JRG

Those were the points I tried to make when I initially entered this thread. Thank you.

For what it is worth, I would have bid 3H over 2S on this hand. If I didn't, for some reason, then I'd bid 4H over the double of 2S. The way I play, South is showing a VERY good hand. Clearly, if I bid 3H over 2S, then South will raise to 4. Then all we have to do is make it!

I disagree with this statement. I always claim when I am sure the hand is over. The opponents only know that there might exist some distribution where what they do could make a difference. That distribution very often doesn't exist on the actual hand. I could just be waiting to make sure there is no 6-0 split in a side suit. Also, the problem is quite often not whether I could go down, but whether I can pick up one or two overtricks. That "free information" is information the opponents are supposed to be assuming anyway, regardless of whether or not you claim early on other hands. "The opponents are supposed to...". I think that makes you an idealist. I stand by my initial remark. By the way, if all your claims are good ones, you are doing a lot better than many BBO members. The number of bad claims I see is truly astonishing. Now be careful here. I say the claim is bad. It is often "bad" because the claimant doesn't think about such things as a 4-1 split or a 4-0 split. The fact the suit splits 3-2 doesn't change the claim from a "bad claim" to a "good claim" -- only a "lucky one". Been watching any Vugraph lately? Surprising how many world-class players pull trumps before claiming. Even when they could state, "Pulling trumps...". Many of them will also play several tricks before claiming, even when they could have claimed earlier. I wonder why? [in case it is not obvious, that is a rhetorical question.]

Yes, I felt like an ass when I didn't double. It was a great psyche. If Fred really has the outstanding HCP, then I need him to have only 3 clubs (if he has Q-J-x-x he will make 3NT). Cute bid. Well done Fred!

If I may suggest: Allow host to upload a file which is the conditions of contest, but associate the UPLOADED file with the tournament. When the tournament is complete, DELETE the file (perhaps point the conditions of contest back to some default). This way, someone who hosts different styles of tournaments gets to upload their choice of files for each tournament, but you don't clutter up server space because you delete the file after the tournament.

Interesting. The way I learnt (years ago), in both Acol and "Standard American" is: If responder makes a non-limited bid (a limited bid would be 1NT or a simple raise of opener), then a new suit by opener is UNCONDITIONALLY forcing. The principle being that responder, by bidding a new suit, promises a rebid (except if opener makes a limited bid that allows responder to place the contract). Perhaps this is dated - the requirements for jump-shifting seem to have declined. Having said that, clearly what the other posters have said (i.e. whatever your partnership agrees to play is up to you) is right on. However, the "old" way of playing this is based on a degree of logic. There can be nice hands that are worth a jump-shift in terms of strength, but for which the bid would distort the hand (i.e. there is no known fit yet and the hand isn't truly two-suited). There is logic behind playing this forcing or non-forcing depending on whether opener MUST rebid 2NT with a balanced hand of the appropriate range, bypassing one or both majors to do so (in which case presumably the partnership plays Checkback Stayman). However, what about the unbalanced hands that are not really two-suited (e.g. 6 cards in minor, 4 card major)? Cheers

Here are a couple of suggestions for teaching tables, one of which I made in the past (but I cannot find the e-mail about it). Here goes: Suggestion 1: When a table is being created, one can "reserve" seats. This applies to a teaching table as well. What would be nice is if, for a teaching table, there were two sets of reservations. Here is how it would work. The host creates a new table. In the dialog box, he or she specifies the first set of players in the "primary" reservations. If a player gets disconnected, as normal, the seat should continue to be reserved for him (i.e. it is "reserved" for the member specified in the primary reservation). At any time while the players are playing, the host can use the TABLE button (as now) to access the table settings and change them. When the host knows the next set of players who are going to sit, he accesses the settings and fills their login ids in the "secondary" reservations. Now, when players give up their seats voluntarily, the corresponding secondary reservation is moved to the primary and is cleared from the secondary. Alternately, there would be a "Change Players" button in the TABLE dialog for a teaching table that would allow the host to force a change of players (with some sort of automated chat message to the table). I seem to remember having some other details regarding this, but I don't remember them off the top of my head. Suggestion 2 (new): Have an option (i.e. a checkbox in the table setup dialog) that would only allow kibitzers at the table to chat to the table host (not the players or the table - they could still be allowed to chat to people away from the table). Clearly, the table host (the teacher or mentor) must still be able to chat to the players and the table. If a kibitzer attempts to chat to a player or the table, they should either get a message that it is not allowed, or it should be redirected to the table host (I prefer the former; the latter could be embarrassing).

Just a little aside: My partnerships play: 1M - Dbl - 2NT as limit raise (or better) just as suggested. However, we REVERSE the accepted meanings of 1m - Dbl - 2NT and 1m - Dbl - 3m The former is a preemptive raise to 3m and the latter is the limit raise (or better). Yes, 2NT may not be quite as preemptive as 3m; however, whenever partner has a hand that can bid 3NT opposite a limit raise, we get to play it from the right side. Funny, 1m - Dbl - 3m sounds like an old-fashioned limit raise!

Actually I got it from Bill Gates :) Fred Who borrowed it from the physicists (where "mass" is meant literally).

If you can manage that, it will be great. I'm sure it will also reduce the load on the server as hundreds (or a thousand or more!) members go to reestablish their connection to the vugraph session. The nice thing as well, is that the commentators fill the gap while the hand is being bid and played -- and between hands (and if you can do this, while waiting for the vugraph operator to reconnect).

In chat, colour is used to distinguish between "public" and "private" chat. When you see the sender's name in blue, it means that person has sent you a private chat message. If the player's name is in the default colour, it means the chat was "to the table" or "to the lobby", etc.; that is, public. I would NOT want to lose this distinction!!! Perhaps what you want is a one character "icon" in front of each line to indicate if the message came from a "friend", "star", "host", etc.?? I'm not sure that would be easy or might not chew up a lot of computer cycles.

In my 2/1 partnerships, (4) and (6) do not exist. When playing fast arrival, "fast arrival" means you KNOW what the contract should be and bid the game directly. None of your auctions meets the criterion for slow vs fast arrival. Even if it applied, you must be careful not to fix your partner -- you might have a (sub-) minimum opening, but, for example, as opening bidder, leaping to 5 of partner's minor is silly. His hand is still unlimited and that would prevent him from using Blackwood (whatever variation you use). Here is an example of what I would call the use (or non-use) of "fast arrival": 1S - 2D; 2NT - 3S Here the 3S bid sets trumps and DENIES a (sub-) minimum 2/1 response. With a minimum and NO slam interest, responder would bid 4S instead of 3S. For what it is worth, I have abandoned "fast arrival" in most sequences with my 2/1 partners and play "Serious 3NT".

It's not that 5 Hearts is "bottom line". Sure we can make 5H, but that's not the question. The question is: "Can we make 6H? Can we beat them two tricks?" We better not have a heart loser, or partner has taken leave of his senses. Here is where partnership agreements come in -- can partner hold a diamond control (Ace or King)? It has to be really "gambling" if one bids 6H expecting diamond shortness (despite the 5 diamond overcall). I think my gamble would be that we can beat 5D by at least two tricks; that is, I double. [And no, I do NOT lead a heart!!!]

Apologies to all. I didn't really give my reasoning in the previous post. If responder, the 1NT bidder, will always bid 2 of the M holding xx after a minor suit rebid by opener, then the only danger of rebidding 2m is missing a 6-1 and playing in a (possibly) inferior minor suit fit (I'm assuming 6-1 will usually play better than 4-3). I play "Constructive" raises, so partner will go through 1NT with any minimum raise to 2. With the two regular partners that I play this, it is normal to "take a preference" to the major with xx. Maybe I'll start eating my words, yet it still seems so wrong to rebid a 3-card minor when holding a 6-card major!

Thanks Ben for the links. I just finished browsing them. Surprisingly, I now feel there is some merit to rebidding a 3-card minor with a 6-card major. I still feel strongly, though, that it would have to be a pretty crappy 6-card suit to warrant doing so and am not totally convinced one shouldn't just rebid the 6-bagger. Thanks for taking the time to list the links. They were interesting reading.

Maybe I'm dense (I've missed things before)... I really don't understand the arguments for bidding a 3-card minor rather than rebidding a 6-card major. If someone really wants to convince me that it can possibly be right, then run a simulation and point out to me how it shows this to be the correct action. Keep in mind the variety of hands. Also, if I rebid in a 3-card minor, will partner EVER believe I have a 6-card major (if I'm not dropped in a 4-3 fit when we have a 6-1 or even a 6-2 fit in the major). Yes, one can almost always construct hands where a given action can be the winning one. However, the real test is how OFTEN the action wins.

I'm in the 2 Spade rebid camp. I'm also of the opinion that rebidding a 3-card minor is a last resort -- any other descriptive bid is preferable. When I hold a 6-card major, I'm happy to bid it.

When I taught a niche aspect of computer software development (Software Configuration Management), I used to tell people -- "There is no such thing as a stupid question." This is true of all endeavours, bridge included. A good question might be as simple as, "You said xxxxxxxx. I didn't understand what you meant. Could you explain it in simpler terms?" or "You said that you know xxxx. I don't understand why I should know that. What am I missing?" and so on. If anyone ever says that a question is silly, or "everyone knows xxxx", then they need to re-examine their own teaching skills. ASK AWAY!!!

What time (GMT) would be "friendly"? [Aussie-wise]

The Poll cannot really be answered, because of the choices. There are two separate scores to consider: the "Offenders' score" and the "Non-Offenders' score". I think there are the following three cases (you may wish to split the first into two cases depending on whether the time delays appear to be caused by connection problems or not). 1. There is a clear time-offender and the opponents are "innocent". 2. It is not clear who the offender (or offending side) is. 3. It appears that both sides are partially to blame. How do we score the first case is probably the crucial one, especially if the offending side were about to get a terrible result and the non-offending side a great result. Giving the offenders A- and the non-offenders A (or even A+) may not really be "fair". This is the one I think the Poll should address. Should it be (offender/non-offender): - A- / A - A- / A+ - 0 / A+ of what? Case 2 and 3 look like ones where everyone should get A-

I don't play in online tournaments very often (nothing to do with likes or dislikes - just awkward for me). So my comments are purely that. Giving declarer the remaining tricks when the contract is already down may simply reward declarer's slow play and punish the non-offending opponents. For example, the declaring side has sacrificed against the opponents' game and are about to go down more than the game was worth -- now awarding declarer the remaining tricks may give him (or her) and impossible top! Similarly with awarding tricks to the defending side when declarer has already made the contract (and even worse if it was a doubled contract). In this case, though, it probably matters more at IMPs (i.e. if doubled) and more at MPs (if not doubled). Don't get me wrong though! Your method of dealing with slow play may be as good a guideline as any.

Fred commented on this -- it's in the Online Help under FAQ. He said that some tournaments get rid of some of the "extreme" scores at both the top and bottom because of the serious effect. At that time, he indicated BBO does not do this. He said, at that time, that was the reason why it is against the rules of BBO to get ridiculous results on purpose. Perhaps this thread will persuade him to reconsider implementing this adjustment to scoring. I hope so - I also find it annoying.

An aside first: I generally have a slow connection. I've made a misclick and by the time I've got in the "Undo" request, the next person has played or bid. So, I'm not sure if that is a good criterion for allowing/not allowing an Undo. I don't ask for an Undo myself if it is one of my stupid "play or bid too fast" moves, even if I realize it right away and before anyone has done anything. ============== My particular philosophy is to allow Undos in general. I'm not playing tournament bridge and if people want to cheat against me, I let them. On the other hand, if I'm fairly sure cheating is going on, I don't play against them again. If it is bad enough, I curtail the game as quickly as I can do so politely. Like Michael, I prefer to play against people I think I've got to know and trust (I like to kibitz a lot). Accordingly, I think I have only played twice where I thought the opponents were cheating (and once when I was kibitzing, I thought someone was cheating -- but not that person's partner!!!). If an Undo is going to ruin the hand, I generally refuse the Undo and then ask for a Redeal -- yes, that means opponents may not get a bad board that was coming their way, but what the hell, I play to enjoy myself. I don't think I've ever refused declarer an Undo (I have a funny habit, which I should probably work hard to eliminate -- if declarer makes a play that appears to be an obvious brain fault (e.g. only one spot card out and declarer plays small instead of an honour), I wait a few extra seconds -- gives him or her a chance to notice the "misclick" and request an Undo.

The information is in the online Help. It has been there for a while now. If you bring up the HELP for Create Tournament, it shows the dialog in one frame and a list of the items in a frame beside it. Clicking on an item displays the corresponding help information in a frame at the bottom of the window. So click on "Director" to see the help which gives the syntax. Post comments if additional "Index" entries are needed. They will probably be created at some stage. This might not help you, but might help the next person that is looking for the information. Cheers

The way my partner describes bidding after the 3 spade raise is: "Look at your hand and count the cards. Do you still have 13 cards? If so, pass!"