[thomas c]

i really woundnt miind the new fees if players were getting something for them. why not a new robot system with fewer bidding shafus , fewer playing snafus etc. i wouldnt even
mind paying more. as it is the advanced robots are a joke!!! and the hands seem to be deliberly set to have bad splits so that reasonable bid games dont make .

waiting to hear

thomas c

[smerriman]

Daylong have increased from 39c in 2019 to 42c in 2022.. unless I'm missing something, that's actually less than the inflation rate.

It has been proven over and over again that your last sentence is not true, just confirmation bias.

[thomas c]

smerriman, on 2022-January-26, 21:52, said:

Daylong have increased from 39c in 2019 to 42c in 2022.. unless I'm missing something, that's actually less than the inflation rate.

It has been proven over and over again that your last sentence is not true, just confirmation bias.

according to the fed inflation is around 2 per cent. but that is not the point. we are told that there are better robot systems available ( like jack) and that our rystem is unfixable. so what are the players goinig to get from the new fees. i play the robts a lot and i can afford the fees but it is discouraging to see rate hike after rate hike and nothiing given back
to the players.

[pilowsky]

42/39 = 7.7% FWIW
In any event, the answer is obviously 42.

To be fair, even robots have to eat and they don't get tips.

[mycroft]

Why am I hearing echoes?

But a quote from elsewhen: "Only in bridge will you find players showing up in their Lexus, with their clubs in the trunk from their $90 round this morning, whinging to the director that the game has gone up from $5 to $6."

I know not all bridge players are in that strat (I'm not, for one) but a crapton of them are, and a noticeable percentage of them aren't embarrassed about whinging about it.

[pilowsky]

First described by C Northcote Parkinson.

Quote

"People who understand high finance, are of two kinds: those who have vast fortunes of their own and those who have nothing at all. . . .But the world is full of people who fall between these two categories, knowing nothing of millions but well accustomed to think in thousands, and it is of these that finance committees are mostly composed. The result is a phenomenon that has been observed but never yet investigated. It might be termed the Law of Triviality. Briefly stated, it means that the time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved. In two and a half minutes the item is passed. Next item: bicycle shed for the clerical staff--$2350. Now a sum of $2350 is within everyone's comprehension. And everyone can envision a bicycle shed. An acrimonious debate follows over the sum of money, the type of roofing material, the need for a shed at all. Forty-five minutes later it is approved for $2050—a saving of $300."

If you have a few minutes and want something for nothing (an excellent price) you can read it here.
He describes it as the Law of triviality.
The smaller the amount of money the easier it is to understand.
People find it easier to spend hours arguing about things that are of no consequence.
Like sport.
Or which method of interfering over a strong no trump is "the best".