bendare

Exactly, Fred! Furthermore, the audience these women were "playing to" was ( I assume), primarily fellow participants in these World Championships. How can anyone possibly imagine that these World Class bridge players were putting these women in a position to have to apologize or explain the actions of their country's government? Yet, some are suggesting they may have been met with this at every turn. I don't think so! Even if so ( highly improbable), that would not justify undignified and classless behavior on their part. Bendare

Your LHO opens a weak 2D, 2H or 2S and your partner bids 3 of that suit. 2H--3H--?--? What type hand do you expect the 3H bidder to have? If undiscussed how would you take the 3H bid and why? If discussed what mutual agreements are recommended and why?

My partner and I agreed to play 2H super negative response to strong 2c opener. We failed to discuss bid for a heart positive response------big mistake. Given that we did not, is there a "standard to 2H super negative" bid for a heart positive response that could be assumed? I assumed 2nt would show a heart positive and that 3H showed a 7 card heart suit with 0-5 HCP. My pd assumed 3H showed a H positive and IF 2nt was to be used as a H positive by partnership agreement, that should be specifically noted on our CC. (This was a live ACBL game with standard ACBL CC, so no drop downs to fill in details.) Pd contends that 3H to show a H positive does not require specific notation on CC, as is "standard to 2H super negative". Please, no lectures on negligence to confirm heart positive response---lesson learned!!!! Without specific partnership agreement, is there a "standard to 2h super negative" response for Heart positive? While on this subject, what do you real experts recommend for H positive and why? I can see that any kind of 2nt response to 2c opener can wrong side the contract, but as one cannot have it all, which works best? Thanks---Bendare

It would be nice to have a gathering, but if that cannot be arranged this late in the game, it still would seem a "booth" could be set up with BBO fliers (info on BBO) and name tags be made available at the booth so individual players could themselves choose to wear a name tag with their BBO ID (and real name). That alone would identify players as BBOers to each other, which would surely elicit personal introductions and perhaps sort of impromptu word of mouth gatherings. Though I rarely play these days on OKB, I am still a subscriber and I will pick up a name tag at their booth. As BBO is much more my "territory" of the past couple of years, I would love to see name tag identifications worn by fellow BBOers.

Right, Elianna, that this would be a great opportunity for the promotion of BBO. Because of a family medical emergency I have not yet been to playing site, but I have read todays bulletin. http://web2.acbl.org/nabcbulletins/2006spring/db2.pdf Scroll down to last page and see the OKB advertisement and what they are doing to promote OKB site at the Dallas Spring NABC. Most interesting, the ad announces that ACBL tourneys will soon be available on OKB. If BBO has dropped the ball here, they should still have the time to pick it up. I would think BBO could still make arrangements to do a Bulletin advertisement and set up some kind of table or booth to at least provide name tags for BBOers and fliers with general information about BBO. It would not necessarily need to be manned. I plan to be there 4th through 9th. My name is June Byrd-----should I happen to have a chance meeting with any of you fellow BBOers I would enjoy meeting you. Bendare

I live in Dallas area but will be staying at Hyatt from 4th to 8th. I understand great plans are being made for hospitality/food after the evening sessions. Fred, perhaps you could arrange to display a sizable BBO sign in an area of the hospitality/food area to direct BBOers to congregate in that area, then provide stick on name tags for BBOers to identify themselves. As many will be there for only part of the Nationals this should work for those who are there at the same time to meet each other. Should you choose to do this, please email me and I can arrange to get a supply of name tags to you as early as Friday or Saturday. Bendare

Thanks for the ACBL Life Master games. I have thoroughly enjoyed--they are most pleasant. Players seem to know what is expected of them and I have not seen a glitch in the two I have been available to participate in. Bendare

That is interesting. I was aware masterpoints were reduced when restricted games had upper limits, but I would not have thought so when there was a lower limit but no upper limit. In fact I always thought that in restricted games, the higher the minimum requirements, the higher the master points awarded. A reduction in master points will certainly be a deterrent for many, making it unlikely this new restricted game will get off the ground.

Hey folks, let's not put the cart before the horse. The Jan. ACBL Bulletin quote was on ACBL's 2006 "To do list" to DEVELOP a PILOT PROGRAM for the VIABILITY to hold online sectionals and or regionals. This is ACBL's plans and BBO has no say or at this time any involvement. Even the VIABILITY of online sectional or regionals is yet to be determined by ACBL. IF and when ACBL sectionals or regionals are held online, ACBL will decide on which site or sites they will be conducted. Mine was just a passing thought that POSSIBLY ACBL might consider including a more "serious" BBO ACBL game in its PILOT PROGRAM (dry runs) in determining the viability of online sectionals and regionals---sorry if that was misunderstood as even being in negotiation. For now, THANKS to Uday for being receptive to the cry of some of us for "more serious" BBO ACBL club games. He has asked for player suggestions and I am sure he will give consideration to all reasonable suggestions and input. This seems to be an offer on the table for creating such a game IF BBO deems there is enough player interest. Lets not get off course here with discussions of online sectionals or regionals and let this "seems to be offer" pass us by. Interested parties--make yourselves known. Ultimately, the success of any such game is dependent on PLAYER participation, cooperation and commitment. I am excited! Let's put our money where our mouth is and do what is needed to make this happen.

"Bendare, some of what you say makes some sense ( I'll disagree w/your sampling of t posted CCs bec. I know the system posts SAYC for every pair without a CC). I have reason to think the TDs make efforts to follow the ACBL rules. Some of them actively direct for the ACBL-in-memphis at at ACBL Nationals. " Uday--- Apologies if I did not make myself clear. Yes, the default SAYC was posted for those who did not post their own, but the players were not actually playing that CC. (Auctions at my table clarified that, or I was familiar enough with some of the opps that I knew they were not playing simply the default cc posted for them.) As a habit from FTF, I almost always look at opps cc prior to start of auction of first hand of a round. For me, opps convention card is a wealth of disclosure and often all the disclosure I might need-- IF that CC can be trusted to accurately represent what players are playing. That is why I focused on the proper posting of CCs. I personally have no complaints with the TDs nor do I question their credentials. Problems cannot be solved unless they are first identified, and I was simply offering my two cents worth (well, it turned out to be a long winded two cents worth!!) to hopefully help in getting to a CORE problem. I appreciate that you will consider some way to create an ACBL game for those of us who want to play an ACBL online game in which players know what is expected of them and are "serious" in their personal effort to comply with the "rules". Perhaps this could be incorporated in ACBL's plans (Jan. Bulletin, page 9) to "Develop a pilot progam to test the viability or a sectional and/or regional tournament online." I cannot imagine there is any viability unless the participants are reasonably educated in and respectful of ACBL rules, so maybe they can do some experimenting with BBO ACBL games in their pilot program. Thank you-- Bendare

In ACBL sponsored or "sanctioned" games, ACBL rules and laws should be applied, enforced, respected, abided--in club rated games, tournaments, online and FTF. I believe ACBL's "sanctioning" of club games is basically equivalent to a franchise and franchise owners are expected to maintain "company" standards. However, one of the major problems (and IMO THE major problem) in the BBO ACBL online games is that these games are open to thousands of players who are either not familiar with or experienced in ACBL standards, rules, laws and regulations. Many of those players also have no interest in learning or respecting and regarding those rules and laws. Someone here put it as "not having been through the system." Then there are those who have "been through the system" in the FTF ACBL world and rightfully expect that ACBL games ARE ACBL games where ACBL rules and laws should and will be applied and enforced. Integrating huge numbers of players who know not and care not about ACBL rules and laws into ACBL games with those who do know and care creates big time problems and dissatisfaction and makes even reasonable enforcement impossible. What has happened in the BBO ACBL games is that even some who do know the rules and laws choose not to respect and abide them as enforcement is close to nil. Add those to the ones who do not and care not to know. I personally do not fault the TDs for this, at least not to the extent that many here do. Last night I played in a 42 table ACBL game (84 pairs) and only ONE opp had a posted CC and the other 5 pairs were NOT playing the default SAYC cc posted for them. Three times I reminded opps that their cc was not posted. It was like pulling hens teeth (hens have no teeth) to get a response when I inquired opps system and carding. Most were not alerting alertable bids, and when I clicked on bids to inquire, it was, with few exceptions, either futile or at best a ridiculous response. Had I called the TD for every occasion I would naturally have called a TD in a local club game, it would have taken one TD full time at my table. There were 42 tables!!! Instead, I did not call the TD at all except to private message the TD to announce again about requirement of posted ccs. How can the TDs distinquish between the players who simply are not familiar with the rules and those who are wittingly disregarding them and those who really do have "no agreement" and those who do have agreements but say they don't??? In many TD rulings, it all boils down to whether opps have been "damaged". Subsequently, the players who committed an infraction of the rules go right to the next table and does the same. The situation is absolutely horrendous, Uday and Fred, and it is so out of hand I do not know how any reasonable order could be restored. Maybe that is the problem, there was never any order to be restored. For those who "carp" here, I do not think it is necessarily about the one particular incident they cite in their carping, but the overall situation. Under "Ruling the Game" in Feb. Bulletin, a TD reports that his club manager actively recruits new players (a good thing) but there are problems integrating the new players in with advanced and very advanced players when it comes to making rulings. The newer players often do not know alertable bids, they may have certain understandings that they consider standard which are not, etc etc., one or both is unhappy with rulings they consider unfair--------------------- Multiply that by 1000 for the BBO ACBL games, and personally I often feel I am trying to play tennis without a racket. I noted a recent ACBL game here with 60 tables. That is 240 players-and ONE TD!!! And of those 240 players, I would guess that no more than 40 both knew and made conscientious effort to abide ACBL rules and laws to an extent one more or less takes for granted at the "other 5000" ACBL FTF clubs.

This is in specific regard to BBO's ACBL games. Early this AM I was kibbing when a pair had a minus 17 imps in the first three hands. During Board 4, Player A of the pair said he had to leave, that he needed to "work" , asked director for a sub and left in the middle of the play of the hand. At the end of Bd 4, Player B of that pair left the tourney and did not return. I am not aware if Player B spoke with TD about leaving, but perhaps she did. However, under the circumstances of a very bad start and partner leaving, it seems more than coincidental that Player B would have an "emergency" to have to leave the tourney just at that time. Later in the day, this same Player B (playing with another partner) was down more than 50 imps at the end of board 10, at which point Player B left that tourney also. Though I have not seen this happen often in ACBL games, I have seen it happen several times when a player is not happy with his/her partner OR when a pair is having a very bad game. On the rare occasions when I have subbed in ACBL games, I can only recall once when I did not sub into the game to very, very bad previous scores. It seems often a case of bad sportsmanship rather than a real emergency. It is my understanding that in other tourneys on BBO, the TD can blacklist players who they believe have left the game for non emergency reasons. How do (or should) BBO's ACBL TDs handle players who leave when obviously in a huff or because of very bad scores? ( I know it is hard to "prove" those reasons.) Do (or should) ACBL TDs keep and share records of those who leave and do not return during tourneys?

Sorry if I did not make my question clear. I meant IF director had been called when the claim was rejected and was asked to rule BEFORE play continued.

I was kibbing when following occurred-- E-W were in 5D. N-S had taken two tricks. With two tricks left to play North claimed last two tricks for down two. The claim was rejected. West had 1D and 1H left (apparently N had miscounted Ds). West played D and N had to pitch from Aof S and J H. N pitched wrong and contract made. No TD was called, but I thought the situation interesting. Had a TD been called, what would be the proper ruling? It seems I recall in that situation, if opp cannot follow suit, declarer can choose which card opps play? Is that correct or has my memory failed me? (again)

I cannot believe anyone voted yes. Obviously they were just spoofing. In my decades of playing this game I have never played with or against anyone who played double in that seat and auction as penalty.