jikl

The ACBL is not the god of the bridge world. Do not presume to enforce us to use their rules. I could really go on a rant of all the ACBL evils right now, but calm is needed. The official laws of bridge can not cover online bridge, as they were not written with this form of the game in mind. What we are trying to achieve here is the most EQUITABLE result possible given the known facts. If a player knows he is going to get -20 IMPs on the last board of a face to face match, what happens if they sit there for 1 hour to make time run out? You know tha answer... The director has now been called 15 times, everyone knows who is tanking and they know the reason. Technical result, play is finished and they are awarded a procedural penalty for time. If another round is about to start, it will not be AV+/Av-, and you know that. They may award that at the table but they will be handing you an appeal form at the same time. We do not have an appeal committee, we are director and appeals, therefore we make the decision once. Quoting ACBL policies has absoloutely no meaning here. Sean

One thing I also do if it is obvious which is the time offending side is give the opps whatever is better between Av+/Av- or what I think which score they would have gotten. Yes, I do take into account player strengths, and sometimes I look at other examples of the declarer play from previous hands. (Especially since it is nearly always the declaring side that has computer problems) Sean

I use a 3rd party firewall instead of XP SP2, the MS firewall catches far less than the 3rd party one. I tested 2 computers with the same software on them and went to lots of dodgy websites to see which computer was in the worst condition afterwards. I had to basically reformat the Windows one, the one using ZoneAlarm was in very good condition. Plus the hackers etc automatically go after vulnerabilities in Windows before moving onto more general ones. So I now run with ZoneAlarm on and the Windows firewall off all the time. Sean

I always adjust unfinished boards if it is obvious, I warn the players I will be doing this, but then also warn repeated slow play by a player or pair will result in blacklisting. I like to have my games running smoothly, if it means I have to be nasty sometimes then so be it. Sean

Happy winter festivities of all denominations :lol: And happy summer festivities for those of us in the southern hemisphere :) Sean

When I direct I never show the scores until the end. I require far less subs this way. I also try to not run Swiss Pairs as people now know how they are doing. It is amazing how many "computer problems" people have when they are in the bottom 2-3 tables. Surprisingly, those in the top 2-3 tables seemingly never have a "computer problem". Call me cynical, but I think I know what these "computer problems" are. Additionally, you get far less dropouts in Individuals than in Pairs, especially if you run 1 board rounds. Sean

A lot of directors put in Tourney description to only use English at the table, but this seems to have been taken too far. I was directing once and randomly checking tables that hadn't finished the round. First thing I see is 2 players speaking Polish at the table, I was about to reprimand them for not abiding by my rules then checked and saw all 4 were Polish. I then said to them I was about to say something about the language and the reason why I didn't, and added next round please use English as you are unlikely to be playing against 2 Polish players. They agreed and said they wouldn't have done it anyway. What it comes down to is being sensible about your rules and how you apply them. Sean

There are some futher ramifications here. The easiest way to do it would be to have a method for a player to do a manual reconnect, be it somewhere in options ot somewhere else. This would then simulate a normal red-dot reconnect. You can sort of already do this, by killing the software, reloading software and relogging in. However, now that we have boot and ban, does this count for one if you take too long? (I think this would be a yes) The second half is, if it doesn't, does this mean you can get around boot and ban by doing it? As you can see it is a real Pandora's Box that we are opening here. Sean

Whilst NS have been damaged, the timing of it is all wrong. South has screwed up big time. After the late alert of 1♦ South has a clear obligation to be wary of future bids. With a ♠ void South has a clear cut takeout double. It really looks like a double-shot here, "If I can't get a good score from the hand, then the director will give it to me". Sean

I am guessing that there is more interest in these type of matches among us on the forums than in the general populace of BBO. So then it comes down to a matter of priority. Sean

Right, his name is Per Jannersten. I met him in Maastricht when I bought some things in his well-known bridge shop (they had a stand at the Olympiad). A real nice guy. I think you'll find it was written by his father, Eric Jannersten. Sean

I don't know whether this is part of the answer. If you leave the browser window open on one computer, that whole subject doesn't become read. You need to leave the subject for it become "read". Sean

The biggest drawback of the system would be that of full disclosure. By giving full disclosure in a real match (with time limits) would be impossible. The opponents don't need to know your system, but you have to be able to explain it in terms that can be understood. Here is what I mean: The players are NZ1 (non-Zar player), NZ2, Z1 (Zar player), Z2. The other you will recognise. Z1: Alert 1NT NZ1: OK, what's it mean? Z1: OK, it is 26-30 Zar poi- NZ1: What the ^&*^ is a Zar point? Z1: I'll get to that in a second, 26-30 Zar points, no 4 card major, could contain a singleton... NZ1: I repeat, WT# is a Zar point? Z1: OK, a Zar point is....................... NZ1: DIRECTOR!!!! TD: Yes? NZ1: This person won't explain his bids to me properly. TD: What do you mean? Z1: I explained... TD: (to whole table) Why are you still on the first board? We are 10 minutes into play and only one bid has been made! TD: What does your bid mean? Z1: Well... (lengthy explanation) TD: I will be right back TD: (after discussion with fellow TDs) OK, simple, you may not play this system as you cannot explain what the bids mean. Furthermore, since we are now 5 boards into the movement, you are fined 3 IMPs per board for those 5 boards. You are now playing SAYC whether you like it or not. Here are the appeal forms. Some of you will hate this, some of you will like it, but I can see it happening. Sean

Come play in my Tourneys candybar, the first line in the description is always the same: Non-playing TD. Sean

I've noticed a lot more disconnects too. (Running 4.3.5 still). I am also on a laptop. Sean

I have a simple question... Did partner alert to the whole table? Surely he/she did not, then they should know that partner has it wrong when your partner explains the 2♥ bid. Sean

WOW! Last board of the final (provisionally) I saw 1687 people watching on BBO at the one table still in play. Great stuff. Sean

Actually, on BBO this doesn't matter. Your partner cannot see if you alert, only the opponents can. Therefore, I find the ACBL rule of alerting nothing above 3NT as a joke for online bridge on BBO, since no UI can be passed to your partner. For this reason, full disclosure should actually mean full disclosure. Sean

After I posted, I realised my mistake in the assumption that I have 7 ♦, I could easily have 6. There is still mileage in remembering that the only 2 oustanding ♦s are the 7 and the 3 though. If partner has 2 of these it is no issue. If partner is singleton, then will be looking for a switch. If partner onnly has one of these is when it is important. Perhaps we should be looking for what it will mean to partner when missing each of these cards. Missing the ♦7, this is easy. Play the ♦4, declarer can not hide the 3 and 2. You can not have 5 ♦s for your bid. Missing the ♦3 is more difficult. Here declarer can hide the 3 by playing the imaginary other pip when you have only 6 ♦s. So now the ♦4 is not good enough. Is the ♦6 a good enough card to cover both jobs? Now with only 6♦s AJ10876 is the only way ♦6 is your lowest one. The worst suit you can have is A76432 (but this isn't a real preempt vul). So therefore the 4 is still relevant. My first reaction was that this was trivial, but I now think that an attentive partner can read the ♦4. However, I foresee huge tempo problems with this one at the table, fast cards and slow cards are going to be ugly. Sean

Perhaps this has been over analysed, look at all the pips. Partner either has Q73, Q7 or Q3 or Q. Let's quickly discard the first one, if it is this, declarer is ruffing and partner would seem to need a quick ♠ trick. Let's remove the last one. Partner knows that you are unlikely to overtake with A, so therefore you will be giving a suit signal in case it is singleton. Let's look at the other 2. Your partner will now know you had no odd cards and should now know that you knew this if declarer has followed. Does this not mean you now signal the suit you want lead using whatever easiest means possible, ie, the 2 saying lowest suit? There are two trumps in dummy so it is unlikely you are playing for a tap on declarer. Sean

Strong 2s don't have enough frequency. These bids are either put in the 2♣ basket or opened at the one level to allow more destructive/constructive bids at the 2 level. Sean

Pass for me also Sean

Directing on BBO should be much easier than in real life. There are no leads out of turn, and then in turn no penalty cards. However, there are problems with tempo. It is sometimes hard to work out who is slow and therefore who a penalty should go to, especially when both pairs claim the opposition is slow. Unauthorised information is also lessened to some degree. Quick bids and slow bids are still a common problem in face to face bridge and online bridge. If I am thinking I usually cover it up with "sorry, lagged". Sean

You can actually place a lot of the high cards when RHO (formerly known as LHO in the bidding) plays ♠K. You now know a fair bit about the ♥ suit from the bidding and opening lead. Why didn't the opening leader lead his partner's suit? Why weren't ♥s lead to take those quick tricks? We probably now know that leftie does not have ♥KQJxx or QJ10xx. We can probably assume also that rightie does not have 4♥, they would probably have made a TO double of 1NT showing those 4♥s. Hrm, don't know where I am going with this since it is nearly 6am :ph34r: Sean

Personally I like Acol. Many people are afraid to try it because you can go for numbers when 1NT gets doubled. However, 1NT is a good pre-empt in many auctions. People that wimp out and play strong NT with 4 card suits lose most of the advantages that Acol has. Acol would be a more widely accepted system if it was invented on the other side of the Atlantic. Another however... Acol has not done well in international competition. There are defensive measures against any system. Sean