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.

I agree--entirely. I invite you all to either play in or kibitz the ACBL games here on BBO, where I play and kibitz frequently. If I called the TD every time there was a failure to alert I alone would keep the TD busy the entire tournament. "Warnings" by a TD seem to be totally ineffective. Many of the players in these ACBL tourneys (where one would most expect compliance with the "rules" by players and enforcement by TDS) are regular partners who play frequently in these games. I cannot say how many of the offenses of failures to alert or provide full disclosure are truly in ignorance or in defiance or just an innocent momentary lapse of memory. However, I would guess that far more than half of alertable bids are NOT alerted. In TDs defense, both as player and kibitzer I have rarely, rarely seen a TD called for failure to alert in the BBO ACBL games. Personally, I just inquire of any bid I think MIGHT have been a failure to alert. (I admit I resent having to do that and I resent moreso when there is reluctance or refusal to provide full disclosure.) Unless the TD is called, offenders do not even get a warning. But IF TD is called and TD can simply give a "warning", these players are not fazed. "Big deal--call the TD--so what--no skin off my teeth!" They go to the next table and the next and do the same. Then when players get the drift it is a waste of their time to call the TD, they stop bothering to do so and the offenders do not even get "warnings" (or very few). If rules, laws and regulations can only be enforced with "warnings", they might as well not exist.

The above post was referring to your asking permission to do so, Candybar. It was not a reference to administrations decisions about individual directors. I respect that administration makes their decisions on information that well may not should be aired publicly.

BBO's ACBL pairs and individual tourneys are run parallel and usually with the same single director TDing both. I cannot imagine same would not be allowed elsewhere.

In a recent ACBL tourney, the auction was 1H pass 2S---no alerts. I checked the posted cc, which was the SAYC default cc. I then made inquiry by clicking on the 2S bid. The response was "4+S, 10+pts". With that unusual explanation I clicked on the 1H opening bid. The explanation was "both minors, singleton H." At that point I called the TD and after I privately repeated the above info to the TD, the TD said to the table, "You must post a CC or play the SAYC cc that is posted for you." Then after a lull of quiet, my LHO said to table, "I was joking". The TD responded, "There is no joking in bridge" and departed the table. My opps were total strangers to me, yet both had chosen to "joke" in their explanations of their bids. This is an excellent example of the attitude of many of the participants in the ACBL tourneys here. For some partnerships, even those who have played thousands of hands as partners in these ACBL tournaments, "no agreement" is pretty much their stock answer for inquiries of their bids. Then when the TD (who knows they are regulars in these ACBL tourneys and play regularly as partners) is called to the table they simply repeat, "They say they have no agreement." I have NEVER ONCE heard a TD in these ACBL tourneys question a players claim of "no agreement." There is a major problem with participants in BBO ACBL games not taking the rules/laws/ethics of ACBL seriously. Perhaps they do not know or understand those rules/laws/ethics but they are not likely to get educated as long as they get by not abiding them. Maybe some consider these games "just a computer game" or "toy bridge." I have personally heard online bridge described in those terms. The powers that be here say it is very difficult to "prove" cheating, so cheating continues out of control. I suppose some could also claim it is hard to "prove" failure to provide full disclosure when a player claims "no agreement"---which catch all response to avoid full disclosure also remains out of control. Unless changes were made in past few years, ACBL also has a rule called "the rule of coincidence." Unlike FTF bridge, all hands are recorded and documented in online bridge,which would seem to make the "rule of coincidence" easier to apply and use as a tool for a basis of "proving" such abuses by repeat offenders. That is, if ACBL itself is not just "joking" about zero tolerance and their seriousness in applying and enforcing their rules/laws/ethics to their ACBL sanctioned online games. I am certainly not advocating an environment that would intimidate beginners or those who are not experienced in ACBL. However the TDs can be tactful and friendly in "educating" participants to the rules/laws while also being firm in their responsibilites to run the game according to ACBL rules and regulations. Bendare

Right on, Candy!! I couldn't agree with you more. Keep up the good work.

In the case Pigpenz describes, what IF the opposing side would have made a call had the non alerted bid been properly alerted and explained? Who is to know where the auction would have gone from there and what the final results would have been? The ONLY fair way is to back up the bidding per ACBL rules and proceed from there. I frequently play and kibitz the BBO ACBL games and have never once seen the bidding backed up in such cases as Pigpenz has described. As for a director instead "adjusting" the score, that is pretty hard to do when they have no clue how the hand would have proceeded if proper alert had been made. Agreed when time is a factor an adjusted score might be in order. However, when in such cases there IS time to back up the auction, why do the directors not do that? Additionally, when time is a factor and director feels there is not time to back up the bidding, would it not be in order to make a procedural penalty in terms of one or two trick penalty against the offenders-----particularly when the director can see opps actually did have a reasonable call had proper alert been made???? Failures to alert are far too commonplace and will likely remain so unless offenders get more than a tiny slap on the wrist (to remember to alert in the future.)

Pigpenz-- You struck a chord with me, Pig! It seems some of the players in ACBL tourneys post CCs such as 2/1, nmf, 4sf, bergen, rev drury, etc. when they either have no clue what ANY of it means or if they do they have UI to know when their bids are for real and when not. An example of one pair, who has such a CC posted to include Reverse Drury----- p p p 1s p p double 2s p p p. Opener, in 4th seat, had 10 HCP with 5 bad spades and rebid those bad spades after her pd had passed originally and THEN passed her 1 spade. Her pd, with 4 spades and 11 HCP passed not once, but twice. (no misclick could be claimed.) As per your NMF example, this particular pair frequently does not alert nor do they have their NMF bids (or most other systemic bids as their cc states.) Yet, when their NMF bid is real, I have seen them alert it when they DO HAVE their bid. Go figure!! It is maddening, and yes, it does affect opponents decisions, not only in balancing, but on defense or declarer play should they win the auction. The results from these improprieties affect not only their opponents but the entire field. (The particular pair I reference have a J and a Q on their profile, meaning they have played and placed enough in online ACBL games that they should know and be held responsible for abiding the rules and laws of ACBL.) Keylime-- So---------- you send a group of such hands (and much worse than Pigpenz or I have given as examples) to Abuse, and you send another group and another group, and THEN WHAT??? The pair I referred to is still playing regularly in the ACBL tournaments. On one occasion I just asked Abuse to look at an entire 12 board tourney where 11 of this pairs 12 boards were clearly more than bizarre in bids or plays. I would certainly like to see the "laws" of bridge, full disclosure, rule of coincidence, etc. enforced in online tourneys and particularly in ACBL tourneys, where Zero Tolerance is announced at the beginning of each tourney. Also the directors announce that a CC MUST be posted or players will be expected to PLAY the default SAYC CC posted for them. That should mean, as in FTF ACBL games, that players MUST play per their own posted CC. It seems the ZERO TOLERANCE only refers to "rudeness". Online bridge is a horse of a different color and has its own unique problems. I understand it is virtually impossible to enforce the "laws of bridge" in online bridge, but I do think the most blatant abuses can and should be dealt with appropriately by BBO OR in the case of ACBL games by ACBL also. If participants in ACBL online tourneys do not know or understand the systems they claim to play on their posted cc, they must be made aware that is not permissable and that it will not be permitted. Personally, I think every "suspected abuse" reported to BBO abuse (that occurred in an ACBL game) should be forwarded and reviewed by ACBL for appropriate action BY ACBL according to ACBL's rules and regulations. If there is any perception by ACBL that it is not in their best financial interest to "offend" or "alienate" frequent online "paying customers," I beg to differ. I feel strongly ACBL online games would grow leaps and bounds if ACBL did their best to keep their online games up to the standards most of us have known, abided and respected in ACBL FTF games. When such improprieties are repeated again and again by the same players and are allowed to continue , should we just throw up our hands. give up on hope of a fair and square game online, forget it and stop wasting our time discussing cheating, ethics, rules, laws, regulations, etc in these forums?? In general----- Bridge, and online bridge, is and should be for everyone who enjoys the game regardless their skill level. Not all aspire to "improve" their bridge but rather just want to enjoy the "kitchen table" game as they know it. There is NOTHING wrong with that. In fact, it is a wonderful outlet, especially for elderly social bridge type players. BUT----- players should be aware that when they play in certain competitions such as ACBL games they will be expected and must play by the "rules" laid out by that body. We ALL want to encourage beginners and certainly some leniency is given beginner players in FTF ACBL games --as it should be here---just not indefinitely. I think that was Pigpenz's point in noting these players had Js on their profile. Obviously, from the example he gave, these are not "good" players, but they also obviously have played enough and "placed" frequently enough to have won these Js and Qs on their profile and it is high time they know and observe the rules and laws of the games in which they participate. BBO is an awesome site and I appreciate the privilege of playing here. However, it IS frustrating when playing in what I presume should be a reasonably "serious" game but instead seems more "anything goes." Indeed these are NOT World Championship games. I have frequently heard the ACBL tourneys here compared to "club games." I would agree with that comparison regarding variety of skill levels, etc. but the clubs I have played in ARE serious about enforcing the rules, laws, and ethics as laid out by ACBL. Club games are generally very friendly, but not friendly to an anything goes attitude. Now that I have sounded off here, perhaps I should have instead originated a new subject called "SOUND OFF!" Bendare

Thanks, Fred. Bendare

After registering for a tourney but prior to the start of the tourney a player may post a cc for use in that tourney. However, their partner cannot review the posted CC until the tourney has begun. This is most inconvenient, particularly when playing with a first time or infrequent partner. It would seem easy enough that once a player has posted a cc for a tourney their registered partner could go to the tourney and by clicking on their pairs registration they could review the CC that their partner pre-posted for this tourney. By having this feature, a pair could review and amend CC per mutual agreement prior to start of tournament. I would love to see this feature added. Bendare

Good question. It is quite amazing that players who are in the 95 PLUS % ranking by ACBL masterpoint holdings (percentages can be found at ACBL's home page under "membership by master point holdings") are regularly showing up under B and C "flights" (???) in the BBO ACBL games. I have heard a dozen speculations on what the A, B and C are about, none of which makes any sense. Please enlighten us, Fred.