Brandal

Regarding Pay-tourneys and broadcast, it would be nice if software could recognize who has money on their account,and only broadcast to them,filtering out those who have no interest in knowing about the Pay-tourney. :P Frode

Good job Uday Does that include chat "to table" in tourneys too? That's probably where most of the abuse goes, especially rudeness and the "I'm leaving,you're no good" happenings? I was kibbing a tourney the other day where one player told TD "if you don't adjust the score on this or that board I leave the tourney" He called TD to table 3 times in about 5-6 minutes. Then he left the tourney.

I will never report anyone for leaving my table in Main,it is mildly annoying but not rude. I will report if I or anyone at my table is verbally abused. I agree that in tournaments it is a big problem when people just leave after a disagreement or something like that. Frequent tournamentabusers should be punished with bans that get longer the more frequent.

Sure it's ok for some small talk, but most were discussing the hands except for one person who talked about anything but bridge. Therefore I fail to see the necessity of the above post. In fact I find it rather strange. I would say Roland,and anyone,is entitled to have an opinion even if they slip up sometimes. :)

Is it very bad to play the J first time and if the Q wins behind,play to the 9 next time?

I understand the not staying for the full team match. But what are the "expert" criteria you use to blacklist those who you think don't measure up?

Message both opps privately? "Are you nervous now?" I like the way you think Luis :P (Silly reply but I'm anxious to reach 100 posts, making all these redoubled games wear me out) hehe

I agree 100% :P

yeah but..... wouldn't the same way every time end up around 50% right in the long run? And would guessing every time not be likely to end up below 50% unless we're real lucky in bridge and not lucky at all in love? :P

Quoting dr Phil,"how's that working for you?" :D Does it help? Do you think you eventually will lose the problem? Does the problem seem less now? Or do you find there are still one or two you have to blacklist "every" day? :P

This is sometimes the case,but I would say just as many times there are one at least who is "randomly chosen". We have all kinds in Norway too,didn't mean to say otherwise :P

How does top notch players handle suits like this: KTx---AJxx or KTxx---AJxx when having no "clue" from opps bidding or lead helping them? Do top notch players finesse the same way every time? Being an average player and not too competitive I like to "decide" there and then,sometimes one way,sometimes the other way. Is there a percentage there? Sounds like doing it the same way every time has some merit. Sounds like alternating 1/1 I might get it wrong or right 100%. Judging from "experience" my way using my "feel" I get it right around 50% or so.

I have noone marked black,knock on wood! :D not even luke :P

One thing I have noticed in Main Bridge, is that when we are 4 norwegians playing at the table we rarely experience the constant leaving and having to find new partner or opps. When I play with someone and just accept two random opps from "anywhere" we see that it usually takes almost an hour and 8-10 boards to have the table "settle". I'm guessing it is like this with people from other countries too? Are we being less patient/tolerant with foreigners and/or people we don't know?

Agree with everything Hog says here, except I would not consider this a psych! A psych can only take place if a partnership has an agreement as to the type of hand that should be expected for a bid. 3NT is not the type of bid that "shows" anything (other than desire to play in 3NT). You can psych a 1H opening, because 1H "promises" 5 or more hearts and 12 or more points (or whatever) so it is easy to decide if a given player that opens 1H on a given hand is psyching or not. However, the 3NT response to a 3C preempt doesn't "show" or "deny" anything. It is a purely natural bid that means "I think it is in the best interest of our partnership to try to win 9 tricks at notrump". That doesn't imply that you think you can *make* 3NT, just that you are willing to play there. Sure you would usually have stoppers in the other suits and some kind of club fit to bid 3NT here, but you might be lacking a stopper and gambling on the lead, have another solid suit on the side, or have something like 4441 and 25 HCP. As Ben and Hog point out, you also might have a hand that offers absolutely no hope of winning 9 tricks, but that doesn't make your 3NT call a psych (since your partnership has no agreements in this area that you can deviate from). In contrast, a forcing 3S response to a 3C response is different since, if you make this call, you are "showing" something specific (spade length and strengh as well as some high card values). Therefore the 3S call can be psyched. This view is probably somewhat radical (and I must admit that I never thought about this before I read Hog's post), but after reading it over a couple of times it still makes sense to me :) Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com thank you Fred This makes sense. I'm still concerned with psyches easily becoming an ethical problem,an unusual "agreement" after only a few psyches within the partnership. What's your take on that? Where do "we" draw the line? How many times before "Oh,I didn't know..." becomes a "lie"? :D My wording isn't very good,I hope you understand what I mean

:)

I guess I misunderstood Ben again,I thought he referred to the 3NT bid as some sort of psyche :) I better give up now :D

I think people who cheat will cheat,no matter what. I'm fond of kibitzing tournaments,and the way some TD's try to eliminate cheating by disallowing kibs, actually takes away from my "full enjoyment" of the BBO community. Now if doing so reduces cheating then so be it, but those who cheat always seem to find some way to do so.

Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding Ben :rolleyes: Another thing which I quoted,is "gambling" on a 3NT bid after pd preempt say 3C a psyche? Say with one honor third in pd's suit and 1 stop in the other suits? I thought a psyche bid was somewhere you don't want to be at the end of the bidding?

I still have problems "getting my head around" the fine ethical lines here. Is including comments that you psyche entirely a "good ethical" thing to do? Isn't that sowing a seed of doubt "for free"? Isn't it more "ethical" to psyche with a pickup partner than someone who knows you? Once again,I am not for banning psyches,as this thread started out asking. I am very concerned about the ethical side of psyches. :rolleyes: Frode

I agree that take away the bidding,and we might as well play spades :) How a psyche can be part of an "information channel" is more blurry to me,the way I "define" psyches. My partner isn't supposed to know or suspect it is a "deliberate and gross misstatements of honor strength or suit length" if I psyche? Maybe there is more to psyching as some people point out. :) I'm no authority in any way,I'm curious tho --------------------------------------------------- To me,psyche is a "deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length" in order to ruin the "fun" for the opps,obstruct their chances of finding a contract that way. Some say that asking bids or cuebids or trialbids and tactical bids are psyches,but aren't these to be alerted and explained? And are people serious when they claim if I play,say from T642 the 2 first instead of the 4 or the 6 if that would be what my partner would expect,a psyche? If so,then I psyche alot :D

Why's that? I want my partner to trust my bid, it's an obvious "downside" that most opps will also understand my bid but for me that is a part of the game. That all 4 at the table "enjoy" bridge and may still be able to pull a satisfactory result if doing their job. I've played against people I feel inferior to and think we'll never get a result here and I don't like that feeling,especially since the "seed" sown usually is arrogant and patronising behavior. Bridge is no fun then,and I happen to think bridge should be fun first,results second. Noone likes the feeling of being fooled,or being ridiculed....do they? :) ps. this is just my take,not inferring anything about you or anyone else.

I might start psyching one day,I've already falsecarded on occasion :) I like your take on this,mr. warm,thx

I can't remember where I said I wanted to ban psyches, or take it out of bridge,I am merely asking questions that interests me. :) I am however concerned about what happens when what Fred describes becomes a "reality": [they become unusual agreements that are part of their systems and, as such, they should then be alerted.] To me that is not bridge anymore either,and even though some depict me as a ludoplayer,I feel my game has integrity. I don't need to be better than I am now,I enjoy the occiasional tournament win,or occasional top 3 place. Bottom line since some assume I'm in favor of banning psyches, I'm NOT

I guess that depends what would be considered bluffing? Would a pair of aces be considered a bluff with $100.000 on the table? :) Why do "we" need to resort to psyches,what does it add to "our" game to bid what we don't have? To me it's like athletes on dope :) "haha,fooled you" Or is it just for the heck of it,bridge itself is too boring?