TimG

The question is whether 3♠ in this position is a partnership agreement. The OP says: "Usually against a strong auction and after partner's preempt, our change of suit has been lead-directional, sometimes it's a real suit, and occasionally a psyche." That sounds a lot like an agreement that 3♠ could be a suit, lead directing, or a non-suit. Such an agreement should be disclosed. On the other hand, any bid could be a psyche. Some situations lend themselves more to psyching. That's just "general bridge knowledge". That does not need to be disclosed. There ought to be some way to disclose a propensity to psyche without having to alert every bid or include in every explanation "or it could be a psyche".

Hasn't East asked a question at an inappropriate time (during the auction period when it was not his turn to call)?

I do not think it should be necessary to ask a follow up to determine when the information became available. If someone is properly disclosing, that bit will be provided rather than "hidden" until further inquiry is made. I used a relay system as a simple example, I do understand that relay systems are rare beasts in ACBL land. I have no objection to a string of "xy was a relay" explanation during a full explanation of an auction. I have played relays in the past and when giving an explanation I will say something like: 2x showed 5+4+ in the majors; 2y showed exactly 5=5; 3x showed 2=1 in the minors*" rather than say "partner showed 5=5=2=1". I think that is the proper way to practice full disclosure. * I will also include which bids were pure relays (asking bids) and which were not. I tend to give explanations for all calls rather than have a back and forth with partner because that seems simpler and easier to follow, but do not object when an opponent asks that I give only explanations for partner's calls and that my partner does the same.

Thank you, that makes it much easier to find the relevant Law.

I don't think it is proper for one person to say "partner has shown such and such" without referencing which calls showed what. The timing of when the information was available may well be of importance. For instance, if a relay sequence reveals that one player has 2=3=4=4 shape, it may be relevant that the last ask clarified major suit length after 4=4 in the minors was already known. Presumably partner would not have asked for major suit length without interest in one of the suits. If the last clarification was minor suit length after having shown 2=3 in the majors, there would be different inferences available.

We want a rematch.

I think it would be useful if you quote the Law when making such a statement, or at least reference which Law you are relying upon.

This means that a Polish 2C response which could be balanced GF or natural with clubs (but not GF) is not GCC legal. Or, so it seems.

I think I have over disclosed (relative to what is required by Law) from time to time because I felt it the right thing to do (required by my ethics). I have waived a penalty because I thought it the right thing to do. I doubt I am ever required by Law to waive a penalty and am probably in violation of Law in some circumstances where I have waived a penalty.

if I'm playing in an Indy with no explicit agreement beyong "standard", my partner opens 1N, I respond 2C, and an opponent asks, I will tell them it is "Stayman, artificial asking about a four-card major" or some such. I will not say "standard" or otherwise dodge the question. If my partner opens 1M and I jump to 3M, I will explain to the opponents (if they ask) whether I intend the raise as preemptive, miixed, limit, or forcing even though my partner and I have no explicit agreement (I don't believe it is covered by "standard"). In short, if I make a bid that might have multiple meanings, I will disclose to the opponents what I intend even without an explicit agreement. I believe the fact that I'm willing to make the jump raise implies there is an implicit agreement and that implicit agreement should be disclosed. Sure, my partner might be guessing, and the letter of the Law probably allows me to leave the opponents guessing as well. But, I would prefer to disclose more than required, and believe (or hope ) that this is also the spirit of the Laws.

How about "ethical, but not required by Law"?

i'm not at all confident that this is the spirit of discloure Laws. Opponents are entitled to know about agreements. If I am playing in an indy and make a bid that partner might have to guess about, I don't think this means that the opponents should also have to guess. I should explain what I presume our agreement to be. Or, it is my opinion that this is (or should be) the spirit of the Law. I realize there is difference of opinion in this area.

Isn't "ethical obligation" something of an oxymoron? Ethics generally involve judgment and "accepted standards" rather than adherance to objective, codified rules. Anyway, it seems perfectly reasonable that different people would feel different ethical obligations. These should not be confused with legal obligations.

Won't you be stuck with the biases of the computer program used? With a sample from many players the problems of system context and individual strengths and weaknesses would be evened out.

Which cards were boards 37 & 38 dealt with during duplication?

People are inherently good?

I think partner has spades and didn't bid on the first round for whatever reason -- maybe he had some spades in with his clubs, or maybe he was intentionally lying in the weeds. I think pass is a LA.

I'd add a 3rd. If I'm playing a team (or a field) that is significantly better than I am, I can't hope to win by suddenly playing the cards better (I'm incapable). I can hope to win by bidding better/differently than my opponents. Many years ago, after playing in the Open BAM at the Fall NABC, my partner and I went through the hands and determined that for our team the result was determined by the bidding well over 50% of the time (I don't remember the exact number and it would be a case of small sample size anyway). Whether this was a good thing or a bad thing, I do not know. I will say that he has gone on to form a "standard" partnership and won the Platinum Pairs, so it may be reasonable to guess that he preferred to remove the difference-in-bidding from his game.

You had me right up until the point where you said you might want to use emoticons.

They may have great content, but the front page is a mess, in my opinion. I have the same problem with the District 21 website. While the District 25 web site has far less content, it is much simpler and to my way of thinking that is a plus (though they should have an upcoming tournaments section in the left hand menu rather than relying upon people to go to the calendar or the middle of the page). I like Greg's effort that he linked in the opening post. I think it is cleaner than any of the other examples linked in this thread and has the all important menus on the left (set aside rather than blending in) that will get people to where they want to go without much effort. I am of the opinion that regional results should be found on District pages and sectional results on Unit pages. Though, of course, it should be easy to navigate from one to the other. It is nice if a Unit hosts club results, but not necessary. I'd be just as happy with easy navigation from Unit pages to individual clubs for their results. STACs or Unit Wide type games would be an exception.

I might prefer to play face-to-face if I were at the same site as the other players, but I can see some decent reasons to play by computer. A full and complete record of the bidding and play; elimination of things such as revokes and bid out of turn; and reduced potential for UI are but a few.

I occasionally play in ACBL speedballs on BBO. I do this because the game is generally more consistent and of higher quality than pick-up opponents in the main bridge club. They are also generally of better quality than the free tournaments (in my limited experience) and they are offered regularly. (I would prefer a set game, but seldom go through the effort to set those up.) It is true that the masterpoints do not add any value to the game as far as I am concerned. But, I do think there is value in ACBL games on BBO. The value added would not have to come from an NBO, but that's the way the service is currently delivered. Just because it is easy to cheat does not mean that the rules are useless. It's appears to be easy to cheat at face-to-face bridge, yet there are rules that we hardly find useless.

I don't think the idea is to impose any Laws on those playing "home bridge" (BBO's equivalent being the main bridge club) but rather to set out Laws for sanctioned online tournament play (BBO's ACBL games, for instance).

As long as you play the Ace and King on two of the first three rounds, you always take four tricks when the suit breaks 32. You can pick up the suit for one loser when RHO has a stiff honor by first cashing the Ace and then running the Nine. I think this is equivalent to Redrag's line because he will take the proven finesse on round three of the suit. It doesn't make any difference whether you play low to the Nine or run the Nine, does it?

I can't see the hand on my iPod, but I guess pass.