Mr. Dodgy

and would you have bid any differently to this point (assume fairly standard methods)?

You are dealer, neither vuln, IMPs. ♠642♥6♦AKT42♣AK73 Opps are silent throughout. 1♦-1♠-2♣-3♦... what do you bid?

I think removing someone from your enemy list is not quite enough to enable them to play in your tourney if it has already been created - you also need to 'modify' the tourney so that the tourney's version of the enemy list is updated.

I voted 2♠ then double, but didn't have the option to vote for 3♠... My (admittedly inexpert) method with 5+/5+ 2-suiters is: 6-10 HCP: 2♠, intending to pass 11-15 HCP: 3♠ (SuperMichaels) 16-20 HCP: Double, then bid 21+ HCP: 2♠, intending to rebid

I don't think FD has been implemented yet by BBO to auto-alert. http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...full+disclosure oh it's your thread...

As the thread is heading this way I'll throw in my 2 cents on alert regulations. I prefer ABF/WBF alert regs which seem to essentially state that ALL artifical/conventional bids should be alerted, although in same cases the alerts should be post-alerts (and some things require pre-alerts). I think the clearest and simplest approach on BBO should be that ALL are alerted (and pre-alerts would be nice). My preference is surely influenced by the fact that I am an Australian and that theses are the regulations I am most familiar with, but they seems to make sense. ACBL regs which, as I understand it, define certain conventions (stayman, JTB, MCB) as 'standard' and therefore not requiring alerts seem inconsistent. Stayman is an particularly interesting example. In Australia the use of 'Extended Stayman' is quite common - not everybody uses 1NT-2C in quite the same way. I do like certain aspects of the ACBL regs - the announcing of point-range for NT openings is a good idea. I once watched a table with 3 GIBs playing, and for some reason they alerted EVERYTHING with quite detailed explanations. I thought this was great. Bring on FD!

While I'm here, I'm curious about the idea of averaging A++. It doesn't make sense to me. In this particular instance an A+ would have disadvantaged N-S, as the IMP award for their making game would have been higher than the A+. The adjustment to 4♥+2 was designed to simulate an A+-. A-- I can understand if there has been some sort of infraction by both sides, but A++ would seem to reward everyone despite the fact there has been some need to make an adjustment - what basis can there be for such?

The more I consider my last post in this thread, the more I am inclined to concur that those who have responded with the 'legal' opinion that no adjustment should have been made are correct. West did have the opportunity to save in ♣s, and given that she has now been passed for penalty, considered the possibility that East's original overcall may have been natural (and, as noted by previous posters, given the initial pass, possibly somewhat light) - especially considering her own ♦ holding, but chose not to. Indeed, if this WAS sabotage, it is a frighteningly subtle example. My apologies to those concerned. I would like to make one other note: It has been suggested that I lingered at the table because of the 'bad' substitute and reacted with bias. This is not the case - I left the table to attend other matters and was recalled by West saying 'help, partner does not know SAYC', and thought that given the cicumstances re-substituting was fair enough. Thanks once again, this has been very instructive and I hope I will do better in the future as a result.

OK, so far popular opinion has it that I DID do wrong - perhaps I should add a poll, haven't done that before either. I have to think that the bidding may well have been deliberately bad by East in light of the notes I have on them from previous occasions, though I admit that those notes are not terribly concise. I am reasonably tolerant (I think) about blacklisting players, so this individual must have been a problem more than once before. I find David's example of mistakenly thinking that west had opened 1♦ perplexing - surely you would rescue to 3♦ in that case holding a singleton ♥, though I suppose it does beggar the question as to why east did not see fit to protect with 3♣. Thanks for the feedback.

[hv=d=e&v=a&n=sa93hakt4dakj52c7&w=sj84hj63d8cakt832&e=sk75h7dqt963c9654&s=sqt62hq9852d74cqj]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] West North East South - - Pass Pass Pass 1♦ 2♦ Pass 2♥ Dbl Pass Pass Pass I got some flack for making an adjustment on this board recently, so I'd like to see what others think of my decision (also curious to see how to put hand diagrams into the forums...hope it works out OK). I hasten to note that the East player is known to me for bad behaviour previously, and is consequently prohibited from playing in tournaments that I host. In this case, however, I was directing for another host. Further, East had just substituted into the tournament and this was the first (and only) board he/she participated in. East's profile says only 'WJ2000' (may not be exact). East's 2♦ overcall is at the very least curious. I'm sure this bid is not standard in any mainstream system, and probably not reasonable in any. If it were 3♦ I'd ALMOST understand it (although I'm quite fond of leaping/super michaels, and sometimes play some rather strange defenses to 1m openers). 2♥X went down 5 at the table, and I re-substituted East. After some deliberation I adjusted the board to 4♥S+2 - a result I felt was likely to give N-S a top without too adversely affecting the scores at the other tables. Indeed it did turn out to be a narrow top. If this were a partnership who had any decent opportunity at all to have an agreement about their bidding methods I would have let the result stand. Did I do wrong?

I voted Double - I like to double whenever I hold 16+, but with my reg partner(s) would pass - we play this as showing 12+

thanks for the info, but I am still unable to add 'test_test', or other IDs which include an underscore - anywhere - to my lists. I checked that I do not have a space or any other non-alpha characters at the beginning of the string when typing it in by trying to add 'testtest_' (error) then deleting the underscore (success).

Noticed a problem today that I'm sure I haven't had before: when I try to add a name containing and underscore to my friend/enemies list I get an error: "That name contains an illegal character". I quit and restarted BBO, no difference. I have verified that another user has the same problem. Although I have not tested it, I assume I could still add someone to a list from a right-click on their name, but this is of no use to me with regards offline players - a particular concern to me as, being a TD, I wish to add players who have disconnected from my tourneys to my enemies list. It would be nice if BBO would allow me to make notes about 'offline' players by remaining able to access their card, but that's another problem entirely I suppose. Thanks, Justin

exclude custom list also seems to have some holes

I've seen this too, on more than one occasion. It's kinda interesting, though - I've un-enemised a couple of players on the basis of their behaviour being good given this 'second chance'. I might discontinue using 'No enemies' in preference to 'exclude custom list'...for repeat offenders.