 'serious' type. Plays every hand to make it and seeks to find an esoteric play on EVERY hand, and informs all your RACHEL FRIENDS of it when he succeeds. Views his bridge paleontologically in the sense he uses conventions Ely Culbertson perceived as modern. The older an opponent is, the more interest he takes in him/her from an academic perspective. Very jealous of all your RACHEL FRIENDS and overprotective of your MONICA FRIENDS. MONICA FRIEND: Very organised bidder. All cards are placed on the table in a structured and methodical way and aligned perfectly with one another. Refuses to play with you again if suits are not separated by colour in dummy. Tempo is very important to her and she has a stop-watch with her at every round of bidding to ensure that all bids are made in tempo. You notice she always plays with older men with hairy chests and lip-swarming moustaches. Keeps fluttering her eye-lashes at all your CHANDLER FRIENDS. JOEY FRIEND: Sees the bridge table as a pulling-shop. Greets all female opposition who come to his table with the phrase "Howu doooin'? " and a flash of his teeth. Annoys his partner when he plays the Jack of Diamonds on his Jack of Clubs and pulls the cards towards him triumphantly as he gleefully shouts 'SNAP!!'. Measures the success of a bridge session by the number of women he has managed to pass on his cell-phone number to. Keeps dropping his cards on the floor when a women with a short skirt comes to opp at his table. PHOEBE FRIEND: Explains, when she goes off in ice-cold No Trump Game, that Jupiter is not aligned with Saturn or that Venus not in same astrological segment as Pluto. Makes a lot of (other) friends by promising to be a surrogate mother to any future children they may wish to have. When dummy. starts singing and strumming her guitar hoping it will deflect attention from her totally incomprehensible auction which propelled you into a non-making game. Finds competitive bridge disrupts her karma. CHANDLER FRIEND: Very jealous of your ROSS FRIENDS and JOEY FRIENDS. Scurries from one table to another to see which of them is kibbing who and writes them down to use against them sometime in the future. Bids No Trumps at the earliest opportunity whatever his shape to ensure he selfishly plays the hand. Gets paranoid every time an opp asks him if he wished he had a queen in his hand and whether the opp was referring to his father. Always tries to squeeze MONICA FRIENDS if he thinks ROSS FRIENDS aren't watching. RACHEL FRIEND: She's the one who changes her hair-style more often than her CC. The most important board in a team match is an Emery Board. Doesn't believe any bid a ROSS FRIEND makes and sees it as a preemptive strike to secure a 'contract' that is unmakeable. Dresses according to a convention card. Will only play with her MONICA FRIENDS and any other arrangement is seen as an acute betrayal. Discards at will, and always throws away those cards that are most valubale to her. Excuses herself form the table when BPitt logs on. Any person with Angelina in their nik is immediately put in her enemy list . I hope Fred takes this proposal seriously. Alex

well i want to take this a bit further and propose 6 types of friends based on the characters frrm the Friends series..... Sorry hee hee [u:] got a meeting will finish it later .... some nice ideas though :)

Whats wrong with spade game :) ♠ 3-3 A Q ♥ onside 94% :)

My dear Dyslexic Friend (SPWDO: see ethereal writing in image), you dont have to put me to sleep.... Playing with you the other nite had a rather similar yet immediate effect of a temporary cure for my insomnia Will love to play with you again sometime... doctor's orders..in fact i insist upon it Sloffy, The Fastest Gun in The Rainforest.

mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (if you are Romanian there is an accent on the 5th o)

As i was saying before i got distracted by a rather overdue beckoning of Mother Nature... :lol: Further, what i find more astonishing is that some experts, TRUE experts, and i personally know of a few, who deliberately 'dumb-down' their ratings (or dont don their stars, but they are a handful) in order not to intimidate others. Ironically, I dont see these people hankering for a rating system which collectively no doubt they would most likely dominate. Or is it that some people want to somehow prove to themselves and to others who they think underrate them that they, peacock-like, deserve some adornment, recognition (or accolade that Fred overlooked) which they can brandish when they strut into the BBO lobby? Rating systems may make the bridge more competitive but as has been said over and over and over again in this forum (and on rec bridge) to the extent that some people seem unwilling to budge one bit and no amount of presuasive argument makes them think otherwise, and here i am sure the BBO management has taken lessons from bridge sites that preceded them, that going in this direction opens a can of worms best left to stew in its own putrid syrup. And as far as i am concerned Lehman-lovers are at will to drink it :) Good bridge needn't be competitive* just as much as competitive bridge isn't necessarily good *in the sense that every time you are playing you are shooting a %. IMHO, i agree with 'Master Poster' Ben in his last post in this thread (assuming he doesnt post before i submit this :blink: ). I would like to see the day when 'value-for-money' tournaments or games are instituted where expert commentary and other add-ons, which B mentioned, are provided in-cost. If anything this would improve the understanding and appreciation of many of us who play on here more than anything i can think of. But this requires investment, management and the support of its users. I try my best to support the site and i have bought my fair share of online Bridge Master series and i play in paid tourneys (for which ACBL points are utterly worthless to me unless i decide to emigrate to the States..oh Bush got re-inaugurated, ah well...). For those people who seem concerned about the quality of this site i just urge you to put your hands (one hand may suffice unless your wallet is especialy bulky) in your pocket and give currency to the site-developers to maintain and improve the site in a way you might agree with instead of trying to persuade the powers-that-be to change something they have said over and over again that they will not. Alex. PS Spleen-explosions permitting i will now go and play some bridge...

Dear All, May i just corroborate what Fred and Ben said in their ultimate posts in this thread..... My spiel on this. IMHO, Fred is in the unenviable position of having to run a business, as he said - yet unlike some businesses, i believe he has a genuine concern in standing by his principles (as long as he can) and having his ear open to suggestions from the users of his product and responding to them if HE sees fit and if HE believes it is realisable and for the overall good of the evolution of the site, whilst concurrently minimising any compromise of these principles. He isnt seeking accolades or martyrdom, but if i read between some of his lines he is a bit pissed off with some people (my understanding) making a bagel out of bread-crumbs (excuse my imagination, couldnt think of any other way to put it). If having a rating system - whatever that may be and if it REALLY constitutes a RATING system per se as some of these posts, vortexing into a whirl-pool of Babeldom, seem to be discussing - is a source of income, which ANY business needs to concern itself about, isnt it a SMALL price to pay (if you dont agree with it, whereas some people seem to like it and endorse it) to be able to play on a site for free??? and one that, perhaps, arguably offers a better service than ones one has to subscribe to and, in some cases, implement the very thing you seem to want BBO to avoid? *** I still fail to understand what the bone is about? some people are chewing a bone that obviously has a bitter after-taste to them... if one believes that the self-appointed rankings are a bad idea, DONT LOOK AT THEM or<span style='color:red'> JUDGE A PLAYER BY THEM</span>. They were introduced originally, i am sure, for people to be able to pin-point people of a comparable standard to themselves, and if ego-inflating people wish to distort them for delusional self-aggrandisement or in some cases out of sincere ignorance as to their own standard, lol <span style='color:red'>DOES IT REALLY MATTER</span>???? (In fact one of the posters recently had WORLD CLASS in his profile .. ummmm) if one really believes that stars are wrong, or that a particular star-studded player has been wrongly appointed (which i know is an implicit dig of some of the posts in other threads) <span style='color:red'>DONT LOOK AT THEM </span>or <span style='color:red'>JUDGE A PLAYER BY THEM</span> . A benchmark has to be used, for the reason in the next sentence, and the metric that Fred has used is as good and as fair as any i have come across. The fact that a BBO user may want to randomly kibbitz someone who is of a high calibre for his own enjoyment or to watch good bridge to learn from, there must be some way of knowing who they are... It shouldnt cause CONFUSION unless one is reading more into the symbols or whatever abstraction we are talking about than what they were originally conceived to convey... BBO is an on-line 'community' yet simultaneously a business - like any similar social arrangement, and there are many believe me, compromises have to be made whether they want to or not. As it happens, in this case, the decisions lie with those who ultimately have a lot more to lose than the rest of us, have more at risk and have much more invested and and thus are, i am sure, very conscious of what are the best compromises to make or not to make. I come on here to play bridge - good bridge if i am in the mood - and to socialise with a very diverse group of people and i think it creates a happy medium between the two. If there is anything that i dont particularly agree with, i tolerate it as, in my experience, the satisfaction and benefits BY FAR outweigh any slight dissatisfactions. I dont really care whether someone thinks i am a bad player or a good player or whether any symbol quantifies or qualifies my standard or anybody elses and certainly dont see the point of squabbling as to whether it does or not. I just play bridge and let people decide. If i enjoy it, because of the standard i wish to play or because of the company i wish to keep, and I and others can create an environment at the table/tourney where they also feel the same level of enjoyment then my time on BBO aint wasted... Sorry to say folks, everything else is just baloney... Alex

This morning Fred woke up, this is what he saw.. http://positive-images.org.uk/images/fred2.jpg

Todd, you couldnt ship me a Pentium 4 motherboard on the QT could oyu? PS Promise i wont grass

i used to play this as exclusively splinter bids..... ....but now play it as jump-fit with slam interest... Recently, in response to the psychological damage incurred from bidding an unmakeable slam and missing a cold one in the same session of a tournament and our team opps reversing this unfortunate arrangement B) i changed it Obviously more important that it is slam-sniffing rather than preemptive (as i remember was discussed in one thread? and dont see the merit of it) Telling your p WHERE your points are and trick-taking ability makes it much easier for him to assess his own hand. Saying you have a singleton/void reflects your ruffing potential but makes it (more) difficult for him to assess his losers in other suits, and maybe in the one splintered even... (even though your bid suggests you have length in others) You can always Q your singleton later...trying to telegraph an important good stuffing in a suit which may be what partner needs to hear is impoosible over a splinter and can only be shown with a double Q

My dear Mauro, Good principle...however if we are talking about 'probability' and 'frequency' WHY HAVE YOU written his/her he/she???? writing she and her is perfectly adequate (yet again talking statistically) Your Local MCP Slothy

ho votato tre cuori.... E importante a telegraffare al tuo compagno che hai una mano forza e non rimouvere l'opportunita per lui/lei a fare un cue-bid lui stesso. Se lui licita 4♣ adesso puoi rispondere 4♦. Adesso lui sa che hai un 'ouvo grosso' .... Licitando 4♥, prendi tanto spazio per lui a fare una licita constructiva... Alessandro L'Inglese

Unlike the dollar Bill, Fred will never have 'Annuit Cœptis' inscribed on whatever he does B) ...there will always be someone who thinks what changes he makes are awesome and those ( a minority i hasten to add) who think they are, well to speak euphemistically, bad... If he thinks it looks cluttery or unaesthetic then fine. I personally use a divining-rod to find out where i am sitting. It works for me.