Elianna

It is not the objective of a forcing notrump to get to a 5-2 fit The 5-2 fit in 2M that one plays is actually a concession from the natural order of things. The gain of the F1 NT comes in auctions when responder bids something other than 2 of opener's major. Another gain is that it makes 2/1 GF a bit easier to play.

How will you know pard didn't alert it if you're playing online? B)

We've also had lots of conversations about rebidding 1NT with a stiff (which I think you, hrothgar, allude to, but didn't explicitly say).

Why mode? I'd be much more interested in median.

If people ignore your request to reset, that might be an indication that they are not people you'd want to play with. Some players prefer not to reset the score when a new person arrives, sometimes because they like the ability to go back and look over hands (either they don't know about myhands, or want instant gratification). Other times it's because they like having a record of how they've been doing at their session, and the change of opps doesn't matter to them. Either way, I think that those players might be upset if the score auto-reset. As I don't play much in the MBC, and only with friends if I do, I don't really have an opinion either way.

I was wondering about that. :) But I like to think of alternative meanings. :)

Here's my thought: The goal in most rulings is to restore equity. In this case, the board has not been played at the other table. Accordingly, neither side has a vested interest in ensuring that one particular hand gets played. (In theory, you can make an argument that the hand might favor bidding system A versus bidding system B, but thats difficult to prove". With this in mind: Compare the following two mechanisms to restore 1. Wipe the slate clean and play a new board 2. Have the other table play the board in question: Attempt to make a judgement about what WOULD have happen in the absence of the screw up at this table. Option 1 seems better to me And would you do this with a revoke? Or a bid/lead out of turn? Or a card exposed during the play? Or other examples I'm sure that could be thought of. If you would, cool. I know that I wouldn't. I would redeal if a card got exposed before the auction, or something else happened before the auction started, but I know that I wouldn't once the auction got started. I realize that not redealing creats a lot more work for directors than the examples that I gave, but it still fits in that category, and if you decide to circumvent one bridge rule, why not others? I just think that it's clearer to have a line that can't be crossed, rather than trying to bargain that line.

Let me get this right. The auction has proceeded: 1S - 2D 2H - 2NT 3S - 4C 4C sets hearts and 4D would set spades?

I believe only a few people can be logged on with more than 1 account. Doubt your everyday TD can do this,would be a cheaters eldorado if "anyone" can log on with different account at the same time.... That's logged on to the same computer with more than one account. But anyone can have two computers up and logged into both on a different account for each. BBO can't do anything about it, or else people in the same household would have to take turns logging into BBO, which just seems unfair.

While the rule may seem funny, you were required to alert his 1♥ bid. Basically, you should be playing on the assumption that he forgot to alert, not that he forgot what the bid meant. And why did you not think that was the case at the table, anyway? With most of my partners, it's almost always the case that they forgot to alert, not that they forgot the meaning of the bid. If your alert wakes partner up, he's supposed to be ethical and bid as if he hadn't been woken up. About Jade's comment: I understand what he's getting at, as I've had lol's think that by alerting, we're giving each other information. There have been people on BBO who have accused us of that! (Yes, they were computer geniuses.) So I understand where Jade may be getting that from, but of course, there are many different reasons people ask others not to alert. What Jade said is not what would have first occurred to me, though. I also don't understand why the board was thrown out. If someone had revoked, would you have thrown out? Or a lead out of turn? Or...? I doubt it. This is also an error in procedure, and it seems that the easy way out was chosen in this case, instead of figuring out exactly what should happen according to the rules.

I can send you my scoring form. I'll send you a blank and an example, if you like. Just pm me your email.

If that is addressed at me, then where did I accuse you of creating trouble? Please show an exact quote. What I DID say, is that I have DONE much of what you suggested, and gave links to those places. Your reply was that you don't have the time to see those links. I also explained why I refused to do some of the other stuff, and gave links to those discussions, which you also refused to look at. Accusing me of being easily offended when you seem unable to understand my real objections is extremely self-serving. I am not offended by criticism in and of itself. (I have posted that, and so don't understand why you keep thinking that was my problem.) But I do not understand why you seem to think that I should not be allowed to reply to the criticism in a direct way, and why you do seem to have enough time to continue this argument, and not enough time to read what you are arguing about.

Not all criticism is destructive. If I declared that the square root of 2 is 1, I should be soundly criticized. Criticism without taking time to investigate the situation is the destructive part.

That happens to me all the time, usually from the same computer.

From what I can tell, it's up. I mean, the links work and lead to actual sites with information.

I don't mind if people argue with me, criticize, etc. The fact that you did not even bother to see what actually was happening before you complained, and felt that it was perfectly within your right to do so, says a lot. I don't feel that I need to get used to abusive behavior. There are easy solutions. The one I chose is to get out of that situation. I saw that you said that you are really busy, but I don't know why you think that a lot of us have infinite free time. I certainly don't, and didn't see the need to spend it doing something that just got to be unpleasant.

there's a big difference between disagreeing and complaining... if, for example, you thought you could do a better job why not offer your services? if elianna was getting swamped and if doing even more would result in her not being able to do anything at all, offer to help Thank you for the support, but I just want to correct one thing: I didn't quit because I was feeling swamped by the work. In fact, as Adam was saying, I was already doing what some people wanted, I just wasn't posting in the format that they wanted. And that wasn't because of the work involved, but because I'd like to respect the privacy of people who enter into a contest. As others have said, they don't view this as a contest, they view it as a poll. That's fine, but that's not the type of thing I thought that I was getting involved in, and so I decided to retire. Getting feedback from people complaining that they didn't know what I did, and refused to follow links to see what I did, was just something that reinforced my belief that this wasn't for me. I guess, like most people, I just don't like to feel abused. If people feel it's their right to abuse me, fine, but I feel that it's my right not to take it.

Not much understood or discussed? There is at least one book written on the subject!

Not just complaints about what was done with scores, but complaints from people who didn't even take the time to SEE what was done. That was just the final straw.

The score keeper retired... and I am not up to keeping score. I think someone volunteered, but after my mother;s health problem, I mislayed who it was. I do have some hands, I guesss I just need someone to step up and be the contact person. Ben i did volunteer since i was one of the people who originally suggested it but never received any msg back after i msg that i would be willing to do it. I seem to recall sending you a message that I was forwarding your message to Ben.

It doesn't count as a bail unless YOU make a bid on the hand.

Do you keep statistics on booting by the player being booted? For example, if Player X gets booted 20 times, that may also be a problem. (I do agree that no one should have to boot 10+ players in one day.)

Or just click on the link given by akhare above. :)

Can't you just request a redeal? (That used to work with the bots, but maybe it was only in certain types of tables (I know I've only tried them out in rubber bridge--too scared of messing with the field).)

Hmm, I hope that you mean that responder bids 3♥ to ask, or else there's a problem here. :D