Mr. Dodgy

I'm in :P

Is there anyone who DOESN'T know and DOES care what 'jlall*''s real name is? sheesh.

WBF The following classes of calls should be alerted: 1. Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not. 2. Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. (A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization). See Law 40(:D. 3. Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or overcalls, and nonforcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to opening bids of one of a suit. If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: 1. All doubles. 2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract. 3.Any call at the four level or higher, with the exception of conventional calls on the first round of the auction. That's about it for the WBF's alerting procedure that I can see. The ABF Alerting Regulations go into more detail: these are based on the WBF Laws, and if I recall correctly, it states that ALL doubles are "self-alerting" and thus These calls carry their own alert and should not be alerted. It may be risky to make assumptions as to the meaning of such a call. You are entitled (at your turn to call) to ask for your own protection, but bear in mind that unnecessary questions may be more helpful to the opponents than to your own side, and may convey unauthorised information thereby limiting partner’s options. http://www.abf.com.au/members/AlertRegs04.pdf Whether screens are in use doesn't seem to make any difference to what is alertable, but I may be mistaken. The The WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge (2001) doesn't say much more the matter beyond this addendum to Law 80: Powers of the sponsoring organisation to establish special conditions include, but are not limited to, the provision of software enforcing correct procedure, the establishment of regulations governing the use of software facilities for alerts and disclosure, and other changes, not in conflict with these Laws, as may be necessary for the conduct of online bridge. I don't know if either the WBF or ABF regs really address the online issue of self-alerting as it occurs on BBO. Looks like it is up to the SO to make these decisions. I'd stick with 'self-alerting' Doubles and Redoubles as per the ABF above, for simplicity's sake. I think that it is frankly too difficult to draft anything comprehensive about when to alert or not alert such calls - unless you go with something really simple like "Alert and explain all doubles that are NOT penalty" (as penalty would be the 'natural' meaning of a double, right?). Agree in this case that there is no damage and this must be negative although no agreement in this auction is reasonable for many pairs I'd guess. Bear in mind i'm not terribly well learned.

I'm in the Pass camp - barely. I use Zars but I want 27. Yeah we have ♠s but barely. 4441s look nice but are often troublesome, especially to bid; there's rarely a bid that's quite right unless you play funny systems. 1 more Ten and I'm in. There's a good chance I may have something to say later.

None taken :) DodgyPoints are not dissimilar to ACBL or BBO MasterPoints, except I like integers, and they're FREE!

I like it! I see there are a couple of votes for 2NT, too. :D

Me, 3. I like 3♥ too, and voted that way, but chose 3♠ at the table. Opener bid 4♦ which passed around to me. Should I let them play there?

You're right, my mistake, I get a little carried away polling. Bonus DodgyPoint awarded :) Votes for double will be regarded as supporting the YesNoYes campaign.

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sj92hat87da4cqt62]133|100|Scoring: MP P-1♥-2♠-P; ?[/hv] and... what's your plan?

goyjus hand, 1♥ for me but 4 is OK

double

No and infrequent

.. I also had BBO tell me that 'chat with a player in a tournament is not allowed' when the player had rather logged off but was logged on when I spawn the chat dialog. I'm not sure if this is new.

Agreed in full. It sets a peculiar precedent though, doesn't it?

I asked, and that is what he told me. jilly, interestingly undos were allowed in this tourney but south chose not to take one as it was not a misclick but a fair-dinkum blonde moment. FWIW I decided, after some consideration, the same as the posters here thus far: result stands. I did advise South to explain his agreements in future even for such misbids. Thanks.

OK now, thanks

or is it just me?

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sq32hkt96dt4caj82&w=skjt9h3dk865ct974&e=sa854ha52daqj932c&s=s76hqj874d7ckq653]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Pass-1♦-2♦!-3♦ 3♥-5♦-All Pass South "meant to bid 2NT" (Unusual; ♥s&♣s) but made a mistake and bid 2♦ instead (Michaels; ♠s&♥s). For some reason, he explains his alert as ♥s and ♣s, (actually "lower unbids 5-5") describing his hand rather the bid agreement. I think he was trying to do the right thing, figuring only his partner would be 'damaged'. Just to make things even more fun, West apparently decided to ignore the explanation and assumed it showed Majors, then argued that he was thereby prevented from bidding the ♠ slam. What would you do?

you may be on to something, fred; 4.9.4 now, round change in a tourney, same thing. W2K SP4

http://users.tpg.com.au/adslhl2i/BBOchatscroller.jpg I've seen this happen a few times: the scrollbar for the chat area appears to the far right-hand side of the BBO windows rather than just to the right of the chat area. Minimising and restoring BBO fixes it temporarily.

When I first read Fred's post about 4.9.0 and the 'pictures of tables', I was perplexed; this is nothing new! One of the first things I noticed in 4.8.7 was that the view switch no longer toggled into 'pictures of tables' (an option that has existed in BBO for some time now). I liked the 'pictures of tables' view, especially when overseeing a tourney. The tables are quite small, and you can see MORE tables at once this way than any other. I found the setting in the options dialog, however, so apart from some very minor inconvenience, I was happy. Until 4.9.0: 'little tables' are gone... Very sad. I understand that the new PoT views might be freindlier, but for the moment I have actually downgraded to 4.8.9.

OK, last one. http://users.tpg.com.au/adslhl2i/hbhr8c.pdf

Thanks ben, I like that one too :( Yeah long auctions and/or those with numerous alerts, or those with a larger number of tables, as well as formatting long suits or names may be problematic to automate...but I think not significantly more than those same issues in the existing format.

Many BBOers will be used to always sitting south

dammit ben why did you get me started on this?? http://users.tpg.com.au/adslhl2i/hbhr5.pdf http://users.tpg.com.au/adslhl2i/hbhr6.pdf http://users.tpg.com.au/adslhl2i/hbhr7.pdf