csdenmark

I have also wondered why my notes are lost. I doubt it will have anything to do with limit of number of persons or text-length. I have lost a lot of names of systems agreed with different partners. Not much else - I think mostly 2-3 words per ID and not so many ID I assume - 100 would be my guess but such things sums up of course - I know. I have assumed something has happened when downloading a complete version of BBO instead of only updating. Especially because I think I have never lost friends from the list. They are stored on my PC but I think the notes are not stored by me.

Actually we lost in the semi-finals (by 2 IMPs if I recall correctly) and then tied the match to determine who would be 3rd and who would be 4th. Congratulations Fred - I see my memory is no longer as good as I prefer it to be. I would really have loved to watch you and Geoff playing Meckwell system. Unfortunately no Vugraph from China last year. Did you know that Hampson and I were regular partners for several years in the early 1990s? Now you call up my mind - I have read but forgotten. I was aware you played in same club in Toronto - hope this is correct memory at least. Claus, I have given up convincing you that you are wrong about this. I respect your ongoing study of "strong systems", Wise to do so I think. We don't need to agree - and I hope you like me enjoy our divergenses in views. I think we share the view to do what we intend to do seriously and best possible. Did you know that some players have more than one regular partner? Certainly it is something like that. But a discussion of this I am not fit for and I assume it very easily will evolve into dispute of words instead of content. Those kind of finetunings my english vocabulary is not good enough for.

I find it amazing to be playing with people from all parte of the world Me too!

Why is this so strange if Jan Jansma Tor Helness Eric Greco Johan Sylvan are unavailable for the occasion? Are you saying that their regular partners should not compete (be invited) because thay are much weaker when they play with other partners? In my view, very strong partnerships can be formed of world class players who have not played together before. 60 minutes of system talk will normally be enough because they will not agree on fancy systems or gadgets. Their bridge skills will take care of the rest. Roland Are you saying that their regular partners should not compete (be invited) because thay are much weaker when they play with other partners? Certainly not Roland but I am not going to involve into a renewed discussion with you regarding strong versus weak systems. But they certainly are much weaker, they think themselves too - else their systems make no sense at all. It is fairly obvious that not all of the world elite will be available for any tourney. But 1 hour - you can't be serious! Such is sunday bridge. The elite is so thin. So from a spectator position I would prefer casual teams based on partnerships. Looks to me as the the way for the italians. Maybe Helgemo's old partner Glen Groetheim might have been available as an example or perhaps Rodwell or Meckstroth would be available to replace Greco. Last year paired Gitelman/Hampson - not so succesful as I remember. This year Brad is available so Fred will be able to play their system - we look forward to that.

Lauria-Versace don't play for Lavazza. They normally play for Tennis Club Parioli (sponsored by Angelini) Alain Nice to be informed. I am not familiar to the economic structures in bridge. I have noticed that normally Maria Teresa Lavazza is non-playing captain for Italy with these players: Bocchi-Duboin Fantoni-Nunes Lauria-Versace I think I have read somewhere Lavazza is a coffee company. Would be really nice if somebody would be able to inform more of the economic structures. To me it looks like somewhere there are big money involved but mostly not enough money to have an equalized strong world elite. The outcome of such is the appaling many regulations to see to that amateurs(those who need to have a civil job outside bridge) have a somewhat fair chance against the very few professionals.

Many strong names with strong credentials. Unfortunately they mostly will face competition from mixed teams - many only with 4 persons. I wonder the reason why Versace-Lauria will be playing for Team Garozzo instead of Team Lavazza. Whats the point of Verhees without Jansma? Whats the point of Helgemo without Helness? Whats the point of Hampson without Greco? Whats the point of Sundelin without Sylvain? I will be looking forward again to see strongest polish pair Balicki-Zmudzinski and the always frankly playing Auken-Von Arnim. I will be very surprised unless Team Lavazza will be able to destroy all contenders. I think India and Team Garozzo will have good chances as 2/3. The chinese teams I noticed performed well in last Bermuda but I am unable to keep track of the names.

This was 10 years and not 45 years. Most of your examples are already there in basic. So in 10 years I think right to say we will be able to finetune. Regarding cancer and aging - these are depending of identifying the gen - nobody knows when the breakthrough will come. When it comes then it won't be that difficult to predict when it will be able be used in full scale. As far as I know the chances are good they will be able to find it. How about Meteors? How about the Golf-stream? How about energy? My initial argument was that inexpensive have 2 sides. One side is the consumer side. The other side is income to be able to purchase. The balance between those 2 decides what is going to be possible to happen. I think you know that we in Europe are very suspicious of who is backing what in United States. We simply don't trust the american way of financing. Therefore please tell me - who are backing this guy?

You remember 'The Rome Club'? You remember Huxley? Even top-economist don't know the rate for interests by the end of this year. I would very much like to know who is backing this guy.

inexpensive information processes Sounds very attractive. Plus-words in our economic world. In fact it is pure rubbish. Balance is the word you need. Balance regarding resources of all kind. Unbalances are heading for shortage somewhere in the process. Please remember, the wage-quote is the decisive factor. The wage quote not only informs of balance between costs of materials and costs of manpower. It is also informing you whether consumers have the ability to buy. Without such development will very soon become unattractive. What is going to happen in 45 years nobody has any chance to predict anything about. Who pays his present salary?

Anybody have the options to read anything in your FD-file. When clicking the option to see it will open on that page computer is reading exactly now displaying all the options bidder have right now. Then you can navigate yourself in the normal way. So for opps. as well as kibitzers.

Agree David. 'No agreement' is a bug. It is there as standard for Pass, DBL and RDBL with no option to change. As all info in a FD-file per definition is agreed that explanation must be removed. I think you need to think about the history for the creation of FD. I think you still remember all the complainments for missing alerts we once had. At least such has become rare in Forum and I assume most of the problems have been solved with FD and rest are re-addressed. But Ducky seems to try to wipe out the baby together with bathing water. That is silly.

Assuming bridge has ever been popular to the masses I think is a mistake. A quiet intellectuel activity don't have what is needed to be popular. The requirement to be popular is you will be able to discuss Meckwell performance in deal 7 at segment 3 at your local pub. Cardplay is popular and I think will always be. Bridge is a complicated language for special interested persons with fairly good time. It is no spectator sport. I like to watch Meckwell. But when Meckstroth plays with other partners than Rodwell they no longer use their specialities but fall back on standard. Unfortunately that normally also means Meckstroth in that way have handicapped himself so much that he ends at the bottom of the field. Nobody feel pleased to see their stars flopping. The habit of constantly ruling out spectacular features are heading for even more conformity. That is not what we need. Watching Vugraph you here: 'Take care, here comes a strong action.' Few seconds later you hear: 'Sorry folks, I don't understand what is happening here.' The last I want to draw your attention to here is change in society. With less physicals demand for jobs the demand for physical activity in leisure activities has increased. Especially for younger persons. I doubt spectactular behavior or clothes has anything to do with popularity of bridge. Maybe we some day will see the sexual trend to be introduced in bridge!

These days it is 20 years since the swedish prime minister Olof Palme was assassinated. The crime has not yet been solved. I think all scandinavians took pride in Olof Palme no matter they agreed his polical project(Folkhemmet) or not. He was our shining star. The man who believed it really made a difference whether he speaked up or not. He speaked on behalf of those who was deprived the ability to do so themselves. And it made a difference and he is still today the personality of Scandinavia. http://www.sweden.se/upload/Sweden_se/english/factsheets/SI/portraits/Palme/Swedish_prime_minister_Palme.jpg Maybe you like me have wondered the reason why great personalities seems to fall victim of crimes. Oh yes I understand perfectly well such persons have many enemies. But why do enemies commit crimes in a way their victims are catapulted to martyrians and immortal. That is what I don't understand. Olof Palme was not the only one - other names for such; yes we all know them. John F. Kennedy Jerzy Popieluszku Martin Luther King Patrice Lumumba http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/images/jk35_1.gif http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Lumumba.jpg/175px-Lumumba.jpg http://www.martinlutherking.org/images/king4.jpg http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/0c/200px-Jerzy_Popieluszko.jpg

I have re-installed 4.6.5. Now it seems to work. But to be sure done correct file-specification below: Fileversion: 5.0.1.0 Date: 06-04-2006, time 22.03 Size 2.33MB

I suggest you try 4.6.5 again. Everything seems OK for me. Most likely your installation was in some kind of a messed up state, but if there is a new software problem I could use your help trying to solve it (since I can't seem to force it to happen myself). If you are willing to try 4.6.5 and report as many details as possible about the problem (if it happens again) I would appreciate it. In this way I can make sure that the problem does not happen with future versions. Fred Gtielman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com OK I try that.

Nothing happened. No response at all. I have now re-installed BBO completely and updated for 4.6.4. That works. The downgrade from 4.6.5 to 4.6.4 only worked once then FD also disabled there. Regarding font - no problem I modify and hope no further changes. I have around 20 so I think natural I concern a bit about the font. That is aimed for human beings to have an option to be informed. Files with 14 strings for 3 openings are not possible to read and to have an overview from for human beings.

I updated to last BETA today. Now no longer possible to load any FD-file. Neither BBO default cards or any of my own from favourite folder or the old default card folder. The font of text seems at the same time to have changed so that the general info text has been larger I think and the text is no longer possible to read. An example here. Looked correct and neat yesterday: Bocchi-Duboin club 2003 I have just downgraded to 4.6.4. Now FD loads but still problems with the the size of text. Any way to ensure text in this file will always be the same? There are no margins in such an unformatted string.

FD provides the intended information and nothing else. If the intended information is false it is a violation of bridge laws and has nothing to do with options in FD. I think wise of you to try to be inspired from FD-files created carefully.

As you don't understand the point of so many things... The point is actually quite simple: The BBO program loads the images off the harddisk as seperate files before displaying them. This is opposed to hardcode them into the program itself or encode them in some way, which would be quite silly (and useless) but at least prevent clueless users from trying to change anything globally by replacing the graphics locally. Now, as a matter of fact, this allows you to exchange the actual data on your harddisk, which will lead to the BBO program displaying different graphics. Not that hard to understand after all. What I don't understand is why you expect that changing the graphics on your harddisk (possibly all of them, quite an amount of data mind you) should lead to uploading the pictures to everybody else who might or might not want to display your profile. One explanation is that you constantly assume that your own expectations and ideas of reality are to be imposed on each and everyone else... --Sigi This tone looks not so very friendly Sigi. In future I will discuss with other persons.

'Constructive' is just an alternative word for 'limit bid' meaning don't raise unless extra. It is correct that 'no agreement' often looks strange. But if you know it is impossible to change - then no problem I think. It is so for NT bids but also for doubles and pass bids. You need to describe the meaning yourself. It is correct it is difficult to have an overview in FD if FD-file is created as a system file. To read a convention card with 8 entries to 1NT opening is not for human beings. And FD is in fact not intended to be read by human beings but by computers. As Richard explains correctly there is a place for a summary of system. You may see my explanation here for: Bocchi-Duboin Club 2003 A FD-file only serving as a normal convention card will be created much simpler. There will only be one string for each opening which means display of bids will often and normally end after responders 1st bid, exactly as it does using normal convention cards. You read a FD-file created in that way as simple as you read any other convention card and in exactly the same way as the old convention card format.

With FD, you have to examine dozens (hundreds?) of paths through the tree. Certainly not. Just find the place from where you dont like it and delete all the rest of tree structure from there. Only one click with your delete button on keyboard. Very simple Barmar. How do you know you don't like it if you don't know it's there? You have to read every branch of the tree to see whether there's something you don't like. Are you assuming that the summary page accurately lists all the conventions that are included? So if it doesn't say Lebensohl there, you don't have to search the tree for Lebensohl responses? For a simple thing like Lebensohl over weak 2's, you'd have to look for and delete it in 6 places: (2♦)-X, (2♥)-X, (2♠)-X, (2♦)-P-P-X, (2♥)-P-P-X, (2♠)-P-P-X. First you copy the tree structure from one location of Lebensohl. Then you delete all other possible options for Lebensohl - Now you paste the former copied Lebensohl tree. Then it will be exactly where you want it and nowhere else.

I've not used another pair's card, but in a new partnership we'll often start with a card that one of us plays with another partner, and change things that one of us doesn't like. With normal f2f CC's it's easy to scan for these things -- check-boxes stand out nicely. With FD, you have to examine dozens (hundreds?) of paths through the tree. I don't see how anyone can be expected to do this. Consider how you would tell whether you play Lebensohl in the two methods. With ACBL CC's it's check-boxes in the NT and takeout double areas, with FD you have to scan way down in several competitive bidding trees. With FD, you have to examine dozens (hundreds?) of paths through the tree. Certainly not. Just find the place from where you dont like it and delete all the rest of tree structure from there. Only one click with your delete button on keyboard. Very simple Barmar.

Steven I read your text as you ask for basic info of precision. To play precision in a decent way you need to have some background. 'The Precision bidding system in bridge' by C.C. Wei will give you the history and the basic theory. This book is also called Cinderella Team and is not a complete system but a scheme. You can buy from Barclay Bridge Supplies, Louisville, Kentucky.

That is true for what you see on your local computer, and is what I do to put the 'WBF-approved' flag in for Chinese Taipei for onsite vugraph of WBF events, but the flag shown on all the spectators' computers is what they have in their own flags folder. During WBF events, Chinese Taipei players will have the UN flag against their name, which is quite ironic given that the UN don't regognise them. Completely correct Dave - I just tested as I expected that to be false. I renamed Cuban flag as USA - and now americans by me are turned up all with Cuba flag. I don't understand the point of such.

In fact it is so that the user is the ruler here. What is displayed by BBO is the name of the image residing at your flag-folder. Any american can instead insert the state-flag if they wish. As I have noticed the only limit is 10KB or less. If you prefer an image of yourself I have tested it is possible for black and white. Flag for Bornholm or Skåne will do too.