palabreur

I get the same issue when I navigate to a different tab in Chrome. In case it matters, Chrome version 45.0.2454.101 m, Windows 7 Enterprise. Can't say when it started, but sometime in the last month or two. Edit: tried to recreate this just now and couldn't. I don't know what's going on.

Thanks for looking into it; I can just use IE in the meantime.

I have another issue with the new style. I'm in an old version of Firefox for windows (3.6.28) (there IS a reason I'm not updating, but that's not important). In my version, the title bar doesn't appear for the "popups"; so I can't close them (AFAIK) and have to restart the client each time one shows up. Annoying when I'm in a robot speed game. When I first saw the new style, I did search through for an option to change back. I think any of Uday's 1, 3, or 4 would be a good solution. Tough to know what will satisfy the most people; my personal ordering would be 1>4>3>2, but I recognize that 1. creates issues for computer illiterate users.

http://tinyurl.com/b8msntk In case you don't feel like clicking through: I show 18-19 balanced - which I actually have; gib asks how many aces I have; I tell him "one"; he says "I know there's 7-8 points out, but I just don't believe you, let's play 6NT." Thanks gib.

You already know the answer. You should call the director, the director should adjust the result (either to 3NT-1, or to some higher number of hearts, possibly doubled, down however many is appropriate, or some weighted combination if NZ uses that approach) and, assuming NZ assesses procedural penalties like they do in the US, assign a whopping procedural penalty on the 4♥ bidder for blatant use of UI. Would the director assign the PP? Probably not, in a club game, but they absolutely should.

Look back, you did say 2♠ was forcing in any system. You were wrong, you remain wrong if you refuse to admit it. Is 2♠ forcing in GIB's system currently? Yes, as I pointed out. You comment about 2♠ not being unlimited was just silly. Of course it wasn't; North was passed. We all know this. Why you needed to point it out, I'm not sure; any time anyone claims any bid is "unlimited", do you jump in to correct them, because "of course they're not unlimited, they couldn't have more than 37 points, ha ha, I'm so much smarter than you"? One of us may fail to understand what we are reading; but it's not me. You claimed 2♠ was always at least F1 in this sequence, in any system. That statement is wrong. I showed you that it is wrong. That confusion was the reason why the original poster was having problems: (s)he thought that 2♠ was weak and passable. He was wrong for playing with GIB, but that doesn't mean that he could not have been right; GIB just happens to play 2♠ as forcing in this sequence. If you can't conceive of playing it non-forcing, that's fine. But to insinuate that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, is just plain ignorant.

Fine; "unlimited except by the original pass". Happy now? 2♠ was forcing. It need not be forcing when playing lebensohl over reverses, which is what GIB is playing (as of a few weeks ago, if I recall correctly). For references as to 2♠ not being forcing, since you claim it's "forcing in any system": http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/teachers/Teacher-Manuals/Commonly-Used-Conventions-Lesson-6.pdf http://home.comcast.net/~kwbridge/rev-leb.htm here's one that agrees with you: http://www.bridgehands.com/L/Lebensohl.htm#Opener%20has%20made%20a%202%20level%20reverse%20bid I think it's counterproductive to complain that anyone who bids differently to you is obviously wrong and foolish. You might want to reconsider your attitude.

http://tinyurl.com/7bxhwpg 4♦ looks pretty buggy to me. Every table that started with the same first seven calls, GIBWest bid 4♦. Is 4♦ meant to be a raise to the spade game, showing diamond length/values along the way? If so, the description probably needs amended, as does GIBEast's understanding of the bid.

Did GIB just make a Stripe-tailed Ape double? :unsure: http://tinyurl.com/73us6s6

The problem is that you think 2♠ is limited. GIB disagrees, 2♠ is unlimited; 2NT is its only limited rebid. Both 2♠ and 3♦ were forcing. Should 2♠ be forcing? That's a different question. But you have to play GIB's system.

As someone with a 7k+ average in robot reward tournaments, I think it's definitely a good idea to pass with the sort of hands you're talking about. In third I'd tend to open 18 balanced if not vulnerable, 17 balanced if vulnerable. If I'm unbalanced, again it depends on vulnerability: I'll open not vulnerable with hands that would tend to make opposite single raises, and open a point or two lighter if red. I wouldn't differ much from this 1st, 2nd, or 4th. 1st or 2nd, I'd open a point or so lighter vulnerable, and stick to the same opening ranges not vulnerable. I've seen Leo's opening strategies, and I can't stand them for me. In robot reward tourneys, he's opening 13 point hands. Maybe that works okay for him, because he's a very fast, very good declarer; but as a very fast, moderately good declarer, that strategy doesn't work for me. Bingo tournaments are a completely different beast, and require much more situational decisions, based on the bingo board. Sometimes it's correct to open an 11 count in any seat playing bingo, if you need low-level contracts.

My point is that the dude had a heck of a game. I bet many people would find it entertaining to see someone who wins a 8-board cross-IMPs game by almost 50. What was the point of your post? Other than to try to put down someone that you don't know...

I thought I had a nice game; obviously #6 was terrible for me, but the rest didn't seem so bad. I didn't expect to lose by almost 50: http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?tourney=3122-1327543861-&username=jmunday http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?tourney=3122-1327543861-&username=palabreur

They'd be considerably less disadvantaged under my scheme, especially when you consider that the lower the number of people playing, the more variable are the scores, and hence the higher the chance of getting an extremely high score. And it doesn't seem difficult to get a 10-player game going at all...

Yeah, I had thought about that this morning. Maybe a minimum table limit for the duplicate games, like 10 tables or so?