Mr. Dodgy

My ISP generates revenue by providing me with internet access - which do they quite satisfactorily. And BBO does have responsibility: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ic=10948&st=0

I am not shocked that cheating occurs - it is rampant on other games sites, and I'm confident that there is probably always going to be some element of it here on BBO. What shocked me was the fact that I am -passingly - familiar with someone I feel is justifiably accused cheat. I am surprised that they would do such a thing. If anyone who cheats should happen to read this post I would ask them not to sully BBO - and themselves - any further. I do not play ACBL tourneys. Not, at least, often enough nor seriously enough to really care about the final result beyond being able to enjoy the game and trying to do my dismal best. I have various reasons for not doing so, not least of which is the frequency with which I see comments in these very forums which question the standard of their administration. The ACBL generates revenue through charging players for the privelige of playing in their tourneys. I beleive they have a moral as well as commercial responsibliity to ensure their patrons are getting value for their money and should actively take all reasonable steps to eliminate any players from defrauding others. The same applies to BBO.

I too have recently been made aware of what seems to be quite compelling and rather shocking evidence of cheating in ACBL tourneys, and agree that the ACBL and/or BBO should be investigating this very seriously.

I've noticed a number of times lately that I seem to have lost notes that I have made about some players in their profiles. Has anyone else noticed this? Can anyone explain it?

1♦-4♣*-4♦-4N-5♠**-5NT-6♠-7N *Splinter **2 ♦ Keys + ♦Q OK, other way 'round: 1♦-2N!*-3♦-3♥-3N-4♦!**-4♠!***-7N**** *GF+ **RKCB ***0/3 ♦ Keys (must be 3 - ♦AK ♥A - else my p doesn't have enough points to open) ****I can see 13 tricks: 6 ♦, 3 ♥, 2 ♣ and 2 ♠ re-edit - oops...something made me think that ♦xxx was ♦Qxx, now I dunno. seems like 7N is off if opps hold ♦Q third. Not likely, but unpleasant. 1♦-2N!-3♦-3♥-4♦-4N-5♦-7N?

Understood, Jilly - dunno what the answer is. No agreement = no alert, OK, but opening 2♣ on this hand seems to warrant some investigation (regardless of the argument about whether 2♣ should be alerted in SA). I would not be surprised to find that both N&S were Polish (or Italian, or Chinese...) or were by some other means able to identify each other as playing a system wherein opening 2♣ shows this type of hand (11-15 lonc ♣s and/or other types), in which case it should without any doubt be alerted and explained under any reasonable sort of alerting regulations. Of course I can't be sure that it's not a psyche. The only way to determine this with any degree of certainty would be to ask North and/or South what 2♣ meant. It's epscially tricky in this particular case, as 2♣ could well be a completely natural bid, although an unusual one.

i play SJS, so: 1♦-2♠-3♦-3NT

WBF-based

this was not ACBL :D

WBF online laws state: Rule 40A. Right to Choose Call or Play A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call — such as a psychic bid — or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. There is, as far as I can tell, no restriction disallowing a 2♣ (artificial strong), 1NT, or any other psyche. Back to the question at hand... Indys are a bit strange - there is little opportunity for partners to make agreements about their their bidding methods, so it's often tempting to rule that no alerts are required. However, if this pair have - somehow - come to an agreement that they are playing precision/polish club or whatever then they MUST alert ALL conventional bids. As this hand would seems to be a 1♣ opener to me unless they play that as having some other conventional meaning, I believe this is probably the case here. In fact, even if they are playing Standard American, 2♣ should be alerted as "artificial strong - 23+ HCP" (or something similar). As stated by others in this thread (and in the WBF online laws), the organising body - In the case of BBO tourneys I supppose this means the tournament host - can require whatever alert regulations they desire. I specifically state that "ALL artificial/conventional bids must be alerted - EVEN STAYMAN" at the beginning of all tourneys I direct. Not sure if this helps, just my 2 cents worth. Regards, Justin

I have a club control

2♥ - promising 4+ ♠s using my normal 1NT methods, partner could now bid 2♠ (minimum), 2N (maximum with 4+♥s and 3+♠), 3♣ (maximum with 4+♣s and 3+♠), ), 3♦ (maximum with 4+♦s and 3+♠), or 3♠ (maximum with 4+♠s, flat). over 2♠ - I mini splinter with 3♥, then 4♦. over 2N - I spinter with 4♦ over 3♣ - I raise to 4♣ over 3♦ - I splinter with 4♥ over 3♠ - I splinter with 4♦ 4♠ or 5♣ looks OK to me. slam seems rather unlikely - I think 21+ would be needed.

2500+ songs on my iPod (all legal) - your guess is as good as mine - could be Enya, Eminem, Mozart or Metallica.

once again out of my depth but I'll have another go... pass is tempting with an iffy fit and no great suit of my own. then again if you're ever going to raise with 2-card support then AT isn't bad. cue-bid should promise support here I reckon. all things considered, I like 2♣ best though - best way I can think of to get into a possible NT contract - i'll support ♠ next

agree 2♠ is not good - i'd have said 2♦ to show strength, but 3♣ works too - although I might regard that as some kind of 'natural'. That said I would still expect South to bid after the second Double, but the auction is already confused.

I've just dowloaded and installed the bbo 4.5.0 / FD 1.1.6 update. But when I click on 'Conv' button...all I get is the 'old' convention card window. Poked around in 'options' and whatnot...found nothing FD-like anywhere. I don't get it.

prolly outta my depth here in advancedland, but here goes anyway. I use LTC quite often - I evaluate my hand using 'standard' Work, Zar and LTC. hands which are borderline using Work may be up/downgraded on the basis of the other methods. I find LTC to ne most useful when considering preemptive openings, even though (or perhaps becuse) I'm quite undisciplined with these. Similarly, I'll try to count losers when I'm considering a sacrifice. Most other times I don't use LTC - mainly because it's not something I've studied in particular detail, and I have no aggreements with my partners about LTCs implementation. There is one notable exception to this: my 2♣ (artificial strong) opener is often based very much on LTC - I even alert it as "artificial strong <5 losers". Yeah Yeah I know this is not great technique but it's fun. Less useful with balanced hands than distributional ones.

I voted 4♠, but it's a bit thin, 3♠ is probably better. Thinking? Nah.

I have thick skin, free tourneys will continue on BBO so long as I draw breath. Mind you, with my dear friend Kathryn calling it a day, the standard of Directing may suffer a serious degradation :-) Thanks jilly, come play with me anytime.

agreed - especially as regards 'clubs'. I'm a BIL memeber and the ability to see the upcoming BIL tourneys without 'interference' would be welcomed especially.

I think the request is for the ability to designate 'restricted' directors - who are able to address issues such as substituting stuck or diconnected players, but unable to take actions such as score adjustments (this being handled solely by 'power directors(s))

I can currently join the table of any other player by right-clicking their name...it would be great if this 'teleport' ability were extended: most particularly I would find this useful to 'go to' a tournament if I'm sitting at/kibbing a table somewhere. I can see the tourney listing currently, but if I'm at a table somewhere either kibitzing or sitting I have to leave it and press the back button repeatedly. The tourney-right-click could also have additional features - perhaps a 'register' dialog or 'join partnershp desk' option (annoying to have to leave a table to join the tourney, especially as once registered, you are prohibited form rejoining a table in some circumstances. Even a 'manage' option for TD's (who may have become 'stuck' playing in another tourney which has taken longer than anticipated. I'm sure there are plenty of other possibilities - feel free to add your own - and am aware that there were future enhancements to the available right-click functions mooted when the BBO initially implemented RC's Cheers, MrD

go to main bridge club and change 'view' until each table is a little square - this setting is retained in tourney view. my monitor is 15" *sigh*

start small, but I'm comfortable with 40 - particularly as I am able to view all the tables at once with this number. Yes, I'll increase the limit if I have a co-TD, or perhaps if it's a Survivor or Unclocked (but usually not). And Yes, I'll take into account any apparent problems with BBO stability. I usually decline to increase this limit unless one of the afore-mentioned conditions are met AND I'm in a good mood.

reluctantly, yes