GHSteele

Why, I wonder, would anyone cheat on BBO? It is a way to play bridge online that approximates playing bridge in real life. If used as a training tool for real life tournaments cheating would be bad training. There should not really be ACBL master points awarded except when playing against robots only. Individuals or partners or teams against robots tournaments perhaps. These master points are a motive to cheat at all.

When chatting I wonder who, if anyone, pushes the CHAT button. Ordinary people simply click enter. If CHAT is clicked with no text entered you get a nasty error message. Let's let that button have a use. Suggestion: There is a <clear chat> in the (Chat) Options. Make that function called when the (currently) CHAT is clicked. Change the text on the button to read "Clear Chat". Related suggestion regarding stale chat messages. When there is little chat activity comments from minutes ago may still be there. They could be made to go away by having the system introduce a blank line in every chat once a minute.

Suggestion: A new table option: UNDO does not need approval; all UNDO allowed by person who just acted. This would be good for viewgraph operators and, say, susina's JEC games.

I lost track of a card in my hand and revoked. Declarer was in 3NT running ♦AKQJ432 in dummy. When the 4 was led I discovered the 5 in my hand. I played it and won the trick. The director was not called at that point, but was at the end of the hand. I had not won the trick I revoked on, but won that trick and 2 more. The director ruled that declarer had made 5. I noted that had I not revoked declarer would have made 7. I asked the director to look at the hand and reconsider what had happened. He stood by his ruling. Yes, declarer could have made only 5, normally. However there had been an opening lead into declarer's AQ. I told declarer I would score it as making 7 (which, incidentally, led to losing by 2 IMPs). Was I right to not accept the director's ruling?

It would seem to me that 2♠ need not be alerted, it is always natural strong spades. The response of 2NT should be alerted as 'asks opener to describe his hand.' My guess would be that 2♥ should be alerted as 'either ♥ or NT.' The response of 2♠ should be alerted as 'asks opener to describe his hand.'