muggle

Except it is the harsh truth for every mind-event in the world, from poker, to math, to video games. It is a hard fact that goes way beyond cultural sexism or expectations. If anyone, male or female, is naturally talented at an activity they will naturally strive to excel. I've heard 2 biological explanations that make sense to me: 1) Men focus, women multitask (I know someone quoted this from Auken/Armin book). I saw this demonstrated a science documentary many years ago. They had test subjects listen to multiple voices at the same time. Men could pick out a single voice, whereas women could not. This was attributed to back during our hunter/gatherer days, where men had to focus and ignore all distractions to hunt, while women did work around the 'homestead' but were also always subconsciously listening for their children. 2) Women's intelligence profile are more centered around the norm (higher and narrow peak), men's are flatter and more spread. I read this as the explanation of why girls do better in school than boys, even after correcting for girls being better behaved. Boys having a flatter and wider IQ profile means more boys are at both the extreme high end and extreme low. I'm not expert on this, or bridge, so maybe I'm repeating nonsense. Feel free to correct me.

Congrats to the winners -- it was exciting bridge and great show all around. As far as personal statements, I totally agree they should be left at home or for a more appropriate venue. Everyone is a guest, in a neutral arena of unity and friendly competition. So it should be treated as neutral ground where bridge is the only business of the day. Leave home troubles at home. Allowing outside issues to intrude is a real slippery slope that will only lead to more problems. I know in the recent World Cyber Games in Seattle (international video game competition) there was a physical confrontation between Chinese team and some Taiwan gamers because one of them wrapped himself in the Taiwan flag instead of the IOC Chinese Taipei one. Yeah, video gamers are young adult males, but most people who are serious about certain issues, when they hear or see what are fighting words to them, it is no different in setting them off. So it is just in bad taste. I watch and play bridge to get away from the troubles of the everyday world.

BBOTV has really added value to the experience, letting me watch both rooms at the same time. Of course the 12 hour time difference has been killer. I'll watch the 1st session and usually fall asleep midway through the 2nd session. - 1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai? Excellent My connection to BBO has been rock steady. - 2. How was the quality of the operators? Excellent - 5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory? Excellent - 6. How did you like the commentary? Excellent - 7. Should we continue with multiple languages? Yes Sure. Why not. No skin off my back. Maybe add a way to 'gag' particular commentators per session so foreign language doesn't show up, but still run multiple languages in the same room.

I hope Jack team writes up a post mortem. Have the other bridge programs really closed the gap? It can only be good for computer bridge, encourage and push more authors.

Well, according to daily bulletin 2, an Ireland segment was scheduled for broadcast by one of the other internet vugraph sites for round 4. http://www.worldbridge.org/bulletin/07_2%2.../pdf/bul_02.pdf WBF could make it much easier to see a centralized list of online vugraph schedules and information, instead of only from the pdf daily bulletins. They are online, we're all online.

This works too b) test b[COLOR=black])[/COLOR] test

somewhat related. in normal bbo, when kibitzing, the chat button at the bottom of the window defaults to 'Chat to room', I think its better to default it to 'chat to kibitzers', just like when you start a chat by just typing away. This sometimes leads to accidents when newer bbo users kibbing end up saying something to the table unintentionally

How will the carryover work? For the life of me I can't find anywhere.

another low priority request... a way to turn off the 800x600 resolution check before bbo will launch. i often have my laptop screen rotated (when I'm lying in bed), so the screen resolution is 768x1280. BBO runs fine at this resolution even if a bit of the side edge is hidden off screen. it's not difficult to work around. i launch bbo at 1280x768 and then rotate the screen. another way it to run my rotated resolution at virtual 960x1280.

big congrats to Fred and the rest of the BB/BBO gang You've done a bangup job over the years. Clearly a labor of love from the beginning. You've babied and nurtured it, and its grown and grown and grown. Now you've brought in the finest gurus to help guide it to the promise land (whatever it turns out to be). :)

I think you should add link from the gibware.com and bridgebaseonline.com and online.bridgebase.com page back to the home www.bridgebase.com page and software and deal of the week http://www.bridgebase.com/bbiindex.html I was just browsing around and felt like looking at some of the very old "Deal of the Week" and was surprised there is no link from bridgebaseonline.com / online.bridgebase.com page to the old web software pages and main www.bridgebase.com page. Maybe I missed something obvious (other than typing it into the address window)...

great idea. And for those without mic/headphones, try your local $.99 store. I bought a nice one at a $.99 store, and it sounds great!

I like this book: How the Experts Win at Bridge Author: Hall, Burt & Lynn Rose-Hall This book represents the best thinking and philosophy of the experts on every aspect of the game. Principles that have made so many partnerships successful are divulged here. (from www.ACBL.org) I always go through it after being away from the game for many months/years. It is written by a couple who returned to bridge after decades away from the game. It is pretty much a summary of most of the "modern" practices used by experts. The style they advocate is a bit aggressive for my taste, but you get in one easy to read book a nicely organized summary of the topics covered and philosophies espoused by the most popular bridge writers of today. From there you'll have a better idea of what other books you might want to get. And you'll know basically what your tournament bridge opponents are trying to do to you at the table.

First, improve your declarer play. I recommend the book, Bill Root's "How to Play a Bridge Hand". And, of course, Fred Gitelmans' Bridge Master software, and How to Play Bridge tutorials. If you are an average player or better, taking the anti-field action is a losing tactic. The way the math works, in matchpoints, if you make the inferior anti-field, bid that is successful 49% of the time, and everyone else makes the field bid, which works out 51% of the time, you will end up with a top 49% of the time, and a bottom 51% of the time, and end up with a net 49% score. In your case, until you feel more confident about your declarer play, I suggest being somewhat conservative with your bidding. Be really solid with your bids, don't make borderline bids, and pass if it is one of the logical choices. My team of non-lifemasters once beat one of the top seeds in a unit KO (a flight A+ team) in a 24-board unit knockout event this way -- they bid aggressively, like they are suppose to in IMPs, and I swung a bunch of +6 imps our way by being conservative. When they went down in games at the other table, I was cleaning up with +90s and +140s.

very nice.

Some rules of thumb I have found easy and profitable when deciding what to bid, or whether to pass. 1) Rule of 20 to open 1st, 2nd, 3rd seat. Add your HCP + length of your 2 longest suits. If more than 20, open the bidding. Sometimes still pass with too many "soft" values (quacks), or points in short suits. 2) Rule of 15 to open 4th seat. Add HCP + length of spade suit. If less than 15, let the deal pass out. 3) Rule of 9 to penalty double (or convert a takeout double to penalty). Add level opponents at + your trump length + your trump honors (AKQJT), and you trumps are strong enough to try for a penalty if the total is more than 9. 4) Compete to the 3 level if your side has a total of 9 trumps. Law of total tricks. 5) If your opponents are good defenders and like to penalty double, preempt using rule 2-3-4. Unfavorable vulnerability (Vul versus NV), expect to go down 2 using LTC. Equal vulnerability, down 3 Favorabile vul, down 4 6) Bidding a NT contract, add 1 point for a 5 card suit, if it is headed by 4-7 HCP. Got this from MSN Bridge Club' s Lorne Russell. --- Also, let me add, rule 3 and 4 apply when both sides have approximately equal strength, around 18-22HCPs, for part-score battles.

And on more thought. I'm not a TD, but I think this situation falls under the rule of coincidence, where you are not allowed to field partner's pyches by making an unusual call which is inconsistant with your hand, system and normal bridge logic.

Jack Bridge uses really nice looking big cards. And they don't make them by scaling up small cards, they use custom bitmaps for each different size. Or simpler, just have a super big card view which just shows the top left corner of cards. http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/1689/bigcards3ra.png (I took a crop of Jack's cards)

Speaking for myself, I'd take 3♣ as a game try in ♥s, and never assume partner 'forgot'. I'd agonize a bit over bidding 3♥ or 4♥, and just bid 3♥. Take my lumps, whatever is deserved. Bridge is a game of mistakes. Maybe your pard will try to "save" by bidding 4♣, but your partner should really pass 3♥, taking you for a 6+ bagger, and a misfit, and not use UI of your alert. And your opponents wouldn't need to get the TD or feel damaged. Everyone would have a good laugh when dummy comes down, and what happens, happens. A disasterous misunderstanding is also, I find, the best way of remembering a convention. Your partner will either never forget support dbls again, or you'll just agree to not play them in the future.

That's nonsense bidding system, unless 1c is strong, 16+. And Strong Club is not "standard". No viable system would force bidding beyond the 3 level with as few as 23 points. I recommend you look up Fred Gitelman's excellent free "Learn to Play Bridge, Volume 2" bridge tutorial software, section on "Bidding in Competative Auctions", which defines 1C-(1H)-3C as limit raise. Or Bill Root's excellent book, "Commonsense Bidding", where I learned standard.

Excellent job by content providers. And an impressive technical achievement to create such a stable online service that can handle 10K concurrent users with such aplomb.

"10+" seems fine to me It implies natural bid, usually 5+♣, and non-forcing without so many words. Of course it's not forcing when facing opener who can have a flat 12 count. They wheren't playing strong club right? I don't see the problem. It's just std bidding. And this thread has recalling what the TD told an intermediate pair who kept badgering opponents with these sort of questions: "Opponents aren't obliged to teach you the game of bridge."

Right. This is not a new issue. It has been around as long as the internet has hosted games of any kind. People hack and cheat solitaire scores when they can. Accept reality of online bridge that it is impossible to catch small-time cheats. Yes, it is easier to cheat online than in F2F bridge and similarly difficult to catch. The middling cheat will probably never be caught or even noticed. The winning cheat may be caught only after many months or years. You have to trust the winning players are clean, because they attract observers who will notice too many odd results. In a way there is some self correction/prevention far superior to F2F bridge because it is easy to observe, look up and save results of a particular online player or pair that you suspect. Still, it is up to your own ethical code, and what you consider joy and the challenge of the game to still enjoy it, despite any cheating that may be occurring and to resist temptation to cheat yourself. Do your part by reporting suspicious behavior and in time the most egregious cheats will be caught by abuse@BBO, similar to f2f bridge. And if it worries and upsets you so much, avoid $ or rated games, play with those you know, and stick to F2F bridge.

I like Swan as well as BBO. I hope you guys can resolve your differences and work together. (I understand sometimes personality clashes on either or both sides make it impossible.) We all know BBO is the king on the block, but one of the mission's of BBO is also to promote bridge. The strongest market exist when there is healthy competition, and not just a predatory kind, which we see too much of in online bridge. Maybe in the future, BBO and Swan can offer joint projects and presentations, and take advantage of each other's strengths, to the benefit bridge aficionados worldwide. And about salespeople mentioning the competition: I think a business confident in itself, and prides itself in taking care of customers first, will refer customers to competition when they don't have something in stock, because they know the customer will come back. I've been referred elsewhere by what I consider good salespeople for hard to find electronics and such, because they know they are the best store, I am a good customer, and I will be back to buy more electronics from them in the future. The car dealer analogy is off, because a car is, for all purposes, a one-time purchase. Unlike the VuGraph, which is not a one-or-the-other proposition -- I have both BBO and Swan open at the same time.

When you're a regular partnership that is bored with standard bidding, that's when you add conventions. Keep adding until you start forgetting. They have cool names too - flip-flop, snap dragon, voidwood, ogust, two-way checkback, BART, lebensohl, leaping Michaels, UvsU, transfer preempts (I tried it, it was fun) ... Fill up your convention card with so much print no one will bother reading it. Another direction to try is weak NT or variable NT. That is ACBL legal and adds a novel and dangerous (for opps and sometimes yourself :lol: ) twist to your game.