More cell phone drama

[finally17]

If you're seriously considering deliberately violating the ban, then go play in the side game, it may be bridge (as in entertainment) but it's not bridge (as in sport).

I want to carry a cell phone and all of a sudden I'm not eligible for this "sport" that you call bridge; not eligible for real competition, but only "entertainment"?

 

That's just ridiculous.

[JoAnneM]

I voted that I would still carry it because I am becoming so forgetful that I would never remember to take it out of my purse. Don't they know how old we all are?

 

And what are they going to do about digital hearing aids, those are electronic devices.

[blackshoe]

Somebody upthread (or maybe in the other thread) said that medical devices are specifically exempt.

 

I didn't vote in the poll, since it's unlikely I will get to an NABC. Since the rule won't affect me until (unless) it trickles down to the sectional or club level, I'm just not going to worry about it. I'll probably be dead by then anyway.

[pclayton]

I'll be following the ban.

 

To be honest I think you are all overreacting and sounding like spoilt children. I mean, it's not like they are trying to take your guns away.

 

Paul

?? I'll have my pistol on me. Properly unconcealed of course.

 

I find this is more effective than having directors enforce ZT rules.

[han]

My gun also keeps partner focussed and my teammates never complain when scoring up. Try it, after playing with a gun once you'll never want to play without again.

[blackshoe]

This probably falls into the category we in the Navy call "sea stories" :angry: but...

 

In California, it used to be the case (may still be for all I know) that one did not need a permit to carry an unconcealed handgun. Seems that Joe Citizen went to court one January for a minor traffic violation, and stuck his pistol in his belt. The judge didn't say a word to him about it. Instead, he had the bailiff follow the guy outside after the trial. When Joe Citizen, standing on the courthouse steps, put his jacket on (it was chilly) the bailiff arrested him for "carrying a concealed weapon". :huh:

[helene_t]

My gun also keeps partner focussed and my teammates never complain when scoring up. Try it, after playing with a gun once you'll never want to play without again.

Your avatar alone does half the job, Han.

 

Btw I always put "no smoking" and "no guns" icons on our convention cards. Nobody takes notes of the "no smoking" icon but the reactions on the "no guns" icon are often not that positive. So apparently it is a controversial topic.

 

Haven't tried the "no cell phones" variant, since two of my partners can't live without the phone.

[blackshoe]

The English have banned handguns for a long time. So long that they had to ask the US for some to arm the Home Guard during WWII. :angry:

 

I lived in England for three years (1990-1993). The gun ban didn't help a neighbor of mine. He went out into his back garden one night to tell a bunch of teenagers to go party someplace else. They didn't have any guns, so they beat him to death.

 

OTOH, a bridge game seems the wrong place for debates on gun control - or smoking control, for that matter. OTGH, if your icon is on your card in a venue where smoking (or guns, I suppose) at the table is a possibility, and you are simply expressing your desire that it not be at your table, well, that's your right (see Law 74A2).

[xcurt]

If you're seriously considering deliberately violating the ban, then go play in the side game, it may be bridge (as in entertainment) but it's not bridge (as in sport).

I want to carry a cell phone and all of a sudden I'm not eligible for this "sport" that you call bridge; not eligible for real competition, but only "entertainment"?

 

That's just ridiculous.

How do I know my opponents do not have a concealed partnership undestanding?

 

How do I know my opponents do not have a means of concealed partnership communication?

 

How do I know that neither opponent has extraneous information about the hand?

 

How do I know that neither opponent is taking advantage of familiarity with partner's mannerisms for his own advantage...

 

Once people start following rules as they deem fit, you're left with the law of the jungle. What's to stop me, for example, from deciding that I'm not going to tell the opponents (via the alert procedure), perhaps, that the auction 1m (unbalanced)-1M; 1N tends to show a stiff in responder's suit, since that's "just bridge" given the rest of my system as marked on my card. I don't think these are good methods, but I have played them and I have seen others playing them. And when I'm always not bidding 2M on KQT8x as responder, the whispers will start. If you don't like this example you can make up your own pretty easily. And don't pretend you haven't been on the other side of this equation. When I was playing frequently on the west coast, there was a "methods" pair that I figured out routinely stretched by a couple of HCP, or by a step in playing strength. I remember one hand they got my partner bidding 1NT/1M for light 3-suited takeout. The guy had 4333 with 3 cards in each of the off suits and 4 cards in the bid suit, with about a 9 count. Technically their explanation, 3-card support for each of the unbid suits, 8-15 HCP, was correct. But nobody in their right mind would imagine the opponent could hold such a hand given the way the explanation was presented. Once I figured out these guys, I had a huge, huge, laughably huge edge over them, since I knew, but they didn't know that I knew. But that's not bridge.

 

In other words, basically, once we go down this road, we're playing poker. And please don't say that screens solve these problems. They don't solve the all, for sure, and they may not solve any of them. Anyway screens can't be used in every round of the major pair games (the first day of the 3-day LMs is usually 12-14 sections, or 150 tables depending on venue) or the major team events (the first day of the Spingold is also about 100 tables give or take).

 

I'm sure the folks on this forum aren't planning on cheating. But there are cheaters out there, no doubt. And if everyone is carrying on their person the means to cheat, how can we determine which among them is using such devices in some illicit fashion. And keep in mind that it's to your advantage, more so than for a known top player, to have everyone know that you and everyone else in some NABC is clean. Just look at what happened in the last SF NABC after the Chinese women's team blew away the field in the Women's BAM. At least some folks couldn't reconcile the winning margin with the idea that these players were that good, and some really nasty rumors got started. That's awful for the players in question, and also very bad for bridge. If you come out of nowhere to win a big national pair game, do you want people questioning how you got there?

 

Anyway, I'm not going to respond any more to folks that want to deliberately violate some rules, particularly anti-cheating measures, no matter how poorly implemented. I'm just very, very, very disappointed that so few take the ethical aspects of bridge so lightly. I don't think that such actions belong in high-level (ie bridge as sport) events, at all.

[jdonn]

If you're seriously considering deliberately violating the ban, then go play in the side game, it may be bridge (as in entertainment) but it's not bridge (as in sport).

I want to carry a cell phone and all of a sudden I'm not eligible for this "sport" that you call bridge; not eligible for real competition, but only "entertainment"?

 

That's just ridiculous.

How do I know my opponents do not have a concealed partnership undestanding?

 

How do I know my opponents do not have a means of concealed partnership communication?

 

How do I know that neither opponent has extraneous information about the hand?

 

How do I know that neither opponent is taking advantage of familiarity with partner's mannerisms for his own advantage...

 

Once people start following rules as they deem fit, you're left with the law of the jungle. What's to stop me, for example, from deciding that I'm not going to tell the opponents (via the alert procedure), perhaps, that the auction 1m (unbalanced)-1M; 1N tends to show a stiff in responder's suit, since that's "just bridge" given the rest of my system as marked on my card. I don't think these are good methods, but I have played them and I have seen others playing them. And when I'm always not bidding 2M on KQT8x as responder, the whispers will start. If you don't like this example you can make up your own pretty easily. And don't pretend you haven't been on the other side of this equation. When I was playing frequently on the west coast, there was a "methods" pair that I figured out routinely stretched by a couple of HCP, or by a step in playing strength. I remember one hand they got my partner bidding 1NT/1M for light 3-suited takeout. The guy had 4333 with 3 cards in each of the off suits and 4 cards in the bid suit, with about a 9 count. Technically their explanation, 3-card support for each of the unbid suits, 8-15 HCP, was correct. But nobody in their right mind would imagine the opponent could hold such a hand given the way the explanation was presented. Once I figured out these guys, I had a huge, huge, laughably huge edge over them, since I knew, but they didn't know that I knew. But that's not bridge.

 

In other words, basically, once we go down this road, we're playing poker. And please don't say that screens solve these problems. They don't solve the all, for sure, and they may not solve any of them. Anyway screens can't be used in every round of the major pair games (the first day of the 3-day LMs is usually 12-14 sections, or 150 tables depending on venue) or the major team events (the first day of the Spingold is also about 100 tables give or take).

 

I'm sure the folks on this forum aren't planning on cheating. But there are cheaters out there, no doubt. And if everyone is carrying on their person the means to cheat, how can we determine which among them is using such devices in some illicit fashion. And keep in mind that it's to your advantage, more so than for a known top player, to have everyone know that you and everyone else in some NABC is clean. Just look at what happened in the last SF NABC after the Chinese women's team blew away the field in the Women's BAM. At least some folks couldn't reconcile the winning margin with the idea that these players were that good, and some really nasty rumors got started. That's awful for the players in question, and also very bad for bridge. If you come out of nowhere to win a big national pair game, do you want people questioning how you got there?

 

Anyway, I'm not going to respond any more to folks that want to deliberately violate some rules, particularly anti-cheating measures, no matter how poorly implemented. I'm just very, very, very disappointed that so few take the ethical aspects of bridge so lightly. I don't think that such actions belong in high-level (ie bridge as sport) events, at all.

You must be great fun at parties.

[matmat]

How do I know my opponents do not have a concealed partnership undestanding?

 

How do I know my opponents do not have a means of concealed partnership communication?

 

How do I know that neither opponent has extraneous information about the hand?

 

How do I know that neither opponent is taking advantage of familiarity with partner's mannerisms for his own advantage...

 

(...snip...)

 

Anyway,  I'm not going to respond any more to folks that want to deliberately violate some rules, particularly anti-cheating measures, no matter how poorly implemented.  I'm just very, very, very disappointed that so few take the ethical aspects of bridge so lightly.  I don't think that such actions belong in high-level (ie bridge as sport) events, at all.

There is a fundamental distinction between what you are saying and what the ban addresses. The examples you give pertain to full disclosure and such, and when broken are, in essence, equivalent to cheating. (as an aside, i don't think negative inferences are alertable in acbl land, but i could be wrong). Carrying a turned off cell phone is at least one step removed from cheating. a big step... you know, the one that ETHICAL players will not take. btw, i resent the implication of your last paragraph.

[finally17]

If you're seriously considering deliberately violating the ban, then go play in the side game, it may be bridge (as in entertainment) but it's not bridge (as in sport).

I want to carry a cell phone and all of a sudden I'm not eligible for this "sport" that you call bridge; not eligible for real competition, but only "entertainment"?

 

That's just ridiculous.

 

 

Once people start following rules as they deem fit, you're left with the law of the jungle.

Now you've left ridiculous and entered the realm of stupid. The turned off cell phone in my pocket is NOT part of the game. The ACBL is trying to make it one, but is completely wrong on the issue.

 

I don't take the ethical aspects of bridge lightly AT ALL. This has nothing to do with bridge ethics. Your problem is that you don't recognize that. The carrying of the cell phone is a separate issue that you and the ACBL are conflating with ethics because A FEW people have used them to breach ethics. Not all rule breaking qualifies as an ethical issue. You're essentially calling everyone who carries a cell phone a cheater. Say you doubt we're planning on cheating all you want, you're calling us exactly that in a sideways manner. Matmat was being nice. I don't resent your last paragraph, because I know it's just plain wrong.

 

But I do think it's asinine. Google Asinine: First return "devoid of intelligence." Just so there's no confusion.

[hrothgar]

If you're seriously considering deliberately violating the ban, then go play in the side game, it may be bridge (as in entertainment) but it's not bridge (as in sport).

I want to carry a cell phone and all of a sudden I'm not eligible for this "sport" that you call bridge; not eligible for real competition, but only "entertainment"?

 

That's just ridiculous.

How do I know my opponents do not have a concealed partnership undestanding?

 

How do I know my opponents do not have a means of concealed partnership communication?

 

How do I know that neither opponent has extraneous information about the hand?

 

How do I know that neither opponent is taking advantage of familiarity with partner's mannerisms for his own advantage...

 

Once people start following rules as they deem fit, you're left with the law of the jungle. What's to stop me, for example, from deciding that I'm not going to tell the opponents (via the alert procedure), perhaps, that the auction 1m (unbalanced)-1M; 1N tends to show a stiff in responder's suit, since that's "just bridge" given the rest of my system as marked on my card. I don't think these are good methods, but I have played them and I have seen others playing them. And when I'm always not bidding 2M on KQT8x as responder, the whispers will start. If you don't like this example you can make up your own pretty easily. And don't pretend you haven't been on the other side of this equation. When I was playing frequently on the west coast, there was a "methods" pair that I figured out routinely stretched by a couple of HCP, or by a step in playing strength. I remember one hand they got my partner bidding 1NT/1M for light 3-suited takeout. The guy had 4333 with 3 cards in each of the off suits and 4 cards in the bid suit, with about a 9 count. Technically their explanation, 3-card support for each of the unbid suits, 8-15 HCP, was correct. But nobody in their right mind would imagine the opponent could hold such a hand given the way the explanation was presented. Once I figured out these guys, I had a huge, huge, laughably huge edge over them, since I knew, but they didn't know that I knew. But that's not bridge.

 

In other words, basically, once we go down this road, we're playing poker. And please don't say that screens solve these problems. They don't solve the all, for sure, and they may not solve any of them. Anyway screens can't be used in every round of the major pair games (the first day of the 3-day LMs is usually 12-14 sections, or 150 tables depending on venue) or the major team events (the first day of the Spingold is also about 100 tables give or take).

 

I'm sure the folks on this forum aren't planning on cheating. But there are cheaters out there, no doubt. And if everyone is carrying on their person the means to cheat, how can we determine which among them is using such devices in some illicit fashion. And keep in mind that it's to your advantage, more so than for a known top player, to have everyone know that you and everyone else in some NABC is clean. Just look at what happened in the last SF NABC after the Chinese women's team blew away the field in the Women's BAM. At least some folks couldn't reconcile the winning margin with the idea that these players were that good, and some really nasty rumors got started. That's awful for the players in question, and also very bad for bridge. If you come out of nowhere to win a big national pair game, do you want people questioning how you got there?

 

Anyway, I'm not going to respond any more to folks that want to deliberately violate some rules, particularly anti-cheating measures, no matter how poorly implemented. I'm just very, very, very disappointed that so few take the ethical aspects of bridge so lightly. I don't think that such actions belong in high-level (ie bridge as sport) events, at all.

Foooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[matmat]

Foooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

now now... let's not be calling people names.

[jdonn]

Foooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Every time I almost forget Richard, you remind me....you are one funny dude.

[xcurt]

...

 

Not all rule breaking qualifies as an ethical issue.  You're essentially calling everyone who carries a cell phone a cheater.  Say you doubt we're planning on cheating all ...

Deliberate rule-breaking is an ethical issue.

 

And you need to re-read my post if you thought I was calling anyone here a cheater. I will simplify it to bullet-point form:

 

a ) some people in bridge cheat

b ) it's easier to catch and evict cheaters when one eliminates legitimate reasons for their (non-bridge) actions

 

and furthermore that

 

c ) one should try hard to avoid the appearance of impropriety

d ) if you unexpectedly win something big, do you want people questioning your ethics?*

 

* This is basically what happened to the women's BAM winners in the last SF NABC.

 

Finally, I didn't call anyone in this thread names. Others started that. I just expressed my extreme disappointment that someone I thought I respected was advocating deliberately violating the Conditions of Contest at the upcoming LM Pairs.

 

note: the edit is just because the board sw made my text into an emoticon

[finally17]

edited:

 

whatever.

 

one more edit just because it's been a topic of discussion lately: if you're accusing me of calling names (it's not clear), everyone should be clear that I'm not. i have used the words ridiculous, stupid, and asinine to describe things said, not the speakers. there is a major difference.

[jtfanclub]

Deliberate rule-breaking is an ethical issue.

 

And you need to re-read my post if you thought I was calling anyone here a cheater. I will simplify it to bullet-point form:

 

a ) some people in bridge cheat

b ) it's easier to catch and evict cheaters when one eliminates legitimate reasons for their (non-bridge) actions

 

and furthermore that

 

c ) one should try hard to avoid the appearance of impropriety

d ) if you unexpectedly win something big, do you want people questioning your ethics?*

Yeah, because having a turned off cell phone in my coat twenty feet away from my table gives people the appearance of impropriety. Or having a kibbitzer with a turned off cell phone in his pocket gives all the players the appearance of impropriety.

 

Gimme a break. There are reasonable rules, and there are insane extremes.

This goes to insanity.

 

How about the people who work for the hotel? They all carry walkie-talkies. Are we going to keep them out too?

[PassedOut]

Yes, the rule is a great inconvenience, but I will certainly comply. I finished Bobby Wolff's book this weekend and concluded that it's reasonable to take steps to protect the integrity of the game. I'm not convinced that this rule will do that, but I'm not going to flout it.

 

To my way of thinking, this issue is too minor in the grand scheme of things to be worthy of a serious protest.

[sceptic]

4 people trying to concentrate and play good bridge (that may never happen to me) a phone goes off and the defender or declarer on the next table lose concentration (it can happen) how is it fair, that if they subsequently come second in the match, because they dropped a couple of imps at the table because of some selfish person, insiting on thier right to have a phone with them and causing them to lose thier train of thought at a very crutial moment.

 

you can hear most phones when they are on silent vibrate also

 

I am curious lets imagine you are working in a casino, aeroplane or a hospital and they have a policy in place, no phones, please leave them at reception, do you also flout that rule, because you want to arrange a dinner date with someone 10 yards away possibly in the same room?

 

A Casino probably does not allow its staff to have thier personal phones at the working area (well at least, I got that impression from a program about casinos from a documentry about them) why is that policy in place and would you flout that rule?

 

 

Kids and thier toys. hmmmf!

 

an easy rule to follow, one that possibly may help the integrity of the game, I don't see why it is such an issue

[rbforster]

To my way of thinking, this issue is too minor in the grand scheme of things to be worthy of a serious protest.

Next thing you know you won't be allowed to bring your own water to the tournament site and you'll have to take off your shoes to play (concealed devices and all).

 

One of the many 9/11 lessons looking back was that you should never let your government get away with passing ineffective security measures - it gives them too much arbitrary power and wastes everyone's time/money to boot.

[Codo]

Wayne,

I totally agree with you.

 

I have never seen Tiger Woods phoning during the game.

Nor did Alonzo take his mobile to the race.

The Klitschkos or David Beckham, nobody wears a mobile phone during his sport.

They checked Kramnik and Topalov before any game for any kind of electronical aid.

 

So okay, in any real sports, the players do not wear mobile phones during a serious game. This is a fact.

Surely millions of golf and chess players have their mobile phone with them in non serious events. But this is, what the ACBL wants too: Don´t wear a mobile in a serious event. They just want to be like any other serious sport organization.

 

But if you are not able to make an appointement for dinner the evening before the bridge tourney starts, if you are not able to read timetables of a tourney, then you surely need your mobile during the game. This is a way of thinking, noone older then 40 can understand, because we are used to make appointments in time, we can remember the time without any mobile phones.

 

Wayne, we are just too old to understand their way of thinking. If we talk to guys who will grow up in ten years, they won`t be able to read a map anymore, because they don`t need to, they all have their routing programms in the mobiles.

 

Same thing had happen to the youth with their mobiles: They are so used to use it, that they are not able to life without them.

 

The fact is: Most attendends of these tourneys have a possiblility to leave their phone in the car, in their hotelroom or in their coat. I never learned the english expression for it, but there are places where you can leave your coat safely in any given hotel.

 

So who is left? All the young students who have a hotel room far far away, traveled by bus and have no coat. Or not enough money to store their coat.

 

For this minority, Rik had the solution: Give the phone to the TD. This works in the Netherlands, so why shouldn`t it work in the States too?

 

Sorry kids, you sound like children whom they took the toys away. There is NO reason to take a mobile into the room of the tourney.

[jtfanclub]

So okay, in any real sports, the players do not wear mobile phones during a serious game. This is a fact.

In a real game, they don't take away the phones from every single fan in the audience. This is a fact.

 

In a real game, all of the players are provided with a locker free of charge in which to store their personal items, including mobile phones. This is also a fact.

 

If the ACBL wants to act like a real game, maybe they should look at what real games do.

[Trinidad]

So okay, in any real sports, the players do not wear mobile phones during a serious game. This is a fact.

In a real game, they don't take away the phones from every single fan in the audience. This is a fact.

I am sure they would, if the audience was allowed as close to the players as they can be in bridge and if the sport was as information sensitive. The last time I looked, fans couldn't run next to the running back or take a club on to the green. (And if they could, I am pretty sure that Tiger Woods wouldn't appreciate it if they would be calling.)

 

If you refer to 'the bleachers': I don't think there will be a ban on carrying mobile phones in the viewgraph theatre any time soon.

In a real game, all of the players are provided with a locker free of charge in which to store their personal items, including mobile phones.  This is also a fact.

We have already been over this. Jan Martel clarified this in her post (Mar 30 2008, 12:31 PM ) in the following thread: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ic=24291&st=165

She wrote:

"During the Vanderbilt, players could check their phones with the directors before entering the playing rooms." She even added: "That seemed to work well."

If the ACBL wants to act like a real game, maybe they should look at what real games do.

At least with respect to the points you mention, they seem to be doing just that.

 

Rik

[joshs]

I will simplify it to bullet-point form:

 

a ) some people in bridge cheat

b ) it's easier to catch and evict cheaters when one eliminates legitimate reasons for their (non-bridge) actions

 

and furthermore that

 

c ) one should try hard to avoid the appearance of impropriety

d ) if you unexpectedly win something big, do you want people questioning your ethics?*

 

* This is basically what happened to the women's BAM winners in the last SF NABC.

I worked for many years doing security assessments, and developing software to identify security vulnerabilities (my software is now used by the departments of defense and energy).. From that I have two observations:

 

People make the following FALSE claims:

 

Claim 1. If you remove a security vulnerability (eliminate or make less effective some method that people use to break into a facility, to cheat, or whatever), that the overall security becomes better.

 

This is totally false. If I triple lock my front door, people can still enter through the back door. This totally depends on if there are equally effective alternatives to the vulnerability that was patched.

 

Claim 2: If I remove my most significant vulnerability, security gets measurably better.

 

This is occasionally true, but usually there is something else that is almost as effective.

 

Claim 3: Even if what I do doesn't help much, it doesn't hurt, and it makes it appear that secuirty is improved, and that reduces crime.

 

Often putting in a new fence, has no measurable effect on the overall security effectiveness, but does make it look like security is taken seriously, so that probably reduces unplanned attacks (I have not seen the evidence, but I believe its true). It has hardly any effect on planned attacks. More seriously, there are always costs, so the "it doesn't hurt claim" is tenuous at best.

 

In bridge, people can cheat by:

a. talking to other people between rounds

b. seeing hands (in pairs events) while walking around the room, either while the hands are being made, or during the session

and many other ways.

 

You would be hard pressed to convince me that eliminating cellphone cheating, without eliminating a and b above as well, will have any effect on the overall cheating rate. The "cheating by cellphone rate" is just irrelevent. Systems (such as security protocols) should be measured only in terms of its overall effectiveness.

 

So I dispute the claim that eliminating cellphones decreases

a. cheating

b. accusations of cheating

c. occurances of someones reputation being tarnished.

 

 

Now on to the costs. First, unless they establish a method for collecting or checking cellphones the costs are asymmetric. If you happen to be staying at the host hotel, the costs are assocaited with the 20 minutes you lose going to your room and coming back

1. before the first session

2. after the first session

3. before the second session

(which is still significant)

 

If you are at another hotel, and don't have a rental car, the costs (time) are much higher.

 

One wise ass here (I am paraphrasing), said poor babies, no cell phone for 3 hours. Actually it becomes no cell phones for 15 hours if your hotel is nowhere near the facility.

My normal schedule at nationals is I wake up around 8. I go and be a tourist from 9 to 12, grab a quick lunch and I go play bridge. If its the first day of a national event, I will go out to dinner between sessions (and often see friends from the town nationals are held in), otherwise I go back to the room and rest. Then I play the second session.

 

Both my morning and evening break are pretty tight, and I generally need my cellphone to make logistics work. Sometimes I have business to deal with, so I definitely need my cellphone.

 

Without the cell phone I would not be able to do as many things in my off bridge hours, so would rationally decide to go to less nationals. I think its certainly clear that people select nationals to go to in part based on what else there is to do in that city (just look at attendnce numbers, and if you want you can restrict yourself to national events, even there people care about things other than just those events). Alternatively, I have to pay an extra $75 a night to stay in the host hotel.

 

I am all for improving security, but ineffectual rules with significant costs, whose costs are mostly born not by the folks on the boards who are all staying at the host hotel is a serious mistake.

 

I personally do not like the choices in the poll, since my vote would be I would (try to) follow the rules, but I would attend nationals much less often, since I could not

"go see Pearl Harbour or such and such museum or this great bookstore and catch a cab back for the bridge event", since I could not get the logistics to work. I also could not decide to go to nationals at the last second counting on my ability to find a partner by calling people up, and when they bump into somone who is also looking connecting us (ok, I don't usually do this, but many players do, but my plans might fall apart when a partner does too well in another event....). I also could not spend my free day kibbutzing nationals for a few hours and then being a tourist awterwords, since it will require a trip to and from my hotel....

 

 

Anyway, thats my scoop...