[PhantomSac]

Fluffy, on 2015-October-09, 19:58, said:

Yeah its much better than I play and dump (If you think this things don't happen I will LOL at you). That's would be so fair. It is not my fault. It is organization's fault.

Organization suposedly takes care of me playing against whoever pairs I have financially invested, or invested in me early. This is exactly the same.

If your options are play and dump, or not play, I see why you think that not playing is better.

In the real world you have an option of play and not dump. Play your best, play your hardest, do what you would do against anyone else. What if you are playing against someone you hate? Should you not play, as you might play harder against them or try to ***** them?

Part of playing in the cavendish and playing bridge in general is playing your hardest no matter what the circumstances are. If you are unable to play and not dump vs your friends, then what about when it's not money but you're playing a national or world pair game and they are in contention and you're nowhere? Can you find it within yourself to not dump to them when its just prestige, not money on the line?

And yes, of course I think that people cheat more and collude more and softplay their friends more when money is on the line. Why do you think no US pairs play in the cavendish since it's moved to europe?

But to hear you say your only option is to not play since otherwise you have to dump is LOL. When the cavendish was here I would say that at least half of the field was my good friend. I played in it every year for many years. I have seen this situation many times and I was able to play and not dump, it must be so hard!

I am still waiting for you to explain to me how it is tenable to not play by the way. How does that work? Should you write down on a sheet who you like and who you don't like on a scale of 1-10 and they should cross reference that for the optimal arrangement?

While we're on this subject, I actually had an interesting thing along these lines come up once. One of my best friends was in contention for winning the whole event. I was out of contention, but there was a session prize of 10k, so my goal was to win the session (which means I need big session, ergo more swingy actions is my optimal strategy here). I don't remember if it was early on but it was not late, maybe in the middle and we were doing alright, anyways, I psyched against my friend who was in contention for the win. It was a "normal" psyche for me in a situation where I need to win the session/beat lots of pairs, maybe white red opposite a passed hand and I overcalled KQJ and out. My opps missed a slam.

The countrymen of my friend were absolutely outraged. They wondered how I could call him a good friend and do that to him, take money out of his pocket (and I didn't win the session so the money didn't go to me). My friend, to his credit, argued that I would be cheating to NOT do this if I would do it against anyone else. It is cheating to softplay because it's your friend and they're doing well. Yes, I totally think this happens, and I no longer play in the joke of the event that is the cavendish. But I certainly think that it is possible to behave in an ethical manner and not have to resort to a completely untenable "i refuse to play" "solution."

The fact that you cannot see that your obvious choice is to go in there and play as hard as possible rather than dump or not play is mind blowing to me bro.

In both poker and bridge, sometimes you cost your friends money. Sometimes the goal of the game is to cost your friends money. Sometimes you make an awesome play and it makes them not win a national pair game, while you end 29th. This is part of the game, and the money has nothing to do with the ethics of the situation.

I'll say it again, if you're gonna feel bad about possible scenarios where you cost your friends money, to the point that you feel the need to either not play or to dump, then don't play in the cavendish.

[PhantomSac]

And yeah dude I know exactly what most people do in those situations. I am not disputing that. You see the same ***** in poker all the time also. You will not be seeing me at the cavendish ever again lol, and haven't since it moved to Monaco, except maybe to bid on the players. That is not the point.

[Fluffy]

PhantomSac, on 2015-October-09, 20:27, said:

I am still waiting for you to explain to me how it is tenable to not play by the way. How does that work? Should you write down on a sheet who you like and who you don't like on a scale of 1-10 and they should cross reference that for the optimal arrangement?

Realicing the only pairs that speak spannish and have interchangeable partners have common interests is not rocketscience. This is Europe, just make everyone from same country play first sessions against each other and you have a very good start.

This is the best tournament of the world in theory, yes they should make it sure that 4th session is totally free of possible collusions, I can think of many systems for this. I even sent them some proposals.

[Fluffy]

PhantomSac, on 2015-October-09, 20:27, said:

While we're on this subject, I actually had an interesting thing along these lines come up once. One of my best friends was in contention for winning the whole event. I was out of contention, but there was a session prize of 10k, so my goal was to win the session (which means I need big session, ergo more swingy actions is my optimal strategy here). I don't remember if it was early on but it was not late, maybe in the middle and we were doing alright, anyways, I psyched against my friend who was in contention for the win. It was a "normal" psyche for me in a situation where I need to win the session/beat lots of pairs, maybe white red opposite a passed hand and I overcalled KQJ and out. My opps missed a slam.

The countrymen of my friend were absolutely outraged. They wondered how I could call him a good friend and do that to him, take money out of his pocket (and I didn't win the session so the money didn't go to me). My friend, to his credit, argued that I would be cheating to NOT do this if I would do it against anyone else. It is cheating to softplay because it's your friend and they're doing well. Yes, I totally think this happens, and I no longer play in the joke of the event that is the cavendish. But I certainly think that it is possible to behave in an ethical manner and not have to resort to a completely untenable "i refuse to play" "solution."

Now be sincere and consider if you would psyche if you had no upside for doing well. Also you said so you were friends with almost everyone so you are just trading one friend to another, I am friend with only one. And I also suspect impact for winning cavendish for my friend and yours would be very different.

BTW you seems to assume I say my only option is to refuse to play. It is my best option, not the only one, At the table I simply played, with half my brain messed in conflicts. And I even took what seemed to me the variance route. I am happy for you for being able to be an emotionalless player, I am not.