mink

Such a par should not be set by software. Instead, the tourney host would be requried to use predealt boards (already possible) and manually assign a par to each board (not yet possible), and the software would be required to use this par for calculating the IMPs (not yet possible). Of course, finding a par for a board is a matter of judgement, and it is possible that you overlook something and assign a poor par. On the other hand, IMPs calculated with well-chosen pars would enhance the meaning of the scores. E.g. if a non-vul slam could be bid and made, you would assign 980 as the par. If in a tourney without assigned par only 1 pair of 11 bids the slam, it would get 9 IMPs for that, and the opps would get -9 IMPs though they did nothing wrong. With par assigned they would both get 0 IMPs which is more appropriate. Also fair that all those who did not bid the slam get -9 IMPs (-0.9 IMPs without par). Not so fair still that the opps of those who did not bid the slam get 9 IMPs. If the par was assigned by software, using the average of the scores reached in the tourney, this would be Butler and inferior to the scoring method used right now. Karl

myhands is working again - thanks to whoever did it

Myhands currently does not work for me. It displays how many boards have been played at each date, but when I click on the date the following error is displayed: "DBD::mysql::st execute failed: Can't open file: 'archived_hands.MYI'. (errno: 145) at history.pl line 171." This occurred first time yesterday, July 17, at about 20:30 GMT. I hope that the database is not lost! Karl

Bearmum, you a not a fool - this is a feature that can be easily overlooked - I bet there are many more who do not know about it. It is especially useful when you are dummy and there are few people looking for free seat out there - dummy seat is open then for some time and therefore the 3 others have to wait a shorter time or not at all for the fourth player. A function to be invoked when you plan to leave after the hand would have some merit, however: First of all, it could generate a chat message to the table. Many players are not so good in typing chat messages and/or English language, and therefore might not chat during play, so this would do some good, and the others would know earlier about it and are able to make up their minds wether to continue to play themselves or not. Second, it could result in standing up automatically when the last card has been played. This way the seat is available for others immediately and not blocked by the player who is about to leave and in general does not bother to stand up explicitly. I often had planned to take a seat of a player who had annouced to leave and then he remained on his seat for quite a while. Third, it could be implemented that a new hand is dealt only if there are 4 players sitting at the table. Currently, if a kiebitz or someone who has seen the hand before sits at the table, the hand currently displayed is redealt and lost. Especially at MP, most time this results in playing a hand for the first time with no comparison in the movie after the play. And it is annoying of course if you were dealt a nice hand that suddenly vanishes because someone who has already seen it sits down. Forth, after this function has been invoked, the host should be able to already reserve the seat that is going to be vacant. This way it can never happen that players apply for seats in vain as they are already planned to be reserved for somebody else. Fifth, today it occurs often that you sit at a table with 1 empty seat only to learn that the others are all about to leave and the host did not bother to make the table invisible - or did not know that all were about to leave. If all invoked this function, however, the table would become totally empty immediately and nobody is fooled anymore. This feature could be implemented quite easily I think. When clicking on ones own name already today the question "Do you really want to leave your seat?" is displayed. This could be replaced with a dialog "Last hand for me" (checkbox), "Stand up immediately" (button) and "Continue to play this hand (button)". Of course, this is probably not worth implementing in the current client, but maybe an idea for the new client you are planning to write. Karl

Hi Al, Maureen has a problem that is quite different from your one, and what you suggested is not going to help her. Hi Maureen, the only solution I can think of is to write "When applying for membership, please use English only" in the club description. The software does not tell anybody which language to use when typing in something. Asuming that the person who receives a e.g. German message will understand it though you do not know her sounds quite infantile to me, so I hope you will not get too many of that kind. Karl

Hi Al, I did not really understand when exactly North said "misclick". But it looks like at least 4♠ was already bid when it was Souths turn again. South has no further bid now so the score has to be set to 4♠+3 - no doubt. Given the 4♥ bid by South the ♥ lead was a bad idea no matter which contract. But even if you are in doubt if 12 or 13 tricks would be the correct result in 4♠, the difference is not relevant, as I expect a lot of players to find the slam, so 4♠ is a bad result anyway, no matter how many tricks, probably worse than 40%. So assigning A-+ is a better for NS than either 4♠+2 or 4♠+3 would be. This reasoning is not relevant, however, as law 16A2 states, "... assign an adjusted score ...", if damage was caused by UI from partner. Everywhere where ave+- or something like this is applicable, the laws use the term "artificial adjusted score". Therefore "adjusted score" here means that it should be a score that could have been reached by normal play. (Maybe a splitscore, but this is not implemented here.) Ave-+ and the like are artificial. Karl

Btw, what is the exchange rate between ACBL points and WBF points, please? :D Karl

hi cooee, your GMT+10 = EDT + 14. So simply add this 14 to 20:00 Friday EDT giving 34:00 Friday = 10:00 (10am) Saturday your time. Karl (current time GMT + 2)

hi Al, everybody can select the language desired in the dialog invoked by the gear button at the lower edge of the window. In my oppinion, for normal club players it is easier to navigate if everything is in German. Karl

A playing director should be possible in a tourney with 3 or 5 tables, when he has organized the event for his friends. Karl

hi Luke, I think the director maybe came to the table by chance or was called by private chat. Anyway, this is not relevant. 3♠ does not need an alert. In 3rd seat non-vul vs vul, the objective of bidding is just to disturbe opps. Anybody should know that. So the 3♠ bid with the east hand is completely natural: it is weak, and ♠ is the longest suit. But even if one would think that an alert is needed, it would required that opps had agreed on that 3♠ might be such a shape. The director should have asked EW first if this is the case. If they told him that they are a pickup partnership and he has no reason to doubt that, he must not adjust. Even if they are an established partnership, I would believe them if they told me that they have never talked about preempting with a 2-suiter on level 3. But even if a director believes that there might be an agreement that should have been alerted, this would not justify an adjustment: Wests 4♠ would be totally normal no matter if his partner has 5 or 7 ♠ cards. And he cannot be blamed for the final pass, too. And I doubt that South and North would bid anything else if they knew explicitly that 3♠ could be sometimes 5-5 with ♠. In neither case north can be sure that his partner is singleton or void in ♠, so 5♥ is always a risk, as maybe opps get the two tricks in ♠ at the start and then NS have to make all the rest. If the directors oppinion is different to all reasoning above and he decides to adjust, he has to adjust to whatever he thinks would have happened if 3♠ was alerted and explained the way he thinks it should be done. Maybe he thinks that North would not have bid 5♥ on that information but rather double. Then he should evaluate what the likely results would be in 4♠ doubled and adjust to the one that is in favor for NS (I think -3). This would probably be still a bad result for NS as they have 4♥, but you cannot take the 4♠ bid away. The purpose of adjusting is never to punish the offender but to restore equity (hallo Al :-)). Law 21B 3. states, "... the Director may award an adjusted score ..." if misinformation caused damage. Everywhere where ave+- or something like this is applicable, the laws use the term "artificial adjusted score". Therefore "adjusted score" here means that it should be a score that could have been reached by normal play. (Maybe a splitscore, but this is not implemented here.) Ave+- and the like are artificial. If the director decides to ignore this and instead likes to award an artificial adjusted score, it must be ave+- of course. Ave-- is a joke. My view of payed tourneys was that they would be directed by peoply who have a reasonalbe knowledge of the laws and are willing to use it. Knowing now that this is not guaranteed, I ask myself what "added value" is left for payed tourneys then? Maybe BBO management should review the qualification of hosts who are allowed to run payed tourneys. Or are all allowed? This might have a negative effect on the reputation of payed tourneys as a whole. After all, players have no means to test a direcotors abillities prior to being involved in a non trivial case. And this occurs quite seldom, I normally do not experience director calls that are about something else than missing players when I play myself in tourney. Karl

Just found another one: 12. When clicking on a private club where I am not member, the left button ("Apply") is blank and the right button ("Cancel") shows "bernehmen". I suggest "Senden" for the left button. Karl

Dwayne, I am not going to argue at that level. The law you are quoting is 68C, not 67C. Karl

New observations, all minor importance: 9. When a boards is finished, at least after a claim, a message is displayed below the LHO/West hand stating the result. This occasionally reads in German: "Kontrakt erfüllt. +1". This just sounds a little bit odd to me. I would like better "erfüllt" for just made and "1 Überstich" for +1. 10. In cases where "abbrechen" (cancel) is too long, maybe just use "Abbruch". 11. For "Broadcast" I do not like "Funk" - maybe use "Durchsage" instead - really much better. Karl

New observations: The word vugraph should also be not translated, because both people and websites refer to is as vugraph - new users would not be able to understand what it means, if they did not find the word vugraph in the software. McBruce mentioned in the Support Forum that he got a Polish message when subbing. I also got a Polish message when selecting a Polish Partner from the partnership desk. The message was the one that tells you that you are now successfully registered with your partner. Karl

Hi Andreas, what you suggest would be really violating the laws, because opps might play the hand in a non-normal fashion. I nearly never state a line of play because most times when I claim there is only one possible line of play. It is really not necessary to say something if there are 4 tricks left to play and opps are out of trump and you have 2 trumps in the dummy and 2 in the closed hand for a perfect cross-ruff. But if opps were allowed to play this as they like, for sure they would play 2 extra rounds of trump and cash the last 2 tricks. Karl

hi Rain! It depends on when the director is called. If he is called before the end of the round and before the claiming side has made a bid for the next board, the director should adjust if the trick cannot be lost by normal play. After that, the director should only adjust if the trick cannot be lost by any legal play. See: Karl

Hi Rain, I would first ask the player who did not explain if he was aware that he should have explained anything he agreed on with his partner that is relvant in this context. I doubt that there is any player who did not explain but answers yes here. If such an unaware player was advanced and above, I would additionally ask how it is possible that he is advanced but doesn't know. Maybe there is some good explanation about living in a remote countryside where such issues were never discussed. Or he knew about it but thougt it would not apply in this special case. As I could not prove anything else, I would believe him and instruct him to mind the laws in future. But if there is no explaination or a rude answer, I think it is time to award him some of your demerit points. :blink: Karl

I think here is not clear if A and B are partners or opps. JRG obviously asumed they are partners, and the others asumed they were opps. I am not sure what Rain meant them to be. Rain, maybe you could clarify this? ty Karl

Hi Robert, bridge is about getting the higest score possible without risking too much. In this sense claiming is not playing bridge, as you can never get a better sorce by claiming, except you claim too many tricks and opps do not see this. If you indeed claim too many tricks your are not punished for that, as normally every director would asume you did this accidentially. In trivial cases you just get the tricks afterwards that you would have got if you correctly claimed in the first place. The other side, however, is suddenly in a new situation: all cards are displayed, and you are required to verify the claim unsing that extra information. I sometimes did not see the linie of play though it was obvious, as I overlooked something, so I rejected. This has no negative consequences for me, but only uses time. On the ohter hand, it is not unlikely that the inverse case happens: like the claimer I think I see the obvoius line, but I miss some point and accidently accept a claim for more tricks than possible. If the director would never think of adjusting in such a case, the logical consequence for me should be that I always reject claims - this way I can never accept a false claim, and always rejecting is no disadvantage for me. There is another reasoning that has more merits with directors that never adjust an claim: You might claim early and, if the situation is not really obvious, just intentionally claim one trick more than you would get. Normally opps reject, you play one or to more tricks and then claim the correct number of tricks, saying "sorry for wrong claim". This is no disadvantage at all for the claimer. But sometimes, opps may not see that the claim is wrong and accept. Now you have an advantage. Of course this behaviour could not be prevented, but if the directors usually adjust if somebody recognizes a wrong claim, intentional wrong claims would be less rewarding. Maybe with your post you only wanted to vote for not adjusting claims of too few tricks. The please have a look at Law 72A 2.: If such a claim was accepted, this is indeed an irregularity, and the director should adjust. Karl

hi Al, I believe yes. no As long as the tourey page is visible inside BBO. I believe thie is for about 30 Minutes. Karl

abe, here I quote law 9B the second time in this thread: I says _must_. That means if you do not do it you this is a subsequent irregularity produced by you. This is not only true for my own tourneys, but for any tourneys, face to face or online. Karl

abe, selecting the language you like can be done using the dialog invoked by the gear button that includes many other options as well. What you select there remains in effect until you change it. Only the first time you run 3.7.6, when no language yet selected, the setting is taken from the setting of your computer. Karl

Sorry, in a tourney this is not just a matter between you and opps; it has always more or less influence on the scores for all other pairs. I strongly object giving a trick in order to be polite. Of course you can do what you like at a table in the main bridge club, but not in a tourney, please. If you think there is a problem please call the director and let him decide. If you think you can do it better by yourself, I ask you not to play in a tourney that I host. Karl

Hi Al! First of all lets discuss the question if you should do anything in cases where nobody called. There are 2 spots I have found in the laws that may be relevant to that question. and "... in any manner ..." clearly includes the case that the director learns about an irregularity by chance. And law 9B clearly stated that the director must be summoned at once - "must" here ist the strongest word that the law could possibly use here and emphasizes the intention of the laws that the director should deal with any irregularity. In face to face bridge I would make 2 exceptions, however: 1. If I am director and kiebitz a table and see an usufficient bid, I would not intervene because LHO has the right accept this as legal, and he can do so by just making the next bid. 2. In case of revokes Law 64B 4. and 5. define the possibility that no penalty is assigned if the non-offending side fails to draw attention to the revoke in time. I conclude from that that in this case it is really the duty of the non-offending side to see the revoke, and it would be wrong if the director would do it on behalf of them. The relevant law for accepted claims is My first observation is that there is it makes a difference at what time the non-offending side withdraws the acceptance of the claim. So I would at least not say anything before the round ends or any call has been made for the next board by the non-offending side. When Law 69B becomes relevant this way, you might lean back because it requires the non-offending side to make a move. But I think this is different from a revoke. At the revoke, it is clearly stated that a penalty must not be assigned when the time is over. These revoke penalties apply even in cases where there was no harm done to the non-offending side, and so it deems right to me that the non-offending side has to call for it. And they lose their rights completely when it is too late. In case of a claim where tricks were claimed (or conceded) that could not be won (or lost), the non-offending is given the opportunity to find an obvious mis-accept until the correction period of law 79C ends. Within this period it is possible e.g. possible to correct wrong entries in the traveller sheet. And this is something the director would do on his own initiative if he discovers some weird score - asking both pairs before of course. And: Claiming is not bridge - it is only a technique invented in order to save time and mental energy. Wrong claims and wrong acceps therefore should not be allowd to stand, no matter how they are discovered. I cannot believe the reason why law 69B states "... a contestant may withdraw ..." is that it really is the exclusive duty of the non-offending side to withdraw an accidental acceptance. Because I think no director would refuse to adjust if the claimer calls later and says he accidentially claimed too many tricks. I would even adjust if a kibitzer tells me about a wrong claim - law 81C6 applies! And another thing: if you see somebody in the north seat conceding 6 tricks in 6ntx at IMPs, obviously in order to punish his partner for something he just said, and opps do accept that, would you let it stand, giving an unfair good score to EW at this table and to the NS pairs at all other tables as well as an unfair bad score to the EW pairs at all other tables? I hope not. About the your reasons not to adjust: (1) not relevant as it is really highly unlikely that the same false claim is made at another table and accepted. (2) There is already a big difference between misclick and miscount: According to BBO regulations you are allowed to ask for an undo _only_ in case of misclick and therefore not in case of miscount - the latter is always a lack of bridge abillities in the moment it occurs and therefore should be allowed to affect the score. The reason why undos in tourney may be disabled is to prevent them from being abused for other cases besides misclicks. But the argument for disallowing undos could also be that in case of the equivilant of a misclick in face to face bridge - showing an unintended card that could be legally played - is not subject to anything like an undo according to the laws. Compared with that, we have law 69 that allows acceptance of claims to be withdrawn within certain limits. Karl