csdenmark

At midnight Bulgaria and Romania joined the European Union. No project I am in favor of but it is fact my dreams have become reality. My dreams of my youth active in human rights and especially active in rallying the former ugly regimes of Eastern Europe. This is a milestone as now extra 30 mill. inhabitants have options for new and prosperious future. Borders for Europe are disputed but there is no doubt that these 2 nations are clearly within the borders. The 2 countries are likely to be the hardest challenge until now for the community - and with good will we will overcome.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skj85hqj942dq7cj5]133|100|[/hv] The auction goes in this way: 1♣ - 1♠(ALERT) - ???? Your partner South opens 1♣(standard opening) Opps overcalls 1♠ which is alerted as a canape' overcall(2-4♠, second best suit, Brown-sticker feature) What is your call as North?

The good news is that I doubt I will ever have a nightmare that they might have executed an innocent person. Why Hussein if not Pinochet? Pinochet really meant more to me as those crimes were committed in my youth. After this, will it ever be possible to catch Karadzic and Mladic?

Lately I have experienced fairly long login sessions for playground. It started before internet crash at Taiwan so I assume no spill over possible. Looks like such mostly happens if +8.000 players but right now I faced the same problem with 2.500 players. A lot of possible reasons for such problems to be considered but I think I have no way to test if this or that. The most likely looks to be something about Vista. I dont have Vista but only those parts needed for IE7 and Windows Defender. I have read the new phising filter can cause problems occupying whole computer power but IE looks not involved or? I dont know what is tested for login so my request is if it would be possible to add a progress bar to the waiting message? Occasionally I have also experienced slow progress opening BBO Forum but not likely to be the same kind of problem I think.

Tough job Ben! The domain 'bridgeFILES.net' will be at your disposal for an initiative.

Richard copy rights is about much else than just economy of a individual items. If you want to buy their rights you are asking them so sell their image, their brand, their core value. You must prepare to take over the company as a whole. Ready for that? We no longer talk about $100-200 for outdated stuff I am sure you know.

Please give my regards to your mother Wayne. My mother enjoyed her hobby exactly the same way 40 years ago. Many I talk with on BBO do the same and I am sure that is a widespread view on bridge. It is a sound way for bridge. What really is the problem about kibitzing and what is so attracting is not clear to me. Fred is a strong advocater for kibitzing and therefore I think it is difficult to understand why such is allowed and promoted in general but banned in those events he cares most about. I doubt there is a real problem - if there was we ought to have had hundreds of new angry posters in this Forum. - As we have not I think it is no problem at all. I read your post Wayne as we are of the same opinion here.

Agree! The options are Pass, 3♥, 3NT or 4♣ but never 3♣. 6-1 distribution always acceptable for partscore.

I dont play standard systems. Those systems I play a transfer response will be a weak signal. I would therefore start with Stayman continuing with Smolen after 2♦ response. In your example I would cue ♦ instead of ♣

Maybe - maybe not. I think those advocating 1♥ has something like the scheme I sat up in mind. To take care of your perspectives in slam but at the same time to guard for the weak HcP counting. The 4NT response ignore that vulnerability. After disclosure of the full distribution we see that immediate 4♥ would likely close the auction. Such would give up your perspectives. The aim of a bridge auction is to explore and to test your perspectives.

Sorry Richard - I am not going to take your advice. When I occasionally looks into there I mostly find explanations much too advanced for my innocent head.

Yes on actual layout it is very unlikely - it would simply have little to do with sound auction. Failing to open 2♣ we know our HcP strenght is 18-24. We need to be very careful about slam perspectives as we know opener must hold at least 3 aces for that + a king to either of those. Responder holds a 5 loser hand. Not all 9 card hands are pure diamonds. [hv=n=sak4hda542cak9654&w=st8765hj5dkj976cj&e=sqj92ha8dq8cqt732&s=s3hkqt976432dt3c8]399|300|[/hv] To me on actual layout a solid auction would be besomething like: 1♣ - Pass - 1♥ - 1♠ 1NT - 2♠ - 3♠ - 4♠ 5♣ - Pass - 5♥ - Pass Alternatively: 1♣ - Pass - 1♥ - 1♠ 1NT - 3♠ - 4♠ - DBL Pass - Pass - 5♥ - Pass or DBL

Are you seriously suggesting responding 1♦? certainly not - but I wondered why no overcall. My initial bid will of course be 1♥ and then I want to be able to take advantage from interference, basically cue bidding. The outcome looks like I will not be able to buy for 4♥, which I suspected earlier. Then I need some guidance of what to do in 5 level as I dont believe in 6-level. I assumed distribution to be more unbalanced than it really was. 5♥DBL is the perfect contract. I need to be able to have something for a DBL of a possible 5♠.

This is an example of why it is still so that good hands must be progressed slowly

Even the opening is right of course I prefer to open such hands in MAJOR and force in minor. I think the club contract would have been reached here using that method. With this outcome 4♠+2 DBL I think nobody can rightfully blame declarer in this example.

Looks like there a lot of backissues available incl. a complete set for your requested 1980 edition. As there are so many copies available 25-40 years back looks to me as an evidence of small demand.

If I understand this correctly, you're refering to pairs who bid and signal on the basis of unformalized mutual understanding rather than formalized agreements. Pairs who play symmetric relays and similar formalized methods can (and often will) provide near-100% disclosure. Pairs who use less formalized methods can't do that, in particular with respect to negative inference and mixed strategies. We had (at the Dutch stepbrigde.nl/forum) a discussion about this problem, initiated by a case from a high-level Dutch pairs tourney in which one player (playing Ace-asks-attitude) objected to the agreement that "we play either count, attitude or suit pref depending on what we think partner is most interested in". He said that pairs playing non-formalized carding methods are not providing full disclosure. I don't think it's fair to call this "cheating" except in the highly hypothetical case when a pair deliberatly chooses non-formalized agreements in order to lessen the disclosure obligation. It's certainly not against the rules and I don't think it's against good sportsmanship if only because 98% (your number) of all players have no alternative. Another thing is that I don't think the problem (if it is a problem at all) is very prevalent on BBO. Most partnerships just have the agreement to play "Sayc" (who knows what that means ....) and don't have enough partnership history to have much knowledge of each other's style. So partner is equally uninformed as are opps. Pairs who play symmetric relays and similar formalized methods can (and often will) provide near-100% disclosure This is just perfect. If all did so the medicine would have proven right. So thats not the problem Helene. Most partnerships just have the agreement to play "Sayc" (who knows what that means ....) and don't have enough partnership history to have much knowledge of each other's style. So partner is equally uninformed as are opps This is a part of the problem - but no core part If you review some of the threads about mis-information and missing alerts I think the nature will become clear to you. Or maybe take a look to a thread up right now about opening multi 2♦. Also an example which will likely cause problems to as it looks like not only opps. but the players themselves as well. I don't think it's fair to call this "cheating" except in the highly hypothetical case when a pair deliberatly chooses non-formalized agreements in order to lessen the disclosure obligation. It's certainly not against the rules and I don't think it's against good sportsmanship if only because 98% (your number) of all players have no alternative. Regarding rules it is 40a and 75. The rules Richard are much better at than I am. You can find several threads dealing with these problems. I think it is against good sportmanship for 2 reasons: Lazyness - you dont pay attention to the event and time and effort of your opponents You use arbitrarian tools paying little attention to partner and opposition ----------- Please note when I state 98% it means nearly everybody and not only online bridge. The problem is based in ignoring the problem in club level. As discussed elsewhere the handling of the problem will be a bit easier if bridge rules would be updated to be fit for today. This means to introduce handheld devices like mobilphones and pocket-PC. At high level some kind of neurologic tools will be right - at least in the future. In that way WBF is likely to be able to gain authority online as well as they now have offline.

Fred even I agree my expressions are far from main stream I dont think anybody is right feeling offended. I think I express common knowledge. I normally voice that in threads where somebody claim to be fooled of mis-information or missing alerts. I advocate it is no special case but only a variation of a general problem popping up very frequently. Therefore it must be dealt with using general methods. Let's call it 'the computer way'. I think you agree to the nature of the problem as I think most interested agree to the nature of the problem. I think we disagree to the assessment of the graveness of the problem and we therefore also disagree to the cure of the problem. It is an uphill struggle and I know quite well I am a part of a small minority - no problem with that. I mostly raise voice to: Controversial views on general topics Any view on controversial topics My intensions raising my voice to the post you refer to was nothing than this simple to transform the old wisdom sentence There is little point in crossing the river looking for water

Looks like distribution is ♣ + ♥ and ♦ + ♠. Therefore I think for both sides 4 MAJOR will make and no slam will make. The problem looks to me whether 5♠ will make. The interesting decision is therefore 5♥DBL or 5♠. For that the info is insufficient.

Except when 2♦ opening means natural 11-19HcP, 5+♦ anybody playing opposite me must alert and explain all bids to the end. So please be sure you know exactly yourself how you treat your features. Competitive sequences inclusive of course.

Wayne - the most frequent way of cheating is using undisclosed methods(Gigolo bridge). Approx. 98% of players are guilty of that - and most of them dont know and dont care. Most salvators have a difficult life on earth - but they need to adapt. Read 'Rules for these sites' and apply to those. Your agenda is not mine and it looks like there are few in this Forum which share your agenda. Please dont be mistaken - the only real serious of tournaments is the word itself. A few organizers incl. table hosts have higher aspirations. We are a small minority which probably will be able to yell as long as we like. Nobody really cares and maybe all best served in that way.

The problem is most people are playing on BBO for recreational purposes. They try to take advantage from tools best possible and accept with ease where there might be some problems. No restrictions to their freedom of how to behave, as long as it is accordance with ordinary good manners, to be accepted. The part of the rules I have have uploaded are those you find on BBO today. I understand from your message that those rules are new to you!

Wayne you are constantly advocating opposition to the basic on BBO. That is 'Rules for these sites'. Please note that playing on BBO is outlined as a privilege and not a right. Please also note the reason why people are on BBO. http://bridgefiles.net/Picture/BBO-a1.jpg Your obligation is to obey those simple rules and nothing else - if you don't accept that, then the rules ask you to leave the playground. Might be wise of you to read/re-read the complete set of the rules.

Cheapest forcing bids until at least game has been reached.

Certainly it will but it will also be the end of the imagination of tournament set-up as a set-up which qualify for seriousity.