csdenmark

For Netscape browser you change colors in this way: - Edit - Preferences - Appearance - maybe you need to doubleclick first time - Colors - Switch to: "Use my chosen colors, ignoring the colors and background image specified" - OK Now you simply use Netscape as second browser for watching BBO Forum only - then white background and black text and text font scale-able. Your problems are over :D

Very funny - in Netscape browser I have access to the source code for BBO Forum. I have no knowledge of HTML but it looks to me that the color problem is not so complicated to change for John but that it is impossible to change for personal settings. textarea { font-size: 9pt; color: #FFFFFF; font-family: verdana,arial, helvetica, serif; background-color: #444444; } .bordercolor { font-size: 12px; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, serif; background-color: #888888; } Looks like simply to switch the background colors. I assume #444444 =black and #888888 = white.

This thread gave me inspiration simply to download another browser intended as second for watching BBO Forum with alternative settings. I have downloaded Netscape for that. Right now I cannot see how to change color settings but another problem which some time ago was up regarding Forum has been solved instead. You can simply scale web-sites, even BBO Forum. 75% - 90% - 100% - 150% - 200% etc. There are other browsers available too here: http://www.mywebsearch.com/jsp/GGmain.jsp?...archfor=browser Very funny to look Forum in this more flexible way - try it!

You customize your browser settings here: Tools - Internet options - General - Accessibility

I really wonder how you are able to take this monthly discussion serious. It is the same arguments and near to same persons. Those watching BBO Forum regularly knows your views. ACBL is a US-body and therefore their rulings are completely obsolete to most BBO members ACBL has no authority on internet - least of all on BBO I think you will be able to play any system you like in your local club if you have a partner for that If you do things in a serious way you can play any system or version you can find partners for on BBO Even many new members on BBO I still have problems to find partners for that kind of systems or to find tables to kibitz where such systems are played When I occasionally see the honoured debatours here playing on BBO I mostly see you playing with partners preferring standard classic I think it would be nice to see you do something about your problems. Take the poles as an example. They set their rules and play with and against each other. How about that?

You are basically right Denis. Reese is not the very best source for Precision. I have just checked the Reese book you mentioned. The standard is: ==BALANCED HANDS== 11-12 Open 1D rebid 1NT 13-15 Open 1NT 16-18 Open 1C rebid 1NT 19-21 Open 1C rebid 2NT 22-24 Open 2NT 25-27 Open 1C rebid 3NT 28+ Open 1C rebid a Forcing bid

I have now changed so it is possible to download a package with approx. 15 convention cards for the systems uploaded to bridgeFILES. As my download files now have been uploaded to my ISP, membership is no longer needed for download - unless you want to be informed about updates of course. You download to root folder C: It is a selfextracting file. Convention cards in BBO-format only Download of bridgeFILES

I use this prealert - but right nobody seems interested! That's their own problem if they dont want to be informed. !C!D!H!S!C!D!H!S!C!D!H!S!C!D!H!S!C!D!H!S!C!D!H!S!C!D!H!S!C!D!H!S!C!D!H!S Claus Sønderkøge. I live in countryside – Island of Mors – near the Northsea. ALERT! We play PRECISION CLUB. 1!C=16+ else limit openings – most 11-15. Convention card(cc) is up and you will have more info here: http://groups.msn.com/bridgeFILES/intro.msnw – Welcome and good luck!

Link works well!

Thank you Ron and Richard! I am not in a position to be able to say whether ASPRO is a part of Moscito or not. I am looking into this file I have received from Ron and which I assume is the correct version. I have uploaded to Yahoo so the file is visible to all. Here ASPRO is an integral part after pass-opening(Pass-1C-1D-1H) and after 1H opening too. http://www.geocities.com/csdenmark/Marston...ngPass-full.htm Let me ask another question. Have I understood right that 7-8-9PT means winners so that 7PT = 6 loosers ??

Anybody who will be able to help providing a correct and understandable explanation of ASPRO convention. My normal source for conventions are ACBL Encyclopedia but that explanation(page 16) I dont understand. As ASPRO is used in Moscito, and it is for that I need it, I hope at least some of the Moscito players will be able to help.

No Maureen! I have also noticed that the BBO clock seems not to be stable. I think you know this feature to help you for count down: http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcount.html Time is set for UTC/GMT. It would certainly be nice if BBO would be able to put in links for world clock. Some day that may come I hope.

Gerben you will find some hints here but certainly no solutions! http://forums.bridgebase.com/in...ay;threadid=576

I have stopped using that application for such because it has a tendency to bid by itself. I have switched back to links copy/paste from files. But else it is here: http://www.freewarehits.de/RemoteKeys.htm

Now we know Soloway was right! Might be so Ben - I think it is too much to expect that the commentators would be able to work out your excellent analysis during the game. I wanted to raise this last question whether Soloway was right or wrong in his spade lead due to their own system. - And we now know Soloway was right. Maybe Hamman signalled wrong as you point out or maybe their signal system here was wrong and he therefore ought to put S10 instead of SJ for trick 6. Maybe you remember the commentars later - nearly all as I remember - was to blame Soloway for wrong play of spades instead of hearts. - Now we know Soloway was right! I think each of the commentators have the intension to provide best possible prediction based on their great knowledge. As I earlier have pointed out - knowledge about the system in concern is needed for that. Chris Compton had that knowledge when he commented deals with Meckwell - and that was important there. General knowledge of good play mainly based on 2o1 etc. provides not the specific knowledge to predict and analyse artificial systems. Even the play - the test - is carried out according to the information provided via the auction. Right this last hand was special - for the commentators too. This was surely not the most interesting but only the most used comment for this crucial deal: mcphee: wow compton: wow!!! patapon: Wow! lupin1: incredibleeeeee The most insightful comment for this specific deal I think was this: [tt]compton: have to defeat NS, i fear, ew is a mess[/tt] The difference between an insightful comment and an analysis I am not sure. The depth of course but taking conditions into consideration then I think a comment based on system knowledge will do. I am sure that will from time to time also lead to comments on options the player has considered and therefore rejected. I certainly agree with you Ben about Deep Finesse. - Maybe because I dont understand the information that application offers me!

Hamman-Soloway Leads(suit): A=AK,Axx K=AKx,KQx Q=QJ,QJx J=J10(x),KJ10x 10=109(x),H109x 9=9x,98x Hi-x=High from sequence of small cards Lo-x=Low from Honour + small cards(Hxxxx) Leads(NT): A=STRONG:ASKS CT or UB K=ASKS ATT: KQx Q=QJx J=J10(x9 10=109(x),H109(x) 9=9x,98x,9xx Hi-x=High from sequence of small cards Lo-x=Low from Honour + small cards(Hxxxx) Signals to partners lead: vs suits: 1.Low=Disc(obvious shift) 3.Hi/Lo=Even vs NT: 1.Low=Disc(obvious shift) 2.S/P 3.Low=Even Signals to declarers lead: vs suits: 1.Hi/Lo=even 2.S/P vs NT: 1.Low=Even 2.S/P 3.Hi/Lo=Even Discards: 1.High=Encourage 2.S/P 3.Hi/Lo=even 2H after cue accepted Hearts and I assume 3H confirmed hearts(3 or 4 cards). As signals showed odd for hearts, it ought not to be 4. To me it looks like SJ can as well be encouraging(discard) or signal(hi/low=even). It looks like Soloway go for a ruff in spades. Would have been nice with some analysis - but not much help from our Vugraph log here: [tt]CSIJAK: this is exciting to come down to last board to determine the event reisig: Thx to our viewgraph people...wonderful job throughout compton: So here we go, if Paul stops low, he wins the BB compton: maybe algraves: he has to go plus at least 100 lc: With 400 to USA1 in closed, +100 or +140 or so would be 11 imps and a tie Walddk2: :-) compton: have to defeat NS, i fear, ew is a mess algraves: 595 imps so far compton: Fred wants the disclaimer that the scores are not official until the players compare algraves: and still in doubt compton: 127 boards and a RR match, magnifco algraves: SCORE IS UNOFFICIAL Vugraph99: and Lorenzo bid 5!D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! compton: not true mcphee: wow compton: wow!!! CSIJAK: Here it is!!! compton: usa just won the BB Vugraph99: and Paul Double !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! mcphee: incredible compton: Unbeleivable bbramley: could be a tie! patapon: Wow! lupin1: incredibleeeeee Walddk2: If down 1 yes Walddk2: down 2 and USA wins bbramley: down 1 to tie, down 2 to win compton: Have to get out for down one, is it possible? CSIJAK: now a trump shift compton: trump switch is crucial lc: D1 is possible Vugraph99: its absolute incredible here !!!!!!!!!!!! Walddk2: I can sense the tension Herve, I think we all can lesniak: fantastic , fantastic!!!! Vugraph99: and he play !H !! Walddk2: we have a tie!! compton: Solowa played a heart, now CSIJAK: Do we go into overtime? Walddk2: yes Walddk2: 8 boards compton: We will have to confirm the scores, if this is down one, reisig: he's 2 down lc: Declarer is taking the down 2 line (would have been better to play singleton spade) Vugraph99: THE MOST EXCITING BRIDGE MATCH EVER !!!! Cascade: always -2 on heart switch compton: six diamonds, two ruffs, one ace Vugraph99: wooooooooooooooooooooooooow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! mcphee: hamman can ruff !H lupin1: -1 mcphee: now the !H flys Walddk2: hehehe compton: soloway returned a spade, down one [/tt]

Why did Soloway choose S4 as lead for trick 7 instead of H10? Discard for trick 6 was SJ and according to auction heart-suit was supported by Hamman. As signals during play odd was signalled for hearts. Because of this? Signals to declarers lead: vs suits: 1.Hi/Lo=even 2.S/P vs NT: 1.Low=Even 2.S/P 3.Hi/Lo=Even Discards: 1.High=Encourage 2.S/P 3.Hi/Lo=even

Very interesting - we never hear about such! I think good knowledge of the system concerned is needed to discover such. - Therefore Chris Compton were a real asset to this last Vugraph. Quote from: luis on Today at 06:12:31pm This is completely wrong, fix the contract in a thousand deals and with the same fixed defense a top player will produce a zillion more tricks per deal than you. Bridge is not only about systems and bidding, there's a lot of technique in the play, the defense and judgement and thats the area where top players distinct from the rest. This skills are mastered studying and practicing hard. Even beginners can play a system as good as the one played by Meckwell, there's no skill in memorizing sequences. Yes Luis - bridge is more than systems and bidding - but not much more. The rest is mechanical work. For me bridge is over when auction is over. Rest is technique and could be any cardgame. Maybe you think no skill in memorizing. In your age I was able to remember danish phone books - but no longer. But the important is not to memorize a system but to compose it!

My log-file tells(I have taken out comments not relevant to the topic): [tt]Vugraph99: it seems tha Lorenzo ( but beware of rumors) said SMALL !S and when he realize his mistake he take Q with his ... Vugraph99: hands...and argue that it was a non-sense to play low... Vugraph99: and all of that in a second ! lc: If he called the !SQ (the obviously normal bridge play), he is down 1 and match is tied and goes to playoff. compton: I believe the dispute is whether he changed his call witout pause for thought. Not positve lc: If he plays low (silly bridge play, but apparently what happened), US wins. smispi: herve can you tell us if lorenzo was playing dummy by himself? compton: It is a silly bridge play unless you thought the opponent was playing a heart Vugraph99: himself Vugraph99: yes it was sure..Lorenzo was playing alone !..Alfredo was not in the room Vugraph99: but i think that he expect a !H10 and said low !S ...and when he realize that Paul return a !S it was too late..( my ... Vugraph99: opinion) [/tt]

I really am serious Ben - I assume the top pairs make the same number of blunders in 10 deals as we do. But certainly their mistakes are not of same nature as mine. But that is not what counts. My aim is we cannot see their mistakes simply because we dont know their systems. To judge or discover a mistake means you need to have a really good knowledge of the alternatives. A mistake is to choose the wrong alternative in a restricted choice - and the system itself and nothing else - decides what is able to be right. Here a commentators analysis based on another system will often not be relevant. Therefore I was very pleased to see that Chris Compton had a good knowledge of Meckwell Club system. I think this really was the first Vugraph we have seen some kind of analysis based on knowledge of that system - that means I assume he has a basis to judge the alternatives possible according to that system and not according to standard bidding in 2o1 or something else. I also noticed thal Allan Graves had some real knowledge of the system. Please see my comment as a very welcome of qualified analysis based on the conditions the players acts according to. We also saw good analysises from the polish championships - but else we often need to be pleased with the comment that the Vugraph commentator have no knowledge of the system - but assume continuation to be standard(advanced of course) like. If you disagree to above - please come up with something about the big swings we saw in both directions Italy vs. USA1. I think we need more commentators who plays club systems themselves. I think Roland Wald ought to be thanked very much he has been able this time to find new commentators with that sort of skills and also a thank you to Alfred Conterno and Herve Lustman who both often gave explanations of artificial sequences late in the bidding sequences. I would like to see I am wrong Ben!

Sounds very interesting Uday! I think we have problems in Vugraph to imagine how exhausted players are. On my screen Vugraph could be any computer game - and such games naturally have no signs of the problems human beings have after long matches. I have no idea of how to do what you intend - but as you ask I think it will have a chance to work via Instant Messengers all connecting to a certain ID. I will be ready to help for a test if you need that. I have laptop and a cheap webcam and microphone. I normally use Windows Messenger: csdenmark@hotmail.com. If you prefer Yahoo I can download that. My ID is: csdenmark.

You really think so Ben! I am not sure they make less faults than we do. I think we cannot recognize their mistakes simply because we dont know their systems. It is often said that modern bridge is based more on systems today than it was earlier. And those who have composed the best systems are therefore those who have the best chances to end on top. Our Vugraph commentators often tells us they dont know the specific systems they commentate, so we have no real chance to look behind and discover what was bidden correct according to system and what was done mistakenly. - Chris Compton was the clear exception - he seems to have taken his time to study Meckwell Club. If the players cannot do the mechanics right due to they are exhausted how can anyone expect they will be able to do the thinking and remembering right under same conditions? How to interpretate the catch-ups of the italians and the US's if not as the mental conditions for the players.

Right Ben - it is not a big problem. You have several options to do what you intend to do - I think using a normal table - maybe invisible for not being disturbed - will solve your problems without software modifications. I know you are using Messenger - features there for whiteboard and application-sharing will be relevant too. I think we ought to wait till format and performance of convention cards will be scheduled for software revision. A point is - you cannot load a convention card to a table in teaching mode. As you may have noticed that feature is a part of my list of proposals for software modifications aimed to enhance private clubs and tournaments. I like to be informed that good players now will be ready to play according to convention cards. Some may have wondered why those knowing about standard bridge rules constantly get away ignoring them. -At least I have wondered for years now. NB! I really liked to see that both sides in last weeks think-session in B/I Lounge played according to convention cards. Very encouraging.

Since this thread came up I have tried to check out the relationship between private clubs and set up of pair-tourney's. And I really don't like what I have seen. To me it looks like nationalistic structures have evolved very rapidly based on the ability to create tournaments for members only. I think this a worrying tendency which ought to be fighted against to. There seems still to be clubs not yet used in this way but which can be revitalised for that purpose very quickly. I assume 1 person have been denied ability to create such a club and I know 1 for sure. To me it therefore looks like something must be done if it is so that the public web-site, I know very well private owned but generously offered for all, will be able to stay as a nice meeting place for all lovers of bridge despite all other differences. This means a meeting place bridging nationalities, sexes, bridge-skills, economy, religion etc. I assume I am right in this interpretation of the intensions of private clubs: To create a place where people can develop their strenght and on that basis go public for testing their achivements in competition with others. I therefore think: the general ability to create tournaments for members only must be restricted to the numbers of players like those for team-tournaments(8 persons) the general ability to create tournaments for friends only must be restricted to the numbers of players like those for team-tournaments(8 persons) restrictions involving more than 8 persons must be created as invitional tourneys I see one clear exception here: 'The beginner/intermediate Lounge'. A very well run initiave by Maureen Hallway. It is a safe heaven really run as an example for all administrators of private clubs. I think the members of B/I Lounge really will be able to benefit from above mentioned proposals. I see no problems in restrictions for members only for more than 8 persons - but that ought not to be a part of the offer for the general public. Such ought to be for payment only and therefore based on a direct business contract between BBO and the respective club administrators. As such will not be an integral part of the general public offer - the activities ought to be invisible for non-members of those clubs.

Hi Vincenzo - of course you can do whatever you like - no problem with that. But please think over why we dont try to do something together. It is so hard to get something started regarding teams that it to seems not the right way that many try to run their own very small, in reality too small, teams tourneys. The poles will be running their own tourney Abalucy Club seems to have started a team-ladder Precision Tournament Group have a team-tournament Vincenzo starts a new team tournament Is cooperation really so difficult that it is not worth trying to talk about how to cooperate?