JRG

I'm with Inquiry on this one - as suggested by my previous post. Yes, NT may turn out to be the best contract, in which case not giving the opponents extra information about the hand may be advantageous. HOWEVER, I dislike intensely going down in what could be a silly 3NT contract when I may make two, or even three, more tricks in spades (by ruffing the hearts they cash against me in NT. While notrump-itis looks like it tends to gain, this is too much for me! Cheers John

For what it is worth, many years ago in the time of Goren and the kind of Acol I played then, I learnt: - With (4-4-4-1) shape "open the suit below the singleton" So with 4-1-4-4, open 1 diamond. By the way, why would you ever want to rebid 2C and not 1S? Surely there is nothing wrong with: 1D - 1H 1S If partner now bids 1NT you can bid clubs, completing the description of your hand pattern. A friend of mine, the late Paul "The Whale" Heitner, who was a theoretician as well as expert bridge player, was absolutely convinced that showing hand pattern was more important than showing HCP (of course, being able to show both would be best!). (4-4-4-1) hand patterns can be difficult to bid, which is undoubtedly why the Roman, Neapolitan, and Blue Team Club systems had opening bids dedicated to this specific hand pattern. If I remember correctly, The Roman Club system opened 2C on a (4-4-4-1) or (5-4-4-0) with one point count range and 2D on a different (higher) point count range. I respect 2over1, but I'm in the camp that says reversing shows the first suit is longer than the second.

Smith signals - a signal used against notrump contracts where while following suit to declearers next lead (if possible to play a spot card), each defender signals: hi-lo = likes the opening lead: lo-hi = doesn't like the lead ===== Actually no, that's not quite accurate. That is what partner of the opening leader does: echos to show he has more in the suit than opening leader has a right to expect. Opening leader, on the other hand, supposed likes the suit he led -- otherwise why did he lead it? So, when opening leader plays an unnecessarily high card, he is sending a WARNING: he wants to suggest that if partner gets the lead, he consider leading some other suit (i.e. not the one of the opening lead).

Just a comment on the first hand. Yes you expect to make game on this hand; no, I would not open it 2C. A 2C bid guarantees defensive strength (or does in any partnership I've played in). So, my preference is NAMYATS (open the hand 4C to show a GOOD 4H bid) or, lacking that convention, I would open it 4H. For what it's worth.

From my old Acol and SA (Goren?) days, I concur with 2over1. Once opener limits his hand with a 1NT or minimum rebid in his original suit, a non-reverse or non jump-shift bid by responder was not forcing. In fact, the way we played Acol, a minimum rebid by opener was a flashing warning sign: it was almost certain that he would pass the new suit response unless he took preference.

I'm with the 1C 1D 1S 2S bidders. Yes, many years ago I played Acol, but even then I would not have dreamt of passing.

I like your idea of a "Table is Closing" status. Usually when I play, we have set up a foursome and play for 2-1/2 to 3 hours. Then when our session ends, we chat a bit as first one player leaves, then the next, and finally the last two. As you pointed out, it is embarassing to reject players or, even worse - as happens, have someone join the table and then we all leave. Sure we could use a chatroom instead of hanging around at the table, but this is just a few minutes chat to set up next week's session or say goodbyes.

Caveat: I have not seen a formal write-up of SAYC. I was under the impression that SAYC was an ACBL mandated convention card that limited the allowed conventions to a minimum of popular ones (e.g. Stayman, Jacoby Transfers, Blackwood (maybe RKCB)). In which case, like 2over1, I understood none of the sequences in the original post to be forcing. My understanding of the 2/1 bidder promising a rebid is "The 2/1 bidder promises a rebid if opener bids a new suit". If opener makes a minimum rebid in his suit, makes a minimum raise of responder's suit, or makes a minimum rebid in NT, it is not forcing.

You could try my solution. I reserve the seat for "reserved" (hope there is nobody with that Id!!!). Then when seated player chooses a partner, I change the reservation.

Your description of how "Alerts" work on the Zone sounds wonderful, but I have a couple of questions: 1) How well does it work? For example, if I bid 2diamonds "in competition", it has different meanings depending on the opening (Brozel over a 1NT opening; Modified Michaels over a 1 diamond opening; preemptive over a 1club opening; natural and about an opening bid over a major suit opening). There are other similar examples (some people play different defenses over weak and strong notrump, and in the direct seat versus in the passout position; many pairs play different defenses versus a strong 1 club opening versus a "natural" 1 club opening, and so on). 2) Assuming that the above is handled (I'm a programmer so, yes, I know it CAN be handled, but it probably is not trivial), how much effort is required in filling out the convention card so it will work? How complicated is it?

Personally, what I'd like to see is that when you click on ALERT in the bidding box (before selecting the level and strain), that the alert dialog box pops up and you could type in the short explanation. Then when you have made the bid, it is highlighted AND the explanation is already available. I find it frustrating to alert a bid, then have to click on it to type in the explanation. I find that while I'm typing in the explanation, opponents (often BOTH), click on the bid. The way the software works, I have half the explanation typed in and my dialog box changes and I have to start typing all over again. I think a simple form would be a good idea, but I'd be happy with the above.

Strikes me that if (a) you have never played against a particular pair before or (b) (like me) your memory is so lousy you wouldn't remember the pair if your brother was part of it, that it takes at least one board just to get to know their skill level and how aggressive they are. If playing in a tournament, it may be much more important to exact penalties against silly contracts; if you have no idea of the skill level of the opponents, you have no idea whether or not you can trust their bidding (and play). I find I get a bit of a feel for the opponents after a couple of boards; but one board?

It seems funny (maybe you are making this up to pull our legs?), but seriously: I'm not a director and haven't looked this up in the Laws, but it seems clear that the person who bid 1C for the second time is, at a minimum, in breach of the proprieties. If allowed under the Laws, I'd give the offenders an average minus and a procedural penalty. The second time 1C was bid it was not an accident, but deliberate. Oh, by the way, presumably they were not using bidding boxes. If they were, then there is proof that the second 1C bid was deliberate. I'd warn the players (offenders) that this time I considered it a joke, but a future occurence would cause me to bar them from the club.

[Personal Opinion] I think suggesting that companies like Intel promote "standards" with the purpose of promoting the sale of complementary products, is understating the lack of altruism. I have some very strong impressions about many of the computer software and hardware standards. One is that the standards, not surprisingly, replace existing disparate ways of doing something; but funnily enough, the companies promoting the "standardization" always seem to arrive at a standard that is remarkably similar to their existing implementations and costly for their competitors to adhere to. This is not to say I believe standards are wrong; quite the contrary. As you have said elsewhere, changing the software model in the way you suggest, means a dramatic change to existing organizations that support online bridge. They become purveyors of commodity servers. I don't believe any of them, OKBridge, BBO, etc., are likely to want this - albeit, for different reasons. Fred is not totally altruistic in supporting BBO. He enjoys the programming and the impact on the bridge community. He doesn't hide the fact that the sale of his (and collaborative) educational bridge software provides him with the income to support BBO and that BBO is one medium that promotes the sale of his software. Having said that, I also feel very strongly that Fred is honestly trying to do something good for bridge and that via BBO he is helping to establish new paradigms for the game of bridge (playing online, broadcasting championship events,...). It doesn't surprise me that Fred is unwilling to give away what he has worked so hard to establish and, given what an excellent ambassador for bridge Fred has been, he has my support.

My answer depends on what your question was: 1) How did the subject line change? 2) Why did you change the discussion in this thread to "cheating"? If (1), then when you reply, simply type something different in the "Subject" line. I don't think one should change the subject matter of the thread, but if the posts are discussing more than one thing, I think the subject line of each post should say what is being addressed. I was addressing the issue of cheating. If (2), then I believe several of the posts raised the issue of tournaments, especially when there are awards, but even if only prestige is at stake, bringing out (encouraging ?) cheating. I find cheating distasteful, but it happens. It is part of the real world. Some of the posts discussed how cheating can be detected. I was attempting to suggest being very careful about (a) accusing someone of cheating and (b) what evidence might tend to substantiate a charge of cheating.

I agree with 2over1. I prefer to get into the auction right away (my partner tells me I don't do it enough!). However, I prefer to make weakish overcalls with shape; I pass with balanced 12 counts. Now, I don't like passing with balanced 12 counts (OK, make that a balanced 13 or 14). From what I've seen, few people do; however, bidding on a balanced 13ish seems fraught with danger. So I'd be interested in some replies that address 2over1's question directly (rather than the example hand which I would ALWAYS bid directly - I'd use Michaels, but I lack judgement ???

I only have personal experience and subjective feelings on this. My bridge partner for 20 years and I have played a 2/1 system for years now (we started out playing Power Precision, but I can't remember my own telephone number, so we were always in trouble!). We played Flannery for a couple of years and then switched to 2D being a weak two-bid. We don't have any problems with an auction going 1H-1S; 2S (or someother rebid). I can't recall (but remember the caveat about my terrific memory) missing a 5-3 spade fit in a constructive auction, so we never saw the benefit of responder to 1H having to have 5 spades to bid 1 spade. Accordingly, we never had that agreement as part of our use of Flannery. There is a valid argument that in a 2/1 system, Flannery gets rid of the need to rebid 2C on a two-card suit after a forcing 1NT. The reality - I cannot remember EVER having to do this (even though it is part of the system). While this is subjective, the bid must be VERY rare.

This issue came up at a local club, one of the biggest in North America, when I was living in Canada. It struck me, after we'd had an insufficient bid, that we could ALTER our agreements to take advantage of the extra bidding space. Discussion with the (knowledgeable) director indicated that this is illegal under ACBL rules (as pointed out by another poster). However, you are allowed to try things and hope partner catches on. I remember one time this happening when I was playing with my wife and there was an insufficient bid. I suggested she should have "raised" my suit (i.e. accepted the insufficient bid and raised my suit by making the same bid I had just made), this would have allowed us another level of bidding for cuebids. However, my regular bridge partner raised the old question: at what point do these "make it up on the fly" auctions become, in fact, agreements. Probably sufficiently quickly that doing anything that is not a normal part of your bidding system (i.e. applies without insufficient bids) is essentially illegal. One of the nice things about BBO is that one cannot make an insufficient bid. I never did know how to make the best choice and settled on ALWAYS rejecting the insufficient bid - if I can't take advantage of it, I'm damned if I'm going to allow the opponent to. There is another catch though: The laws get tricky when it comes to unauthorized information and insufficient bids OFTEN (maybe most of the time), convey unauthorized information. This is the part that upsets me. There are some clear cut instances that the director usually makes an appropriate ruling on. For example, suppose the insufficient bid were 1C over partner's 1NT opening. Then the correction to 2C is Stayman!!! (And, of course, there is incredible UA as the 1NT bidder now knows partner would have opened the bidding). But suppose an opponent makes an insufficient bid when overcalling? There is still UA when it is corrected to the appropriate level - or at least I believe there is. I've never actually asked for "protection", but I'm positive I've been damaged by it. Oh well, good thing I play this game for the enjoyment.

Cheating - an interesting and yet unpleasant topic. I haven't played as much online as I think most BBO members; I've probably kibitzed just as much as I've played. I've not played against many players (maybe 2) who I suspected were cheating; however, when kibitzing, I've seen several that I was almost certain were cheating. Interestingly enough, one player I was sure was cheating then got into a ridiculous contract and butchered it badly -- so we should be VERY, VERY careful about raising suspicions of cheating. Even bad bids and plays sometimes come up smelling of roses. And, good players make sleepy plays or have "golden moments".

Where did "Convention Card or Alert" come up? I haven't seen it (although I only played in a couple of test tournaments, so I may be missing something). To the best of my knowledge, you are still required to self-alert. Clearly you should ALSO have a convention card and it would make sense for the opponents to look at it (I think you can keep it open while you are playing, so perhaps minimize it and then it can be recalled quickly).

I don't believe BBO supports the clipboard. There is no copy, cut, or paste (I've tried it in the past). You are probably right that <Ctrl>+C should be changed (for consistency with other applications); but there's no "must be", unless the BBO client is changed to support the clipboard.

The file sometimes gets left behind by accident. It is not being stored as a feature (at least not yet). So, if you find the file - you are just lucky.

I play it both ways. In my long established partnership we play it as not game-forcing. In my recently established partnership we play it as game-forcing. I also play Criss-Cross exactly the way Yzerman does (in the partnership that does plays 1D-2C as not GF). I have very mixed feelings about it. By the way, another question: Does anyone play 2/1 GF AND 4-card majors?

When you've got a wheel-mouse hold down CTRL and turn the wheel. Regards Andreas That depends on the operating system and the browser. For the browser I use on a Powerbook running MacOS X, it just causes the window to scroll.

I hope John (SkrShawk) will not mind my adding something to his thread. I've seen other people's comments about the social aspects of bridge on BBO and would like to add my own experience. I lived in Toronto, Canada for most of my life. My wife and I decided to take an early retirement and, for a variety of reasons, decided to move to another country - we chose Costa Rica. We moved here last September. One of the downsides of moving would be that I would be living away from someone who had become a very dear friend and bridge partner. We had played bridge an average of about once a week for about 20 years. I guess you could call us an established partnership! Well, you don't give up a friendship like that without a fight. So I wanted to find a way of continuing to play bridge with my friend Paul. We are both computer professionals (well, I was) and playing via computer was a natural. Prior to leaving Toronto I investigated OK Bridge and through another friend, Fred, BBO. Well BBO is a clear winner. However, it's not just the ability to continue playing bridge once a week with Paul that it has given me. I have met some lovely people from all over the world. The game of bridge transcends borders and even language barriers. Objectively I knew bridge was played all over the world, but I am not an expert player and have never participated in international competition. So it was an eye-opener to "meet", kibitz, and play with and against people from Poland, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, England, Scotland, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, the USA, India,... and a list that goes on and on. And then top-flight competition on Vugraph. I though I'd died and gone to bridge heaven! It's one thing to have read about the famous Blue Team and about Team Trials and World Championships and quite another to be able to watch such players, especially when there is expert commentary. There is a small bridge community here in Costa Rica. I'm starting to introduce some of the players to BBO. Hopefully you will start to see a few more Costa Rican flags showing up in profiles! Fred is truly a great embassador for bridge, and not just because of BBO. I am honestly proud to know him. I have had the good fortune to play against him live as well as on BBO and I know what a gentleman he is. He gives no quarter at the game, but it has always been a pleasure to meet him across the table.