G_R__E_G

Abstain, I have no idea what "stratification" means in a bridge contest. Something like having multiple robot duplicate tourneys for different masterpoint brackets? The ACBL games on BBO are stratified by the players masterpoints on file (and if the player doesn't have an ACBL number I believe they use the person's skill level they've put in their profile but don't quote me on that). I believe that BBO usually has A's, B's and C's. This wouldn't be multiple tournaments - just assigning an A, B or C to the participants much like is normally done in ACBL games.

The robots are all A's so you get put in to their bracket since you're playing with them. :)

I'd prefer that they do the exact opposite. That way bad players who manage to amass masterpoints just because they play 6 times a week in clubs and 86 times a week online and manage to scratch 10% of the time due to dumb luck would still have zero (or close to zero) masterpoints. This might actually make the masterpoint scale slightly more meaningful.

We can now add a new play to the lexicon of bridge - attempting to switch cards in your hand without anyone noticing - the Cayuga Coup!!

In regards to the changes in this area, I had an interesting scenario come up at a club game recently (this is in ACBL land). Dealer opened 1NT and his LHO overcalled 2♦ (not alerted, as it was natural). Opener's partner did not see the 2♦ bid and bid 2♣. The offending side has on their convention card that they play Lebensohl. So, had he seen the 2♦ bid, 3♦ would be Stayman denying a ♦ stopper. I'm sure most anyone would agree that under the new laws a correction of the 2♣ bid to 3♦ would be legal. But....what about allowing a correction to 2NT and then over the subsequent 3♣ bid by opener, bidding 3♦ which is also Stayman but shows a ♦ stopper according to their card? Should this be allowed? If it's not allowed, and the offending side is somewhat endplayed into bidding 3♦ but it turns out that they have a ♦ stopper, should their be any further ramifications to the offending side considering they've given misinformation on the alert of the 3♦ bid?

It's about the experience that one of the ladies who played last year in Peking for France had when trying internet bridge on BBO. It then goes through various features of the site. It would definitely work well in the news (for any Francophone ).

I agree that I would only be slightly less inclined to watch - but there is a certain psychological difference between watching something that you know to be live and something that's on a time delay. It's just not the same.

Hi Jojoba - welcome to the forums. Possibly you are chatting to the lobby and your partner has lobby chat turned off. If you are at a table make sure that you've selected "Table" to chat to.

Thanks guys. Programming has been a hobby on and off for the last 28 years and sometimes, when things come together well, I think that I may have missed my calling. My new project is teaching myself php. Maybe someday when I'm all grown up I can go work for Fred!!! :)

Merry Christmas Andy!!!

If the defense promises to be nice enough to lead a spade or the ♦A then I'll play. Otherwise, I'd prefer to defend.

I see that Uday's been playing bridge against my ex-wife.

That won't work. I'm not German but I am rather fond of a good schnitzel. Good idea though - maybe if you asked the same question but in German it might work.

So I suppose you are talking about stratification, rather than brackets? Masterpoints are fine for stratification. I don't mind Masterpoints affecting Masterpoints. You are correct. Around here (I'm not sure if it's a local thing or more widespread) the terms brackets and strats tend to be used interchangeably. The new option is specifically for stratifying based upon average masterpoints as opposed to before where the only option was to base it on the higher of the two player's masterpoints.

I'm talking about a club in a small town - we get about 12 to 14 tables on average each session. Everyone has to "deal" with everyone as we don't have enough players to have multiple sections to seperate the lambs from the wolves.

From the ACBL Club Director's Handbook: "If directors feel a pair is careless in paying attention to the movement directions, they should issue a procedural penalty following a warning for repeated violations for failing to sit in the proper direction. A typical procedural penalty is one-quarter of the matchpoints available on a board." So legal - yes, but if you'd not been warned before then it's a little harsh.

What would you suggest Han? At our club the lady that signs everyone in just asks everyone "What bracket would you like to play in today?" - or just do away with brackets so that our 'C' players who very rarely score 50% never get into the money because of the several 'A' pairs who very rarely score below 55%? As a club manager and director the only real issue I ever run into with using masterpoints to stratify is the odd player who has played for 50 years and is very good but they have never been an ACBL member and therefore don't show up with a lot of masterpoints. All I do to resolve this is make a manual adjustemt in our computer so that they come up as a 'B' or 'A' or whatever is appropriate. At the other end of the spectrum you get some lol's who have well over 1000 masterpoints but aren't very good players but they never complain about being an 'A' so it's really a non-issue.

In that case, shouldn't you use double to show a hand that wants to bid 6♥? Nah - I'd rather save the double for one of those extremely rare hands where I have 8 hearts and 7 spades.

Despite being against my best judegement, I will attempt a serious answer. Double - I cannot think of a hand that I would open 4♥ that I would double with at this point. Bid - There may be a few hands that I would open 4♥ with which I'd decide that sacrificing at 6♥ was the right thing to do based on vulnerability etc. I think a hand like that would however only come up about once every 2 years. Pass - The other 99.9% of the time this is what I'd do. I opened 4♥ - after that I'm supposed to keep my mouth shut.

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being "necessary" and 10 being "totally insane" I'd give a trump lead about a 9.4. Just my opinion.

I think it's been a long time coming. I'm switching my club over to using this method as soon as our executive rubber stamps their approval.

You need to add one more option to your poll... - I smoked bushels of it 20 years ago but now that I'm all grown up and have a wife and kids I stick to legal drugs like alcohol now. That's the option I'd have voted for. The closest there is for me is "I've tried it" but when you've done it several hundred times you really can't claim you're just trying it" anymore.

This is as true as it gets. It's been 4 1/2 years since I stopped (after smoking for about 20 of the first 35 years of my life). To this day I still love the smell and I know for a fact that if I were to ever have even one cigarette, I'd be back at it again. While I still constantly crave them I have brought myself to the realization that I don't need them - this coupled with being terrified of starting again keeps me from falling off the wagon. PS I'm also surprised by the number of people who say they've never smoked. Maybe it's different elsewhere - but here in Canada several years ago the statistics were that 35% of people smoked. One would have to assume that the number of people who had smoked at one time would be significantly higher than that.

Here at work we have two people who just came back after being down in Mexico on vacation last week. Our Health & Safety department sent them home today and apparently has asked them to not come back until next week (assuming they are not ill). Seems a little over the top to me.

Okay - if we're going to get into "well planned" positioning of stuff then nevermind - I'm just going to take out the trash. (or possbily dump it on Josh's bed if he happens to have pissed me off that day) :)