Mr. Dodgy

or http://users.tpg.com.au/adslhl2i/hbhr3.pdf

Seems to have it all, Ben. I don't think the hand record 'flows' very well, so I've played around with it some: http://users.tpg.com.au/adslhl2i/hbhr.pdf whaddayareckin?

I don't think the lusobrasil session really MADE the attending TDs "among the best" - those who are interested in being a good TD made the effort to be there, and the better ones will generally ask better questions, I suppose. What I liked about the session was that it showed BBO's interest in educating those who sought it, and I hope this continues. We can always do with more good TDs. Competition is healthy, right B) ? I appreciated the content of the lusobrasil training greatly also, and welcome further TD training initiatives. More regular training might well form the basis of some form of accreditation scheme. Accreditation by whom, though? BBO? The WBF? Who would assess the applications and by what criteria? There any many questions to answer, even possible downsides to consider. What's the point, anyway? I think BBO's free-market TD policy works just fine - if a TD sucks, don't play there. Too simple! --Justin--

Good idea, Ben...unfortunately, the blame is all mine :( I thought a NegX showed a bit more than this, although this a very good 7-count. I tend towards restraint opposite a 3rd seat opening. Yes, that's my vote all on its own. Thanks for taking part, humiliating to me as it is. Regards, Justin.

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=s75hqt82d62ckq763]133|100|Scoring: IMP P-P-1♦-1♠ ?[/hv] simple SA

Agree BBO should not adopt a statistically based rating system, and almost all of the reasons given previously in this thread. That's despite being quite proud of the little '4' in the corner of my profile. And a mad fan of stats and stuff. There are, currently, 6714 hands in 'my' myhands database, and I have every partner rated LOL. If you want to track these things, you can. If you REALLY want to track these things, get BridgeBrowser (not a paid advertisement). Statistical analysis, however, will be flawed as others have noted. I agree entirely there are probably too many A++-rated players. I have from time to time 'checked' another player's myhands and been none-too-surprised to find the 'expert' in question had worse figures than mine. That doesn't PROVE anything, of course, although my figures aren't great LOL. Regards, Justin

insufficient bid, Phil, sorry :)

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=satht3da87caq9763]133|100|Scoring: IMP P-1♣-2♣!-2♦; 2♠-?[/hv] Freindly MBC table :-), 'Advanced' all round. Pickup, basic SA. 2♣ alerted as '"majs"

LMAO

I don't think this is a psyche. I think it's an alertable agreement. Chaos' system, by his own explanation, requires he bid 1♠ naturally on a 3-card suit. This would be unexpected by opponents. The failure to alert may well have damaged the defense. Some adjustment may be called for.

Of course; my post has nothing to do with 'Garbage'.

I have never seen this in any bridge book, nor have I ever seen a bid higher than 2NT, except it being a purposeful (or accidental, more likely) system deviation, and admitted to right away. I definitely haven't been to all parts of the US though, so I can't claim that there isn't a place where the locals play Stayman that way. One of the very first guides I had on bridge bidding was a pamphlet titled '10 Great Conventions' and was, as I recall, written by Ron Klinger. One of the conventions espoused was 'Extended Stayman', with the following response scheme by opener after 1N-2♣: 2♦ - Minimum, both Majors 2♥ - Minimum, ♥s only 2♠ - Minimum, ♠s only 2N - Minimum, neither Major 3♣ - Maximum, neither Major 3♦ - Maximum, both Majors 3♥ - Maximum, ♥s only 3♠ - Maximum, ♠s only I realise that this is NOT a common method, indeed it seems almost unknown outside of Australia (but not uncommon here - the ABF CC even has a checkbox for it). I like it. There's a variant which swaps the meanings of 3♣ and 3♦ Regards, Justin

FWIW, which isn't much: Taking data from the last 2 days, you will see on average, each hour: 4 MBTs 2 RRs 1 pay Pairs 3.5 pay Individuals 2 free Individuals 4 free Pairs

don't mind N's first 2 passes. worth a raise to 3.

I don't think I would have bid 1NT; 2♣ if that would be understood as a 'good ♦ raise' (or 2♠). Then I'd shut up. X would then be 'points' If I had bid 1NT, I'd raise ♦s next time around. X here is, gee, 'points'. The usual caveat applies: My bidding sucks. But it is fun.

ewww. I'm gonna thrown them in with ♠s every chance I get and cross my fingers.

6♦, wth :P question: why the preference for bidding a slam when Vuln vs. not? I thought that a thin game vuln was worth a shot, but NV not worth the risk. I supposed the opposite was more true for slams.

I bid 2♠ showing weakness there rather than ♣, but I'm weird.

I'm not even sure I understand this post, but I agree with fred - if you regard every hesitation or request with suspicion, you could find an awful lot of suspects out there without real good reason. Some people's connections ARE bad. Some people are disabled and can't type quickly. I'm not disabled and I can't type well and I quite frequently have minor accidents which threaten to result in the loss of beer while playing on BBO (there may be a relationship here...I'll test it ;) . I WILL ask for further explanation of an alert I consider insufficient. Yeah asking about 2♥ in response to Stayman is a little unusual, but imo it's still a fair question. Some variations on Stayman do exist - 2♥ may or may not deny 4♠s. It may promise 5♥s. Sure, opps SHOULD alert these sorts of variations, but many don't.

I would happily submit to this. I HATE asking for an explanation or clarification of a bid and getting "Capp", "Wilkosz", or "Suction" in reply. The current alert system's simplicity is charming but of questionable efficacy. I think, in time, FD will take the 'next step', but we may need to be patient. I would LOVE to have a full FD file compiled for my system automatically by BBO - I'm too lazy or busy or something to sit down and do it manually B)

guessing somewhat... It's one name per line, alphabetised. e.g. I'd expect comments would ruin the 'test' of whether a player attempting to register was on the list. If you have "MrDodgy tosspot 28/9/06", and I tried to register, the software would probably reason that "MrDodgy"<>"MrDodgy tosspot 28/9/06", and I'd be in. There may be a character you could insert to overcome this; "MrDodgy*tosspot" could work if the software knows not to look after the * I have a spreadsheet with IDs, dates, comments. Edit, sort, and copy the ID column into a text editor. Note: Excel sorts badly - purely numerical IDs are regarded as being 'before' IDs which contain other characters so it gives me when it should be I think. I'm a bit confused about the underscores, and other 'special' characters...can a BBO'er set me straight? Note the names used in this post are NOT from any form of blacklist.

LOL I'm in the wrong forum again here... 8-18 seems like a big range to me - I tend to inexpertly double rather than overcall with ~16+, and any action here without a fair ~9 then seems unnecessary excepting 3/4♥ as preemptive support with poor hands. This IS a nice 9, so 2♥ for me under those circumstances - 2♦ would be ~12+. I don't know the first thing about Segal-Robson, so I'm completely unqualified to comment...but the stated range would seem to require that I respond with less. I'd like 2♦ as a 'good ♥ raise' I reckon. I'm curious, why is 2♥ not available?

great 9-count :) , 1♠ for me too, sub-sub-expert status notwithstanding.

If I'm playing in, say, the Acolholics Club, and seeking a player to join, the ability to take a peek at who is around including kibitzers might be handy. If you're watching on of 6 simultaneous VuGraph matches, you could find someone to talk to at another. I can't think of any really COMPELLING reasons, I admit, but it would satisfy my pointless curiosity at times. I always thought it was a bit of an anomoly; that there was a box telling how many kibs there are at the other tables, but which did not show them individually on mouse-over as happens at one's own table. There may be technical issues with programming the list to appear in a location on screen that works - if a large 'kibs' box was low on the window to begin with especially.

Seconded