doofik

Smart observation, Uday. Before any photos, I still have the same request I've had about a year ago. Can we please get a button to remove unwanted kibs? Thank you, Jola

To Dragan, Before you make certain suggestions, I'd ask you to please read at least 1♣ and the 1♦ openings in Polish Club system. Only after that can we get into a meaningful discussion. To Everyone Else, I don't know the SEF, however, I'd expect an alert and an explanation if something 'untoward' is bid. How's that for peace on Earth? Jola

Dragan, I think I admire your persistence, but am not sure. In any system, pick one, how do you bid a hand where you hold 5 clubs and 4 diamonds, and for the sake of argument, have 2-2 in majors and hold a total of 13 pts? Jola

Thank you Ben, now it's clearer:-) Jola

Thank you for your response Ben, but what's the use of applying when there's no one to make a decision? ;)

I'm as confused as ever, but that seems to be my permanent state. I've noticed a number of private clubs popping up all over the place. And then you read the description and it turns out the club indeed is private but ... no one can make a decision whether to admit a player or not. What gives? I'm just curious:-) Jola

I've been going round and round on this very topic with one of the moderators whom I hold in the highest regard. And while I respect the moderators' right to edit I don't quite respect the moderators' ability to remove. Generally, I don't think that bridge will evoke profanities but it certainly will evoke a tremendous passion in most of us. And most of us act on it - do I ever:-) But out of my discussion with the above mentioned moderator came one thing I've learned, and looking at it from the moderators' perspective, perhaps it has some merit. The one thing is don't use individual names in your posts. Hope this will somehow help some of us:-) Jola

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents worth as Polish Club or WJ2000 is my system of choice. 1♦ is one of many hands but it certainly promises 4+ in diamonds. With some partners I play 1♦ as 11-17 and with others 11-21. The latter always gets an alert. The rest of the auction in this post is standard. I've made it a point of announcing the system at any table I happen to be playing in but I refuse to respond to inquiries about unalerted bids which are standard. I keep advising my opponents "no alert=standard". And yes, I'm ethical enough to alert anything that's conventional. The bidding example that Dragan brought up would be the same in SAYC, 2/1, and I'll presume that Dragan is familiar with those. So when a bid is standard, why should opps alert? Jola

Uday, After your last comment I feel like Gilda Radner's "nevermind" mode. What am I missing here? Isn't your position that you'd have the ability to read all chat (if so inclined) even the private stuff? Enlighten me please :D Jola

Well, here's my problem with this whole thing. Some comments exchanged between me and my friends are not fit for anyone else's eyes, neither for language nor for content. I'm a fiery sort, when provoked, given to some, how shall I term it, unlady-like comments. Would I want you to read them? Hell no ;) Jola

Pozeracz:-) Your analogy is so descriptive :P Bravo :P Jola

Uday, I must be having a weird day and when I look at what's happening all over the world, everything else becomes minimal. It is my experience that when someone says "fxxx you and your momma" to one person, they'll do it again. Does it really take a surrender of private chats to find out that this is so? Perhaps an easier answer might be that all clients log chats and with a timestamp, things will be easier for @abuse also? I'm just arguing for the preservation of privacy, nothing else. Jola

"This totally misses the point. The proposal has less to do with the reliability of evidence than it has to do with making the maximum amount of information instantaneously available to the TD. Information which, I suggest, would largely be uncontested but which, without the logging of chat, would have to be repeated to the TD in a belaboured manner at a time when demands on his time are at a premium. " And I don't think you quite understood my post to which you replied. It is my understanding that this whole effort is being proposed to resolve disputes. Are these disputes of such magnitude that we should surrender our expectation of privacy? That if screenshots and logs are provided by both parties, that we absolutely positively need a TD or an Administrator to search for verification? How do you envision a TD going thru the mountain of chat that will surely be logged? And during a tourney? I don't think so. TO UDAY: I still object as I don't quite understand what is so important that we should be subjected to a treatment with suspicion. Jola

I've been dabbling in Polish Club and this whole matter is taken care of in this manner: 1♣(!) -1♦(nat or 0-6 pts) 2♦(game force) - 2♥ (partner I'm bust, no aces or kings) now opener can make an informed decision. When responder comes in with a positive response, i.e.: 1♣(!) - 1♥/♠ 2♦ is an absolute game force. If the responder reverses we're in slam territory. It would appear that the Polish Club controls some things better. That's why I prefer it. Jola

The world is not perfect. Why should BBO strive to be perfect? In real life, disputes are settled in court often with "she said/he said" evidence. In BBO, disputes are settled by @abuse. If screen shots, logs and comments of those involved are not enough to assure the evidence to be real, then nothing will help it. We live in an imperfect world, try to get used to it. Don't make a sterile environment where all fantasy has to be gone because someone's "watching". Colorful language notwithstanding people seem to get into petty squabbles that escalate into stratosphere. Perhaps what is needed is more mediating help that really really listens to both sides. Jola

Well put and I still don't see the benefit of logging all private chat. It my premise that once complaints start rolling in, everyone will be involved in searching chats out the wazoo. Personally, I'd prefer to have that time spent on developing a software to remove unwanted kibs. I guess it's all a matter of personal preference:-) Jola

1eyedjack, And just what percentage of face-to-face tournaments deal with this type of a problem? I presume you've got those percentages? Jola

"Factual disputes over what was said in a tourney environment are not so rare in face to face games. I have no reason to think that the frequency should be any less in online games, for as long as the potential for evidential support remains the same as in face to face, ie non-existent. If you prefer the status quo, how about providing some constructive dismissal of the concerns of those who argue for change?" It is my point that what we're discussing applies to very few members of BBO. You've got your own chat log, you've got screen shots, and now you want that powers-that-be get involved in disputes which, overall, are petty and ridiculous? Are the above materials insufficient? Again, give me a valid reason and I'll join the ranks. Jola

If I may reiterate my point. Why are we sacrificing status quo for the very few? As soon as someone convinces me that my take on this whole matter is wrong, I'll join the ranks. Jola

My vote is to go for it. It's normal that when you work and have success that you get paid. In this case, BBO has been a tremendous success, but in terms of money (not that I count anyone's income except mortgage applicants) I'm not so sure. Therefore, any ad other than a popup, is great. Jola

JT, I think we've arrived at a consensus. Thank you, Jola

JT, I don't have a problem with adding a minute per round, that's easy. However, my biggest complaint is with the start time. When you start your tourney 10-15-20 minutes after the posted time and THEN you start adding a minute or two per round - pull out your calculator please and you figure it out. Now my 15 minutes of "slack time" doesn't calculate, does it? My tone might be harsh but this is something that drives me bonkers. Jola

JT, I think I can solve your problem and mine at the same time. When you post your tourneys enter a description that it will start at your will and it is unclocked. Now it will be fair to all of us and we can make an informed choice whether to sign up or not. Jola

JT, I have a certain expectation when I sign up for a tourney. One of them is that the start time will be adhered to. Once that is done I can pretty much predict the tourney's duration expecially when the time of rounds is in the description. What do you find wrong with this picture? Jola

I'm amazed at the number of posters saying they agree with logging all of the private chat. Why are we sacrificing the expectation of privacy for so few? This is analogous to the 9/11 aftermath in the U.S. No, I don't think I've ever said anything to be ashamed of privately or publicly. This is not an issue of my personal transgressions but of a similarity to a totalitarian way of doing things. I abhor the idea :)