Elianna

I have a VERY slight preference for 4♣ over 3♥ with the North hand, but very much prefer double over both of those bids. As Jillybean did not say that they were playing negative freebids, the 2♥ bid should include hands that have game forcing values. If they play strong jumpshifts after overcalls, which not many people do that I've seen, I would never bid that with this hand, anyway. edited to add: Adam pointed out that double is penalty for us. With him I'd pass, because partner should bid on with anything more than a minimum 2!h bid (I don't think that pass is forcing per se, just that it's NEAR forcing ;)). With most of my other partners, double is t/o, so I stand by my previous statement. :)

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skqj983hjdt432caq]133|100|Scoring: MP You're East, and the auction goes:(1♥)-pass-(2♥)-you bid 2♠; (3♥)-pass-pass-YOUR BID[/hv] Also, how clear is your bid?

You are allowed to ask for a review of the bidding until you play to the first trick. After that, you are only allowed to inquire as to the final contract, and whether it was doubled, but not by who. Agreed. You are not allowed a physical memory aid. You ARE allowed a mental memory aid. That's why slogans are so popular among beginning bridge players, it helps them remember. But they wouldn't be allowed to bring it to the table in written.

As Matt knows, I frequently don't agree with him on what is rude or polite, but I am 100% in agreement here. If people don't want to see the talking in Turkish, they can just "enemy" the people talking, block enemy chat, and have done. And if they don't do that for some reason, well, that's their problem. If this were a chat room this would be a different story, it would be up to whoever's hosting to police the room.

I disagree. I quite like zielona's handling of someone like this, Player one has behaved in a way I come across quite often, his first line, just about sums up their attitude of disrespect also the last statement of player 1 is amazingly arrogant hahahaha Zielona, I prefer your way, than that of the TD that does nothing I NEVER said that the TD should do NOTHING. There's a difference between doing nothing, and doing the least disruptive thing for the rest of the tournament. I feel that a goal of an online TD is to provide a pleasant (and part of that is fair) playing environment for ALL players. If PUBLIC (as opposed to private) discipline disrupts the rest of the players, I would say that the TD is not fulfilling this goal. If a player is just going to escalate an argument and ruin the fun of everyone else in the tournament, isn't it better to try to kick them out privately and quietly? They may be used to being subbed out of tournaments. I found player1's first two lines annoying, but not necessarily rude. I do agree that the later things were rude and obnoxious (to put it mildly) but I feel that it was somewhat incited by the public castigation done by the TD.

As a high school teacher I've learned that if someone is acting up, you will get better results lowering the stakes rather than raising them. So while I think that banning a person from your tournament for the future is fine, announcing it to the tournament is just an invitation for that person to argue with you, because now you've insulted him in public (so he might think) and he feels the need to respond in public. I think for next time, you'd be better off private messaging a disruptor if you need to have a conversation with him/her. I do agree with you, that the desire to join another tournament is not a valid reason to leave yours. So in summary, I think that your error was addressing the not playing in your tournament issue in public, instead of privately. If I felt like saying anything, I might have said "I think that we'll both agree that you're not playing in my tournaments again". If I said anything or not, I would have reported the ditching of my tournament and subsequent actions to abuse. But don't threaten to do so, just do it. :) Also, btw, I bet you didn't have to offer to ban the player, I doubt that he'd be playing in your tournament again after this.

You only see ads at a table if you are in "wide screen mode". Use Control-W to switch between wide and narrow modes, but you must have at least 1024x768 screen resolution to use wide mode. The reason Control-C does not work at a table to switch in and out of Classic Mode is because there is almost no difference between the 2 modes when you are at a table. I did not want to create a situation in which someone might hit Control-C by mistake, see nothing happen, and then see something completely unexpected happen after leaving the table (and perhaps not know how to change things back to the way they were before). www.bridgebase.com It's not just that ctrl-C doesn't work, but if I go through the gear menu to change that option, and click apply, it won't apply, nor will it be saved when I go back out to the lobby. This was as a kibbitzer, using 4.9.3. I can't switch from c->n nor from n->c at a table.

I don't make good leads, but I'll answer your second question: Yes, 2NT should show a balanced, usually 15-19 HCP hand (with a heart stopper).

I don't remember this happening before, but I was playing in a teamgame, and a kibbitzer made a statement to the lobby, and it showed up to the whole table. This seems rather undesirable.

Hmm, I thought that I remembered reading that it was the other way: A beginner is someone is brand new to bridge, and a novice is someone who is familiar with how the game is played, but not knowledgeable about most of the intricacies.

Maybe this is the problem then... how can there be a rule that opening light is alertable, but then its not enforced because its normal (in third)? How is anyone expected to know what theyre supposed to alert or not if this is how things are run? Some officials need to take a course in logic (and this doesn't apply to just bridge officials). Adam got an email that basically said: a ) The rules for first and third seat openings are the same. b ) You must alert if you have an agreement to open light, and you may not have an agreement to open with less than 8HCP. c ) You may have an agreement to open in third chair with less than 8HCP ("because they all would open those hands")

As Adam said, they're alertable. (This is not just directed at Justin) The convention card color-coding is not the official alert chart. The alert chart can be found at http://www.acbl.org/play/alertChart.html. The cc cc (love those abbreviations!) is just a guide.

My bet is that you may have to email Charlotte Blaiss (her.name@acbl.org) to find out. She's in charge of the Junior program. I don't know if she's actually free to give a reason, though. I didn't even know that there was one scheduled for Nashville.

Hee, that's one show I'd say "good riddance" to. I sometimes end up seeing the first five minutes or so, and it really annoys me. It's one of those shows that I can't stand to watch, and would have to leave the room when it's on. Luckily there are very few of those shows. :P

Oh yes, Heroes! That is a really good new show, too. There's finally something on Mondays that I'm interested in seeing. And some returning shows that are coming on strong: Battlestar Galactica and Veronica Mars.

A new favorite show: Ugly Betty It's so campy yet sentimental and real. If you want to watch the latest episode, I believe that it's being show on abc.com. If you can't watch on your computer, a synopsis is at www.televisionwithoutpity.com which is a great website in general to read about/discuss tv.

Not a BBO id, but one of my college bridge club shirts said "coed naked bridge" on front, and "it's all fun and games until someone loses the rubber" on the back.

No difference here - the Walsh approach in the ACBL is not alertable, on the ground and otherwise. At many clubs in my area, the people playing there consider them alertable, and will raise a fuss if you don't alert. And a director will back them up. That's what I mean by "rules on the ground": Rules that may not be written or legal, but are enforced by prevailing sentiment. Usually this happens in an opposite way: The rules may say that you can't be rude to an opponent, but the directors don't enforce it, so the rule on the ground is that one can be rude to opponents.

This doesn't seem to agree with what the ACBL alert chart says: No alert: A 1NT or 2NT rebid that implies a balanced hand (may contain one or two four-card majors) This is not the first observed case of the rules as written being different than the rules on the ground. (See the rudeness at clubs thread for more examples)

Is it possible to have different settings for the main lobby and for the sub-lobbies for teamgames, MBC, etc? I like creating more column space for names in the main lobby, but would like more space to see full names at tables with just a glance. This isn't a high priority thing, as it's still possible to see names, it's just a little harsh looking. I also imagine that it might be annoying to code, and I love coming up with those types of suggestions. :)

I wonder about cause and effect here. What I mean is, I wonder if these directors managed to ask interesting questions, and to even show up at the training session because they were motivated to do a good job directing, and this motivation is the driving force that makes them better directors. I don't doubt that these sessions helped these directors, I just feel that it's having taken place is what made these directors among the best BBO TDs, rather it was their inate desire to do well when they direct. And this desire was evidenced in the training sessions by their participation in active learning.

I thought that it was because YOUR inappropriate behavior was not allowed. :)

Both 2M and 2NT rebids by opener are forcing in SAYC, because responder PROMISED a rebid by making that 2-level call.

Who is this? Susan? No, Jenny!

I agree with Gerben: Never is a pretty harsh assessment. Based on the amount of younger bridge players I know, I'd say that actually a HIGHER percentage of them are qualified TDs than the percentage of older bridge players I know. I mean, I can name four juniors (or very recently graduated juniors) who are directors, and direct regularly here in the US. Say there are 500 juniors in the US (and that's being generous, and not just couning ACBL members), so that make .8% of juniors are directors. I would find that hard to believe of the bridge-playing public at large, based on the people I've seen at both clubs I direct at and play at. Further, I only know, say 50 juniors, and so 4 out of those 50 is 8%, and there could be others that I know that are directors that I don't know about! Also, there is a junior that is on the ACBL board of governors. Compare 1 out 500 to 24 out of 65,000. Not bad.