ducky_rh

What if the software were arranged so that kibitzers of tournaments could only see hands after the auction is complete and the opening lead is made, and then only see the declarer's hand and the dummy? That way the honest folks among us could kibitz our favorites to some degree, but it would be of little value to potential cheaters. I'll take my royalty check for this suggestion in BBO dollars, please... =)) All right, someone on a voice connection COULD coach a declarer's play, I suppose. So, delay the transmission of each card played by declarer until after it is actually played and the trick is quitted. Now the coach is reduced to "well, you should have..." Too bad the cheater detection program doesn't just send high voltage back to the cheaters' keyboards, and give them ever-increasing zaps.

Is it possible to have a separate incarnation of the GIBS that play Standard American, so those of us who do not play 2/1 can play with them?

I believe that such a demonstration shows compete disrespect for one's country and for the OFFICE of the President, and I consider their act to be repugnant and as improper as it could get. I will forever hold those women in contempt for their action. It was disrespectful, uncalled for in the situation, and most of all, completely juvenile.

Is it possible to have the Alert text window appear when it is the previous player's turn to bid? This way, one can type one's alert text ahead of time and just send it off when one's turn to bid arrives. As it is now, the long delay while the text of an alert is typed pretty much clues the non-bidding partner that an alert is being prepared.

The other day, in a tournament, my RHO opened and passed, as did I, and LHO bid ONE CLUB. My partner passed, and RHO bid ONE HEART, whereupon an FD window popped up and said "Forcing", even though, in standard bidding, a passed hand cannot force anything. I passed, and LHO PASSED the "forcing" bid. FD is frequently (almost always) inaccurate, incomplete, vague, misleading, or all of the above, and I do not blame any average player for ignoring it and asking for an explanation they can understand. The reason people ask multiple times is that explanations given are often flippant, arrogant, and obviously incomplete, and there is no other way to ask for more information than to click on the bid again. Providing an arcane definition of one bid without a complete overview of the system being employed is no help whatsoever. Under the time constraints of tournament play, one cannot delve deeply into the thicket of FD to try to determine what the bid means, and often more importantly, what the failure to make other bids also means.

People!! Come to your senses! Fred and Sheri are among the top players in the world, no doubt, but suppose you entered a money tournament and saw Versace and Lauria, or even Garozzo and Reisig, among your opponents? What is the difference? I don't play in money tournaments, but I do wish for them to be successful, because it will help keep BBO free for all of us. I would think it would be, if not an honor, at least a privilege, to be playing against such opposition. Play sound bridge, and you have a chance. Or would you prefer to be guaranteed only beginners and novices as opponents? Would that then feed your egos properly?

As a neophyte TD, I find that having one director call after another is very distracting and annoying, because while I'm chatting to the first caller, the second call bombs onto my screen and the chat disappears, and although the "Help" notes tell of a way to handle this situation, it never seems to work for me...so all I can do is deny the second call so that I can get back to the first. Also, since subbing is such a frequent occurrance, it seems that a better way than having to have two windows open could be found. Sometimes a simple substitution takes a few operations, with impatient players all around. But the worst thing about BBO is when there are 8,000 players online, it takes sometimes 10 minutes and three tries to log in. Part of the problem is local...our cable system is oversubscribed and that is the time all the kiddies are home from school and jumping on the internet, but still, waiting for 8,000 names and 2,000 tables to load is mighty tedious.

I'd prefer being able to opt out of receiving ALL broadcast messages. Most are akin to spam, and it's kind of silly to receieve a broadcast message asking me to join a tournament in 5 minutes, when I'm on board 2 of a 12-board tournament. And who really cares that the vugrapg broadcast of the quarter-final round of the Lituanian Open is restarting now?? Or which room will have the commentary in Swahili...

Honoring fast play over deliberate thoughtful bridge is a little like going to a sushi bar and eating only the wasabi. If seven or eight minutes are allotted per board, why penalize the players who avail themselves of that time in an effort to produce better bridge? People who type "faster pls" when there are three tricks and five minutes left drive me nuts. If anyone wants the trophy for being the fastest player alive, I will not stand in their way...thay may have it. I'd prefer being ranked #131,246 on the list of best bridge players alive. Yes, I know, I have a long way to go.

How about having the Alert window (where one types one's alert message) appear while the prior opponent is bidding, so that the alert may be typed ahead of time, saving a few seconds and the possibility that the delay tips partner off that an alert has been made?

Now suppose a tournament player opens 1NT, and his profile indicates a range of 15-17, and there is, of course, no alert, but the player actually holds only 12 points. The opponents call a TD, and lodge a complaint about "misinformation". Then suppose the TD imposes a one-trick penalty, for failure to abide by the information given in the player's profile, or failure to alert the deviation from the partnership agreement. Is this a proper action by the TD? If not, what is to prevent players from consistently deviating from their published partnership agreements in a effort to deceive opponents?

Player opens 2NT. Player's profile indicates that a 2NT opening shows 20-22 points. Player then realizes that the hand was miscounted, and player has in fact only 19 points. Opponent asks the meaning of 2NT opening. Player responds "20-22 points". Now at this point, is player obligated to reveal also that the hand was miscounted? In another hand, player opens 1♠. Then player realizes that a misclick has occured, and player actually intended to open 1♥. Player in fact has only a couple of small spades. What is the player's obligation to the opponents when this misclick is discovered? Thank you.

I have yet to decipher what the "♠♥♦♣NT-Def" feature does or means...when I click on it, nothing happens...why is it there? FD may be a fun tool for computer techies to play with, and maybe they can overlook its obvious flaws and inaccuracies, but for a player accustomed to the standard text convention card, it is not an improvement, it is simply an obstacle which we must attempt to overcome. As I said previously, the FD bidders know exactly the full extent of their system, and the full meaning of their bids. THEY know that "No Agreement" does NOT mean "NO Agreement" but WE DO NOT. They know that "constructive" has taken on a new meaning, but those of us who learned the meaning that I decsribe DO NOT. Tournament directors and sponsors ask us to disclose fully the meaning of our artificial bids. In my brief experience playing against FD bidders, this has not been the case. If there is no built-in option for describing the full agreement represented by an FD bid, perhaps another option should be added to the list, instead of telling us that it is an obvious flaw and perhaps inaccurate but we should just learn to live with it. Why not an option such as "please ask"? Further, why should such a flawed system be FORCED upon us in tournament conditions, leaving us who are unfamiliar with the system to deal with the unfamiliarities and inaccuracies under time constraints, when we'd rather be concentrating on the game, and not a flawed, inaccurate, obscure system of disclosure? Simply stated, FD is a PAIN IN THE ASS, and I wish it would go away.

Beg to differ. "Constructive" lies somewhere between "non-forcing" and "invitational", and should only describe responding bids, since it "constructs", as in adding one brick to a wall. When I have looked for the complete convention card belonging to opponents, all I found was a mostly-blank traditional text card, so I guess I haven't found the trick to unlocking the Pandora's Box containing the wealth of information that some claim is available. FD is potentially a good idea, but I do not think it should be used when it requires the opponents to ignore what is shown and assume that something else is true.

I know very well what "constructive" means, and its bridge definition cannot apply to an opening bid. Either that, or it apparently, in the world of FD, applies to ANY opening bid. I notice there was no comment about the 1NT with "no agreements". The system is faulty because the little snippets of information it gives, sloppy preparation aside, apply only to the particular bid in question. One does not know if it would apply to the same bid in a different situation in the same way. One gets no overall picture of the complete system used by the FD adherents. One is not given sufficient information to enable one to anticipate future bids, and prepare responses to them. One is given a minimum of information, with the clock ticking, and left with only a tedious and often not-well-received procedure of asking question after question, until one finally is given the full extent of the true agreement...which is another issue about which comment was carefully avoided. Meanwhile two or three minutes out of seven or eight have been needlessly consumed, placing defenders under extreme pressure trying to figure out what they are facing while attempting to play in tempo. It may be someone else's idea of fun. It isn't mine.