TimG

If the results generally match their perception of player skills, they'll have faith in the results. If the results don't match their perceptions, no amount of underlying math, understandable to the common man or not, is going to convince them the ratings are accurate.

Why does a rating system have to be understood by the players? I rather think it would be better if the players didn't fully understand the rating system. The ratings of players don't have to be made public, at least not down to four significant digits. Players looking for a pick-up game don't need to know whether they are playing with Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays, but it would be nice to know whether they are playing with Ted Williams or Troy O'Leary. Anyway, the published part of the rating system could place players in broad categories, rather than try to say player X with a 1024 rating is a better player than player Y with a 1017 rating. Tim PS I do like rating systems, but I don't feel that BBO needs one, at least not for my needs. I rarely, if ever, play in a pickup game -- the players I partner are almost always known commodities. If I was interested in playing pick-up games, I would appreciate some sort of rating system.

It is a lie, and most of us are taught not to lie. The word he used to describe your action is very telling. If he had called it a psyche, or a bluff or even a little white lie, the situation would likely have resolved itself differently. What I have learned from these types of situation is that no amount of explaining on your part is going to make this guy feel any better. And, all your attempted explaining is just going to make this guy madder -- you're trying to teach something he knows is wrong. Best to simply wait quietly for the director. Too bad the director was never going to come in this case, but you were aware that this was a potential problem when you entered a tournament with a playing director. As for being kicked out of the tourney: obviously unfair. But, rather than immediately conclude that the director is incompetent, I would suggest that the description of events your opponent conveyed to the director may not have represented what actually happened. Your opponent probably said something like: he misdescribed his hand and then tried to pass it off as a psyche, this is a game of full disclosure and he lied to us. Frustrating for sure. Tim

That seems to be the gist. But, it's just fine with me. The option to play elsewhere is available and I can exercise that right. Just as JT can run his tournaments the way he wants to run them.

If I'm a substitute, I expect to play only while needed. I think the problem comes from the attitude (that I'm sensing here) that a substitute becomes a non-substitute as soon as he takes a seat at the table.

This seems an easy one for me: let the original player back into the game.

It's not a psyche -- it would have to be a gross misdescription to be a psyche. That does not mean it should not be reported. If you have a tendency to "mis-count" your hand like this, it will become a partnership agreement and it would no longer be proper to describe the overcall as 15-17. IMO, these kinds of partnership tendency issues are far more worrisome than psyches simply because a psyche takes everyone by surprise while a tendency takes the opponents by surprise, but not partner. It really is a disclosure issue, far more so that psyches. Tim

No objection. In fact, I would encourage you.

There's still a flag.

I've never been asked. But, it would seem simple enough to have a user profile option not to show the symbol. (Just as it ought to be an option to not have a flag.) Tim

I think one solution is from the software side. In most tournament movements, there is no need for everyone to wait when a small number of tables are behind. In a face-to-face tournament when a table is late, the round is still called, those who move can, and those who can't wait. Players tend to catch up, though there are certainly cases of habitually slow players who are unable to catch up. It may be a pain to program at the start, but it doesn't seem like it should be so difficult to preclude the same thing from happening in an online environment. Actually, the online environment would be ideal for this. The software could track how often a player (or pair) is late and assign something of an ontime rating. Then a tournament director could restrict entry to players with a certain ontime percentage in an effort to have a speedy tournament. Of course, this would be optional. Tim PS 24 minutes is way too much for a three board round.

The way to resolve it, BTW, is with conditions of contest that take away any incentive to dump.

I don't know if the rule is still on the books or not, but this was technically against ACBL rules 20 years ago. Somewhere there was a rule against "losing a trick that could be won". It made all sorts of plays (finesses, endplays, etc.) illegal. The rule was used as the basis for disciplining a team which dumped in a three-way match in a New England KO. (They were successful and went on to win the event. Though I believe ACBL stripped them of the masterpoints!) Perhaps TL Goodwin can elaborate, I believe he was part of the committee. T.H. Goodwin

Isn't the slow raise generally stronger than a direct raise? Shouldn't responder pass 2♦ with your example hand rather than risk further encouragment with 3♣? Of course, with your example responding hand and the given opening hand, the opponents' silence in rather curious. So, maybe bidding 3♣ will serve to further impede the opponents' entry into the auction.

I almost mentioned that I would like 1♠ better on the second hand if the minors were switched. I would be less inclined to overcall if I was 43 in the majors (increasing the risk of my 1♠ overcall hindering us finding our best fit). I think the not-3-in-the-other-major rule is somehting that Miles put forth.

I've witnessed many nearly cold contracts which failed due to virtually hopeless lines. I went down in an absolutely cold contract recently when I made a silly mistake. There is lots of bad play (and bidding) on BBO. Given the nature of bridge, some percentage of it will turn out good for the perpetrators. This makes any decision to suspend a player based upon one hand (or even a couple) a very bad decision. Anti-percentage plays and bids in a 12 board tournament? If the aim is to win, I'm not so sure but what anti-percentage plays are called for from time to time. Taking a wild shot at a grand slam? Might be the best way to create a top board. And, to win in such a short tournament you need a lot of top boards. As has been pointed out by someone, I think it was Inquiry, sometimes odd looking plays are the technically right plays. The investigators ought to be very good players indeed. Better than just about anyone posting here. Like Richard, I've been playing online bridge since the days of OKbridge telnet. I have never felt like I was being cheated. Never. Now, I'm sure that somewhere along the way, over the 1000's of hands I've played, there must have been some opponent who was cheating. But, I'm sure my online experience has been injured more by the witch hunts than by the actual cheating.

Absolutely. This seems to be the only practical way to go.

So you're suggesting that given teh auction 1♦-(DBL)-1♥, Paul should alert and tell the opponents that his partner always has 4+ hearts? Something about that doesn't seem quite right.

This is the interesting stuff, IMO: I have one question, though. When you did the ACBD calculations for a 2H Michaels bid, did you assign opener 5+ hearts as part of the constraints? That will, obviously, have an effect on how often the intervening side has a fit. And, I'm not able to intuit whether it was considered of not. Tim

The 44 prohibition applies to weak openings.

Clubs are actually allowed to do just about whatever they want with regard to conventions. They can be more or less liberal than ACBL tournaments, and don't have to follow any particular convention chart. The 4-4 prohibition is relatively new -- my guess is it was passed at the Long Beach NABC in the summer of 2003. The requirement for suggested defense to first be approved by the C&C Committee is about 3-4 years old.

The ACBL has banned this type of method when it can be made on hands with 44 in the long suits. If you wanted to play it these days, you'd have toeliminate the 4432 hands. Also, it would be a mid-chart method and would require an approved defense. With an anchor suit of spades and a requirement of at least 54, you should be able to get a defense approved. But, given my interactions with the C&C Committee, I would bet against it. Tim

How do you determine whether someone is an expert in a field? Is there some minimum set of skills or knowledge of teh field that a person must attain? Or, is it simply some percentage of the entire population that is considered an expert. In bridge, for example, is a knowledge of certain techniques and theories enough to qualify someone as an expert? Or, is the top 1% or 0.1% or whatever percantage you choose an expert even if they don't meet a certain standard (or if some who are below the percatage meet the standard)? Tim

Playing standard methods there seems to be little choice but to open 2NT or 2C. Yes, this hand is better than your average 22 HCP where slam is concerned, but if parnter has a balanced 4 HCP, we probably won't make 3NT. If parnter is balanced, and we have something like 28-30 HCP, it doesn't really matter that the controlls are concentrated in my hand -- it's still a combined 28-30 HCP. If partner is unbalanced, the controls could be very important. So, I'd choose 2N (knowing that we'll play there with some combined holdings of 24-26 HCP, but that's OK with me) and cooperate as much as possible if partner shows an unbalanced hand. Playing with my favorite parnter, I can open 1♣ (or 1♠) without any fear of being passed there and missing a game. Our responding requirements are about the same as the responing requirements to a standard 2NT opening bid. Often that will mean a 1NT response on 4-6 HCP (even with a four-card major) which has the advantage of potentially right waying a 3NT contract. Playing 3NT from parnter's side could be a big winner. Playing standard, I might open 1♣ and rebid 1♠ and then apologize when it doesn't work out. But, I realize I'm going against mainstream thinking. Tim

First you have to determine what was suggested by the UI. If bidding on was suggested and the player passes, you cannot force him to bid. But, if passing was suggested and and he passed, you could certainly impose a bid (or redouble). In this case, pass is a logical alternative, but not one that is suggested by the hesitation. So, if the player had passed and that turned out well, there would be no adjustment. Tim