glen

See: Change of Heart idea Here 2♥ is just ♥s and 2♣ is both majors, while you have 2♥ as both majors, 2♣ as just ♥s - I looked at both ways, and decided I like 2♥ as as just ♥s, based on some research done years ago on using 2♣ as "two-way" Flannery (that is can be 5-4+ either way in the majors) - before the days of the Internet, so a system I published in photocopy form.

Let's take a look at that letter... To "all news stations concerned"? ...now we skip a whole pile of ranting, to get to .. First, this passenger did not hear this converstation. Next, how would the ticket agent determine they were extreme fundamentalists? "If it is their custom to pray at a certain time each day at sunset..." - what do you mean, If? How about Since it is their custom... the unfomfortable feeling due to the long phone call in non-English? So "same conversation continued for at least another hour from his front row seat in first class" and this same man also walked back to the rear of the plane twice to talk? Okay, so the guy heard Allah and terrorists in their foreign language conversation, but that's all he understood? Now when did this women indicate this - did she stand up and say this to her fellow passengers? If the guy who heard Allah and terrorists passed the note up, did this woman give no note? Did she hear the word terrorists? Do terrorists even mention they are terrorists? Umm, not the "entire plane" - they could take 50 hostages and the pilots would not open the door. They were actually "perfectly positioned" to be shot by air marshals, or just beaten up by "several hundred" other passengers, who feeling uncomfortable, might have wanted to take some action as soon as the double "seat belt extender" attack began. The police and FBI are not yet involved when the "real possibility" was determined. Hold on, does this letter writer work for a law firm for the airline? That's it - only these possible two scenarios? The latest news appears to be here, at the moment: Washington Times

If playing standard I would bid 2♥, the value showing bid. If playing responses I prefer, where 2♥ is about 5-9 (or poor 10) and 5+♥s, I would bid 1♥ showing 0-10 and usually just 4♥s unless bad hand. If playing with an expert partner, and if we had the agreement, I would bid 2NT, scramble with two playable spots and not enough to cuebid - this would help us get to our spot while perhaps blocking the opponents from getting to their spot.

Instead of more TDs, the BBO software needs updating to record each tourney table's chat (and discard it after 30 minutes). Based on experiences at another online bridge provider, this feature will allow TDs to quickly take action in these types of circumstances without having to spend many minutes getting players to describe (or misdescribe) how they got to a particular point. Also when players know the TD can instantly see the past chat, they will tend to curtail some of their unacceptable remarks. As it is now, players know they only have small risk it will be later send to abuse, and even if it is, they might only be faced with a warning. For this thread's starting example, the TD could arrive after the gloating, see the chat and quickly replace +1100 with +110 (sorry, you lose a zero), and then wait for the fireworks display :blink:

My wife and I continue to get unsolicited feedback on ACBL BBO games. Today was typical - we were out playing f2f and the table conversation goes: Player: Haven't see you out much here, where are you playing? Us: Mostly online. Player: Which site? Us: Bridge Base Online. Player: You should have seen the other day in a ACBL tourney. I and another player are playing against two really good opponents, and my partner goes down in a cold contract, and then questions the signalling methods of the opponents. One opponents says "it doesn't matter, the contract was cold idiot". My partner then fires right back with a nasty comment. The TD is called and kicks out both my partner and the opponent, and then assigns -4 IMPs to me, so +4 IMPs to their side. Unbelievable! Me: Actually both sides likely got -4 IMPs, just because your side got -4 for your partner's bad conduct does not mean they got +4. * * at least I hope not! The good news here is that ZT was employed, which it is not always. The bad news is: a ) TD actions are not always being communicated properly, resulting sometimes in bad feelings; b ) There seems to be some common frustration freely expressed by participants. Perhaps this is just due to the quality of our f2f club TDs around here, so that is what the TDs online get measured by. However the only way to get a measure of the degree of problem of a and b above would be to note in each tourney where complaints should be directed. This would avoid the 3-5% of the same people reporting the same problems which really doesn't get us much anywhere.

In ACBL Zero Tolerance gloating would likely be considered "embarrassing remarks" that would "interfere with the enjoyment of the game". See: ACBL Zero Tolerance Of interest is that this policy states that "Greeting others in a friendly manner" is a "commendable behavior", but "not required". However in: Fall 2006 NABC Second Sunday Bulletin - see page 2 top right the ZT Update column by Paul Cronin says: And then right back to this thread topic the article continues: So given this clear statement, gloating of any kind in ACBL BBO tourneys might get the TDs on your case if they were following ZT as described in the quoted article.

I think all net profit should go to BBO - that is other ACBL-BBO accredited clubs could be set up, TDs would be paid the BBO agreed rate for their services, the ACBL their agreed rate, and perhaps an overseer some sort of rate, and the rest of $ (well small fraction of $) would go to the BBO for providing the service, accrediting the club, and putting up with the headaches involved. BBO would be allowed to suspend accrediting the club at any time without providing a reason.

It has been a welcome change - as tourney players we like being able to kibitz the last round (usually the last board, though sometimes two) once we have a finished and are sitting around waiting for the results. We (speaking for my wife and I) would also like "real" people to be able to kibitz whole tourneys again, and hope you figure out how to determine who's real and who's not. For example, it was sad that none of our friends could see us play in a partscore 4-3 ♦ fit last night, when we had already found our 4-4 ♥ fit and were cold for game. You really want to share the joy of the moment (well, joy of the opponents). However it is painful to be kibitzed by a 'private-private-united nations' and then perhaps wonder about what's happening at the table. If people are willing to be really real then no problems.

Given you admit above you didn't look into the hand in question, I then wondered what you had read in this thread to have produced this reaction: We have this: "I like the BBO ACBL games, but I don't take them that seriously. I've had a couple of rotten TD calls. BFD." "The directors ruling seems groundless to me... " " dont agree with the ruling can happen at real bridge table." "I have had numerous bad rulings by ACBL TD's both on BBO and live...." "Without seeing the board I do not have the complete information but I think using this rationale to adjust a board is flawed" "However, what concerns me, is that the directors are almost using carte blanche in determining the results of the field when they can not accurately determine what the proper score should be, and this has been ongoing for a significant period of time." Imo, none of this was stating 'with authority that a given ruling by a given TD is "wrong"', so perhaps you were considering posts in other threads that have been made before?

As noted by Fred, there are two more things the ACBL gets when it runs a successful vugraph: - it gets happier customers: that is ACBL members who pay annual ACBL fees are happy that some of their money is being used to showcase bridge, which many of us believe is a legitmate and necessary use of these funds. - it promotes the NABCs as world class events, attracting new customers to these events and/or preventing drain to other events (not just promoting bridge, but promoting the NABC itself). Thus it is in the best interest of the ACBL to care about their vugraph presentations, and I look forward to seeing some constructive steps by them.

There's been a lengthy gap between the last thread date and this one - I suggest that this sub-forum be renamed from "Non-Natural Systems" to "Bidding Systems" to cover a wider range.

How would a winner be suddenly announced? The commentators would not reveal the ending, if they happened to know it, until the end (or were spoil-sports). The ACBL tends to have a lag between end of event and result appear on their web site. So if the time-delay was 3 1/2 or so hours, then there should be no sudden announcements to ruin the drama. Anyway for me I would rather have 27 boards knowing the result, or with a chance of finding out the result before the end, than 12 boards only and the "drama" of waiting a very long time between the scheduled start and seeing 6 of those boards, and then waiting a very long time to see another 6. Loved the final yesterday, and much thanks to the ACBL, BBO, commentators, and everybody else that made it a successful Sunday. Of course, for me it is a tired Monday since our alarm clock did not adapt to the early morning result.

A "tape-delayed" approach might have been best. Have a vugraph operator record all the deals as they happened - then, a few hours later, at a pre-announced time, launch a vugraph with commentators, and treat the event as "live". One could even skip any lengthy pause between rounds thus we would have a very good show. Given ACBL results are not immediately available on the net, the drama of the occasion could still be kept.

In that case he might have 30 seconds of ISP problems, so I would not draw any conclusion from any pause.

Interesting subject stirred up this month by Ercan Cem's Bridge World article "A Responding Catalog", which suggests: 2♣: GF, either ♣s or big balanced or major fit 2NT: natural balanced GF, not big As compared to the well used: 2♣: GF, either ♣s or 3 card major fit with ♣s or balanced with some ♣s, using other 2/1 to handle other balanced hands 2NT: GF 4+ major fit and the sometimes used: 2♣: GF, either ♣s or balanced or 3 card major fit with ♣s 2NT: Game Invite+ with good major fit I believe that Ercan Cem's analysis is correct. My wife and I currently play "3NT to play, can be a variety of hands, do not pull it unless very distributional or very big hand", and 2NT Jacoby GF major raise (which I dislike as it is but was put in so she could play with others). 3NT has been a big winner, except it would be considerably better to be able to bid a natural GF 2NT instead, to allow opener to then show a distributional hand on the three level so choice-of-game can be accurate. At strong levels of play the 2NT Jacoby bid attracts blockage bids by the opponents (you have a nice fit and values, let's stop your exploring for slam and let's get lead directional bids in). Moving the major fits into 2♣ will still face interference, but now one knows when this occurs that their bidding is serious, as the opponents risk the situation where your side has GF values with no good fit. Over recent years (almost always thanks to wonderful BBO vugraph) I've seen the Italian World Champs use the 2♣ responder with a good major fit, not have any interference, and be able to exchange a lot of useful information to reach the best spot, while the space consuming 2NT response seems to result in a little more guesswork. In summary, I like the approach where the 2♣ handles most of the GF major fits (except for those with a good suit elsewhere, then bid that suit first, then show support) and handles ♣s or big balanced hands, while the 2NT response is a natural GF.

The first question i have is what is the real level of the thinking player?

Although this will never happen, and I'll be in the minority here (a minority of one perhaps) I believe that either: 1) The system makes something in the white box mandatory for doubles; or 2) Even better, the system pops up a Takeout, Values, Penalty, Negative, Support, Other (please specify) type checkbox for anybody making a double.

My counter thoughts 0) What in the world are you doing writing this long post when you could be on the beach - or did you write this on the beach? 1) Agree - club games, nothing more. 2) Agree - club TDs will never be close to perfect 3) Another view - If some will like a ruling, and some will not, this is not "no win" - this is "some happy, some unhappy". The TD then needs to finesse the unhappy into some sort of "well okay", or provide escalation to achieve this state. 4) Another view - TDs clearly become too busy at points during the tourney - somehow they need to later get back, even if after the tourney is over and the results are final, to the player. While delayed responding is fine, even if much later, never responding is never good. As to "not exactly been polite", TDs will need to calm players down from time to time - certainly one sees this f2f - sometimes even TDs have lost it, though usually its the customers. 5) Agree - I even find appeal committees at regional levels a waste of effort for everybody involved (the players, the TD, the committee members), let alone a 12 board online club game. 6) Agree - I believe the vast majority of tourney players feel the same way. 7) Disagree - I don't think the answer is to move the customer to another venue. I believe instead the tourneys need a clearly communicated follow-up mechanism that allows players to voice concerns without resorting to public forums. This would be on the lines of "if you have had problems during this tourney, please email us at problems@us.bbo and we will get back to you. While we cannot change the result of the tourney once it is over, we are always looking for ways to improve the quality of each player's experience." Most times people don't want the result fixed, they just need somebody to listen to them, reply, admit that a mistake has happened when it happens, and sometimes even (gasp) refund the tourney entry fee for good will. Just biked home in Canadian November weather - I would take advantage of any nice beach weather.

However this button is not available once all boards have been completed, even though at this time the player may have a problem to follow up about.

This dreary scenario is all too common but you did not present it completely. It is: TD makes a ruling. One of the players doesnt like it. Player attempts discussion with TD (TD does not reply, or gives dismissive reply - see " I asked by making that adjustment, what rule of ACBL she's referring to. No answer.") Player, frustrated and having a bad experience in the paid tourney, sees no clearly "contact us" method to follow-up on this privately (for example check tourney announcements - there is no notice on how to follow up). With no knowledge of how to proceed otherwise 'he "takes it to the public" in the forums'. Other frustrated players have the discussion which then 'drifts towards the "ACBL sucks" or "BBO TDs suck".' In short there is a communication issue. One guideline is to compare these cases to f2f, to see things from the customer point-of-view. Although the online to f2f comparison is not perfect, it does help to understand the frustration that arises from these occurrences. Here in f2f land we might have: TD is watching players. TD observes a partnership go for -1100. TD walks up and tells the table that this will "skewed the result of the all tournament", and that the -1100 partnership is getting A- instead of their bottom, other partnership is getting A+ instead of top. A+ partnership asks for reason for this ruling. TD walks away without comment. How can one think customers are not going to be frustrated with this? Yes, this dreary scenario is all too common, and the customer service approach is not to tell the paying customers to go away, as in switch to "more lighthearted free tourneys".

Tourneys should: a) pay no attention to auto play singletons - instead players must click on them until such point as the software measures tempo and then plays singletons in normal tempo b ) auto play the whole last trick c) auto claim hands where whole hand is high where no play (regardless of good or bad) can produce any other outcome

This continues to be the #1 problem for the paid tourneys - TDs need to find time either during the tourney or, if busy, afterwards, to reply to players who run into this type of trouble. I thought the response to your email was satisfactory given what could be done at this point. There is no way of seeing the cc, or lack of it, at this point. The TD might or might remember looking into this (or might not want to admit to it), so follow-up there might not lead anywhere. Registering something against the players in question based on the email complaint is possible, but you should not be told whether or not this has been done to protect the process. Thus I believe the problem was with the initial handling by the TD. In particular, it is necessary to: - communicate with players, including thanking them for bringing items to the TD's attention; - even if there is no damage on a particular hand, ensure that partnerships abide by the rules by having a proper cc; - notice when players are using conventions outside the ACBL GCC, and be pro-active in letting these players know they must not continue to use them. Communicating with players, ensuring rules are followed, and pro-actively stopping trouble before it causes damage on a subsequent hand, all make for a better tourney experience for the paying customers.

One rule of thumb for claiming is: Will it speed up play? Often if the opponents will quickly follow suit if you continue play then claiming instead does not gain but slows the game down or does not gain any time at all. Also don't claim if your opps may not see things as fast or in the same light that you would. Which is much the same point as in the post just above. Finally, to the thread starter, I would avoid as much as possible using the word cheating in thread headings, and use something else less fire starting.

A yellow was called to the table and the hand has been reported - so no further concern here except for the players in question. As to your friend, if this type of thing occurs in a non-tourney, and the opposing player is unable to explain the 4♦ call, both during auction and afterwards, then add a player note, explain you have to walk your cat so must leave now, find new opponents after a 10 second cat walk, and report hand via email to bbo. I would not even waste a yellow's time on this, as the kibitzer who called him/her did. The great thing about this hand is actually the 6♦ bid - 4♦ might be one of those wonderful "misclicks" we sometimes see, but then 6♦ was ? - would be fun to see the explain for that one.

That's cool!