JRG

ummmm can see men in Bulgaria can't afford shavers huh :( Must be true in Canada and Costa Rica as well (where I've lived)! Well actually, I do own a shaver. I just don't use it :)

Actually, Fred did publish his criteria. I'm too lazy to search for them ;) However, I believe the sole criterion is approximately: A player must have represented his or her country in international competition after having survived a qualifying event. I believe this means that a player must have been on a team that won a team trials-type of event for his or her country before being allowed to represent the country in an international event (such as the Bermuda Bowl). Now clearly this is not an absolute guarantee of being expert (I suspect I could be on a winning team for my country), though it must be pretty close. Fred used to give players he thought were "worth watching" a star, but I believe he abandoned doing so in favour of a better defined criterion. When he changed the criterion, he did not revoke stars he had already awarded. This means there are some players whose stardom people question. There are undoubtedly others who are questioned for exactly the reason I would be questioned if I had a star for representing Costa Rica.

I haven't run into much of a problem this way, though I do agree that Claus's issue is legitimate. I don't play in tournaments, but in the main bridge club. I generally only play "set games". That is, I know the players -- both my partner and the pair we are going to play against. I feel I am in agreement with Claus, because the games I get involved in generally last for 1 to 2 hours (or more). I do not want someone sitting for just 3 or 4 hands. Perhaps I have been fortunate, but quite often I have asked a player I know (always someone I have marked as a "friend"), and that person has replied, "Sorry, I'd like to play but I am about to play in a tournament. Some other time perhaps." (or a similar reply). The people I have marked as friends appear, generally, to kibitz rather than play when the tournament they are signed up for is approaching. Twiddling their thumbs does not appear to be a problem for them. The bottom line is that I agree with Claus -- people that sit for two or three hands are being rude.

I had thought the suit symbols were displayed using the Symbol font. If this is the case, check that you have it installed and that the font is not corrupted (I'm sure you can download a fresh copy from somewhere if you need to). My browser is set to "Western (ISO Latin 1)", which I assume is ISO-8859-1.

I noticed that nobody jumped in to defend cgull. Instead, most people seemed to react to his post as if it were simply criticism. I think this is incorrect (and for what it is worth, I think it comes from not reading what is written carefully). 1. He (she?) started by making a factual statement: He spent more time waiting than playing in a tournament. I'm not sure how this was measured -- perhaps using a chess clock. 2. He a statement that is possibly just his opinion (one I happen to agree with): 15 minutes is plenty of time to play two hands. 3. He stated a feeling he has: That the problem is caused by directors allowing waiting for overly slow players. 4. He suggested a solution: Set a time limit and stick to it. Instead of shooting him, why not just give a simple explanation of why he is mistaken? As have I, he has probably played face-to-face bridge in games run by a director who makes sure the game moves along and people get to leave at the appointed time. Online bridge is different. I've only played in a couple of tournaments, but I know from working on the Help and from reading lots of posts in these forums, that a BBO director's job can be very difficult. Despite not playing in tournaments, I am grateful that the volunteer directors run tournaments and add to the BBO community -- thank you!

Does this mean that the BBO client has been changed to allow copying from a chat message?

While you have a point, there is another side (other than legal). At the risk of going off on a tangent, I used to read a number of news groups on the net (this was several years ago). I stopped trying to follow unmoderated news groups fairly quickly. The reason was the signal to noise ratio. I found I simply did not have the time or patience to wade through flame wars, posts that did not add anything to a thread (my "Right on" comment from another thread here), and people asking the same questions over and over again (and the responses that kept saying RTFM or read the FAQ, or both). One news group that I followed much longer than any other was comp.risks.<something or other>. It was moderated, in fact heavily moderated. I find the BBO Forums very lightly moderated, for the most part, yet I find the noise level acceptable. That makes me think the degree of censorship must be acceptable (I'll admit you can make the point that since I don't see what is censored, how can I make such a judgement). Even if flame-wars and noise tend to die out, I don't have the patience, and don't want my time wasted, trying to wade through it. While I am saying "I don't...", my suspicion is that there are many others that feel the way I do. It seems to me that Ben and Uday tend to allow a certain amount of blowing off steam to occur, and then clamp down on threads. It's clearly censorship of a kind, but it seems reasonable to me -- a few posts establish that there is friction or a religious issue but it is stopped before it simply turns into a flame war. Also, some of the stuff posted to unmoderated news groups (and I image bulletin boards or forums) goes beyond what most people consider socially acceptable behaviour. I'm not sure what the best answer is, but clearly I prefer moderated forums.

Ouch, I thought this was already being done. I may have this already documented in the Help. Is the prescience or what? (I probably shouldn't ask this question, people are apt to reply. Hey, it's rhetorical!)

The_Hog's response is, as usual, well reasoned. I didn't get into the problem of what to do when partner reopens with a double. I agree that passing the double at the one-level is a gamble -- it might go down enough, or it might make. I also would be uncomfortable turning a reopening double into a penalty double. I also tell people that if the opponents never make a doubled contract, you are not doubling enough! So, what would you have bid (instead of passing)? I'm curious, I don't think this is an easy hand to bid.

When you make a claim, you are supposed to state your line of play. This should hold for online bridge just as much as for face-to-face bridge. If you do not state your line of play, then any doubt is meant to be resolved in the non-claimer's favour (this is generally a problem for declarer's claim - defenders seem to be more careful about claimining or conceding). The first, HUGE problem on BBO (and maybe on all online bridge sites, I don't know), is that people do NOT always make that statement. [Aside: I think that if many of the players at least thought about how to phrase their claim, they simply wouldn't make those poor claims.] Now the second problem rears its ugly head when the claim is disputed. There is no director to call (well, maybe in tournaments), so the software makes you play on. In face-to-face bridge, declarer is presumed not to do anything irrational, but if he did not state a line of play, then he is assumed to believe there are no trumps out and that he is not going to take an unproven finesse. If any line of play will cause him to have a "proven finesse", then he can take that. If an opponent ruffs, he can overruff. But playing additional rounds of trumps or taking an unproven finesse are out. [Obviously he can play trumps if he has nothing else left in one hand!]. So, how do we enforce this in the software? If we cannot, then how do we handle it? That, I believe, is why we have a problem with claims on BBO.

Every time I see a scheme of bids and responses like this I say, "Damn, I wish I had a good enough memory to play something like that!". Seriously though, without being a computer, are such complicated systems playable? I can see the professional partnerships handling something like this, but say a once-a-week steady partnership? [i guess this is the old religious question that belongs in another thread.] I play that 2!D is any hand that doesn't qualify for any other positive response (where, and I don't really like this, 2NT shows a ♥ suit). We have the usual sort of requirements for a positive response in a suit (5+ cards, honour requirements). The 2!D bid is forcing to game. If we don't have however much we think qualifies as forcing to game, we bid 2!H. This may mean we force to game on some tiny range of hands that others might consider "semi-positive". This is because a hand does not qualify for 2♥ if it contains an Ace or King. We (my longest running partnership) have debated whether two Queens is enough. I'm sure we would both make a 2♦ response on a Q-J and another Q.

I feel like I'm being wound up :rolleyes: In my partnerships this would mean "Lead your suit partner. Don't listen to the opponents, listen to me. I repeat LEAD YOUR SUIT." Having said that, though I agree basically with what Ben said, I'd bash down the ♥A. I'm making the assumption that if the ♥s are going to run, they are going to run and whether I lead small or the Ace will not make any difference. However, if that is the incorrect lead, I'm hoping that it will not be too late and that I can figure out what to do next based on the appearance of dummy and partner's signal. Basically, based on The_Hog's comments, I'm going to treat this as a gambling 3NT. Hey, forget about his comments, I feel better about bashing the ♥A all the time. Hope this is not the only lead to allow them to make it :-(

Do I know the opponents, or is this some random pair? I'd still be thinking about what to bid, nevermind what to lead! OK. I double, I admit it. I'd also lead the ♥10 (if partner had a 9-card ♥ suit and only bid 1♥, I would expect him to pull the double). Freak hands (assuming the 6♣ bidder is not insane) are terribly difficult (which you already know) -- which is why my gut instinct was to bid 6♥ (then I wouldn't be on lead, which I'm terrible at).

I thought 5♠ in a sequence like that would be a slam invitation (based on trump quality).

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sq8752ha87d10cqj108&w=sk3h9532dakq953c9&e=saj109hjdj842cak72&s=s64hkq1064d76c6543]399|300|[/hv] W - N - E - S 1♦ - 1♠ - Pass - Pass 2♦ - Pass - ? This hand came up in the BIL (I suggested someone post it - just in case they don't, here it is!!!). So here are some questions (I have my opinions, which I gave at the table), but I thought it might be an interesting hand for discussion. Playing SAYC or 2/1 (the reason for scoring being "unknown" is that it was a teaching table and I didn't suggest any method of scoring). 1) Would you pass as East when North overcalled 1♠? Some of the kibitzers questioned the pass (I suggested it was the best call). 2) Would you bid 2♦ as West? If not, what would your call be? 3) Assuming the auction went as shown, what would you bid as East? I'm particularly interested in discussion of the following options (as this is what I discussed at the table -- don't forget, this is the BIL). By the way, I suggested that any "forcing" bid by East must show ♠s as that is the only reasonable explanation of having passed. Also, that it must deny a biddable heart suit (because of the lack of a Negative Double or an immediate ♥ response). 2♠ - cue-bid: either ♦ support or any strong hand within the above constraints. 3♥ - splinter: support of ♦s 4♥ - same as above (So why bid 4♥ if it means the same thing? Should 4♥ show a void?) 5♦ - Damn, we don't play splinters, not sure what partner thinks 2♠ would mean, I want to be in game. Actually, any interesting comments about the hand would be great. For what it is worth, this is the first hand I've ever posted to the Forums!

Well it has been many, MANY, years since I played Roman Club, but we played both 2!C and 2!D showed the three-suited hands (different ranges - our 2 club opening would have been the same as your Mini-Roman). My reason for posting, though, is that I am positive the rebid after the asking response (which I also seem to remember was not 2NT but the cheapest bid - 2 diamonds over 2 clubs; 2 hearts over 2 diamonds) was the suit BELOW the singleton, not the suit of the singleton. The reason for this was so the responder could make asking bids by then bidding the suit of the singleton; with anything else being natural. I don't remember the whole structure, but I do remember we could NEVER play in opener's singleton (or void) as all bids in that suit asked something or other. My only recollection of problems with opening 2 diamonds (or 2 clubs) was that we tended to preempt our own auction as well as the opponents! [Well, I do remember we constantly got into trouble, that is got bottom boards, because one or the other of us forgot the meanings of various bids.]

Free: This has been suggested before. Either Fred or Uday (Uday I think) indicated this is on their list of things to do. So it is coming, just don't know when.

Dwingo: I suspect you are counted as a bail-out. Try and catch me when I'm online. I'd be willing to play the odd tournament with you. Also, I prefer to wait a couple of minutes (or even more), unless I am positive partner jumped ship (semi-mixed metaphor?). What I'd be willing to do if the opponents were antsy, is to call the director and suggest he give us an average minus (and opponents average plus). Seems a reasonable punishment without being unduly harsh and it would keep the event moving. Come to think of it, that might be a reasonable approach for TDs to take if a pair is holding up the game (i.e. give them an average minus and force them onto the next board).

As Free implied, what BBO currently does is about as close as practical to the spirit of face-to-face bridge. The significant difference is, of course, that in face-to-face bridge play is NOT allowed to continue after a claim (if the claim is disputed, the director must be called). That is not really practical online, so allowing play to continue is how the disputed claim is resolved. The non-claiming side gets to see all the cards when the claim is made (as in face-to-face bridge). I don't think there is any dispute over this in the other thread you referred to. The dispute is over the unauthorized information (or inference, or whatever you want to call it) the claimer gets when the claim is rejected and he has to play on. [Well, there was also some "discussion" over whether it is incumbent on someone to claim if they can do so.]

Since I don't generally play in tournaments, I suppose my opinion should not carry too much weight. Since it is clearly very disruptive when people bail from a tournament, it makes sense to take measures; however, you are right to allow a little latitude as there will, I am sure, be unintentional disconnects by people who are generally well-behaved tournament players. Just what that flexibility should be seems to be a bit of a guess. Richard's approach is a sensible one, unless someone comes up with something more logical. One reason I'd go along with it is to keep things objective and avoid straying too far towards being arbitrary. Question: Would this also apply to Team Matches, or just Tournament Events? My guess is that Team Matches would tend to be more self-policing and people that bail do not get invited back. What about applying a similar approach to such behaviour at the table? Is it even possible? I don't play pickup games very often, but when I do, it is intensely irritating when a player leaves his partner stranded and somewhat embarrassed. I've been fortunate. I believe it has only happened once to me once (i.e. MY partner bailed - cross my fingers and hope the incidence doesn't rise); however, I see it happen considerably too much by opponents. It has to leave a sour taste in people's mouths. I hate to think we might actually lose some aspiring bridge beginners because of such behaviour (I personally know people who stopped playing face-to-face duplicate because of other (perceived) hard-to-prove unethical behaviour that simply spoit the experience regardless of whether they won or not).

For what it is worth. I don't think Claus is being hypercritical. I think he has a software development background as do I. When you have been involved in software development, you KNOW that developers need feedback when something is not working (or appears not to be working); otherwise, the bugs are never eradicated (testing is a part of the job that most programmers seem to hate the most and they are usually grateful for all the help they can get). He is also trying, though his English is not perfect, to give constructive criticism. I'm sure I have seen Claus drop the odd compliment as well (perhaps he could drop a few more -- perhaps he will!).

I suggest that the BB Forums software be modified so as not to show the Poster Level (e.g. Beginner Poster, Intermediate Poster, Expert Poster). The statistics (top posters, etc.) is still available to those who are interested. I also think most of the regulars know who the posters are that post frequently and make useful and interesting observations (I thank them). It is a pity that the software uses terms (intermediate, expert) that imply a skill level when all that is being measured is the number of posts. Some "Beginner" posters have made some expert posts. It seems to have turned into a joke for new members to make posts that do not add anything to the thread they are posted to, all in an artificial attempt to boost their "Poster Level". The visibility of the poster level appears to encourage this behaviour. The amount of noise is rising, adversely affecting my ability (at least) to browse through the new posts. Though tempting, and I've probably done it as well, a post that simply says "Right on!" does not add anything useful to the thread. Much better would be to send an e-mail message to the poster saying that you agree (or "Right on!"). Save the post to the thread for when you can provide additional information, corroboration, or whatever. I suppose if I could get a decent speed connection that it might not bother me as much; though I still think I'd find it annoying. I like the information that I can find, the lively discussions by people with differing points of view (even when contrary to my own, or maybe especially when contrary to my own!), the humour, technical discussions, and so on. I don't like the noise.

No, you cannot see the opponents hands if you are one of the seated players. This is explained in the Online Help. Fred made the suggestion (also documented in the Online Help) that the best way to handle this is to enlist a mentor or other 3rd party who will host the Partnership Bidding table, but not sit. This person, the non-playing host, will be able to see all four hands and make informed bids for the opponents. By the way, I suspect it would be better practice that way any case. Trying to bid normally with full knowledge of the entire deal can be difficult (at least I find it very taxing when hosting a teaching table).

Getting back to the original post... I have been the author of rejections (forgive me!). The problems I run into, and the reasons for rejecting, are: - We are playing a set game (prearranged, 4 people). I set the table up using reservations. Everything is fine until it is time to break up. When that happens, I usually want to chat with my partner for a minute or so to arrange when we will play the following week. - An opponent (or both) leave. Now, quick as a bunny, someone requests to sit. I cannot reply why, only reject. - I do rejection and try to click TABLE button to do something about it, but before I can, two more requests pop-up. - I had thought the option to "Reject all, table closing" was meant to solve this problem (but I guess not). - If I can manage to do so, I make the table invisible; but often it is kibitzers who are asking and making the table invisible doesn't make them go away (I don't know why they try to sit when we have been chatting at the table about the game breaking up). - I used to always make my table invisible when I set it up (and thus did not run into this problem). But that is unsociable and I do have some friends on BBO that like to chat at the table with us. - My final solution is to reserve the seats for "reserved". That works, as long as I get a chance to hit the TABLE button before the requests start coming in (I usually don't think of doing this until I get the first request -- I'm too busy trying to find out when we will play again to remember). What I would really like to see is that when a table is set up with all four seats reserved, that when a player leaves voluntarily, the seat is kept reserved (perhaps with a fake Id like "reserved"). The problem with being able to enter a response when you reject a request to sit is that in the time taken to respond, the requests may queue up. Oh, I did try clicking the TABLE button while a request to sit was up, but couldn't do so. I should check again to see if the behaviour has changed. It's not even that we are experts or well known. While sometimes it is people I know that ask, often it someone I have never heard of.

I agree with what you say; however, if you did not agree to play in a match and some <deleted> person kidnapped you, I think you have every right to opt out. This function allows you to do that.