[ggwhiz]

After comparing a swiss match a local player was aked how he made 4♥.

He said "First I put them to sleep."

Just give em all a chess clock at the first complaint and insist that the current rules be enforced.

[mgoetze]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-22, 08:58, said:

b) Most experts have had their mind poisoned by "system and method development"

Can I call you General Ripper?

"I can no longer allow [system and method development] to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!"

[MrAce]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-22, 08:40, said:

Wouldn't you prefer to play against a pair of Michael Seamon's and finish in time to eat and talk with your friends?
'

Eating ? Chatting with friends ? When i am playing a high level event ?

No, would not even occur to me. Please tell me you didnt make all this noise to be able to eat couple more cookies Carl

[Free]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-22, 08:58, said:

Some hands are bid and played? differently by some experts, because

a) Some experts are not as expert as other experts;

b) Most experts have had their mind poisoned by "system and method development"

c) I submit that true "experts" would play a given hand the same way. That's why Par contests with strict time limits are the best way to determine playing and defending expertise.

Obviously one must agree with a), nobody is the same.

However, b) is a ridiculous argument. The system and playing skills must be balanced. The best system in the world is not going to help you if you can only take a finesse, and vice versa. All top players can handle their cards, but some are better than others in calculating the odds. But they need a system that gets them to playable spots, and basic stuff just doesn't do that often enough.

c) is also wrong. If there's a choice between an 84.34% line and a 83.92% line, I'm pretty sure the best in the world will not all take the same line. Ironically, it takes TIME to calculate exact odds, and that's exactly what you don't want to give them.

 chudecek, on 2011-May-22, 08:58, said:

Bridge World Standard and artificial club systems are complicated. I submit that if you used these systems in bridge columns for Joe Average (like those in NYT and most other newspapers), the readership would drop to near zero within a week, and they'd have room for Lil' Abner reruns.

BWS is complicated? Are you serious? Perhaps they should scratch that demonic stayman...

[chudecek]

 Free, on 2011-May-23, 02:24, said:

Obviously one must agree with a), nobody is the same.

However, b) is a ridiculous argument. The system and playing skills must be balanced. The best system in the world is not going to help you if you can only take a finesse, and vice versa. All top players can handle their cards, but some are better than others in calculating the odds. But they need a system that gets them to playable spots, and basic stuff just doesn't do that often enough.

c) is also wrong. If there's a choice between an 84.34% line and a 83.92% line, I'm pretty sure the best in the world will not all take the same line. Ironically, it takes TIME to calculate exact odds, and that's exactly what you don't want to give them.


BWS is complicated? Are you serious? Perhaps they should scratch that demonic stayman...

If a player is calculating the difference between an 84.34 percent line and an 83.92% line, and he takes more than 20 milliseconds to do it, I don't want to waste my life playing against the sucker.

And BWS is complicated to the point that very few people would bother reading newspaper bridge columns if it were that basis used in those columns.

Bridge in its simple form is an activity hundreds of millions of people can enjoy. Many of you people want to use 2082 bidding methods, 1982 computer technology, under the umbrella of 1282 human psychology and 1382 marketing concepts.

You people would take a Kentucky Derby-winning race horse, equip him with air bags, spring-loaded shoes, side view mirrors, and rocket boosters on his rump and sit back admiring your "progress".

[Free]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-23, 08:21, said:

If a player is calculating the difference between an 84.34 percent line and an 83.92% line, and he takes more than 20 milliseconds to do it, I don't want to waste my life playing against the sucker.

And BWS is complicated to the point that very few people would bother reading newspaper bridge columns if it were that basis used in those columns.

Bridge in its simple form is an activity hundreds of millions of people can enjoy. Many of you people want to use 2082 bidding methods, 1982 computer technology, under the umbrella of 1282 human psychology and 1382 marketing concepts.

You people would take a Kentucky Derby-winning race horse, equip him with air bags, spring-loaded shoes, side view mirrors, and rocket boosters on his rump and sit back admiring your "progress".

lol @ Carlimero.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=GoC2ZoadljE

[blackshoe]

"you people"

yeah. I get it.

Thanks, Carl, but no thanks.

[gwnn]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-May-20, 04:48, said:

@zasanya, first of all the 'Fischer clock' idea has been avoided in chess except for specialist circles such as online play.

The blitz world championship uses it (3 minutes and 2 second increment) and many tournaments have 30 seconds increment.

Sorry for off-topic. I don't think chess clocks are the answer, with or without increment. Classic question: whose thinking time is it when you explain your convention to your opponent?

[aguahombre]

 gwnn, on 2011-May-23, 09:27, said:

Classic question: whose thinking time is it when you explain your convention to your opponent?

Is it a thoughtful explanation?

[zasanya]

 gwnn, on 2011-May-23, 09:27, said:

The blitz world championship uses it (3 minutes and 2 second increment) and many tournaments have 30 seconds increment.

Sorry for off-topic. I don't think chess clocks are the answer, with or without increment. Classic question: whose thinking time is it when you explain your convention to your opponent?

Answer to classic question .If there is a query about convention or if there is a director call both clocks are stopped.So nobody gains or loses time.I thought I had addressed most relevant issues related to clocks in my post.
The point here is whether you agree with the hypothesis that "In a mind game the person who cannot work out a problem in the given reasonable amount of time should be punished."
I think so; hence my suggestion of introducing timing devices.
Mr Ace (who took the trouble of replying to my post) and others like him seem to think there is no necessity to punish a slow thinker or to reward a fast thinker because in their opinion the expertise of a player is not a function of the time taken by him to work out a problem.For them there is no need for timing devices.Meanwhile let us continue to enjoy bridge in the way we are used to.

[chudecek]

 MrAce, on 2011-May-23, 00:03, said:

Eating ? Chatting with friends ? When i am playing a high level event ?

No, would not even occur to me. Please tell me you didnt make all this noise to be able to eat couple more cookies Carl

You don't talk with friends and go to dinner between sessions? My, has tournament bridge changed since I was more active in it. We couldn't get enough of hashing / rehashing boards.

[Vampyr]

 mtvesuvius, on 2011-May-21, 12:14, said:

Use the bathroom while you are dummy? Depends?! You seem to be delusional.

I'm sure Depends was a bit of self-parody, but what is strange about using the toilet while you are dummy? Surely your partner does not require you to go to the bar EVERY TIME he plays a hand!

[aguahombre]

If there is no kib to turn the dummy, it is downright rude to leave. Burdening pard and/or opps with your job.

[blackshoe]

There was a time when, if my bladder indicated it wanted emptying, I could tell it to shut up, and I'd get to it later. That time is long gone.

It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2011-May-23, 18:22, said:

If there is no kib to turn the dummy, it is downright rude to leave. Burdening pard and/or opps with your job.

I have never seen anyone object to playing their own dummy. I can't imagine it being a problem if it is just a few times in a session. (It does become disruptive if a player feels they need to go and smoke every single time they are dummy, like an occasional partner of mine.) Also, it is the price you pay if you need a coffee/cold drink/beer.

On the other hand, I would certainly object if, as a defender, I were asked to play dummy's cards, but it seems a very strange thing to ask and I doubt that it would occur to most people. If that should ever happen, I will just refuse.

[Vampyr]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-21, 11:28, said:

Applying time constraints is not for the benefit of kibitzers. They are applied to benefit THE GAME. And I am equally sure that speeding up the game would be favored by the majority.

If "THE GAME" does not refer to kibitzers, it must mean the players. But for these arguments to have any relevance, there must be at least a bit of evidence that there is a clamour at the top levels for time constraints. Being "sure" that speeding up the game would be "favoured by the majority" does not constitute a reason for making changes to the way top-level bridge is played. A personal opinion is just not good enough.

[chudecek]

 Vampyr, on 2011-May-24, 05:03, said:

If "THE GAME" does not refer to kibitzers, it must mean the players. But for these arguments to have any relevance, there must be at least a bit of evidence that there is a clamour at the top levels for time constraints. Being "sure" that speeding up the game would be "favoured by the majority" does not constitute a reason for making changes to the way top-level bridge is played. A personal opinion is just not good enough.

The "majority" refers to the majority of all players attending NABC tournaments and playing in multiple-session events. That personal opinion is GOOD ENOUGH if one is 76 years old and has been observing play and listening to opinion of ALL players for 58 years. A handful of big time players PLAY TOO DAMN SLOW and wreck the game for the majority of participants.

I have never heard one complaint that "expert ZZZ finishes his sessions (or rounds) too damn fast"

My proposal of a metered player average of 48 to 54 minutes consumed time per 32 boards is MORE than reasonable for anyone who wants to be considered an expert bridge player.

[mgoetze]

 Vampyr, on 2011-May-24, 04:50, said:

On the other hand, I would certainly object if, as a defender, I were asked to play dummy's cards, but it seems a very strange thing to ask and I doubt that it would occur to most people.

Perfectly normal occurence at my local club. I think "very strange" is an overbid.

[Vampyr]

 mgoetze, on 2011-May-24, 07:35, said:

Perfectly normal occurence at my local club. I think "very strange" is an overbid.

Well, declarers play their own dummy in the majority of bridge hands played worldwide, and it is the traditional, "normal" way to play bridge. Having the opponents play dummy's cards is not, as far as I know, routine practice anywhere, and seems very unnatural, not to mention distracting to the people who are trying to defend.

[Free]

 Vampyr, on 2011-May-25, 01:11, said:

Well, declarers play their own dummy in the majority of bridge hands played worldwide, and it is the traditional, "normal" way to play bridge. Having the opponents play dummy's cards is not, as far as I know, routine practice anywhere, and seems very unnatural, not to mention distracting to the people who are trying to defend.

Not sure if you're well informed, but in Belgium for example it's very common for opponents to play dummy's cards. With or without screens. It's not considered rude to leave to the toilet either, it's a natural process which everyone has to do from time to time. Apparently it's similar in Germany, and I'm pretty sure many other countries don't draw knifes when someone needs a break.

Basically it's a different approach. While you insist that only you or your partner plays the dummy's cards and so should opponents, in my country we help the guy who needs a break and his partner (so declarer doesn't have to go flat all over the table each time he wants to play a card) and we can count on opponents' help if we need a break ourselves. But to claim that your way is the "normal" way is a bridge too far imo, where do you get this idea?