bigmax

Want to play for money? yes , but is this really an argument? Original problem score is IMP. Obviuosly money bridge overcalls ( and preempts for that matter) would be different.

So you think partner bid 3♥ to play?, the fact that you have 10 more HCP than you could doesn't make you worth a bid? wow. So you think that partner 3♥ shows 9 top tricks? Do not remember where I read it , but this concept of bidding over preempt as if partner have 7-8 bal points worked well for me. Correspondinly responder should know that most of his points are already accounted for. So pass NV, 3NT Vul

My vote is PASS If partner think that we have game opposite 7-8 random balanced points - he should just have bid it. My hand is not much better than that

Rather than charge for something that used to be free, would it be possible to charge for "premium vugraph" (expirinced operators, quality video streaming, audio from our best commentators etc.), while keeping basic vugraph free. While I expect significant technical difficulties, it may be possible to organize it at some smaller, well sponsored event (is there Buffet cup this year?) or even at specially organized BBO chalenge matches. If this takes off, certain percent going to tournament organizers might stimulate them to put on "premium vugraph shows"

Is partner allowed to bid 4♠? Then what would 5♦ show - slam going hand without ♣ control (something like KQxx, AKxx, AKx, xx) or example above.

Not commenting on EW ethics (based on provided info I believe that E had no idea what they are playing over NT and west - well.....) wouldn't that type of comment be a violation of ACBL zero-tolerance policy?

I was thinking of DBL of strong nt = 10 + points and some shape (1 siuiter as in DONT for example). Idea being 10 opposite 11 will usually murder 15-17 nt. Any opinions?

Does anybody knows any link with notes on this 1D opening? So far I only found nystrom-bertheau CC at ecats. Thanks

Would a functionality similar to tournaments in MBC help: 1. Two players register as a partnership. 2. As server starts a new table he can specify that opps must be registered partners. Such tables can be marked with different color on the table list. 3. As one of registered partnership joins such a table - his partner joins automatically. Don't know how difficult implementation would be

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=saqjxhtxxxxd2cxxx&s=sktxhqdaq98xxcatx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Biding (prec) 1D - 1H -3D West leads ♣K, I duck once, win ♣J contnuation, cross to dummy with ♠ to Q (for what it worth east shows even number of ♠, west odd). ♦ to Q holds, and under ♦A East plays ♦T ( west plays trumps lo-hi) . Please take it from here

A few quick thoughts: I think that was unfortunate case when you good will and extra explanation give opps grounds for complain. BTW do you really have an agreement to play HSGT in opponents suit? In similar situation I was advised by respected TD to give alert as " HSGT, but partner was known to be creative with it"

OK, I misunderstood your original post. My post is about a way for regular partners who happen to log in at the same time ti have a game against other regular ( but random ) partnership.

Sorry for not making myself clear. 1. Both players A and B must be online to register as partnership. 2. If table host chooses option that requares opps to be registered pair and A tries to join the message will be " A and B want to join table" This way you get game against regular partners.

I tthink that ability to joim table as a partnership or REQUEST your opps to be regular partnership is very important. My sugestions of implimentation: 1. Create a button " reguest partnership with" - similar to joining tourneys. 2. At serve a table menu have an options- "requare opps to be registered pair" and show tables with this option at tables list with some symbol. 3. As one of registered pair join table - partner joins too It should not be too difficult to implement - any opinions?

Thats exactly the point - waisting bids (both 2h and 2s in that case) while simple isn't elegant. Basically one suited major overcalls can be removed from interference scheme On my own I came with this dont modification of dont By passed hand: (1N) - ... X - one suited c or d or both majors with better S or 55 s+c ... 2c,2d - Dont ... 2h - both M, better H ...2s - S+D Does it makes sense?