TimG

Or, a lack of time?

Sometimes an "I agree" post is a good thing. If the first response basically says it all, but is from someone that I don't recognize (or someone whose opinion I do not always respect), it's nice to have a known expert come by and say "I agree" as a sort of validation. I think that only a very few should have the "I agree" power, though. You are right that the vast majority of "I agree" posts are a waste of most everybody's time.

How can those two be alternative viewpoints, given, as Wackojack explains, that time began with the big bang? Was the question if the age of the universe is finite or infinite? Can't "the age of the universe is finite" and "the universe existed before time began" both be true?

I don't think there are too many A/E topics in A/E, too many topics perhaps, but not too many A/E topics. If someone returns home from weekend event and has 5 interesting A/E questions to post, a post limit is going to discourage him. (Or, encourage him to post all the questions in one topic.) Moving inappropriate topics to the correct forum will reduce the number of topics by quite a bit. The more interesting topics will get more attention and thus stay at the top of the page.

"No agreement" is often the case in the main bridge club. If the opponents have no agreement, they are under no obligation to tell you what they intend the bid to mean (indeed, some people would argue that people should not offer the meaning of a bid when there is no agreement). At some tables, the 2H bidder could have stated to the table that 2H was strong so that opponents and partner alike would know. Some people think that's a travesty. It is important to remember that this is a just a single result in the main bridge club of BBO. In other words: it means nothing. Just move on and try to enjoy the next hand seems to be the best approach.

(1) also picks up J96. Thus (1) gets 14 3-2s and 3 4-1s; (7) gets 13 3-2s and 4 4-1s. A specific 3-2 is more likely than a specific 4-1, so (1) is better. (7) gets 13 3-2s and 5 4-1s as listed, when RHO has: KJ64 K964 J964 K J

Rather than dumping this all into Fred's lap, we might try something like the following: 1. Allow anyone to nominate their 10 top suggests for a core committee. 2. Said nominations are sent (in private) to Uday or Ben or whomever. 3. The results are collated, and the top 10 vote getters identified 4. This list gets sent over to Fred for final approval This assumes that the top ten vote getter would accept the responsibility. One problem with this sort of thing is that the people that nominate themselves aren't always the ones that would be wanted and the ones that would be wanted aren't always interested.

I assume you mean by not running the Ten when West plays the Nine under the Ace. Doesn't that mean you also lose when West holds K9?

How about Ace followed by: If west plays the Nine, run the Ten else low from dummy and play Queen if east plays low or Jack, play low if east plays the Nine? Isn't this the same as (7), trading K9x in east for J9x in east?

I think a moderated forum would be useful, but I also think it would be more work for the moderators than people expect if it is going to be done well. It is not enough to hand select the opening posts. Non-expert inquiry in a thread is useful and necessary. But, non-expert answers in a thread are a bad thing. I don't think either a system by which just the opening posts were moderated or a system by which only a select few could post would work. Both the opening posts and the follow-up would need to be moderated for the system to work. Selecting the "experts" could also be a very delicate process. There are some posters who have an attitude of "I'm doing my service to the community by posting interesting problems and answering questions, I ought to be more appreciated". Even if these posters have something good to add instruction-wise, the advice may not be well received because of the attitude. The "expert" selection process ought to involve not just bridge expertise, but also a personality or community factor. As something of an aside, I am often amused by the jlall groupie factor. We've all seen a question posed that receives a half dozen "I pass because" answers. Then Justin chimes in with "I can't understand passing, I'd bid 2S because" and there are suddenly a bunch of "2S, wtp" posts from an often predictable group of posters. Someday I'd like access to Justin's account so I could post a few "wrong" answers just to see how strong this groupie factor is. I think it is important to clearly set out the goals of a moderated or limited access sub-forum. Is the objective to have a forum for expert discussion of expert issues, or is the objective to have a forum where B/I can get reliably good answers to B/I questions. I think of myself as being good enough to filter the good responses from the bad even if I am often not good enough to provide the good answers. So, maybe it's not really the A/E forum that needs moderation -- the advanced and expert players are capable of filtering the responses -- but the B/I forum. It is the B/I that may be unable to recognize the good answers from the bad, so it would be of more benefit to the community if the B/I were moderated so that the advice given there were more reliable. Unreliable advice in the A/E forum being more recognizable to the A/E players reading the forum, it is less important to moderate it. If you're looking for an expert forum for expert discussion of expert issues, I'd suggest lobbying for implementation of an "ignore" feature or more diligently ignoring unworthy posts.

In an online environment, it is possible that RHO wins the trick and plays to the next trick (thus hiding the previous trick) without you having had a chance to get a look at partner's card. Whether it was a real life distraction or an internet hiccup that made several actions happen nearly simultaneously. So, in an online environment, it makes sense to me that you can review the previous trick while the current trick is in progress. Perhaps better would be that you can review the previous trick until you have played to the next trick, but that's splitting hairs, and either seems reasonable.

Wouldn't it have been better to bid 5♣ instead of 4N? That way, partner (who knows whether his spade control is high card or shortness) would be in the decision making seat. Though I suppose your failure to splinter should let partner know that 6N is a viable option when his spade control is a high card control -- if you bid 6♥ now, partner is not barred from converting, is he?

I think this is actually how things should be. I have always understood the reason that you can't look at the last trick during a current trick to be that it could be used as a form of communication to partner (such as making sure he sees a signal you made last trick.) But in online bridge when no one else can see what you are doing then I have no problem with it. It certainly could be used for that purpose in ftf bridge. But, I often look at the last trick online to make sure I got the spots correct. And, from time to time in ftf bridge I really wish I could go back and check to see whether or not the four partner is playing now is the completion of a peter.

What makes you say this, David? The response to the transfer should be pretty much the same as to a NF 2M bid (obviously with 2M replacing pass), so I don't see how partner potentially being 1435 opposite a NF hand with spades is more difficult playing transfers. I've not read it in much detail, but the scheme here seems promising, using 2D as H or various other handtypes. I think the problem arises when responder wishes to hunt for a 4-4 major suit fit. This can be awkward of 2D and 2H are used for transfers. If 2C promises 6 clubs and denies a four-card major, this is obviously not a consideration. If a 2C opener which contains a 4-card major will necessarily be maximum, it is not as much of a consideration.

Aren't there already a number of such aids built into the system? For instance, the auction is available for review during the play of the hand, isn't it? I can review the last trick after play to the next trick has started, even after I have played to the current trick if I am not mistaken. I can refer to my own CC at any time. Yes, I realize these are all practical implementations for online bridge. But, it seems strange to me to cite a Law that is routinely circumvented as a basis for not allowing this request.

Actually, I'm finding the text editing process easier and quicker than the FD editing process. Is there a character to denote a comment field?

I recently copied a WJ05 FD card from another pair and have been using and modifying it. I recently noticed that it automatically described a 3rd hand action after 2nd had overcalled. I can't figure out how to edit this. I also can't figure out how to edit the system name or description. (Actually, I did do this by editing the FD file in a text editor, but I was looking for a way to do it through FD.) If anyone could point me to the correct procedures, I'd appreciate it.

I was wondering if the Jack wasn't the right spade to play regardless of signaling method. Blowing up the potential slow spade trick ought to convince partner not to continue the suit.

In Maine, these things are not even consistent from school district to school district. You are not going to find a "US High School curriculum" and probably won't even find a standard curriculum for most (if not all) states.

I know this one person who talks about the previous hand constantly. He often is reminded of the current hand when it becomes him turn to call and he hasn't taken his hand out of the board, yet. Does this count?

I said "allows primarily natural methods". I do recognize the trouble with 3-card minor suit openings, but would not have a problem with wording that permitted these "unnatural" openings while at the same time prohibiting a 2H opening that could be based upon a 3-card suit.

For what it's worth, I would like to voice my vociferous objection to such an idea. To me, it would be proverberial last straw and cause me quit the ACBL permanently. Rewording the GCC so that it's more clear is one thing, making it a straitjacket is another (unless they put in a flight "C" restrictions only clause or something like that). Yes, part of my suggestion was an additional convention chart that "would likely be the most used chart and would be similar to the current GCC". Though if you read what I wrote, you will see that while the new chart would be similar to the current GCC, it would end up being a bit less restrictive than it is now. While it would be my proposal that the new, more restrictive chart would be used primarily for Flight C events, it would ultimately be up to the tournament sponsors to determine which charts to use for which events.

You misread the post, Richard. Included in my post: . I agree to a large extent that tournament organizers should have the power to set their own convention charts. Though I also think a good case can be made for standardizing the use of convention charts at all ACBL regionals.

If they are structured differently and it works better than the ACBL structure, why not look at their structure and see if it would work for ACBL? It really doesn't seem like something to dismiss out of hand. There is a history of this. Things like tournament organizers getting kickbacks from the hotel that go into an individual's pockets rather than to the bridge organization. Blubaugh has probably been witness to more of it than most of us because for a while he was on the inside. I am not a Blubaugh apologist (though I definitely have more sympathy for him than many do), but prior bad acts (whether the allegations against him are true or false) do not automatically mean that all of his ideas are without merit.

I think it is a great idea to make the GCC more restrictive. Someone has already brought up the oddity of allowing a nebulous 1D opening but disallowing a 1D opening that shows hearts. (Yes, I am well aware that this was an effort to grandfather certain methods.) But, I would not be opposed to removing those grandfathered items and making the GCC consistent in its treatment of methods. My suggestion would be to make the GCC such that it allows primarily natural methods. 4-card majors and 5-card majors, convenient minors or not, weak or strong NTs, etc. I'd be fine with removing strong club systems from the GCC, as well. It would obviously be up to the tournament organizers, but my idea would be for the GCC to apply mostly to Flight C events. Create a new chart between the General Convention Chart and the Mid-Level Convention Chart that would be intended for use in Open/Flights A pair events and Flight B events. This would likely be the most used chart and would be similar to the current GCC. Add items to this chart that would allow for common artificial methods. But, be consistent: if you allow an "all-purpose" 1C opening, also allow an "all-purpose" 1D or 1S opening; if you allow a nebulous 1D opening, also allow a nebulous 1C or 1H opening. Structure the Mid-Level Convention Chart so that it allows certain classes of methods. Examples: a constructive opening bid that promises length in a known suit; a weak opening that shows the suit named and an unknown second suit; an opening which shows two known suits; a weak opening which could contain either of two suits (neither of which are the suit names); game forcing relay systems that start no sooner than opener's rebid; etc. I'm not a real big fan of the defense approval process and am not really sure who should ultimately be responsible for creating the defenses. (I think the answer is probably that I should be responsible for creating a defense to my opponents' methods.) But, it would probably be nice to transition to this type of MLCC by providing generic defenses with examples of specific defenses to specific methods. For instance, a generic defense to a transfer opening would be provided along with the specifics of how this generic defense would be applied to a 1D transfer opening. But, there would be no need to also provide a specific defense to a 1H transfer opening. No, these generic defenses would not be perfect -- pairs that spend time preparing their own defenses might well have an advantage, but so do pairs that spend time working out the details of their non-competitive auctions. This MLCC would be intended for use in Flight A events with 6+ board segments/rounds.