JRG

Having also embarrassed myself, once or twice quite badly, I am paranoid over this problem. I notice that it happens quite regularly on BBO - people seem to be apologizing a lot. One suggestion I have made in the past, is that the "default" target for chat should be the previous target. So for example, if I sent a chat message to the table as my last chat message, just typing would direct the chat to the table; if I last sent a private chat message to X, then the default would be to send it to X again; similarly with chat to kibitzers, etc.

I first read about the Alcatraz Coup in a humorous bridge article. By saying it was "cute", I in no way meant to imply I approved. On the contrary, when I read the article it was obviously cheating -- but that was the setting, a bunch of convicts playing bridge and what do convicts do, but cheat?

I know about the Alcatraz Coup (cute). However, the question is real one and one the average director may have trouble with. Let me give you a different example. There is apparently a site that directors can visit that discusses issues on interpretation of the Laws. My example was not the one that triggered the discussion that answered the question (that I am about to tell you of), but the Chief Director for the Central America and Carribean Bridge Federation was checking the site to see if there was a resolution of the problem (it was a friendly, private team game and I was playing with him). OK. RHO leads the Queen of Spades out of turn. I chose not to accept the lead (and in fact forbade a spade lead). Now regardless of whether I had forbidden or demanded a spade lead, or allowed LHO to lead anything, the question is, "Is knowledge that RHO holds the QUEEN of Spades unauthorized information?". It turns out, EVEN IF THE QUEEN OF SPADES is a penalty card, LHO is to treat knowledge of the Queen of Spades as U.I. Suppose he held J-10-8-x of spades and is going to lead it. Then since leading the Jack is a reasonable alternative, he is not allowed to lead the x. So, back to my original question. What rules should apply to opponents who have learnt about a card declarer holds because they corrected a revoke? I think it is a difficult question, because surely it depends on the level of the game. If declarer is reasonably experienced, he KNEW an opponent had revoked (because he can count to 13) and chose not to ask the opponent to correct it (presumably that means he was attempting to take advantage of the infraction). On the other hand, many beginners, and even intermediates, do not count all the suits.

Actually, I think it is worse than that. If you fail to call the director, you forfeit your rights (I've certainly heard that ruling in a club game). So, now I understand why there is so much controversy and problems interpreting the Laws. I gather from following your link that: When declarer played to the next trick, but before LHO played, RHO was allowed to correct the revoke but the attempted diamond discard becomes a penalty card. So what redress does declarer have, having led to the next trick, if the corrected revoke means the opponent has won the trick. Despite the penalty for the opponent's exposed card, he has shown opponents a card they have no right to know about.

Boy, a lot of posts to this thread while I was writing mine!! I notice that many of the posters have been involved in one way or another with software development (that includes me - I worked for research and development companies, also for "systems integrators", and as an independent consultant). The one thing that most organizations try to do, and should do, is not to fall for the "Not Invented Here Syndrome". You don't develop a system like this from scratch - the risks are too high and the timeframe too large. You go out and throw some obscene amount of money at a Fred Gittelman and buy his system as a starting point.

Very interesting! You touched on several issues that I suspect may slow, or even prevent, the ACBL's adoption of the Internet as a means of conducting bridge games. I think there are also some additional factors. - Without actual monitoring of players, it is virtually impossible to prevent cheating (e.g. use a cellular telephone to talk to partner, have a friend kibitz your table and talk to you via telephone, chat, etc.). - Creators of existing online sites have a vested interest in maintaining their current model. They will only become vendors of commodity servers if made to do so by external forces. I'm sure the OK Bridge owners like the income they make. - We shouldn't underestimate the value of socializing face-to-face. I personally play once or twice a week live, rather than online, because I enjoy meeting the people (but to be fair, the size (3 & 1/2 tables the last time I played - virtually ensuring a random result) and quality of the game may drive me away). - The ACBL is not the only bridge organization in the world. I suspect that other bridge organizations would resist, quite strenously, an attempt by the ACBL to "take over the world". On the other hand, I think your proposal solves the horrible problem of top level events (team trials, Bermuda Bowl, etc.). The mucking with screens, trays, hesitations, alerts, etc., could more or less be solved.

You posted this is two different places. This is a question of the Laws. I'm not a director, but I believe when a card is played to the next trick, the revoke becomes established; however, I'm not sure whether the offending side has to play to the next trick or, as in this case, anyone playing to the next trick establishes the revoke.

I don't think this is a matter of opinion, but of "The Laws". I'm not a director and haven't memorized the Laws. I believe that when south plays to the 8th trick, the revoke is established. That is, one cannot "Undo".

Hmmm. Curious. You are perfectly correct. Strange - I tested this on a random web page and it enlarged all the text. Presumably something funny about how the text is being displayed.

The other solution is to use a Macintosh! I use a Powerbook with Apple's Safari as my primary browser. I just click <command>+ as many times as I like and it increases the font size (not surprisingly, <command>- decreases it). If you are stuck with Windows and use Internet Explorer, you can choose "Text Size" from the "View" menu and increase the font size.

Interesting discussion. I agree with the comments about playing online. Don't take inferences from hesitations -- they often aren't. On the other hand, playing live at the local club is a different story. When I lived in Toronto, I played at the same club that Fred Gitelman and Geoff Hampson did. If there was a hesitation that potentially conveyed unauthorized information, we called the director. However, I now live in Costa Rica and the level of play and understanding of the ethics of the game is on a different, lower plateau - unfortunately. So, I grit my teeth and try to ignore it - I go to socialize. Interestingly, I don't think I've had a hesitation that was meant to deceive me -- most are "honest" -- "ummm, I don't know whether to bid on or not, I'd like to, but I can't think of an excuse" sort of thing. Or, "Hmmm, did I leave my cell phone in the car...".

I've just been playing with it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I haven't quite narrowed it down. The first time it didn't work, I selected all the text and used <Backspace> to delete it. It looked like the text had gone, but when I checked the user's profile, my comment was still appended. I'll try and figure more out and if I do, I'll pass it on to BBO as a bug report.

I think there are two different issues here: 1. Allowing friends to kibitz an otherwise invisible table. 2. Teaching table.

When the Host sets up a table, or uses the TABLE button to change the table options, he can enter text into the text field labelled, "Description of table (optional)". If there is text there, it shows up in the table's profile. You can see it by moving the mouse pointer over the Host's name when you are viewing a list of tables (in the Main Bridge Club or any of the other Bridge Clubs). If you keep the description short, it will be equivalent to a "name" or "title". The only catch is you cannot see it at a glance, you have to move the mouse pointer.

To chat (bring up a chat dialog, set appropriately) <Ctrl>+R chat to the last person who sent you a private chat ("Reply") <Ctrl>+L chat to the Lobby, and <Ctrl>+K chat to the Kibitzers (spectators) ========================== Assuming you are playing: <Ctrl>+C brings up the Claim dialog <Ctrl>+U requests an Undo ========================== <Ctrl>+T brings up the table options <Ctrl>+B is the same as the Back button

A little mnemonic for you. If you are sitting south (or outdoors, looking north), then the correct orientation of the left and right directions spells the English pronoun, "We". So, West is to the left and East is to the right.

Kami, I misunderstood your original post. I thought you were using "4" to mean "for"! Sorry. Funny though, about 4-button mice, I still prefer the Apple one-button mouse. But then again, maybe I'm just wierd. I hadn't come across 4-button mice under Unix, though most of my Unix experience was HP (HP-UX) which used a 3-button mouse and a little bit of Sun (though using a PC with an X-Term). Anyway, Fred seems to have come up with a fix that will resolve the problem.

I have no idea whether it is optimum or not. My long-time partner and I play these as what we call "Splimit", which may be the same as "MiniSplinter" -- a limit raise based on the shortness as part of the values. We play, over Majors only, jumpshift = Splimit and normal Splinters (i.e. one more than jumpshift). Someone explained another interesting approach that sounds like it has some merit (although Shep has good arguments that splinters should show precisely a singleton): Slightly different depending on whether the 1M is hearts or spades. 1S - 3NT shows undisclosed singleton; 4!C asks; D & H show that one; S shows club. - 3x=Splimit - 4x=void 1H - 2S, 3C, 3D = Splimit - 3S = undisclosed singleton; 3NT asks; C & D show that, H shows S - 3NT=spade void - 4C, 4D = void My only problem with it (thinking about it, I've only played it once) is that I have a lousy memory, despite the sequences being logical. In the minors: Preemptive jumpshifts in the Majors; jumpshift in the other minor=limit raise; single raise=game-force; jump raise=preempt (i.e. a form of Inverted Raises with Criss-cross).

Oh, I forgot. I guess Maureen spilled the beans on who did the Help. I'd appreciate keeping that information to this forum. I did it, and am supporting it, purely as my way of paying Fred and BBO for the wonderful facility they have provided. I think they deserve all the credit and I don't want to lessen that in any way. I use BBO mainly for Vugraph and to keep in contact with my bridge partner and friend of over 20 years. I moved to Costa Rica in September last year and he was left behind in Toronto, Canada.

Several things: I didn't know about the use of <Esc>. Does it force chat to use a chat pane, or does it just clear all the chat bubbles that are being displayed? I'll add this to the Help once I know (I haven't used chat bubbles since... damn, so long ago I can't remember!). Actually, don't bother answering, I'll just try it out and find out. I'll add an index entry for "Direction". Any constructive criticisms of the Help, including suggestions for enhancements, would be appreciated. One suggestion forwarded to me by the Support group is to add a Glossary of Bridge and Chat terms. I'm playing with it, but am not sure whether it is the right thing for the Help system. Plus, I don't like the idea of duplicating material readily available elsewhere - I am bouncing the idea off Fred & company, of a link to an existing web site that has definitions of bridge terms and then only including things like "kibitz" and chat acronyms. Feedback on the above would be appreciated (include glossary, don't bother, etc.). Oh, and for those that are curious, you can check out the Help and learn all about Tournaments. I uploaded the Help for the new release last Sunday/Monday. You can get a preview (head start?) on Tournament support.

I'm curious. Why would one ever set their computer so that when a mouse button is clicked (i.e. single-click), it acts as if it had been double-clicked? Don't you get applications launched twice if you click in the application launcher? ... and other funny behaviour? Double-clicking is simply two single-clicks, close together. How close they have to be to be considered a "double-click" can be set in the software. Seems to me that a setting that says emit two single clicks close together everytime I click a mouse button is corrupting the interface. By the way, the BBO software has been carefully designed so that it is NEVER necessary to double-click!!!

Hmmm. Talking to yourself again? Despite your playing Devil's Advocate with your own question, I think it is true that Logic, Visualization, and Emotion play a very large role in successful bridge. Keeping one's emotions under control is important. It is one of my failings that emotion often clouds my ability to use logic and to visualize. By the way, I think "logic" and "visualization" are very similar (is visualization simply some kind of "intuitive logic"?). Logic comes into play in the bidding and play - what does partner hold for his bids? what does an opponent have for his? How are the cards distributed? and so on. Visualization - it seems obvious, given some of the exploits of top bridge players, that some people can visualize a hand (sometimes even during the bidding) much better than others. These people are superior bridge players. Emotion? Well, as I mentioned, I don't have that control to the degree I would like and I know it affects my results - overbidding when an opponent preempts is a good example. That is one I see all the time when kibitzing. I suppose the handmaiden of emotion is psychology. It seems to me that psychology, perhaps "playing on people's emotions", plays a large role in bridge.

A expert bridge player friend of mine (now deceased) said of the Unusual NT, that you should not make the bid unless you believe there is a reasonably good chance that you will buy the hand. Regarding what sort of hand to make the bid on, he said that you should not make the bid unless you are willing to have partner bid at the 5-level with doubleton king in one of your suits and tripleton queen in the other. If you don't want him to jump to the 5-level, then don't make the Unusual NT bid.

I had a friend, Paul "The Whale" Heitner, who was a true expert (won the Life Masters Pairs with John Lowenthal). In the few years before he died, he played with Richard Colker. I seem to remember (but not positive), that they led 3rd & 5th vs suits & 4th best vs NT. They played UDCA. Paul was one of the founders of The Journal magazine that was absorbed by Bridge World. He was part of the group that published articles on what became known, for obvious reasons, as "Journalist Leads". What I do remember very well, from kibitzing them (Paul H. & John L.) in tournament play was their announcement, "We lead small from two small, on opening lead and when leading through declarer". Something more for you to analyze. Maybe someone wants to write an e-mail to Rich and ask him the reasons?

Quoting from my favourite reference on this topic (Defensive Signals by Marshall Miles): Upside down signals only apply the first time the suit is played. Suppose partner leads a heart and you hold A852. You win the ace and, if you return the suit, you should lead the deuce. You would also return the deuce from A86542. The basic philosophy is to treat four and six card suits the same way, just as you treat three and five card suits the same way. Suppose you win the ace but shift to another suit. The next time the heart suit is played, you should play the deuce - the same card you wouild lead. This is called "present count." With an odd number of cards left, you play your lowest card. Suppose partner leads low from K10xxx, dummy has two small, you have AJx or AQx. If you win the ace and return your small card or follow suit later with your low card, you will block the suit. So, the correct play is your remaining honor. This is standard present count, as distinguished from upside down present count. It is not practical to play upside down present count.