Gerardo

Face to face, dummy IS allowed to reject a claim, because play ceased, and he is not dummy anymore (discussed on bridgetalk forums not too much ago). Before giving dummy such rights, you have to be sure play cease as soon hand is claimed. About seeing cards, there are lines he could not suggest, but s/he could do it. However, would originate an endless number of discussions

Ruff a ♦ in dummy, finesse ♥K, draw trumps, let ♠10 run, but cover in an honor appears. Then play Ace in next round of ♠ You may lose ♥K offside, or even onside, if overruffing ♦, but you should be fine anyway. Risk: ♦ gets overruffed with 8, K offside. You may ruff ♦ with 9, ♥ finesse then play ♠ as above, repeat ♥ finesse when in dummy if necessary. Risk here: when E gets the entry in ♠, plays ♦ ruffed by W with 8. So better don't play ♠ as above, but Ace in 1st round, repeat ♥ finesse, losing 1♠ anyway.

Sorry for being late. Happy birthday Misho!!!!

In "standard", I believe 4C is Gerber, ace asking. Not playing Texas Mauro, you already have a way to Ask Aces(KC): 1NT : 4♦/♥ : 4♥/♠ : 4NT

Usually Texas is still on if overcall is below 3♦ (not including)

No, the line MUST be stated at the moment you make the claim, in any case BEFORE opps reject it. Can't state your line AFTER opps reject it, as it could not be the original one. If no line is stated, and claim is wrong, or depends on something not said, it should be ruled against claimer.

Think the best way would be to link a match with a previous one, that way you pick the results, but have to copy the teams names verbatim. Who is playing and seating rights are managed manually, and any player can object by refusing the invitation to play.

Well, I'm glad I asked you to be blacklisted, wouldn't play in your tourneys. Think I prefer tourneys with TDs, which you are NOT. You are PLAYERS. You do absolutely NOTHING a TD should do, except having a (misleading) name. Name ANY action proper of a TD you do, please. Put a "PLAYING TDs" in description. That means: "people listed as director in this tourney are useless in that function, so don't count on this tourney to have a TD"

It is NOT, lacking a statement about finessing trumps

I believe any player has the right to finish the tourney with the same player s/he started, despite bad connections. His choices are, get a sub (partner can't be back then), or get a string of bad results (Ave-, not worse, they problem is technical, and should not get a procedural penalty for exercizing a right). Opps meanwhile get Ave+, so not a problem. If you sub my p without asking me, then put my p back when available again. That's what I do, both as a player and as (rare, now) director (NO sub without PARTNER's request, Ave+/Ave- given meanwhile). Mirjam: Choose the view which suits you better (Wayne's, mine's, others) and stick with it. Any framework is good as long as it treats all equally. It appears Wayne's and mine's are mutually exclusives. I'd gladly play in his tourneys (and take the sub, and bug him to put my p back ;) )

Wayne, if the disconnection is not voluntary, a player has (should have) the right to wait for the connection to be OK again, no matter how long.

Yes, to A-+ PP if available, need partner request to sub. Report North on behavioral issues during tourney. Ask EW to wait and collect Ave+

If you expect a vugraph running and don't see one, you can ask when you log on. You should see an hypotetically unscheduled vugraph when you log in.

I reviewed relevant Laws: Law 12 Director's discretionary powers C. Awarding an Adjusted Score 1. Artificial Score When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault; average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. LAW 88 - AWARD OF INDEMNITY POINTS In a pair or individual event, when a non-offending contestant is required to take an artificial adjusted score through no fault or choice of his own, such contestant shall be awarded a minimum of 60% of the matchpoints available to him on that board, or the percentage of matchpoints he earned on boards actually played during the session if that percentage was greater than 60%. So, I was wrong, Ave is 50% at pairs and BBO assumes both are partially at fault when time is up and round is not over. But both parties, particularly the non-offending one, should call director ASAP when time issues show up. Richard, your scenario need client reporting actual time taken on a bid/play, to avoid charging lag. Would be very, very useful.

Also, Vugraph cancellations/postponements are broadcasted, not sure about unscheduled vugraph, guess they are broadcasted too.

BBO average calculations at matchpoints is somewhat flawed. Ave+ is the better of 60% and your average. Ave- is the worse of 40% and your average. Ave is not 50%, it is what it says, your average. Your global average is not affected by the inability to play the hand. It needs to distinguish hands actually played from hands which are averaged. There are a third group, hands adjusted to something not average. Not sure in which of the other groups these belong. I think these belong to 1st group, but if not, things could get complicated. For example, director adjusting wrong hand (been there, done that). In this case, I suggest to keep the table score, allow it to be overruled by the adjusted score, and make a "table" result to blank the adjusted score, making the table score current. If not, a simpler "adjusted?" flag should be enough(?)

1st q: No 2nd q: The flag. Try a reload of the page to see it.

Try this one: BridgeTalk Forums, there are discussion forums and Law forums, one for rulings, the other the one Richard mentioned. If you post there, mention where the rule is to be applied (online for BBO rulings; would be Netherlands for the Muiderberg question in another thread).

Richard: Constructive answer. Thanks! Ben: Maybe EW don't deserve Ave+? No need to balance there, just Ave for them (partially at fault) NS should get a warning at least, besides the Ave-. West should get a PP (procedural penalty) for what he said, and give a good explanation of the damage caused, or risk to face another. (when we have them) In any case, West should be invited to don't play in BBO tourneys.

Use the "New" button to clear the CC, the load your new base CC and modify it.

My guess is the "Announcements" section is set up as ONLY for Announcements, one-way only.

It depends. If you play "sandwich NT", 1NT is 4-4 in unbid suits, X also 4-4 in unbid, stronger (can be passed), 2NT is 5-5 If not, X is 4-4, and I like 1NT to be 5-5, no need to jump, maybe for 6-5. Or you can play 1NT natural, invitational...to disaster. Tysen's way is reasonable too.

This can be very interesting, if you add the match sectioning suggestion from other thread, add some organizational issues (like team management, a IMP->VP table, a round-robin and maybe a no playblacks swiss), and a KO format. That would be pretty much more work, though.

Yes, West opened 1♣. SA = NT

The Laws prohibit the use of memory aids, so technically this is not permitted in Duplicate Bridge. However there is nothing to stop anyone doing this and I expect most people do not realise this. Yes, but see Law 40 E2 in The WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge 2001 SECTION SIX CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS E. Convention Card 2. Referring to Opponents’ Convention Card During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents’ convention card. If permitted by the sponsoring organisation, in special events such as individual tournaments or tournaments using specified systems, a player may refer to his own convention card. FOOTNOTE: Except as permitted in L40E2-Online, a player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. However, sponsoring organisations may designate unusual methods and allow written defenses against opponents' unusual methods to be referred to at the table.