Mr_Sock

I think the problem may be with my ISP. I have found a personal solution - i can enter a VPN with Hong Kong University and play BBO through that. no noticeable delay in bids/cards/chat. Ben

I've been a BBO regular for a few years, in the UK. I've recently moved to Hong Kong, and now suffer severely bad pings on BBO, making it unreasonable for me to expect opponents to hang around while waiting for each bid/card. In Hong Kong, i've got 10Mb cable broadband from the most popular ISP in Hong Kong (I-cable), and only borderline-bad pings to www.google.com (average 300ms). Traceroute identifies the trans-Pacific link as the weak link, causing the majority of that 300ms delay. But this kind of ping shouldn't be unworkable on BBO, and i've seen plenty of other people from Hong Kong playing with no apparent problem. So why me? Is there anything I could do to try to rectify the problem? I'd really like to play on BBO, but I can't at the moment - tonight I decided I had to resign from a teams match after the first 3 boards took more than 30 minutes, because of my taking more than 30 seconds on most bids/cards, and frequent red connection giving even longer delays. Opponents couldn't stand it, understandably. The funny thing is that I don't have the problem of bad pings with Swan Bridge, OKBridge, or the MSN Gaming Zone bridge, which I think are all based in the US. I just tested them tonight. I only have the problem when trying to play on BBO. Is there something unusual about some internet-related aspect in the design of BBO? tia Ben Cowling

I like the idea of the Short Club Jammer, but i haven't seen a response structure yet? are 2♥/2♠/3♣ all drop-dead bids, with 2NT as an enquiry? this would seem to be the most sensible, but aren't there problems when responder has equal length in the majors? - sometimes he is going to pick the wrong suit -- e.g. if 2♥ is drop dead, but recommended with 4-4 in the majors, then what is the chance that you have landed in a 4-3 heart fit (with an 8-card fit available in spades). it occurs to me that the calculations on 'lawfulness' might not have taken this into account? -- so the figure of 70% may be an overestimate? By the way, I think that 'safety' and 'lawfulness' are related, but slightly different concepts, so the quote above may be slightly misleading. A hypothetical example -- if opponents were more likely to find a double of our failing contract after our SC Jammer 2♦ auctions than they are after our Rough 2♦ auctions (on identical deals), then it would follow that the SC Jammer is less safe? There must be other differences as well?

I've been playing something similar for a while: 2♣=weak, 4/5♣ + 4M 2♦=weak, 4/5♦ + 4M 2♥=weak, 4/5♥ + 4/5♠ (Ekrens) 2♠=weak, 5♠ + 4m OR 6♠ single-suited I have followed Chris Ryall in calling the 2♣ and 2♦ openings "rough 2s". Who says you need a strong opening bid? I've been surviving without one. On the (very rare) occasions that I get dealt a rockcrusher, i won't always lose out by not having a strong forcing opening available. Sometimes it even works better to open these hands at the 1-level (strong 2C auction could take up too much room)... of course, this approach does lead to some unusual scores.. :rolleyes:

A double would seem to be best as the cards lie, especially as West may not be raising to 4♦. North can cue-bid 4♦, although he still has a difficult decision when South rebids 5♣ - raising to 6♣ with a void doesn't sound great, although there doesn't seem to be an 8-card fit in either major. However, i think on the south hand, i'd prefer to jump to 5♣ (a slight underbid) rather than double initially, as i haven't got much support for either major, and i'm worried that West will be raising to 5♦ or 6♦ leaving our side in a difficult position. In this case, West will pass 5♣ (i doubt he would double even with ♣QJxx), and North will probably pass as well?

Back to the 2-level openings, I'd recommend something like the Frelling 2D opening. If you want an opening to show both majors, i think it is far superior to use 2H than 2D. 2H is natural and passable, and should put more pressure on opponents. If you use 2D to show both majors, your LHO can assign different meanings to {immediate double}, {delayed double}, {2H cue}, {2s cue}, {direct 2NT}, {delayed 2NT}. The immediate double is a particular killer, giving opponents a good chance to penalise you in a misfit 2M contract. If you use 2H to show both majors, your LHO has to take immediate action with a good hand. You may complain that you like the traditional 2H opener, with a 6-card single-suiter. Actually it's pretty rare, not particularly effective, and you could get away with opening those hands at the 3-level NV. Alternatively, play a multi 2D, play 2H with both majors, and use 2S Lucas style. :unsure: Ben

The discussion on discipline is quite interesting, but i think it ignores table presence completely (ok more important for F2F than on BBO). I also think it oversimplifies the idea of a "percentage action". I am sure we could generate deals where the % action is different if you are playing against the Rabbit than against the Hog. Victor Mollo's book is full of such discussions. It follows that i may have a different idea of the % action if i rate my opponents as Rabbit+Toucan, while my p rates the same opponents as Secretary Bird+Walrus. It also makes an assumption about the difference in 'utility' (as in game theory) of good, average or bad results. As an example, a few days ago I played in a slam which my LHO had doubled. Fearing that my LHO had all the outstanding HCP, i took a line which allowed for this, and went off ... it turns out that this particular LHO always doubles a slam when he has one trick (as he told me later). I'm not sure whether or not he should have alerted this double. But i think the mere fact that he doubles a slam with one trick is anti-percentage, at MPs. His explanation was that he is happy to play anti-percentage in a 10-board MP tournament, because he is only interested in winning. To him, the difference between 1st and 2nd place (say 60% and 55%) was far greater than the difference between 50% and 45%. One final point (from article): has anyone told Zia? ;)