jikl

In kibitzer list it shows white for invis, yellow for admin etc, purple for friends, black for enemies (I think). It doesn't however show green for seekers. Sean

It is alertable. Some NCBOs would say it is not as it is "self-alerting". However the fact is, some play this as ♥ with a club stopper, some play it as takeout of ♣. The fact is there is no GENERAL Lebensohl agreement for this, everyone modifies it as they see fit. Therefore, can it be misunderstood by the opponents. Yes. Does it show ♣? No. Where is the problem here? Sean

There are 36 combinations of 2 cards including the 10. There are 28 not including the 10. So this is 22.22222% Sean

Don't know whether this is intended or not, but when playing or kibitzing if you click on Lobby you still get BIG arrows instead of scrollbars. Sean

As you would expect, the odds have changed dramatically: Australia 2.75 England 26.00 India 3.75 New Zealand 8.00 Pakistan 11.00 South Africa 13.00 Sri Lanka 4.50 West Indies 17.00 Would have been nice to get on Sri Lanka at 7s. Sean

It would be nice if more of our directors were more active on the forums. Perhaps when TD privileges are granted, it should be made very clear to the new TD that this forum exists. Sean

4♠ for me. Sean

http://www.abf.com.au/newsletter/Sept06a.pdf Page 10 Sean

Theoretically it seems Australia is a StepBridge nation also, offering Australian Bridge Federation master points. I have no idea how many people play there as I have never used it. However, I was allowed to provide a one and a half page interview with Fred about BBO in the ABF Newsletter about a year and a half ago. Curiously, the hyperlinks I provided seemed to have been omitted ^_^ Sean

I am fairly sure Warne wasn't the first Australian to test positive, but what I am thinking of is domestic cricket. For some reason the name doesn't come to mind as it was pre-2000 I believe. I am sure there are many domestic cricketers that have tested positive but been hidden away and never heard of again. Sean

I know I rule on UI for BIT in my games, but I also make it known that if you are thinking, say so to the table, because I want less calls, not more <_< Sean

India vs England... Oh dear. Sean

Some of it could be due to rightsiding the contract. This would remove some of the onus from play to bidding. However, interesting results. If you moved to the slam zone I think you would find even more of a discrepancy. Sean

The way I remember is that the term "False preference" comes up quite a bit. 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦ - ? 2♥ = FSF to game 2♠ = Minimum, not enough for 2NT (10-11), may still have 4♦ but not enough for 3♦ (10-12), not enough for 3♣ which is still trying for 3NT opposite a 13-15ish hand. Sean

The odds here are: Australia 2.75 England 13.00 India 4.50 New Zealand 13.00 Pakistan 6.00 South Africa 9.00 Sri Lanka 7.00 West Indies 13.00 Sean PS: And congratulations to Bangladesh on their thrashing of Zimbabwe.

So, any predictions for ICC Champions Trophy? Sean

Dare I mention FSJ? Sean

Dog, He is talking about your signature, you have "manoverboard" or something in it currently. Sean

I rate myself as advanced, quite often I am expert, less often I am intermediate. I have found that people that rate themselves as advanced or intermediate are actually quite often better than the average "expert". Many of the "experts" are only after good results and leave as soon as a bad one occurs as it is clearly their partner's fault ;) . The fact is we don't want a rating system based on results, we have seen what crap comes from that. People won't play with friends for a few fun hands unless using another account etc. Ben (Inquiry) did some stats a year or two ago about the %s of ratings on here, but I am not going to search through his posts to find it, it would take hours. From memory he sort of agreed with me, that advanced and below are the most accurate unless they have a * next to their name. Sean

For starters: I don't think it is a psyche and I think the director made a crap decision. However, isn't something being missed here? The first questions to be asked are things like: 1: Are you an established partnership? 2: If so, have you done this before? 3: Could partner raise you on a 3154? These are some of the questions to be asked before it becomes an "alertable agreement". Sean

When you say no stray spaces, does that mean it takes the first word or if there is a space it ignores the line? Sean

After seeing the re-emergence of this thread yesterday, I decided against my better judgment to run a clocked swiss pairs. 5 2 board rounds. In this time I made about 30 subs, blacklisted 9 people. This is why TDs choose to not run pairs. In an Indy you have far less dropouts. And yes, whenever I run something, it is starting in 10 minutes or so. Therefore it will only be seen by those that happen to go to the tournament section during those 10 minutes. I agree with Ben that there are many free Tourneys per hour, but none are pre-scheduled. This probably does put off new players to the Tourney area when all they see are restricted or pay events but little can be done about it as all free Tourney TDs are volunteering their time, and it is up to them how to schedule their events. Sean

I am in the camp that says 3♥ is game forcing and therefore promises a rebid if game has not benn reached. Sean

In the Melbourne newspaper today: India about Hair umpiring in upcoming Tourney Didn't know how widely this would have been reported. Sean

To me, the example is a strange one as it is the one auction I would probably not consider. Take these examples: P 1♣ ? [hv=s=skt32hkt32dkt32c2]133|100|[/hv] Most would find a double here as there is a good chance of winning the partscore. P 1♦ ? [hv=s=skt32hkt32dkt32c2]133|100|[/hv] Again, most would double. P 1♥ ? [hv=s=skt32hkt32dkt32c2]133|100|[/hv] This one is less clear as there is only really one way to win the partscore battle, in ♠. The example hand is pretty much always going to lose out to 2♠ or 3♠. Some of this depends on preempting style, with agressive preempting it is probably a losing action to double because you are giving the opponents too much information with no benefit to your side. You are not going to win the partscore battle, so why tell them ♠ break 4-1? Sean