csdenmark

You will find both versions on bridgefiles web-sites

Personal insults do not help your case. :( Sorry - I have no case and I have not asked for any help from you

At first glance it looks like it may be a good solution. The comments from Blackshoe shows that with persons like Blackshoe and those who enjoy toying with minor fixes nothing is to be achieved. The present set of laws are much too complex to be taken into account by ordinary weekly club players. Bridge has developed out of whist. For several years features and systems were added and now nobody is able to remember the stuff they are confronted with. Therefore we for several years have had a trend trying to roll back to a more simple way close to whist. That roll back is obsolete to what options information technology offers. The online version must take advantage from easy access to informations, ability to use technical features for mathematical computerization and handheld hardware. System restrictions in general makes no sense in online play but very good sense in offline play. I think a separation will take place sooner or later. Online bridge has to come closer to the way normally used in computer games. It is no law of nature that computer games need to be about dead and destruction.

Sorry you have misunderstood. In my view the law-complex is much too big to be of relevance to persons who plays the old card game. For those who plays the version online most of the complex is obsolete. It describes features not here, for example lead out of turn and false discard. There are many other, probably something like 80% of the law-complex is obsolete. What is neccessary is to separate the two games. What we have today is a simple automatisation of a game. It is a poor mix annoying most persons. All the questions about regulation is an evidance that something important is really wrong.

Completely correct. The problem is there has been no development of Full Disclosure application since it was introduced. The very low numbers of users is of course no motivation for Fred and his team to invest energy here. Several players posting in this forum, who regard themselves as solid players, have often said they dont use convention cards, especially not this one. Unserious statements and discouraging for Fred of course. It is wrong to judge on the basis of the present way the application works. The right way is to judge on the basis of the potential of how an improved version would be able to work. Blackshoe's comments in this thread are just adding to the problems for bridge to be able to overcome the deficit which comes because of outdated rules. Those rules which were mostly well in place earlier but which are often completely obsolete in a modern world of information technology.

Your priorities I have no intensions to interfere with Kathryn. It is completely up to yourself where you have your focus. It is wise to focus on what is important.

Pity - very pity because he has plenty of other stuff to talk about. I also like to talk about the good old days but sometimes duty calls. If you have the knowledge needed I think you have the obligation to be helpful.

I agree. It is easy to miss the FD explanation pop-up especially if you are not expecting it, so alerting makes the game run more smoothly and pleasantly. What I do not understand is why people are against alerting all their artificial and conventional bids when they play on BBO (other than the games where there are specific alerting regulations in place). Are you trying to win like this? Or is it more fun misleading your opponents? Paul Paul in 1982 this world changed fundamentally. Distributed information technology was introduced by introducing the personal computer. Since then responsibility for information switched from sender to receiver. An overwhelming mass of information we have to come to terms with. Not so easy but we are still getting better. The problem for bridge is it has not yet reached the year 1982. I am not sure what the old men in the new law-forum are discussing but I think I am pretty close assuming they are not discussing how to catch up with modern information technology.

Completely agree with Fluffy. Ignore your partner except for courtesy comments. I only want to add that you should be sure to be declarer nearly each of your declarer-games. Disable all kinds of signalling. Rely on your cards and your best understanding of opps's bids.

Certainly we do. You dare not speak frank words. You dare not say that you represent the opinion that people have the right to be sleepy and it is the obligation of opposition to wake them up. Individual bids have no special meaning - each bid always relates to their predesessors as extensions.

Well then the question is what the alert rules are for. To wake sleepy persons or to help with explanations to be able to come out the dark? The alert rule complex is outdated. It was created long before online bridge was invented. It is one of several examples that the bridge community has not been able to move into modern society.

There is no point in duplication of alert explanations. Using full disclosure you alert all bids. Thats a good service. If opps. dont like it they can look away. To alert bids which require no alert is not illegal. What is illegal is to forget to alert alert-requiring bids. If a person ask you additional to press the alert button - do so and be glad you will soon have new and hopefully serious opponents.

The lawmakers will be pleased to receive your opinion. They have worked for this for many years - that you think it is all uniform now means they have been very succesfull.

You can see what you are looking for in their 2007 convention card. It is uploaded to bridgefiles web-sites.

As 95% plays standard and nothing else I think it matters nothing. Those few who knows something more interesting have an own interest in informing the world that they have the skills and looks for partners for that. If you have an offer Pauli I will be interested.

If you really want to know then I think it looks like a boring system. ---------------------------------- As you are no american you ought to have enough energy to write 'you' and not 'u'

Your hand is not worth opening. It is a defensive hand. Opening anyway your partner seems not to understand the implications of holding top cards in his short suit versus long-weak.

This is quite a rubbish answer. 4NT is a balanced slam try. What else should responder do with a 5=3=3=2 hand worth a slam try to "clarify his holdings"? CUE bidding Cue bidding when Claus? Agree that this is a balanced slam try - quantitative in other words. Certainly it is. People in this forum often seems paralyzed facing interference over 1♣ strong openings. No need for that. I am not so sure that 3♠ was the best bid but I think until after 3NT there is no good reason to blame anybody here. To occupy most space to explain a poor distribution is foolish. To bypass the option to play 5-2 fit in spades ought to be an eyeopener.

This is quite a rubbish answer. 4NT is a balanced slam try. What else should responder do with a 5=3=3=2 hand worth a slam try to "clarify his holdings"? CUE bidding

It is a rubbish auction you have here. 4NT is an obsolete bid. It is for responder to clarify his holdings not to put pressure on opener by wasting space. After 4NT here 5m will be grand slam try and 6m will be sign off.

Mine is working perfect - I am also running Vista. I have a checkmark for 'logging all chat' - maybe thats you are missing. The rest I have same settings as you.

Discussing fees you need to bear in mind that near to half of BBO users are from Europe. To New York time difference is: London(5 hours), Paris-Rome-Berlin(6 hours), Istanbul-Warsaw-Sofia(7 hours). This means time for events not held on USA East coast is very inconvenient. You cannot expect people to pay much for sleeping in front of their computer. Normally you see daily traffic on BBO diminish dramatically by european midnight.

I have no idea what the bid means here. Playing Belladonna-Garozzo unusual bids of 4♣, if a club contract then 4♦, will be control ask. If the players were italians they might have been inspired by Blue Team handling.

So far this thread has failed not to produce just one single example of accidents. Looks like a solution is on the outlook for problems to solve. To deal with real problems instead of ghosts is the superior way.

I think it would be a good thing if my enemies were able to se why they receive no reply and why they are denied access.