Yzerman

Hi Lukasz, There is documentation on ratings available from the main menu on IBD, menu [Productst/Services]->[iBD Ratings]. The rating formula is as follow; FOR ANY SINGLE TOURNAMENT, PLAYER RATING IS - Tourney Rating (Tresult, Tpairs) = (Tpairs-Tresult) / (Tpairs – 1) A PLAYERS CUMULATIVE RATING (WEIGHTED) - Cumulative percentage rank = Σ (Tpairs-Tresult) / Σ (TPairs-1) Hence the rating is weighted on average field placing. I understand the point you make is that a player who play in few events may have higher rating, but over time this metric will tend toward reliable rating for player. What I intend on doing after there is enough data in system, is to adjust the rating lists/queries to display rankings of players who have played in => X events (where X will be 5<x>10 ). I would be glad to discuss your idea further, but I wanted to document exact method of current calculation. Somebody in the past actually recommended deriving a new data point from existing data, keep existing IBD eRating metric intact, and then add a nother rating metric called 'Adjusted IBD eRating' and have adjustment factors similar to what you suggest however we never got past the concept! Anyways, thanks for the feedback and hope to here from you sometime. Regards, Michael A Lucy

The Domain Name/URL is now active for IBD. www.internetbridgedomain.com Regards, MAL

Hi Lukasz, I agree with your comment regarding the redundancy of the yearly point/rating column on the member lists. This was item I built in preparation ahead of time for when we move from 2004 to 2005, I will just add new table and accumulate for 2005. Perhaps I will put idea of managing/tracking 30 day increments of ratings and points on my list of develpment items. One concept I wish to implement in the near future is to allow Tourney/Club owners the ability to query to database based upon performance to retrieve lists for restricted games (examples - owner query database for members who play > 5 games in last month with > 0.600 rating and receive text file results of that query), and using 30 day metric of performance would fit well in that concept. Right now, as the system exists, you must follow these steps to have tourney register on IBD, see this link for more detail Apply for Tourney; 1 - Register as IBD Member (link on homepage to register) 2 - Wait 3-5 minutes for registration process to complete 3 - Apply for IBD tournament (follow link above) 4 - Wait 5-10 minutes for tourney application process to complete 5 - Refresh your screen OR logout and log back in. Your login status will now have link for "Manage My Tournaments", this link will open your personal tournament managment page. Note: Right now this IBD tournament list and the BBO tournament list and the BBO TD Schedule list are all separate. In a perfect world, we could have automated feed from IBD to BBO/BBO TD Schedule and vice versa (hint, hint uday). The registration and application process is a little tedious and kind of like wandering in the wilderness right now. I am working on developing some help screens for users to reference for help and more thorough documentation. But for now, if there is any problem I am generally available to help when you have problems (BBO login=malucy, email=malucy@verizon.net, MSN=michael_lucy@hotmail.com). Regards and hope to see you on IBD site soon, Michael A Lucy

Hi All, Just a quick update regarding IBD. I hosted the initial IBD tournament on Monday, the tournament was successful in that the attendance was good and the actual tournament was, relatively speaking, problem free. NEXT MONDAY - IBD will host our 2nd tournament, Monday 3:30 pm EDT OPEN TOURNAMENT, with pre-duplicated deals and hand records available after the game. I am building automated and user friendly hand record functionality on website, and Monday will be first attempt with this. LINK TO HAND RECORDS! I would like to send a thank you to the number of BBO Tournaments and Clubs that have volunteered to use/apply the IBD site and structure for tournaments. IBD sponsored tournaments will grow over time in numbers, but for now we are attempting to grow slowly and identify/fix problems as they arise. Three announcements I would like to post on the forum for now; 1 - IBD Website Available - I am working to get the domain name registered (www.internetbridgedomain.com), this normally take up to 72 hours to be implemented. As soon as the URL becomes available, I will let everyone know. For now, users may review the site from Internet Bridge Domain (IBD). 2 - IBD provides a complaint form on website - The complaint form is available to REGISTERED IBD members (registration instructions available on site), to make a complaint against other IBD player/director/host. The form allows complaints for ETHICS, ZT/BEHAVIOR, DIRECTOR and GENERAL violations. After submitting the form, the system has processes and workflow built in to manage that complaint and ensure response, documentation, and archiving of that complaint. 3 - IBD provides committee services for complaints - The website has a committee function built in which allows for review of all complaints that request "escalation". The committee will review the "escalated" complaints, in which references to ALL names are removed. Each committee member will be responsible for "voting" and entering feedback on the complaint, after which time the committee members are finished "voting" the system will make a suggestion based upon the cumulative "votes" and feedback. The penalties for BOTH violations and frivilous complaints, are standardized and documented on the website. The penalties that are system suggested are applicable only within IBD sponsored events EXCEPT cases in which committee has "voted" such that major violation has occured, then IBD will forward the complaint to BBO Abuse. We are currently working on identifying and occupying the 5 committee member positions with respected and knowledgable bridge players and would hope to have the "complaint" process working very soon. If anyone would like to nominate a respected player for the committee, please contact me (malucy@verizon.net or leave msg on forum), I would prefer that people not nominate themself for present time. Regards, Michael A Lucy

Hi, ** Attention all BBO Tourneys - If you desire have an automated way to calculate points/ratings, have player points/ratings easily available on website, and would like to have your own tourney/clubs webpage PLEASE read this. I would like to announce the coming of a new website application that I am creating for ANY and ALL BBO Tourneys and Clubs. The "domain" as we have decided to call it, will have the following features for MEMBERS; 1 - Personal Profiles (personal info, picture, system notes attachments, conv cards) 2- Personal Pages for viewing of points, ratings, and history of results 3- Domain Website Messaging (send intradomain messages to other members) 4- Domain Member Calendaring (schedule your games on your personal calendar) 5- BBO Conv Card repository - Submit and retrieve BBO conv cards for tourneys The "domain" as we have decided to call it, will have the following features for TOURNEY/CLUB owners; 1- Ability to enter tournaments on website schedule 2- Full Archive of tournaments results 3- Tournament LIN file processing for member points/ratings 4- Tournament "Ratings" - Process to rate game and determine avg strength of field 5- Ability to cumulate player points/ratings either Locally or Publicly (* see notes) 6- Free Webpage and link on homepage of IBD website to member tourneys/clubs The theory behind the 'domain' is to add value to the BBO experience for all players, club owners, and tournament owners. Our intent is to help standardize and enhance tournaments that would like to participate in the domain such that there is recognized standard for; 1- Directors (Director Certification, Director Metrics) 2- Points/Ratings (Definded process for calculating points/ratings) 4- Ethics (Form, Committe, Processes) IF YOUR CLUB/TOURNAMENT MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN PURSUING THIS SERVICE, PLEASE CONTACT MALUCY ON BBO, LEAVE MESSAGE ON FORUM FOR YZERMAN, OR EMAIL MALUCY@VERIZON.NET. WE WILL BE ASKING FOR INPUT/FEEDBACK AND CREATING SCHEDULES IN NEAR FUTURE. * Notes - Thanks to TopFlight for the idea of allowing clubs/tourneys an option for points/ratings applied to club/tourney only. Tournaments will have option on website such that they can share their points/ratings on domain level OR keep points/ratings only in club (i.e. if a tourney is only local, then points/ratings for each player for that set of tourney is available from tourney stats, if a tourney is shared on domain the points/ratings are shared across all other shared tourneys). This feature is built to appeal to clubs that have a target audience and operate in more intimate environment. Special thanks to Kleek, Cascade, Spwdo, and Flatbrain for lending their time and effort to help develop the idea. Regards, Michael A Lucy

I believe 5 main components in becoming a good bridge players; 1 - Ability to learn from ones own mistakes 2 - Ability to 'think outside the box' 3 - Judgment 4 - Visualization 5 - Partnership skills Declarer play, defense, and systemic bidding methods all require the above stated skills. I wrote a brief lesson on judgment a while back, some may find this interesting; Judgement Lesson Regards, MAL

This is one of my pet peeves, top of nothing. I think there are 2 distinct camps in this argument; 1 - Where are the honor cards (hence top of nothing to show attitude in a suit) 2 - What is the distribution of suits for the deal My personal approach in this argument is that honor cards can be worked out from the auction (general knowledge of strain and level), the dummy (honor and relative spot cards) , and declarer inferences (avoidance of suits, attacking suits). A good mind should be able to work out honor points to a certain accuracy a large proportion of the time. Hand distribution and exact knowledge of declarers pattern is much more elusive and often much more important than honor cards. If you agree with previous statement, the there is room for the argument that it is essential the defense share enough information about distribution (count card leads, accurate count carding) starting IMMEDIATELY at trick 1. Additional arguments to this is that the hand playing BEHIND the dummy, will generally play the SAME card regardless of partners lead. The play of the person behind dummy is strictly a positional play (meaning that the intent is for the defense to guard defensive positions and tenaces). Having said that, IF the defense is likely to play the same card regardless of the honor point layout, what purpose does leading an attitude "top of nothing" or "MUD" lead serve? If the suit has been pickled on opening lead there is nothing the defense can do to recover anyway. Over time I have carefully considered the options of different count card lead options (3/5 vs 2/4 vs 4). My personal opinion is that 2/4 has a slight advantage for it allows a partnership a little more flexibility and can combine both count inference and honor point inference (leading from abcd, lead b from bad holdings and d from good holdings - then present count in suit from lead of b will be bcda and present count from d will be dcba). 3/5 leads do not allow as much flexibility in combining attitude and count, although some partnerships have agreements when to lead 3rd from 5+ card suits. Anyways, that is nerdy input on the subject! Regards, MAL

Hi All, As per my previous post, I am working on developing a new idea for BBO. I would like to briefly introduce and describe my idea. After the introduction and description of my idea, any constructive (or critical) feedback would be greatly appreciated. I am especially interested in feedback from people who manage existing tourneys/clubs, people who aspire to manage tourneys/clubs, and/or any feedback from the general player population. My idea is to scale the AbaLucy model such that ANY club or tourney owner on BBO could utilize the website functionality I have developed, please keep in mind this idea and AbaLucy are completely independent (this idea is for ALL BBO players). The concept I am terming a "domain", for lack of better word, such that willing clubs/tourneys and players could participate in a recognized and standardized series of tournaments. My current design would allow for "cyber" tourneys/clubs (i.e. Bridge to Far, AbaLucy, BIL) to participate as well as a platform for "real life" tourneys/clubs/organization (ACBL units, Rubber Bridge Clubs, Overseas Organizations, etc) to have the ability for a manageable and structured presence on BBO. As part of this "domain" functionality, I would like to build in a structure that is standardized (as well as customizable upon request). Some examples of what I would like to standardize include, but are not limited to; 1 - Points/Ratings (consistent and reliable points/ratings across all participating orgs) 2 - Director Procedures (consistent and reliable director procedures/protocols) 3 - Tournaments (consistent tiered level of tourneys (bronze, silver, gold) 4 - Clubs (consistent mechanism for registering and providing for clubs/members) 5 - Ethics (consistent procedures AND online ethics management procedures) 6 - Professional Play (allow platform for professional players to advertise services) 7 - Teaching/Instruction (allow platform for those aspiring to learn to find resources) All of the above mentioned would be managed and administered from a website platform. The platform would allow for players and managers alike the ability to interface with an online club/tourney management system (ethics complaints, directors, find professional resources, etc). The points/ratings component of the "domain" is to be the primary service/product to be provided, I am currently working on refining the AbaLucy model for a more scalable and equitable way of measuring play in tournaments. The points/ratings would be applicable to ALL players in any "domain" sponsored event with the condition that the event is "domain certified", where domain certified means the tournament would agree to follow predefined domain specified tournament/director/ethics procedures. My initial vision is that this "domain" would be at a cost, albeit minimal cost, for players to participate in a recognized "domain" sponsored event. I have not decided upon how I will structure the cost although I have considered and discussed a few options with a few people. I have developed some revenue/cost models that would allow for small profit for those willing to manage and run domain sponsored tournaments, hence providing some incentive for those interested in managing domain sponsored events, I personally have little interest in managing my own tournament or club. In addition to this, my current thinking is that I would provide an environment in which directors must achieve some level of certification, and would be compensated for their service to domain sponsored events. Participants would be required to pay an entry fee of ~$0.30 to $0.50 ($ US - And yes I understand currency conversion needs to be carefully considered), so I would like some feedback as to whether players find this cost reasonable for the above described service. I am still in the mindset that I am flexible in my approach, so if the general public opinion is that this idea is silly I am more than willing to adjust the approach. I would also like to provice space in the domain website for all club/tourney owners and players. Each tournament and club would have dedicated "space" on the website (default space with more space available upon request, considering a nominal fee for extra space/development). Each player would be provided a default member profile that would track and manage results cumulatively in the domain as well as manage and track a players results in each individual domain sponsored club/tournament (default profile with more space/funcationality upon request, considering a nomimal fee for extra space/development). Anyways, I would appreciate any feedback that anybody would have to offer. This whole concept is very risky and perhaps a bit distanced from the BBO status quo, however I have learned some historical lessons with tournaments and clubs and I have a small understanding of what might have some value to the BBO public as a whole. FYI - Any current BBO club/tournament manager that would be willing to provide guidance or assistance to help developing ideas based upon your experience or desires would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Michael A Lucy

Hi all, I have some new ideas that I may consider developing on BBO. Although I am not fully committed to developing these ideas as of yet, I would like to get some feedback if any willing and qualified persons would consider participating as a partner. Having some experience in developing ideas on BBO, I have some idea of the skills required to move full steam ahead. Currently the project would be myself and persons that may respond to this. My desire is to partner with one (at most two) highly skilled technical minds and respected players/organizers. The idea I wish to develop includes a universally recognized and accepted "Bridge Domain". This domain will include ability for others to create and manage Clubs and Tournaments within BBO. The domain will specialize in providing standardized services to bridge players (directors, points, ratings, ethics, procedures, etc) in which we will fully coordinate the data management and administration/management of the domain. Here are the skills in which I feel are important; - Important: SOUND Technical Mind Technical Skills: HTML/JavaScript/SQL/Database System Architecture Project Management Ability to Think "outside the box" Good Communicator Solid Understanding of Bridge (procedures, rules, etc) TIME (perhaps ability to dedicate 10-20 or more hours per week) - Not So Important (but nice to have): Lotus Notes/Domino DB2 Good Bridge Player (Popular and Well Respected) Java Upon lucking across somebody willing and able to partner in this effort, I will be able to provide the necassary software and hardware required for the project as well as full access to my server for development, testing, and deployment. This future of this project may be "for profit", however the immediate concern would be to develop the best club/tourney management and administrative web application around. Regards, Michael A Lucy

Hi all, just thought I would add my favorite 2 systems in order of preference. Mind you, I am familiar with and have experimented with MANY systems and the systems I propose as my favorite are selected because of; 1 - Ease of distinguishing FORCING, INVITATIONAL, NON-FORCING auctions 2 - Flexibility 3 - Effectiveness 4 - "False Economy", meaning the fewest number of bids to describe hand types 5- "Naturalness" of auction - meaning you bid what you got ;)) Primary System - 2/1, 11-14 NT, xfers, 2 way checkback (a MUST), inv minor GF, criss-cross in minor for invites, with lots of fit jumps/bids. Advantages - 1 - Very efficient, openings are easily defined on rebid 2 - Powerful negative and positive inferences in auctions 3 - Very simple to differentiate forcing, non-forcing, invitational auctions 4 - Excellent for finding minor suit slams (cause of the 1m opening on 15-17 hands) 5 - Finding a fit is much more simple, less emphasis on points and more on fit Disadvantages - 1 - 15-17 hands opened with 1m can be preempted easily and effectively 2 - The natural risk of opening 1NT with 11-14 points 3 - Inability to play 2C after 1N rebid (2C is relay) 4 - Marginal difficulty handling "constructive" minor hands (inv=gf, criss cross=inv) Secondary System - Polish Club (WJ), 15-17 NT, PRO (polish style checkback), use of 2NT as trigger for forcing auctions. Advantages - 1 - Powerful negative and positive inferences in auctions 2 - Opener 2nd bid describes hand type effectively (range/hand type defined in 2 bids) 3 - Ability to bid suits in 2/1 auction naturally with minimal points (no 2/1 GF) 4 - 1D opening ALWAYS has diamonds 5 - Relatively simple to differentiate forcing, non-forcing, invitational auctions Disadvantages - 1 - The 3/4/5 way 1C opening can be preempted easily 2 - 2/1 responses are NOT game force and create some level of doubt in auctions 3 - 1NT is NOT forcing and can be uncomfortable response to 1M on occasion Those are my observations and preferences, thanks for the opportuntity to respond. Regards, Michael A Lucy

I personally prefer CAPP, with some conditions. Substitute the double to show the 5+minor/4 Major hand, as well as the what some refer to as "reverse capp" or "mod capp" in which 2H/2S are single suits and 2C includes 5+major/4+minor. Personally, I think the capp double to show "cards" does not add value and is infrequent (as per MikeStar). The ability to differentiate which suit is longer for major/minor 2 suiters is an added value that I believe creates tremendous advantage. These bids allow the partnership to compete to the proper level, make sound judgements in game bidding and stay out of trouble when applicable. I see some players bidding 2H/2S with Jxxx of major and AKQxxx of minor and I would like to vomit. My vote goes for straight capp with special double; X=5+m/4M 2C=1 suit 2D=both M 2H=5+M/4+m 2S=5+M/4+m Regards, MAL

BBO member Kleek, also my "regular" real life partner, met in chat room and commenced discussion on ideas and/or concepts for the recommendation of an active BBO ethics committee. The discussion was based upon SUGGESTING ideas as part of an overall solution in which SOME BBO member could assume responsibility for becoming the "champion" of the project. Mind you the ideas that are to be expressed, are merely that - IDEAS. Our intent is not persuade anybody that what we suggest is any better than any other solution, but rather a foundation for further ideas and/or refinements of the original ideas. BBO Active Ethics Committee - 1 - An "owner" or "champion" would assume responsibility for the project from an overall perspective. This person would be a BBO appointed or approved individual. This person/position would NEVER be able to actively participate in committee regarding ethics proceedings, he/she may be aware of problems but his/her advice and/or suggestion is NEVER to be part of a committee recommendation. 2 - Upon electing a an owner/champion of project, this person would be responsible for following a predefined PROCESS for electing committee members. The committee would have X number of members, and each member would serve for Y period of time (X and Y to be determined). Each member must be approved by a governing body (BBO/Tourney Hosts/Club Managers ???). 3 - The committee is to avail its services to ANY tournament (host/director/club) and potentially organized team matches (??). Each club has the right to enroll or reject this service. 4 - Upon enrolling in this service, any club that participates can advertise its tourney as member of the active BBO Ethics Committee (kind of serve the same purpose as the ADT home burglar alarm sticker on front window). Enrolled tourneys may have the ability to advertise that they are BBO Ethics Certified (see additional ideas @ bottom). 5 - Any player, director, or host from a participating tournament that is confronted with a potential infraction, can forward the deal in question to the committee. The deal or potential infraction is to be submitted such that NO NAMES are associated with the analysis or review, it will be a complete anonymous review. In all cases, the tourney director/host MUST be aware that a potential infraction has occurred. 6 - The committee will review and analyze the deal and come to a group conclusion and make a recommendation based upon that conclusion. 7 - The committee's recommendation will be according to a standardized and documented scale. This scale would need some work, but below is illustration of concept; Scale, levels 1-5 Recommendation 1 - No infraction occured - No action recommended Recommendation 2 - Suspicious - No action, place violator on watch list Recommendation 3 - Suspicious - Action recommended, discuss with violator Recommendation 4 - Suspcious w/reasonable doubt - Action recommended, warning Recommendation 5 - Suspicious and conclusive - Suggest ban from tourney, forward to BBO 8 - The suggestion is to be delivered to the tournament host/director in which the infraction occurred. The host/director has the option of following recommendation or not, it is simply recommendation. 9 - Upon a conclusion and recommendation of level 5, a default mechanism is built in to forward the matter to BBO for review. 10 - A process or mechanism for sharing data, conclusions, cases could be considered for participating tournaments to use on an as needed basis. ****** Additional idea; 1 - Upon a tournament enrolling in this service, the committee has the ability to review tournament rules/regulations/conditions of contest/conv charts and make recommendations to the tournament such as that the tournament can become "BBO Ethics Committee" certified. The committee will have the resources to provide standardized documentaton for rules/regulations/conditions of contest/conv charts. ****** The ideas suggested above serve many purposes. First of all, tournaments that wish to enroll can have a sense of legitimacy such that they will be "certified" as per a documented standard. Second, the tournaments that do not participate are free from any constraints and/or conditions and can run a tournament how they please. Third, BBO players can have a comfort factor built in to be able to select which tournaments are actively involved in ethics considerations. For those that argue that a committee's rights should be extrapolated across not only tournaments, but to all parts of BBO, I suggest that what is started here is the means to an end. To go from not having ANYTHING at all, to having EVERYTHING is perhaps not practical or reasonable. A process such as the one above could be the foundation for a more robust and inclusive set of controls, but in the meantime BBO players will at least have comfort knowing that someone is active in creating a fair and comfortable environment. Personally, I think a committe similar to the one proposed, not only has merit in terms of creating an active ethics envrironment, but also lends itself to creating a foundation or structure for creating a body that can help maintain tournament and/or bridge standards with respect to tournaments (rules/regulations/cond of contest/conv charts). Well, that is all for now, please dont beat on our ideas too much. :))) Regards, Michael A Lucy

Hello all, I have been confronted with a "type" of problem recently, so naturally I come here to get some feedback regarding this problem. This problem I have encountered is regarding conventional and/or artificial openings (non Standard/SAYC). I can say now that I have been confronted with this "type" of problem 3 times in last week, 2 times as director and 1 time as player. For the purpose of running tournaments, as well as participating in tourney and knowing my boundaries (as well as opps boundaries) here is the problem; For the purpose of an ALERTED and EXPLAINED conventional and/or artificial NON-SAYC opening, how much tolerance should be allowed in the stated explanation. I give a few examples, and please I ask all that read this consider the problem from a few perspectives; Consider from - 1-Tournament Host/Director Perspective 2-From a Players Perspective (your own) 3-Consider from a Novice/Beginner/Intermediate Perspective Problem Statement/Examples - 1C, precision opening, ALERTED and EXPLAINED as "16+", when in fact they held ONLY 12 high card points and argued that distribution compensates for stated point range. 2C, precision opening, ALERTED and EXPLAINED as "11-15", when in fact they held ONLY 8 high card points, and argued that distribution compensates for stated point range. 2D, Flannery opening, ALERTED and EXPLAINED as "11-15", when in fact they held ONLY 8 high card points, and argued that distribution compensates for stated point range. My understanding of ACBL governance on such issues is that a partnership is NOT allowed to deviate from state high card point ranges (within +/- 1 point of stated range) for an ARTIFICIAL/NON-STANDARD/NON-SAYC opening. So you can argue the merits of following the ACBL model of governance on this issue. Furthermore, I argue that to alert such artificial (non-sayc) bids with the stated point ranges is to purposely gain unfair advantage. I support that argument with the following; 1 - The opps might (might) take other course of action during bidding if EXACT agreements are disclosed. 2 - For the purpose of defending, the defense is entitled to the information of stated range for purpose of counting out a hand. (Example, when defending, a player might visualize a defense based upon the stated range that assumes a certain holding when a separate defense might be reasonable if was aware of distribution conditions). For the purpose of the tournaments that I direct, I have temporarily solved this issue with the following "rule", in which I announce at beginning of every tournament. Furthermore, as my policy for enforcing this rule, 1st violation is warning and 2nd and subsequent violations results in adjustment of result. "Please, as a matter of policy, any ARTIFICIAL bid with upper or lower point limit .. partnerships may NOT deviate more than +/- 1 HIGH CARD POINT from that limit by agreement ... if you have agreements to deviate more than +/- 1 then you must give full disclosure of that agreement ..." I appreciate any and all feedback/discussion on this subject, thanks in advance. Regards, Michael A Lucy

Sorry, I was typing mine out as Ben typed his, he is 1st person to mention the magic 6D.

Okay, having heard all the responses thus far, I have not heard anyone express an interest in finding side diamond fit. Is it not too much to ask for AKxx diamonds or AQxxx (even AQxx on good day). Is there any partnership, by agreement, that accounts for finding the side fit minor fit? Personally, I think opening 2N, opening 1H and rebidding 3H or 4H do not accomodate this possibility. Any feedback?

Hi all, I think this is interesting thread, for many reasons. This is kind of a way for me to judge what is most commonly accepted as standard as well as get a feel for what is in highest demand with respect to alert procedures/convention charts. In response to Misho, I think in such cases it is the directors responsiblity to do the following; 1 - Be privvy to and have experience with the convention chart as per that specific event (in this case have read/studied abalucy convention chart and be familiar with SAYC) 2 - Acquire ALL the relevant facts from ALL 4 players participating in deal. 3 - Determine IF their was unfair advantage gained due to the lack of explanation or lack of alert. 4 - Make an intelligent decision based upon facts above. I have had experience with this very problem both as online director and player. Personally, in this case I would have reviewed the deal and determined if there was unfair advantage, if unfair advantage was gained I think director should penalize the offending side and reward the non-offending side. IF no unfair advantage was gained, I think the director should let result stand BUT the offending side should be warned (whatever mechanism the tourney host uses to record warnings of such nature). So the problem then lies in that particular directors JUDGEMENT as to whether unfair advantage was gained. In this case, a director that tends to rule "by the booK" would penalize/reward but another director might not adjust at all. My personal opinion is this should have been adjusted to Ave+/Ave- and a warning should be issued. Unfortunately, there are subsets of "types" of players. There are players that; 1 - Alert everything (agreements and as per conv chart) 2 - Alert what they feel like (only what they "feel" should be alerted) 3 - Alert as per rules (only alert as per conv chart) I agree that a player should alert EVERYTHING in which their partner knows something more than the opps know as well as EVERYTHING mandated by rules. To have "hidden" agreements and not to alert is just as wrong as not alerting anything that is required BECAUSE not alerting agreements is done to gain unfair advantage. Regards, MAL

I thought purpose of this thread is to discuss the following; 1 - Is there an increase in unethical play on BBO? 2 - IF, there is increase in unethical play on BBO, how to prepare a solution? Thus far, their seems to be 2 distinct positions to take on this issue. There is the hard-line position of "YES, THERE DEFINETLY IS MORE CHEATING AND LETS GET EM" approach, and the there is the more liberal approach of "THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CHEATERS, BUT DIVERTING RESOURCES TO THIS PROBLEM IS WASTE OF TIME". This is very serious problem, and I believe there is some anomosity as well as hidden agendas as I read the posts in this thread. BBO has stated its general approach on this topic, and I think what some fail to realize is that perhaps BBO is bound by external factors on this issue. BBO may be bound by legal issues and/or other similar constraints (this is simply speculation on my behalf). While they realize that this may be a problem, the fact is they have currently made a decision how to approach this problem. I think there ultimately lies a solution, some where between the 2 extremes, to this problem that will result in satisfying the masses, but I have yet to see anyone stand up and volunteer to promote a constructive debate on negotiating a solution. I think the BBO community leaders (whoever that may be) can come together and propose and/or suggest some solution, all we have so far are people volunteering to sit on committee and lead a witchhunt. I hope I have not incited too many people, but what I hope for is the day I can log into BBO and not have people waiting to send me to MyHands to review a deal of someone cheating. So leave all with the following suggestion; * Somebody, stand up and volunteer to draft a proposal and send to BBO (fred/uday) on a mechanism to promote a more ethical environment on BBO. Someone could even voluntee this thread as a forum (knowledge base) to draft that proposal to share ideas with others that have a stake in the matter. I guarantee that BBO, Fred/Uday, WILL respond to a proposal that is written in email and/or document. They might not agree with initial proposal, but I guarantee that you will get their attention and perhaps this may commence the negotiation of a solution. Regards, Michael A Lucy

xxxxx

I played this hand yesterday, and found this "hand type" to be of interest for purpose of discussion. The hand type is a hand with pattern 6421 with long solid/semi-solid major and bad 4 card fragment in minor with controls in your short suits. Here is the exact hand; A AKQ10xx 109xx AQ I do not wish to make this a double-dummy bidding problem, because I would like to hear what concensus is on how to prepare the subsequent auction opposite ANY hand, not any specific hand. Personally I think this hand type lends itself to a 2/1 based system nicely, but you need some NICE agreements to bid comfortably. FYI - I bid this hand like total idiot, my only excuse is that this was casual partnership with no agreements, but that does not minimize my gross action! MAL

Although I love my super science system(s), I personally like to bid this hand type very unscientifically. I like to open 1C and rebid 3N to show ACOL 2 hand in minor with lots of trick taking potential and a few outside controls. My experience with this bid has been very favorable, occasionally you may wrongside a marginal 3NT but this bid has advantage of being very "economical" (fewest # of bids to descripe hand type). Partner can follow up on the 3N rebid with whatever the partnership RKC methods are, personally i like redwood or kickback on this auction. I play 4C with most partners as RKC on clubs after 3N rebid, and most of my partnerships (at least established partnerships) I have advanced RKC methods to ask for specific 2nd and 3rd round controls, so that can solve this specific hand problem rather easily. I personally would not open this hand 2NT for this "hand type", lots of tricks, can easily miss a laydown slam or grand when partner have a "magic" hand. I like the 3C bid suggested by some to show the club hand with heart fragment, however that would overlap with other hand types that you might bid 3C with. My favorite suggestion mentioned in this thread are those that mention double jump into diamonds to show picture fragment with own club suit. This bid overlaps with my favorite treatment (double jump to show 5 1/2 loser picture bid in C/H, 9+ cards) but these 2 hands types might be able to be combined in somehow, or maybe i reconsider and remove old way and implement this.

First I would like to personally thank all of the vigilant persons who consider themselves the unappointed BBO bridge ethics police. The people whose main motivation is to catch cheaters, I am sure BBO as a whole is entirely grateful for your services as I am sure your qualifications for judging and measuring others bridge play is beyond reproach. Yes this is sarcasm. I personally dont want loose cannons running around "protecting" everyone else. This is absolutely insane, I cherish the ability to play bridge, make friends, and enjoy casual/friendly environment and I personally dont want to be bothered with such lunacy. In general, I choose the environment in which I participate, and I choose environments in which I feel comfortable, and although my big mouth get me in trouble sometimes, I generally just shutup and do not make the issue public knowledge or with consult with "authority" unless a GROSS impropriety has occurred. First of all, i cite my previous post on unethical play .... Unethical Play... Each person has the CHOICE of when, where and with whom to play against. If you feel uncomfortable in an environment, change your environment. If you feel as though someone is unethical, avoid playing against them in lobby and avoid playing in tournament with them. I tend toward Uday/Fred/BBO approach to unethical play. First of all, lets just assume that we were all part of active bridge police, I would like ONE person to stand up and say that they would be comfortable accusing ONE innocent person of unethical play. This is moral dilemma, and those that argue for "firm" stance on ethical play as a whole I believe dont understand the human element nor understand that this IS JUST A STUPID CARD GAME. So coming from someone that has active interests in running a series of organized games, it is nearly impossible to PROVE unethical play has occured, albeit sometimes you can make strong arguments. Having said what I said above, I had a conversation with good friend, Kleek, on this subject. Kurt is a little more "firm" in his position on cheating, and argued the position of "committee" as a means to investigate. I kind of like that idea as a 3rd party to this thread, but I think the idea would require some refining and a great deal of work. First of all, empowering people to judge or measure play is VERY DANGEROUS for obvious reasons. Second of all, it is very important not to create "witchhunt" environment where ability to accuse at will is ACCEPTED for obvious reasons. So my personal input with regards to a "commitee" is that I would make the following suggestion. Since BBO has an open door policy, and in most environments EACH player has the ability to choose his environment to play in, a committee should NOT have the ability review hands played in main bridge club, the volume/randomness would be overwhelming as well as there is NOTHING at stake in casual play in the Main Bridge Club. For private tournaments, restricted tournament, club tournaments I do not believe active commitee is require cause each "organization" has the ability/right to pursue its own policy on the issue. HOWEVER, a committee that is AVAILABLE on an AS NEEDED BASES by open tournaments OR any tournament that would request the services of committee. Open tourneys has inherently some stake (although not much) in it and the player in general has little control over the environment and hence a tourney host can "subscribe" to the service of committee and advertise in flyer to BBO that they participate in BBO Ethics Committee. Furtermore, I think committee members should have some "stake" or "interest" in the committee. For someone to volunteer to sit on committe cause he/she claims to be a good judge OR to claim that they have best interest of BBO is utterly ridiculous. As examples, I would think that members of type "spwdo" and "gweny" would be ideal candidates, they (a) have stake in the matter and (;) they have proven a history of service to BBO. Well, that is my input, and I thankful for opportunity to speak openly! Regards, Michael A Lucy

I like to play jumps to new suits here as fit, hence 3H would be D+H, however even if i had that option this is the wrong hand (BAD 5 carder hearts with only 4 diamonds). I think the relative lack of length in diamonds is made up for by a few extra points, although CJ and HK may not be pulling any weight, anyways I think 3D would be considered most flexible bid (partner can still bid 3H/3S/3N/4D/5D over 3D) AND 3D in most partnerships not promise a gold mine, is simply courtesy raise, which is exactly what I have - a courtesy raise. Regards, Michael A Lucy

I had an interesting conversation with someone the other day regarding the auction, 1H-1S-2H. This is an infrequent but yet cumbersome problem when, in response to 1H, you have a nice game forcing hand with 4/4, 5/4, 5/5, and 4/4/4/1 patterns. Here are a few examples of hands in response to 1H opener and 2H rebid after 1S response, what to do? 1 - Axxxx x AKxx KQx 2- KQxx x AQJx Kxxx 3 - AKxxx Kx x Kxxxx 4 - AQxxx x Axx KJxx Does anyone have any means of continuing these sequences? Does partner rebid of 2H deny, or tend to deny 4 card minor? I was introduced to a set or relays for this auction about a year ago, and have implemented these relays into my regular real life partnership(s) with a few modifications. I have personally heard people refer to other structures available, Burkes Relays (i think), and another person referred to something called Goldman here. In any case, here is what I play; 2S rebid by responder is artificial GF; openers rebids are as follows (everything is xfer); 2N=4 clubs (inference poor hand, good hearts, bad clubs or 2C rebid) 3C=4 diamonds (inference poor hand, good hearts, bad diamonds, or 2D rebid) 3D=6+ hearts, neutral 3H=3 spades, typically honor-xx 3S=6+ hearts, balanced good hand (denies 3S) 3N=AKQxxx(x+) hearts 4C=splinter+good hearts+3spades 4D=splinter+good hearts+3spades 4H=to play, long hearts 'decent' hearts, poor hand After opener make 3 level rebid to the artificial 2S relay, responder will accept the xfer as a slam try OR set game level contract OR bid 3S forcing, which shows 6+ good spades and FORCING. After accepting xfer, trump suit is set and your partnership RKC method is utilized and/or cuebid style is triggered. IF partner NOT accept xfer, subsequent 4NT will always be quant. What this allows for is ALL 3C and 3D rebids by responder promise 5+/5+ GF hands (because all 54, 44, 444 hands bid through relay). This is perhaps the most frequent and useful part of the structure. What you lose is the ability to play 2S naturally over 2H rebid. What my partnerships and I have decided to do is play 1H-2S as constructive/non-forcing with 6+ spades and give up on the hands we compete for major partial with partner in exchange for this structure. If you have spades and relatively weak, either pass 1H or bid 1S and pass 2H rebid and give up on strong/weak jumps to 2S. Interested in any other treatments that might be out there for these hand types and auctions.

I recently played with an 'expert' partner and held the following hand; x xx A10x A10xxxxx Auction proceeded, unopposed, partner open 1H I respond forcing NT and partner rebid 2C .... Well, if ever a hand to use impossible 2S on this certainly rates VERY high on the list. This hand can produce 3N, 5C, 6C and even occasional grand in clubs (very unlikely but possible). So how to continue, and what should PARTNERS follow up rebids be? I have my own set of rebids that I like to play, but I was interested if there is any universally accepted structure here that the bridge world considers 'standard'. Granted, this is new partnership, my partner does have expert in profile so I thought bidding 2S here would be value bid. Even IF partner never encounter impossible 2S bid, you would think they can work out on inference what 2S would be. So i bid 2S, what are the follow up rebids by partner here? Is 2N forcing? What is 3C/3D/3H/3S/3N/4C/4D/4H/4S/4N?

I take heart finesse, considering West had the option of a bid over 3S and in balance position over 4S with a spade void, there is small inference he is seriously lacking in points. Obviously he may still hold HK, but you do have this 'inference', might as well use it. MAL