csdenmark

Hi Ben - I have not played precision in my young days. Nobody, except very few of course, plays precision in Denmark. They play acol in Denmark. There are different versions, also correct different versions, also different correct italian versions. I use Belladonna/Garozzo. Page 209: B. Beta asking Bid Beta asking bids are made in suits which have not been established as trumps. Here are the cases in which it comes up. I will not come up with the situations here. They will soon come on my web-sites. Dont mind if you have forgot. When I was in your age - my memory had left me too! :rolleyes:

I am looking into Super Precision these days. Right now I am uploading all but 1♣ openings. Super Precision will be complete within 14 days I think. This is Belladonna/Garozzo version: 1♣-1MAJ-1NT= CAB - correct(2MAJ after 1NT is not TAB but CAB-response) Only 1♣ opener can ask 1♣-1MAJ - something else =Omega, repeat option here 1♣-1MAJ - raise = TAB - later 4♣ can be CAB I see Ben refer to BETA. BETA is ask in a suit not yet established as trump.

Excellent Fritz - I will adopt this one! :rolleyes: When I refer to 4x4 - it is just as example to have something specific. 1-2 makes no sense. 3-5 are the serious options. Yes I would really like to see the problems in unclocked to be settled. I think it will only be a very little modification of software needed as it looks like the features needed already programmed. But of course only Fred and Uday knows. You certainly have a point in problems to catch up. Then lets try to deal with such. The basic of unclocked is flexibility - so therefore it would be a very good idea to find good solutions in order to have a greater variety - and hopefully more seriousity too.

This thread has been started as a complaint by a quick player for wasting much time - up to 40% - just waiting for proceeding of tourney. So I read your statement as "YES - but". In unclocked events it is not so that slow players delay completetion for the quick ones. Thats the flexibility. You will be slowed down if you are playing at a slow table. If you start playing at a quick table - you are likely to be in that part of the field ending quickly. You will not be affected by others. What is slow play? To me a set up with less time for each board than the professionals have available will not be accepted as fair. As far as I remember from Vugraph comments they have 10 minutes per board with an extra option of 2 minutes. The match as a whole also has a time frame within all must be over. I would appreciate very much if somebody would be able to confirm or correct this information! Bridge is a thinking game - this means there are several reasons for slow down: - Poor connection - Distraction - Thinking - Personal needs - Maybe others? In unclocked you constantly have an option to advance from a slower part of the field to a quicker one. Either by speeding up or making a simple agreement with your opps. to skip a table.

Marc an option for somebody who had been suffering during tourney is needed. An option simply to say "enough is enough - we quit for today". In unclocked it is so that those who had suffered already from poor connections or slow opps. they will be extra penalized in the end of the tourney because of the shrinking number of tables to switch with. Once I remember an example with complete impossible connections to China. All chinese were suffering and all those who was opps to those suffered. Those not did not suffer but had all quite normal. I think those with no problems just play tourney quite normal. Those with problems I think it would be nice if they had an option to say "We dont want to suffer more ourselves - and we think others can just play tourney to the end." The alternative is in such hard and rare cases - cancellation. You ask why needed as they would all end inside same timeframe. Yes thats true and here we have to take psychology into consideration. 1 round x 8 minutes = 8 minutes 4 rounds x 2 minutes = 8 minutes In both cases 8 minutes - but the psychological feeling is completely different. Therefore both formats will end inside same timeframe both the impression from those who needs to hit the limits - the quick ones and those with no other problems - will be completely different. As far as I have been able to find out how software switches is performed in unclocked is so that switches happens as soon you have 2-5 tables ready for a switch. Therefore time is minimized. Therefore you will in unclocked meet pairs playing in the same speed as yourself. In Swiss movement you will instead meet people playing with the same results as yourself. I think in reality not much of a difference - but that is really the difference between the formats. Marc the reason why you set for 7 minutes and you have no real complaints about waiting is of course that most people have no waiting time - they simply need 6-7-8 minutes to play an average hand. For all those both formats would be exactly the same and it is therefore regarding none of those we are discussing here. Therefore it would be very nice to see a greater variety of the formats offered!

Looks like we now have agreed that unclocked means quick tourney for the quick ones. It is so that the whole unclocked tourney normally will complete within the same timeframe as clocked due to the flexibility that if you have faced a problem in an early round you have an option to catch up during the tourney. The waiting time some are posting of is annoying - agree. But that is only because it comes within a few hands. In clocked tourneys you will face exactly the same waiting time for the slower ones - but spread over all of the boards. Therefore you see the set up with switching opps. after every one played board. Then you will have a waiting time for 1 minute per board instead of perhaps, if unlucky 10 minutes waiting in a certain board. The summed waiting will be exactly the same as both formats will end at the same time. The fraud in clocked events is hidden via frequent switch of opps. and cuts. Admit of course Marc - there is a minor problem. If you are very unlucky with very hard connection problems - you will have problems at the end. There are rather good solutions for so - but that will require a minor modification of software in a way something like barometer. Something like after first pairs finishing then there will be no more switching of tables but the tourney will simply end with a barometer result. Maybe an option for the slower ones to press a button for the wish to complete full tourney aware of the ending problems. In fact that will mean for a 16 board/4 rounds that you will have - a tourney result for those completing 16 boards - a tourney result for those completing 12 boards only - maybe even a tourney result for those completing 8 boards only In that way you will not only have minimized waiting time you will have eliminated waiting time near to completely. A TD not knowing whether his tourney will end after 120 or if very unlucky after 140 minutes I dont think is worth taking into consideration. But the proposal stated above will complete an unclocked event approx. 15% quicker that it will be possible for a clocked one. Marc - running a lot of tourneys you will have a lot of practice - but no extra experience. Fritz it is not so that just one pair will be able to slow the tourney down. In reality nobody can so. The problems for a pair will have not much influence to others - in fact only to their opps. in that round. They have an option to catch up themselves. I would like the TD to present a pallette of options instead of just stepping into the heels of each other creating just the same. The limit choice today is not attractive and the set ups are not fair.

No Misho I think you know what I mean. Lets say 2NT as overcall: Minors or unbid? So simple is a misunderstanding with casual partnerships. And here it makes no sense unless they clarifies. So you have many, ranges for NT. Now I assume 15-17 with no agreement for bulgarian partners but correct 13-15 for all else. But in fact I ought to check. If most like me played acc. to correct versions - there would be no problem. The problems here are mostly regarding popular names of systems with many unsolid private versions. There are no problems playing Beznazwy or Regres etc. Only those who knows near to correct versions plays the system.

No Marc - It is so that clocked tourneys are waiting tourneys. Waiting for the quick ones each round. You divide(hide) the waiting with many switches of opps. Try to create a 16 boards events with 7 minutes each and 4 boards per switch. Then you will face the reality. 16 boards - approx 2 hours 8 minutes per board. 1/3 will end after 80-90 minutes 50% will end after 100-110 Last 20% will end around 120-130 minutes

Please be nice to our recovering Ben. :)

I don't care much. But I really think that the opposite is needed most. Playing with many new partners it is often difficult to have real bridge because the language is interpretated differently. The rules about partnerships dont take care of casual partnerships as this is not so often used in F2F bridge as online. But when I am host, and I normally am so, all are encouraged to communicate lively over table please in order to avoid natural misunderstandings. Card play based on misunderstanding is NO bridge. I reality Jack - alertbox is such a feature you ask for. Visible to opps. as well as kibitzers. And what I would like to have is an option to set table so that alerts were visible to partner too. - A simple solution satisfying all I think!

In clocked tourneys you will often see switch of opps. for every board or maybe every 2 boards. This is a try to spread the waiting time for the quick players hiding the facts that the speed of play is very different for all the pairs. In clocked tourneys you will often see a set up for 7 minutes per board. The reality is the quick players normally needs 4-5 minutes per board and nothing more. They will therefore have a waiting time for 2-3 minutes per board. In unclocked events quick players normally have no real waiting time at all. Those suffering disconnections or other kind of problems will have some more waiting time at the end but in a 16 board set up it is 8 minutes per board at an average. That means the same as clocked for the slower ones but for the faster ones they can finish 40% quicker. This is flexibility and fairness to all but rarely used!

Your argument would lead to the assumption that if you just silence all - then you have no censorship. Really the argument which was the dominant one during the cold war period as a proof for freedom. The nature of censorship is invisility and sanctions. In Denmark we from time to time have disclosure of problems in public service area. People who cannot advice correctly due to fear for their job. Loyalty yes - but to whom? We also have problems with lawyers and doctors which groups have collegial codex for no criticism. Suffering the patients only. But you see no censorship at all. In EU they simply fire all persons who discloses fraud. And in UK we recently had a case with self-suicide of a person who anononymos informed about weapons in Iraq. The problem is likely to be bigger in private sector. Business area and leisure area. I am sure we have such kind of problems in all countries and in many areas. Mostly such kind of problems are elivated by the person will be leaving. No Uday censorship has nothing to do with numbers. It is about credibility and nothing else.

I wonder how the legal regulations are. Such is of great importance to be able to judge whether somebody is right, justified or wrong in what has been done. I understand there have many nerves involved in the last few days. I really thought that all knew that individuals only weapon if they are confronted with an organization is the threat to STAY. Here we have had the opposite situation - quite frankly I don't understand the upset. I don't understand the need for what has been done and has costed a lot of credibility which will take long time and be very difficult to restore. As always we are wiser afterwards.

As this thread is not about translation this will be my last post about translation. I looked the word 'well' up in my english/danish dictionary. The meaning in this order in my dictionary: 1) Somewhere to have water from in soil - waterreservoir(substantive) 2) Something coming - streaming(verbum) 3) Good(adv. -'I dont know what 'adv.' is ) 4) Healthy(adjective - only praedecative) 5) Let or leave - do nothing(substantive) You see this word needs some kind of manuel translation/afterwork. Translation of 'good done partner' comes correct.

For Alex There is no machine translation possible to/from danish. Pity I would very much like to have such one. I cannot read much italian but from what I can read and rest is guessing - the machine translation was rarely fair to the text. I can test the translation german/english myself and doing so it is not perfect but it is rather good. I have therefore added links to entry sites to my web-sites for aut. translation of those into other languages. There I can check the german translation - and it is fairly good. Of course it is a commercial tool and due to that the word 'bridge' is translated as a bridge for walking. Right I was not censored in the normal meaning of the word but after the deletions it looked so. But the point is still not my translation but only the hitting of a wrong target. The real target was and I think is still in place. We still have many songs from that period - last time we had censorship in Denmark. The germans did not interfere - they were unable to understand. They are still popular tunes - not least due to history.

Let me take the translation as an example of anacronism regarding censorship. An italian with problems in english have posted a comment. He asked for somebody to translate into english. I did so as a service to an unknown person because I know how to handle the aut. translation procedure. - If a person has the right to post he also has the right to be understood - if possible at all. Therefore I did so! Then this post in english, for which content I have nothing to do with, was censored. Uday deleted the content completely with a remark of garbeling and non-acceptable reference to bad WWII guys. - I completely agree with Uday's comments but thats not the point. Now it looked liked I have created a rubbish statement and was censored. - I would not accept so as I had nothing to do with content as I only did the translation. Uday killed the messenger(me) but forgot to deal with the offender(Giasone). So did the danish resistance movement during WWII fooling the germans. The original post is still there!

I have several communities under auspicies of MSN. They apply to US-standards for publication which I am not familiar with. Opening a community - and you constantly have an option to modify - you must decide whether content is suitable for people below 12 years or not. You have an option to make message board edited - which I have needed to do for 1 of my communties in order to prevent spamming which has occured once before I changed settings. Now I need to approve all messages to be sent out - but I also have an option to let a persons postings to be published without automatically. In this way I think I will be able to keep it clean granting all the right to post decent messages. Of course I can ban a person if somebody try repeatedly to break the rules intentionally. I think this is a good way handling freedom of speech issues on internet.

Nobody need to allow anybody to post. If you are an owner of a media you have the right to decide who, what and how to post. This means you always have an option to deny a post to be published. If you grant a general right to post and a post has been made it is protected from censorship. You can argue against, you can encourage the author to modify or redraw the post and you can sue the author but you have no rights to modify a post arbitrarely. Only the court can decide and the author have the appeal rights within judicial system - last appeal is The Human Rights Court. In Denmark such is protected in the basic law for state.

The problem with growth is very tricky. On the surface it looks like you just have more of the same kind but in reality you see a disproportional growth in different kind of areas. The way Fred and Uday want to be involved into details - they choose for themselves. They always have an option to step backwards and in that way spare their time for other kind of activities. Not for any of us to advice them how to handle details. Until now software modifications has mostly been about improving functionality of the client. Yesterday I noticed a step, I think the first one, for aut. detection and imposing sanctions to violations of the rules for unacceptable behavior. I welcome this very much and hope this is only the first step in that direction and more of that to come.

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/swing/Webbilleder/StormP-klovn.jpg

An initiative really worth welcoming! - I wish you very much luck with this initiative.

This thread is not about me - but for some kind of clarification I try this. My background is creativity. The methods to create new ideas to enhance the way we are doing right now. To handle such - which the world urgent needs and most people prefer to avoid - you need to be critical to everything. In danish "tvivl på alt" and in translation something like "doubt on everything - dont trust your ideas - test them ". To be annoyed with present solutions is the only way possible to pave the way for other ideas. When you have the ideas on table you need to test them. Not all ideas worth implementing - but you need to create and to test before assessment. I have a background in economy, organization(re-enginering) and computing. To work with creativity you need basic skills in many ways, pschycology, sociology, economy, statistics, computing, language, literature. Nearly everything you can think of you need some knowledge about - not deep of course - but enough to have a meaningful conversation with all people who are experts(deep knowledge) about their skills. You need to be able to find weak points in order to start a process where the experts can take advantage from their deep knowledge to the benefit of us all. Thats basic of all kind of invention. I use my skills and habits in life in general. Therefore you will often see my arguments as unpleasant ones - but normally also making a difference whether stated or not. I know many are getting upset - so now you have some explanation. I also know I sometimes am unfair to some - and as soon I realize such they will have an unconditional apology from me at once. - I think I make more apologies than most.

Doofik - I think right. Maybe the new filters can help you here - I dont know. As far as I remember I noticed today - it is possible to filter out enemies. I have never met people I cannot stand to look at their ID's as long as it is silent - at least to me. Maybe you feel different! I very much hope you will be able to solve your problems. Even cats and dogs have problems - they all have a right for a peacefull life - you too of course.

Thank you Ben - I have it now! I delete my post to avoid somebody to get confused by my mistake. Sorry Alex and Marc. Too many crucial and important words in your postings I dont understand. Hopefully I will find time to look them up in my dictionary. Basically my views are to be critical to all. The only real way to test something new - not only on BBO - but in life as a whole. My attitudes are not hostile to BBO - of course not.

To me this topic seems quite un-understandable. Today you have several ways to separate cats and dogs: - Disallow all kibitzing at table - Disable communication to table from kibitzers - Disable all communication from a certain ID(turn ID into black and disable chat from enemies) To me it looks like we all have an option today to choose who communicate with and who not to communicate with.