JRG

Someone else commented on "flighted events" and being liked by old-timers. I think I probably count as an old-timer (gave up bridge for about 12 - 15 years before starting to play again - family, job, getting a university degree part-time, trying to start a business...). Anyway, when I first encountered flighted events, I HATED them. I dislike playing against a pair without having a clue as to their bridge ability. I still dislike flighted events. In a similar vein, I've never really understood the point of "Seniors Games". If it is to create an event for people whose mental capabilities are declining, then it is condescending and an insult. I've played against Canadian world-class players of yesteryear - Bruce Elliot, Percy Sheardown, Eric Murry, Sammy Kehela... They are quite capable of removing your undershirt before you realize your tie is crooked. A name that is probably familiar to more people (I never had a chance to play against him), is the late Oswald Jacoby. Cheers,

Sometimes the hand belongs to the opponents. Tough. Just because one of the opponents "only" overcalled and the other took a preemptive action, doesn't mean it is your hand. If it is your hand, your partner will not pass out 3D.

I LIKE that!!! A great addition to the jargon.

Hi Gigi, But here is a hint... many of the bridge library things can be found on the BBO homepage in html format which you can easily save from your browser. For instance, Fred's improving 2/1 article can be found there along with many other excellent articles. The article site is. http://www.bridgebase.com/articles/index.html Thank you. I never took the time to find this and am grateful you did!

Inquiry's response was very good. Note that if you have the "Notify when friends login" (or whatever it is called) checked in your profile, you still get chat bubbles. Also, you need a screen resolution of at least 640 x 480 (which most people now have, but perhaps not if you have an older computer). Maureen's point about directors is important. They can be VERY busy people.

I've only played in a very small number of tournaments, but have tried doing the following (and it seems to work): Send a private chat message to my partner saying, "I'm setting up a chat room, please join me to discuss bidding and signalling"). I set up a chat room and make it invisible, with my partner as one of the people invited (otherwise he or she cannot see the chat room to join it). It seems to work quite well. Since we are in a chat room, that is the default destination for chat messages, so it is not necessary to keep choosing the person the messages are to go to (or use <Ctrl>+R). Also, there is not the confusing lobby or event chat mixed in with our conversation. We get yanked out as soon as the tournament starts, so we can simply ignore the upcoming tournament and chat away until --- whoops, now sitting at the table!

I remember, perhaps somewhat vaguely, the article about "seven shuffles". Perhaps because my first run at university was in the maths and sciences and I have always retained an interest in the mathematical. Anyway, as I remember it, the study was that based on the kind of physical "shuffle" of the deck that most people do, it would take a MINIMUM of seven such shuffles to create (more or less) random deals. I took this sufficiently to heart, that I often count how many times I'm shuffling when playing face-to-face (riffle ("one"), riffle ("two")...). I have got into the habit of (not sure of the name - "riffle"? -, but split the deck into roughly equal parts and then run thumbs along a corner of two halves, mixing the two parts together and then squaring up the deck) a couple of times and then shuffling a couple of times (i.e. take about 7/8 of deck off bottom in one hand, slide about 1/8th or so onto top of pile in other hand, repeat until whole deck back together). I do this until I've riffled the deck 7 times (which is more than what the formal mathematical study came up with). Why the explanation? Well, this takes a bit of time (not much more than most players take, because I have fair dexterity and shuffle and deal quite fast), so I have time to watch the other players at the table shuffling the other boards (shuffling doesn't really require looking at my hands). I've noticed that "most" (i.e. a subjective "most") people only shuffle the deck about 3 or 4 times. So I suspect (as I seem to remember the original article stated), that most bridge deals are not really "randomly" dealt. ...and most hands appear to be fairly "flat" (more so than seems (again subjectively) statistically correct). For what it is worth!

Many thanks for your post. I was always curious about your picture, but a bit reluctant to ask (possibly an erroneous politeness). I was born in England, moved with my parents to South Africa when about 7 years old and a year later to Canada, where I lived until a year ago (I'm 57 now). About a year ago (i.e. last September) my wife and I moved to Costa Rica which is now home. It's a Spanish speaking country and we are still struggling, despite months of (very good) lessons in the language that ended about a year before we moved (the hiatus is undoubtedly part of the reason we are still struggling). My best friend is a bit of an adventurer, having taken "sabaticals" (well not from academia, but very extended vacations of several months) to travel (mainly on foot, hitchhiking and buses) in various parts of the world. I admire someone who has made the effort to find out, first hand, about the world and its diverse culture. WELL DONE. Cheers,

Thank you for the thread: both the questions and the answers. I will update the Online Help when I return to Costa Rica (I don't really have access to my computing resources here in Canada where I am visiting). Regards...

Have you ever been caught by the Sominex Coup? That's an example of something that is unethical. I am a very strong believer in being ethical. I'm also one of what seems to be a minority -- I'm not sure of the difference between "being ethical" and "active ethics". For example: Suppose if, after we see the results posted and check our scores, we see that there was an error in the score. We then go to the director and point it out. As a result we come third instead of first and some other pair comes first. Letters to the editor of The Bulletin appear to laud this as "active ethics". I on the other hand simply believe that failing to report the error is simply unethical. Since I seem to have been able to get people to post to this thread, I have another question: Is it all right to break the laws of bridge in the name of active ethics? I ask this because there have been laudatory letters to the editor of The Bulletin in which the act of "active ethics" broke the law. Example (not sure if this was one of the ones reported): Nervous defender pulls card out of hand and plays it. Declarer is pretty sure it is revoke and asks player if he really has none of the suit. Whoops, yes I do. OK play one. What about the card I played? Well, just pick it up and lets play on. (This may have been discussed in The Bridge World as well.) The laws say this is wrong. For what it is worth (blush), I have done the above up at the bridge club in Canada (usually when playing against new-comers or pairs I know are beginners). Yes, I know it is against the laws; hence some of my curiousity about members opinions. I don't think it is as easy question to answer as one might think.

Actually, if I remember this discussion (or a similar discussion... in bridgeworld), there was a split of opinion on this kind of action. One view dealt with condition contest, and you "owe" it to your partner and team-mates to do what ever you can to win within the laws and rule contest. The other view agreed with Ron. I also agree with Ron. Playing like this with this in mind is not in agreement with "active ethics" or just plain normal ethics. But I also agree with the view that claiming as soon as you can causes more headaches than it is worth. I claim as soon as it is prudent to do so. Prudent depends upon the ability and temperment of your opponents... among friends I claim real quick... It was a similar discussion, not the same one. I gave away my collection of Bridge Worlds when I moved to Costa Rica, so I cannot look up the specific article.

Actually, I think you expressed my feelings on the subject very well. The reason I made my last post is that it is NOT unethical if you do not claim when you can. It also seems to me that everyone is glossing over a significant statement I made that (at least in my mind) proves the point: If you always claim whenever you can, you are giving the opponents an advantage they are not entitled to. You are telling them, indirectly by not claiming, that whenever you are playing the hand out, you have a problem.

Actually it is far from unethical. And contrary to your statement that if you can claim, you should claim, I would say that is completely wrong. There is absolutely nothing in the laws of bridge requiring a person to claim and claiming, as even world class players have found to their chagrin, can be fraught with peril. The first reason for not claiming, as you implied, is: Claiming is simply an expedient way of speeding the game up. If it is not going to speed the game up, because the opponents cannot understand the claim, then claiming is not only pointless, but counter-productive. The other reasons are more subtle. By the way, if you watched it on BBO, in one of the recent Team Trials, the commentators remarked on one of the Brazilian players "playing mind games" with his opponent (declarer) by deliberately underleading an Ace "to prove he could do it" (declarer had, some hands previously, gone down in a contract because he had thought this player had underled an Ace in an attempt to fool him). There was no discussion of this being unethical or against the laws of bridge. [Clearly it is not: It was simply the play of the card that was deceptive, not the manner in which it was played.] Similarly, I'm sure I remember a discussion in The Bridge World of "world class" players playing out hands on which they could have claimed, because the defending opponents then had to waste mental energy trying to figure out what the problem on the hand was (when there wasn't one). If you think a little bit about it, it is, in fact, WRONG to claim all the time -- you are then handing the opponents free information when you don't claim. You are in effect saying, I haven't claimed, I've got a problem on this hand and could go down. The method I am willing to take is simple - when everyone can see dummy is high and there is no point in playing out the hand, I claim; if dummy is not high and there might be (or might not be) doubt about the outcome, I don't claim. [i must be honest: I often do claim when some of the winning tricks are in my hand and the others in dummy. But nevertheless, I think the guideline I stated is a useful one for declarers who get nervous or flustered when their claims are questioned.]

Just a couple of comments. The biggest problem I have with most claims, and I suspect it is the biggest problem in general, is that a lot of people "claim" without stating their line of play. When a person makes a claim, he (or she) is supposed to state how they would play the rest of the hand. If a line of play is not stated, then there are some assumptions. The following are based on my recollection and are not guaranteed to be exact. Example 1: If you do not state you are going to pull trumps, then you are presumed to have thought they were all out and, I believe, it is presumed you would not lead trumps but would obviously overruff if an opponent ruffed in with an outstanding trump and you could overruff (except, if you said, for example, "I'll throw my losing diamond on the long club", then that is what you have to do, even if an opponent ruffs it). Example 2: If you do not state that you were going to take a finesse, then your line of play is presumed not to take a finesse unless, or until, it is "proven". The other point is important to online bridge. When the person who is claiming has stated the line of play, that is the line of play the person MUST take. The opponent(s) of the claimer are allowed to play double-dummy, because a claim is essentially stating that the claimer can take the number of tricks claimed REGARDLESS of the opponent(s) play. When playing live, I often claim according to a personal rule told me by an expert friend (a past winner of the Life Masters Pairs; assistant to a coach of an American World Championship team). He said that it got to the point where he only claimed after pulling trump (if in a suit contract) and then playing so that dummy was high. He then claimed on the trick on which he crossed to dummy.

As Mycroft pointed out, under the laws, play is meant to cease when a claim is made. Play does not continue if the claim is rejected but must be adjudicated. Since that is not practical for online bridge, I think the way BBO has it set up is perfectly fine. One problem with what you suggest is that if a person makes an invalid claim, that person should NOT be able to gain an advantage if the claim is rejected; that is, be able to say to themself, "Ummm, I wonder why the opponents rejected my claim? Let's see, I ruffed once and pulled two rounds of trumps... No wait a minute, one of them showed out on the second round of trumps, there's one still out, I forgot all about that..."

When declarer makes a claim, the opponents get to see all the hands (and thus to judge if the claim is valid or not). The hands are not "covered up" if the claim is rejected. The declarer who has made the claim does not get to see all the hands. Similarly, if a defender makes a claim, declarer gets to see all the hands (but not the claiming defender's partner).

Sort of a variation on the Alcatraz Coup!

I took a look. That is a nice site. Thank you for passing it on.

I'm not fond of it either. I've been putting up with it because, despite the HUGE fonts, the worst offender frequently has something quite interesting to say and contribute. It strikes me that it might be painful to filter out only the font size changes -- some software would have to parse the postings (I realize that is being done already, but the code may not be easily accessible).

That sounds like a good idea to me. Are there any obvious drawbacks? (Example: Danger that club "owners" will stop using the built-in News facility on BBO.)

There is still the problem of BBO Hosts (Yellows), whose chat to the lobby always comes through. I'd like to see Yellows' chat be identical to everyone else's, EXCEPT that they would have a "Broadcast" item in their "Chat to" list.

I think that understates the problem on the hand. There are a lot of things that can go wrong. For example: Suppose West wins and puts a heart through dummy. Now you are in danger of losing two heart tricks - assuming West has a doubleton club for his switch, you cannot get a quick pitch on dummy's clubs because West will ruff with a small trump. Or suppose East wins the spade and simply returns another club. Now if your lead of a small trump to the 10 loses, back comes a third club (yes, you will probably survive by ruffing high). One thing for sure, attempting to get to dummy to finesse trumps is fraught with danger. I haven't tried to work everything out, but I'd be tempted to win the club, in my hand of course, cash the Ace of diamonds and then try overtaking my remaining club honour and pitching my remaining spade on dummy's remaining club honour. That gives me various extra chances - I'm trading a spade loser for a trump (but West might have doubleton King of diamonds, I might catch the stiff King of diamonds and then be able to pull trump and get rid of both my losing spade and extra small heart, I can still try leading up to the heart honours, with a club ruff return to my hand to do it twice, who knows?).

There is an interesting fact that I try to keep in mind: 12-13 HCP opposite 12-13 HCP makes 3NT very often (assuming suitable hand patterns). A balanced 24 to 25 HCP opposite zero usually fails to 9 tricks and can even go down in 2NT. The point is that opposite 4 HCP (an Ace), you are less likely to be able to make 3NT than if the points were more evenly split. One of the reasons is that you have virtually no communications between the hands - you can cross to dummy once. Also, the 4-4-3-2 hand has no real source of long-suit tricks. So, I'm not surprised that 3NT goes down. I don't think I would have raised 2NT to 3 (but it is certainly tempting).

I have never understood the auction, though I have encountered it: 1NT - Pass - 2D - Pass 2H - Pass - Pass - 2S Pass - Pass - 2NT ... Presumably the 2NT bidder's auction shows a hand that does not expect to make game (he originally passed 2H). So what does this 2NT bid show? If it is an expectation of making 2NT, then what are the odds of the opponent making 2S? If I expect partner to take 8 tricks in NT on a spade lead, then I think I'd rather try for 6 or 7 tricks on defense against a spade contract -- doubled of course.

I'm one of the "Don't Know"s. I have mixed feelings about having so many labels attached to players' names. We already have colour coding being somewhat overloaded (Friends-Neutral-Enemies) and (Star players). The icons help, but we have (Table host) and (Friend-Enemy) and (Star player). One concern I have is that I'm reluctant to label someone as an embassador based, in a large part, on his or her attendance record. Perhaps we should have an "addiction" rating? (That's tongue-in-cheek.) Despite my comment, I like the way BBO has been evolving and look forward to useful additions. My hope is that the interface stays reasonably clean and simple. I like software that is easy to use and doesn't get in the way of its real purpose (in this case, to play bridge).