Brandal

Sorry, bad choice of words. I didn't want to imply they do it on purpose - more likely they do it on their own ignorance (not bothering to learn the rules, thinking they know them already) - these should be swept out of the system. I agree with you coyot,there should be some way to help TD's improve their ability to make less bad rulings. Knowing the laws is one thing,as I said earlier,knowing how to properly apply them is another. Knowing when a law is violated,and rule accordingly. I doubt even the TD in question here think setting the contract to 4H= is a good call,but I think he meant there is damage and this was his only way to show that. Obviously I disagree with there being damage,but my guess is he felt that there was.

Doesn't this "prove" my point? No, it proves nothing. I only wanted to show that most of the TDs aren't bad by nature, only by lack of knowledge. I believe that it would take you only a few hours to "learn" the things you need to know to be a reasonably good TD when it comes to rulings and adjusts. It would certainly be worth it - and I believe that most of the existing TDs would not abandon their status if this requirement would be added. And, I certainly would not mind if TDs like the one in the example above were kicked out :) (and admitted back only when they prove that they know better) Well I never meant they are bad intentionally....

very creative TD this is good bridge Luis :)

Doesn't this "prove" my point? And knowing the laws is one thing,knowing the correct ruling is more difficult.

NS shown as EW in diagram? Or?

:)

There is one thing I dislike more than psyches,and that is people complaining after a bad score when nothing has been done wrong. I think we have to live with the occasional bad ruling if we want a decent number of tourneys. I think few tourneys a day with good TD's will damage BBO more(being so few),than many tourneys where the occasional ruling is wrong. Can't be that many bad rulings,they never happen at my table. As for the ruling in question....must be one of the worst I've read about

I think it's important to offer this wide variety when players of these countries are involved. It is so easy,even for those (like myself) who understand English, to assume everyone from i.e. Norway understands but that's not really the case. Not when it comes to commentary anyway,with abbreviations and bridgeterms we don't normally use. I tried watching vugraph with Polish commentary.....it's just not quite the same experience for me :)

Another interesting thing is,how many who don't understand English will understand this topic/poll? ;) Keep up the good work Roland & vugraph-crew,your dedication is remarkable and much appreciated.

I wish you a pleasant vacation,have fun :rolleyes:

Some good questions there Having read posts,since English isn't my spoken language I don't fully understand all technicalities but it seems timeconsuming? To browse thru all the data I mean,before bidding? Or did I get that wrong. Generally speaking I don't really see how this will be anything but confusing or misleading oneself. The idea is good tho

And I don't have "issues" with those who type "no agreement" I trust them to be honest with me. It just seems to me that selfalert/explain and "no agreement" is kinda standing out like a sore thumb....a paradox maybe There will always be room for interpretation too,whether to type no agreement or explain the bid? This isn't a big deal for me really,I just think there has to be a way to handle selfalert/explain better,because I realise that I'm no better when I explain when many type no agreement,meaning I'm not saying my way is right,or better,the way it is now it isn't "fair" is my point. :angry:

there can be any rules the rulemakers decide on... the point is, one can't be blamed retroactively for making a ruling based in law... the yellow in the original post, the one i 'made an excuse for', seemed to be judging the legality of the situation.. hard to blame him/her for that I never blamed the yellow,and I know I'm not responding to the case in question,it was just an idea... :angry:

so will i, but that isn't what i've been talking about... imo Would it be completely,utterly "stupid" to just agree on "the heck with f2f laws,let's just all agree to selfexplain what our bids mean,regardless of agreements?" That way at least it would be fair to all? Or is that as impossible to those who go by the law as it is for me to type "no agreement"? :angry:

You always make alot of sense B) And don't "we all" assume pd will understand our bids when we make a bid? Don't we all put aside the fancy conventions in indys? Afterall it is more important that pd understands,than it is what we disclose to opps?

so will i, but that isn't what i've been talking about... imo It's not what I've been talking about either :D (just tired of creme brulee) B)

I agree with this,and with self alerting it's just plain silly to open and then hide behind no agreement. In online bridge,with selfalerts,I really do feel we should call it disclosure of bids,and not agreements. For me personally,it feels natural to explain my bid no matter who my pd is,it certainly doesn't occur to me to bid and then explain with "no agreement",then I would rather pass than bid. Ofcourse this is my personal opinion only,I know I'm a minority but as long as I know what my bid means, I will explain to opps.

That's not fair :) 26 tables gets "no agreement" from opps 4 tables gets disclosure :( ;) just pulling your leg I have mentioned in previous threads I break the law and tell opps what I intend to communicate to partner even if not having discussed it,so I destroy everyone elses enjoyment :)

If it's pre-written messages I guess you could figure out how many characters fit one chat-line and then adjust your messages to fit....

What if by some fluke say 3-4 pairs in each round even in an indy happen to be partnered together,just for argument's sake,these 3-4 pairs have been playing together as pairs before....... Should they go with the "no agreement" to cater the rest of the field? :) Because if they disclose,it wouldn't be fair either....hehe ;)

Good luck with real life mr. Lall,and welcome back when you feel it's time. :(

Mine's off

I agree.....I didn't mean it should be done. but then I also think disallowing kibs might drive away a few, who might only be there when playing now,me being one.

So a cheater needs 2 computers I guess.... So a cheater probably has to find a table to "self-kib" that plays in about the same tempo,being on the same board as the cheater I guess.... It will be more confusing than helpful because the cheater also has to assess all 4 hands,and maybe have one eye on the other board than he is playing himself because I guess a self-kibber would play slower so the table he is kibbing might be in the middle of next board before he finishes his first.... In order to make cheating effective the partner probably has to be in on the cheat,so maybe they also have to exchange info on msn or yahoo or whatever. I would think all this would distract most players more than it would help them get a good result,but ofcourse that's just my personal take/opinion. I read somewhere that someone accused of cheating because of strange play etc. ended dead last,well maybe they WERE cheating and just didn't have time to focus on playing? :o I think that most "successful" cheaters only use a chatprogramme to tell eachother what they hold,and agree upon a contract and use it for best defense also. I also think the best way to prevent cheating is to program into BBO that you can't log on or be on BBO with a chatprogramme running. Oh well.....I guess kibitzing tourneys is gone for good,just needed to vent again :blink:

I have no idea what is ok to do,but I would pass if my pd fumbled with any bid then put it back and passed.