Elianna

I thought that you all play poker. I guess that you can play both.

I don't listen to music, I either watch tv or listen to my significant other talk. :D

Elianna, There was no animosity. Some people think that there is animosity the moment a director is called. The poster said "There had been ongoing argument between two pairs." This sounds like animosity to me. Yes. Since I know you, I would be fine with that. Against a random opp, I would refuse to answer, and if he asked again, would call the director. I'll give you an analogy, if you'll allow: You're giving an exam. Do you allow the students to whisper to each other? Sure, there are perfectly innocent reasons to whisper to a fellow student, but shouldn't it be banned because it could easily be used to cheat?

I didn't say that "anyone who asks that question is likely cheating", I said that question is not technically allowable, because it leaves open the possibility of cheating. There is a difference in nuance. Maybe there wasn't any animosity previously, I definitely wasn't there, but from what the poster was saying, it sounded like there was.

You are correct, he can't ask questions like that (it will tell him the position of the cards, etc, and he might then try a different line knowing that it's off). I take it that since there was already back and forth between the players, you previously told them not to say anything to each other? If so, I wouldn't get into the argument with the guy about it, I would (in f2f at least) impose a procedural penalty. If you don't follow up with threats, what motivation do you give others to follow what you say? (And yes, I do treat bridge players like my tenth grade students ;) ) I know that you can't give PP in BBO, so I don't know what I'd do there. My only real advice is to not get into an argument. You'll never win (ie, they'll never stop arguing).

As I have said many times before, I am not asking this for people click too fast or don't think, I am asking it for those who have disabilities that affect hand-eye coordination, or stability of hand movement. I don't see any reason why they should be punished for that, plus they probably would benefit the most from online bridge. I don't care if there is an option out of this, but I think that it would be something nice to have for people. And it would eliminate the concern you have: because partner wouldn't be able to see that you tried clicking on something before.

The first time I did this was not very fair, it was against a kinda insane junior (I won't mention names) at camp, who managed to declare 3Nxx-9. :)

Not Adam, but I play Meyerson. If advancer just wishes to inquire as to the major, he needs to bid 2!d (as in Woolsey) which asks for the major. And then one can't tell if overcaller has a four or five card major suit. (A 2NT rebid by advancer asks for more info, and it's too late at night for me to remember the structure, but if I had to make a stab in the dark, we may play our old Woolsey structure, but I'm not sure, so I won't post it here. When Adam's less busy, I'm sure that he'll clarify this. :)) And for your other question: yes, overcaller with 5+ clubs MAY pass the 2C advance, but he isn't required to.

For a forced talk in a Math Seminar I took (all first year grad students had to take this), I talked about restricted choice and suit combinations (how if we have an 9 card fit, they must have at least an 8 card fit, etc.) None of my audience had ever played bridge, except for the professor. They all enjoyed it, though. My advice is don't do anything that involves bidding/evaluation/etc. Stick to card play, because even if they don't play bridge, they might be able to relate from other games. Another idea: If it's a longer talk, you might want to talk about evaluating chances of contracts making (ie, if it's on one of two finesses, what percent)? Oh, I also talked about strategy of sacrificing and the theory of Law of Total Tricks (ie, when is something a good sacrifice and other percentages). That didn't go over as well, because I had to explain bridge scoring, and couldn't really do that quickly enough (it was supposed to be a 10 minute talk). If you can do the background material quicker, that is a possibility for you to talk about. I wish that I could think of a way to involve Complex Variables and whatever else it is that you do in this. :) -Elianna

DBL. I'm not sure that 5D is making, and even less sure about 6D, so I'm going to try to set this enough tricks to at least not lose too many imps.

DBL, blame transfer. I like those doubles when playing opp my usual pard. He's more likely to get decisions right than I am, plus he's bigger than me so more blame can stick to him. :) (To be serious: I think that double is extras, and the likely result of these doubles is to be left in.)

if your a dog then Then E can knit you a new collar If you're talking about my mascot, that's a scarf! :P

Why is going through Stayman to invite on a hand without a fourcard major impractical? Adam and I play that (though we don't play 4-way transfers, we play something else) and we have yet to have something bad happen from that. We HAVE however played 2NT with a 5-4 spade fit TWICE (1NTer had 5 spades, responder had 4333, and chose to treat hand as balanced even after uncovering the 4-4 spade fit) for good results. :lol:

You may want "omnipotent", which basically means "all-knowing". :) Actually, "omnipotent" means (literally) "all-powerful" ; "able to do anything". [for the record, "omniscient" means "all-knowing"] Yep, you're right! More evidence that English was not my first language. :)

You may want "omnipotent", which basically means "all-knowing". ;)

I like to bid 2♣ over 1♦ whenever I can, and this hand looks quite reasonable for that, so I'll venture a 2♣ bid. I avoid playing imps when I can, so consider this answer as if the question was matchpoints. :blink:

Very scarily for me, I find myself agreeing with the Hog, and wonder why W did not bid 2H. I also wonder why partner doesn't trust me to remember our agreements, and bid 2s the first time. Do I have a habit of forgetting agreements like that?

While Justin is more than capable of standing up for himself, I should say that _I_ know him in person, and he is basically a nice guy. I think that he may seem arrogant in some of his posts elsewhere, because he makes statements, and doesn't explain the reasoning, and how dare a young person contradict others without being apologetic! (:blink:) I agree that he's not always the most agreeable person on the forum, but calling him the most arrogant, when there are others that go around purposely insulting others is a bit off the mark.

Except I'm not sure exactly what this would show. I would bet not a lot about hand evaluation, but a lot about card play, and I don't think that you'd get the worse end, Justin. :) (Wow, that's a lot of double negatives, but that's ok, what I said is negative. ;))

Trouble is the TD cant handle it, unless the person is silly enough to send another rude message when the TD is at the table. The best the TD can do is give the non offender intructions take a screen shot and email abuse (and cc the TD so the person can be added to the ban list). jb Even HEARING rude remarks (in person), some TDs can't handle this! :rolleyes:

Can I be a male for this part of the competition? I'm sure that Justin would also prefer that!!! And I know someone who would like a new leather jacket (he tore it visiting me).

But then you can't see if someone is asking you a question that you may be obliged to answer. This could even get you booted from a tourney, if you "ignore" the TD.

A problem I've observed: A lot of times new players play with other new players. I definitely wouldn't want my students learning from many of these people who play in 99er, etc. games. :rolleyes: (I'm not saying that people with less points can't be good, just saying that they don't usually elect to play in 99er, etc. games)

If I'm interpretting what bispo is saying, I think that this is a great idea! From what I understand (looking at your picture), is that you're saying that the tournament lobby for a given tournament should provide a list of the people hanging out there, and maybe (I'm adding this in) place the director first, right after your username? (maybe place the director there even if he's not in the lobby?) I think that this is great, because then you can easily click on the director's name to ask him/her questions (sometimes even to just figure out who the director is!) and it would help you chat with people on the partnership list, if they're hanging out in the tournament lobby, without having to search for their name, so you can discuss if you want to play with them. Great idea!

TDs need to learn to enforce the rules. If you want another example, see my blog about an incident with rudeness that happened at my local, ACBL club (where basically the director had a problem enforcing rules because he was too nice). As a teacher, I've learned that statements like "be quite" or "no talking" have no effect. "Student A, -2 points on your next exam" (and my students seeing me write that down) are MUCH more effective. (Calls home to parents, since this is a private school, are most effective.) Like my 16 year olds, bridge players also need to have some more tangible consequences for misbehaving. Losing imps or mps because of failure to follow rules would be a very useful tool for keeping people in line, if it were used (especially if it can be done non-reciprocally).