Canuckstan

I'm surprized I was the first vote for Capp, considering that it's certainly the most popular anti-NT conventions at the major online sites. I know "popular" isn't necessarily "best," but if most of your pards are online pick-up partners, you need to talk a language that is most likely to be understood by others. I like the simplicity of Landy but it doesn't appear on many profiles. Clearly, DONT is the other common one.

I'm baffled by the incredible rudeness of some online players. I also think it's too difficult to report abuses at BBO. The other day I was playing with a gentleman from Turkey who calls himself "xxx." [edited by moderator, names not allowed here] I did a takeout double with 10 or 11 points (a tad light, I'll admit, but it was close to the optimal 1-4-4-4 distribution.) However, the bid encouraged my "partner" to bid on to game. When he went down, he cursed me on the chat function in very foul language and ejected me with no warning (he was the table host, obviously). Note this was our very first (and only) hand together. I had time to flag him as an enemy, which is why I can recall the name, but nowhere can I find an official mechanism for reporting such abuses -- which is easier at sites like Pogo.com. I felt the behaviour was far in excess of my "crime," if indeed my double was a crime. And I felt badly about it for hours after. Just because the other person is an anonymous name behind a keyboard somewhere on the planet doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated with respect. As far as I'm concerned, "xxx" [ditto, if you have a specific complaint, write to abuse at bridgebase dot com] should be banned from the site -- permanently along with any other handles he may use associated with the same email address.

The blog entry on this can be found here: www.nationalpost.com/chevreau

I know there's a discussion of BBO's new Money Bridge capability in the context of the expertise (or lack thereof) of the robots. I'm starting this thread because I think this is a fascinating development for bridge generally and especially online bridge. I've always played here just for fun. Just as well, because I'm just a lowly intermediate. But playing for money adds a whole new dimension. I know many feel that in regular bridge the act of adding a little money to the mix makes for better bridge: there are fewer stink bids, one tends to focus and remember more, etc. Alan Sontag's entertaining book, The Bridge Bum, has some interesting tales of playing "in person" bridge for money but as far as I know this was not previously possible in online bridge. Or is it? My perception is that online poker is bigger than online bridge because of two things: it makes for easier television and because of the big money stakes. But now we can play online bridge for money, how does this change the culture here, or at OKB or The Zone or any of the other major duplicate sites? What kind of protections will average users have? We've all witnessed cheating even in casual for fun games: I gather the GIBs will prevent this but is this a step to playing for money among 4 humans? If that happens, is there potential for rich gullible players to really lose their shirts? BBO has taken a giant step here and I congratulate Fred and the team for the constant improvements. I just think the community should be looking at this from more than just the robot angle. I ask these questions not just as a BBO player and participant in these forums but as a journalist and blogger. I've sent uday a formal email on this as well but anyone -- especially experts -- interested in providing on-the-record comment please email me at jchevreau@nationalpost.com.

Well, since we veered off into chess, maybe this is the place to ask about the Hocus Pocus books, which compare chess and bridge. I didn't buy it but skimmed one of two volumes in the book store. I just couldn't get my head around what exactly the book was trying to say so saved my money. But it was close!

Being new, apologies if this is an old topic but I'm not sure how to search old topics here. Having read the two Larry Cohen books on The Law of Total Tricks, I was interested to read Mike Lawrence's rebuttal, called I Fought the Law. Is the Law something intermediate or advanced players use too uncritically? How do Experts approach it? Has Lawrence's book changed the consensus view on it?

Thanks. How exactly DOES Bergen shape 2/1? Thurston does have a chapter entitled "Bergen and Beyond" explaining Bergen raises (3C or 3D showing 4 trump support to a 1M opening). But apart from that, how else has Bergen shaped 2/1?

Thanks. I do have some partners at another site who I've actually met in person but they're SAYC people and I just can't seem to convert them, even after giving them some of the above-named materials. In his book, Thurston describes the frustration of learning about 2/1 in theory but then being unable to find people to practice it with, either at a local club or online. Sure there are a lot of experts playing it online but they're already partnered with others. For now, my solution is to set up 2/1 tables at BBO and label them thus: 2/1 practice: int+/adv-. It may take 10 minutes to find action but it seems to work. If anyone reading this thread is at the same stage, hope to find you online.

One year into my own 2/1 learning curve, I'm interested in some of the differences in 2/1 that crop up between the various 2/1 authors: the late Max Hardy, Mike Lawrence's excellent 2/1 CD-ROM, and Paul Thurston's 25 Steps to Learning 2/1. Which of these is considered "standard" 2/1? Are there others of which I'm not aware? If you want to practice 2/1 here at BBO or elsewhere, how do you find 2/1 partners? Should BBO set up a 2/1 only subplaying area? I see a lot of people create 2/1-only tables: I often do this myself, but half the time SAYC and other players crash it anyway. To really become proficient at 2/1, is it necessary to completely abandon SAYC or other systems? Because of the frequency of people leaving BBO sessions, I often find myself making mistakes because I've forgotten that LAST partner was 2/1 and NEW partner is SAYC. Anyone have solutions to this?

First post here. My intro to online bridge was two years ago at pogo but the cheating and temper tantrums eventually drove me away -- that plus a growing preference for duplicate over rubber. At Pogo, it was clear people took their ratings very seriously and also that some were willing to cheat in order to boost their scores -- invariably at someone else's expense. It makes no sense to me: they are only cheating themselves -- cheating themselves of the satisfaction and challenge of playing an honest game -- and generally harming this wonderful game. Sadly, cheating at online bridge is just another manifestation of declining moral standards in all walks of life, everywhere. Likely, it can never be completely eliminated. It is important not to take ratings over seriously. That's why I prefer to play just non-rated regular games here at BBO. When ratings are at stake, it creates a whole extra level of possible nastiness, some of which may involve cheating. Who needs it? For 99.9% of us it is, after all, just a game.