bglover

Hehe, Ben in for another round of skewering. BBO owns the Forum. They have a right to censor material. This is old news. The bigger question is whether this is correct venue, period, for such discussions given the realities. I'm not a newsgroup expert by a long shot (but I bet Rich is), so I have no idea what would be involved in setting up something like rec. games.BBObridge on supernews or whatever. But that might well be the sort of venue needed to supplement the BBO Forum. Do that, of course, however, and you open an entirely different can of worms. Do you want a place with virtually no rules? A place where people can attack each other and slander and defame at will? Rich and I had a couple of good rows on here in the past. We handled it for the most part tastefully. But, we are both relatively honorable people AND we were both aware of the watchful eye of Inquiry or Uday when we were doing our postings. So, although we both have a tendency towards hot-temperedness, we knew we had to stay within ourselves. On a relatively unmoderated forum such as a newsgroup, one opens the doors to the worst kind of potential slanders and behavior. And those inclined to do so will certainly use that place in an unsavory way. Given the choice between wide open, wild and wooly and a place like this, I personally feel safer here.

Well in the US there used to be (might still be) a place to check off on the card if a pair uses frequent psyches. Therefore I don't think what I did was so far beyond the realm of what the ACBL was endorsing. There was a legitimate reason for "frequent psyches" to be on a pair's card.. I was merely extending that principle to online bridge. But, that was not my reasons.. As I stated before, I just wanted to keep things relatively level. That's all.

No, I did it for the reasons stated- to keep the field as level as possible. Notice I did NOT outlaw psyches or limit psyches to 1 per session.. I told people they had to prealert frequent psyches if they knew they had a tendency to psyche often. By instituting that rule, it actually cut down on the number of psyches generally because people did not wish to prealert them and let opponents know of their psyching tendencies. Now, if people knew they were likely to psyche as a partnership, it's not a stretch to say that it was somewhat systemic. And, therefore, should be alerted as part of what that partnership played. That was my thinking, anyway. In any event, the rule cut down on the number of director calls regarding psyches. I can't honestly say it cut down on psyching per se, just that people who psyched frequently knew they had to prealert or risk getting penalized.. again, leveling the playing field some.

Dear Maria: I was just informed about your loss. Please accept from me my deepest condolences. It is a sad day knowing you are hurting so. Steve

Well I think I must take some of the blame/heat here for the "1 psyche" rule that seems to have become so prominent on BBO. Because I received complaints everytime someone made a successful psyche, I early on instituted a rule, that seems to have been adopted by many tourney directors: if anyone pysches more than once per session, they must prealert opponents about frequent psyching tendencies. I did this, admittedly, to cut down on the number of complaints more than anything else. When I was directing FOT (created months after I first develped this rule) I kept the rule the same. Systemic psyching needed pre-alerting. However, for TopFlight, there was not (and, I believe still is not) any such rules regarding psyches. Why? Because one must recognize the realities of the field in each tourney. Altho FOT is by no means a "weak" game, it is a game that covers a large spectrum of players-- I felt that allowing unfetttered psyching would give too big an advantage to the better players who might take advantage of lesser opponents, and thus ruin everyone's enjoyment of the game some. On the other hand, TopFlight was meant to represent a "best of the best" field and thus no restrictions of this sort were even considered (the only restriction I ever institiuted was that anyone playing a "forcing pass" type system must 1st forward copies of defenses to all members.. they are just too hard to defend against without having ample time to prepare). Trust me, every time someone successfully psyched in TopFlight, I received a director call, just like I did in FOT. But, in FOT the players were reminded "1 psyche per session or prealert" while in TopFlight my answer was "sorry, psyches are part of the game". So, I guess all you 1-psyche-per-tourney haters should blame me. I believe I was the first director to implement that rule. But, it was only meant to keep the playing field relatively level.

Hear here! I've stated same thing on other threads before.. Fine advice.

A good player can be so many things.. A talented declarer, a superb defender, a great bidder or a combination of all three. However it doesn't require s/he be all three but some combination of the three is a great start. A bad player (assuming its someone who has played the game for a goodly amount of time) is someone who is a bad partner. Someone who knows the agreements but refuses to follow them. Someone who refuses to follow partnership agreements is sure to create bad feelings in a short period of time and won't have any partners for very long. Some of the best players I know cannot hold partners for this reason. They don't play within the "rules" of the partnership. This kind of goes to the comment about a hand-hog but it's beyond that. It undermines the foundations of trust and without trust you can't have a good partner because you are always at his or her whim. The most talented players do not make the best partners always. It's the most cooperative ones.. the ones who want to make the "partnership" work. The ones who trust each other and know they can rely on each other. Personally, I wish my temperment at the table was better (I have a patience problem) but i try to balance that by being the very best partner I can be. I follow all agreements to the letter and try to have a truly "cooperative" partnership to the best of my abilities (and even try to let my partners play the hands more cuz I don't think declarer play is my strong suit). Despite my occasional outbursts I have over the many years only lost one partner due to them. Since I've been on BBO (almost three years now) I am still playing with many of the same people as when I first got here, many of whom are much better players than me. It's not because of my charming personality (trust me I know this!) but because they can rely on what I am going to do. They may be able to find a better player than me but they know my game is not wild. I am pretty much the same reliable partner day in and out (assuming I've had enough sleep but that's a different story...).

She actually did wash my socks... but threw out all my white undies... replaced them with bikini briefs.. so I'd look sexy!

Sniff... sniff... EWWWWWWWW... I knew something smelled wrong again!

Ece and I are very happy to say that, due to the large outpouring of warmth you've given us, we decided to try to work out our differences with the other side and return to BBO. We both want to thank the many people who helped us solve the differences and come to a workable agreement that we think both sides can coexist with. In particular I'd like to thank Gerardo, Uday, Gweny, Malucy, Abadaba and Inquiry for their efforts on our behalfs. Without everyone's cooepration this could never have happened. It was truly a group effort. Neither side got everything they wanted but both sides walked out better off we all feel. We feel there will be a new spirit of cooperation and that all parties can now coexist on BBO in harmony Ece and I cannot express the gratitude to all of you who wrote to us and support us. It truly was you, our special friends, with all your wonderful messages of affection, that made us decide that we should make every effort to come sort of workable agreement that both sides could live with. I can't speak for Ece here, but in my case I was truly stunned by the outpouring of support. Honestly, it broke my heart to leave and when all the emails and messages began pouring in, I knew that it was right to do "something." We would both also like to thank you all to a special event tonite: We are going to hold, instead of a Regular Topflight game, a Friends of Topflight, and we want to invite everyone to join us to help celebrate our return. We hope you all join us tonite!

Thank you all so much for your kind words. Honestly, the hardest part for Ece and myself was leaving all our wonderful friends. I guess we had a lot more than even we realized. The sentiments you have all expressed has touched our hearts deeply. We leave BBO but that does not mean we will forget you all. Nothing in the world could ever make me forget all the nice things you all have said here and I have often been in tears. They were good tears I promise. Please remember, bridge is a game of people. It's not software. It's not clubs. It's what you make of it for yourself as a person and as a friend to others. I know I tried very hard to be a good friend to many here. I answered many questions from complete strangers who people sent my way. I helped direct. I worked with many students (my true passion in bridge). I worked hard to make BBO a better place. I don't know. I tried to just do "good" here. I think many people recognized it because they supported TopFlight so well and so many of you joined us to watch or play; it was truly heartwarming. We grew from struggling to have team matches to having 9 table events while keeping our standards the absolute highest we could. High quality was our only goal. I am very happy to share with you all that, despite Ece's and mine leaving, TopFlight will continue under the stewardship of my great friend Famus. Please continue to support our dream. You were all a big part of it. If you care to continue to show your support to Ece and me, the very best way is to keep our shared dream alive. I will miss so many of you. I spent so many hours saying goodbyes and splashed so many tears. But, please believe me, this was the right thing for us to do. We wish things had worked out better but ultimately it came down to principles. Principles is what made TopFlight succeed and, sadly, what made us leave. I stated once in a different thread, principles are a hard thing to live with, but I am glad I have mine. I still feel that way. So, understand this decision was fully considered and not made in haste. It was the right one for us. We wish our many friends good luck. Maybe we will meet again soon. If not on BBO, somewhere else. Because bridge isn't about software. It's about your friends. It's about people. And there are lots of good people here and we thank you all. Steve

Mini-roman... FEH!

I admit it Ben, we almost set the age at 51 just to ensure you would be excluded! In all seriousness, we have had a great response so far and hope tomorrow to stage our first team match at 13:00 EST to generate some interest in the club! We think it will be a smashing success once word gets out what we are doing. We've been in contact with junior team bridge coaches of several nations already, have had others who work with juniors come to us to help see this succeed. The initial response (this idea is only 5 days old as of this writing) has been beyond our expectations. Like TopFlight, if it is a good idea, it will work. If it's a good idea it will generate even more interest in quality bridge for younger players. It has the potential to offer these young players something unique within the online world. Yes, we are open to all skill levels. We realize there are wide differences in abilities here and plan to address that with strong mentoring programs and other types of educational things. We want to involve the entire bridge community in our mission to help, inform and educatedyounger players. By doing this (as word spreads) we hope new players hear of our venture and come to BBO to be a part of Junior Flight. We think down the road this will surely happen. If we do our job right, we think Junior Flight will succeed as being a force in bringing now, young players to the game and create a new "buzz" for the game. Everyone's support in helping youths discover our wonderful game is appreciated. If you're not a youth but are reading this, tell your kids or grandkids! The more the merrier!

Sounds good Vincenzo.. We already have almost 40 people signed up for our group and expect to get started very soon. I think some inter-club matches could be a lot of fun once we get everything organized! Be in contact soon!

ANNOUNCING JR FLIGHT TO HELP PROMOTE YOUTH BRIDGE AROUND THE WORLD! In an effort to bring bridge to a greater segment of the world's youth, TopFlight is announcing an exciting new venture-- Junior Flight. Junior Flight is meant as a means to bring more young people to the game we all know and love. We hope that Junior Flight will bring together all levels of junior players and will foster an environment of comraderie and competition where all young play can learn and thrive. We have a lot of exciting plans, but first and foremost we need to spread the word to any younger players who would be intersted in this new club. We are open to all players 28 and younger (yes we know that is slightly older than the WBF age) and encourage all who qualify who are intersted to contact us. Please contact Spwdo, Ecepal, 2over1, TopFlight or Jr Flight if you see them online to be added to the list!

I wont yet again defend why I think it's a BBO problem instead of a "club" or "tourney" problem. I, however, strongly disagree with having a process that is not relatively anonymous as I have suggested. If you leaev it in a club director or tourney director's hands and let THEM do the review (or appoint a hand-picked panel) then there is NO WAY you will have any protection for the accused and the chance that an innocent party's reputation can be wrongly sullied is way too large. Everyone should be most concerned with protecting the innocent first and making sure those rightly caught are dealt with second. Let's say your club's director picks as a reviewer someone with a personal gripe against the accused. Let's say he makes a fair decision and decides the guy is innocent. What if they get into a tiff down the road? What is the reviewer (or the director) just plain doesn't like the guy? Or, what if either just has a big mouth? It's too damned easy to hurt an innocent. I would demand that whatver process is adopted ensures that this cannot happen.

I have posted in a different thread my fear that awarding prizes of any sort (be they masterpoints or cash or a free pen) will create an additional incentive to cheat. BBO's and Fred's original vision include no rewards as a disincentive to this type of behavior. As soon as rewards of any sort came into play so did the allegations... please see my original post from this thread (now almost almost 7 months ago). If nothing else, we've seen a perception of increased incidents in that time... quite a large perception if not actual incidents. Ok, it is a hard and fast reality that tourneys are here and awards are here as well. Adding Masterpoints or prizes into the mix is likely to increase the incentive to act bad (maybe it wont happen as i envision). This is the new framework and much different from the original BBO vision. Its Fred, Sheri's and Uday's right to change it as they please. I certainly support their right to turn a profit from the site and to try and do so as they see fit. That must be balanced, of course, by providing an environment conducive to ethical conduct. I honestly do not think it is correct to accept that ethical conduct should not be expected online (altho I emphatically agree that acting unethically is 1000 times easier online). It is in BBO"s best interests to do so. If they do not, another website will take their customers because they will build a better mousetrap; i.e., work to make their site less cheater-friendly. This is a simple business principle at work, no more. You say, Luis, that you wouldn't pay for online bridge and that is why you come to BBO. Well, would you pay, say $50 per year for a site that you felt was fairer and more vigilant in combatting unethical behavior? I bet you would. I bet most serious players would. Does that mean this competing site was cheat free? Of course not. That is impossible, we all know that. But, it would be worth that $50 just to know that it was a more ethical place than some other place. Promoting the best possible ethical environment is in this site's interest! BBO is the one to benefit.. not just its customers.

I agree... BBO's resources should be put to better use. The reason for any policing unit, be it on a web site or state troopers or whatever, is not to enforce crime but to prevent crime. Sure, once the crime takes place they investigate and enforce, but the main purpose is to provide a framework where bad actors know there is a consequence to their actions and so, hopefully, will cease from doing so in the first place. Although I cannot envision any way to help this situation without further involvement on BBO's part, there is no need that it BBO management be the sole resouce involved to help ensure a more ethical environment. Based on my involvement in this so far, I can say honestly of the many people who are in some way aware of it, they are enthusiastic in their support and are willing to help. As Ben pointed out, BBO's main problem is one of resouces. We are all, in some form, recognizing those resources are limited and are asking others who also feel a more ethical environement is a worthy goal to help. We aren't asking BBO to devote "all" its resources to it, but to provide enough assistance to the volunteers that a thorough job can be done. We all want to be sure that no injustices are done. I think I can say that on behalf of everyone contributing who agrees something should be done to improve this. It will take a commitment on everyone's part... BBO's, those who volunteer and those who feel they have been victimized. It's a group effort...

I personally dont mind way kibbitzers are now, but, as a suggestion, could that number be put in title bar (Host: Name Kibbitzers: #)?

This has actually been discussed in a different thread extensively. Ill find the link and post it here. But, as a short review, most of the major 2 over 1 systems as originally developed do not require a sixth card for a major rebid UNLESS responder's initial bid was 1 no trump. Thus, 2nt rebids by opener now guarantee stoppers for all unbid suits. Sure, some (many even) play that you need a sixth major card in all cases and therefore rebid 2nt on any 5332 (or whatever) because of that requiremet. Since you are in a 2 over 1 auction already many times the stoppers are there perforce. But, I personally think it's riskier than rebidding a 5 card suit with a minimum hand and keeping partner in the auction. If you play this way, then a third rebid of suit by opener now guarantees 6 pieces. (FWIW when I play SA i guarantee a sixth piece. This is because partner is not forced to take another bid if I rebid 2 major the way I play, so it needs to assure something else). PS.. I went looking of that old thread and couldn't find it... looked in both entire SAYC/2 over 1 discussion and in Advanced/expert.... think it may have gotten lost in transition to new software.

I don't entirely disagree Jimmy that its a large undertaking. The difference as I see it (and why I thought I'd post it here for comments once Mike had already posted his) is that it is treated as a function of BBO rather than of some subentity. As I said in the introudctory comments, it would require more of BBO's staff at the start. On the other hand, the real grunt work (the reviewing of many many hands) would be put into the hands of others. Please note there was a reason we suggested that there be a sufficient number of compliants before BBO even take action. To avoid having "every" allegation investigated. This is only a personal guess, but I would bet you most (the vast majority even) of allegations are single-incident allegations made by individuals either mad about a result or not skilled enough to recognize a good (or a bad) play that resulted in a good score; i.e., they got fixed and assumed cheating. The requirement for MULTIPLE allegations is meant to avoid this problem. As for rounding up volunteers for the Committee, I've done some informal asking around, and can honestly say there are many high-level players here who would gladly serve to help police this problem. Admittedly, our proposal cannot work if BBO doesn't get more involved in some significant way. The staff would be both the first step and would have the additional burden of gathering hands and stripping out the names of the parties involved. I have no idea how much work this second part is. Perhaps its not much more than writing a simple routine in which case it wouldn't be burdensome at all.

I wasn't going to post this but rather send it directly to Uday, but since Malucy seems to taken the job on himself please look over a draft proposal that myself and 5 other individuals have worked on. We already have an esteemed member who has volunteered to serve as head of our proposed Committee based on this proposal. I will refrain trying to defend in as better than the other proposal and let the masses have a look and comment. Ultimately, it is BBO's decision what they will accept. All I will say is I believe our proposal is both fairer and more thorough. It would, however, also require a large commitment on BBO's part: Abuse at bridgebase.com (Abuse) should immediately appoint a PANEL of volunteers to assist in the review of cheating allegations. This PANEL will be the first step in reviewing whether an allegation has merit. This committee should be comprised of Yellows with sufficient knowledge of cheating and hand analysis that the individuals are qualified to make such determinations. We suggest that no actions of any sort be taken against any individual or pair until Abuse has received a sufficient number of complaints against any individual or pair that it determines to be fair. We suggest that in no case should that number be fewer than three complaints nor higher than 10. Abuse needs to ensure any anomalies it may see are not due to some systemic approach unique to the invidual(s) involved. Therefore, Abuse will need to contact the parties and notify them of the investigation and ask for a detailed list of bidding conventions and agreements in use by the partnership being looked at. If, after its review, Abuse determines there is reason to suspect unfair play that a larger number of hands be referred to a COMMITTEE to be comprised of certified directors and players with a history of significant accomplishments in the bridge world. Because the COMMITTEE will be essentially the final arbiter of whether cheating has or has not occurred it is essential that its make-up be comprised of the absolute best players and directors available and willing to assist in this problem. After informal discussions with a number of prominent BBO players we believe this should not be a problem so long as BBO gives the COMMITTEE full support. Perhaps Fred Gitelman can assist in rounding up qualified volunteers. The COMMITTEE must have enough members on it to handle the maximum number of realistic allegations BBO has at any time. We anticipate no fewer than three members of the COMMITTEE would be assigned to review hands in any single given instance. (This is meant as a guideline as to how large it needs to be only.) All hands referred to the COMMITTEE should be submitted anonymously to ensure that no reviewer has a personal bias for or against any of the parties who are being investigated. The COMMITTEE may review a set of hands either individually or as a group, but in all cases where a member suspects there may be cheating, another member should be consulted before any further actions are taken. How many hands the COMMITTEE reviews is up to Abuse, but we suggest it be a significant number (at least 100 hands as a suggestion). Hands should include groupings where both players were partners and hands where other individuals partnered with each individual to better help determine if only one individual may be cheating or if it is a group endeavor. The COMMITTEE can ask Abuse for even more hands if it determines it needs more scrutiny of the individual(s) involved. If, after its review, the COMMITTEE agrees there has been a high likelihood of cheating or other unethical conduct the matter will be referred back to Abuse for disciplinary action.

Antoine, you are missing my point. BBO's license agreement is what provides them the right to do as they please. I repeat, the legal exposure is minimal so long as they act "reasonably" under the terms of that document. The rest of that was merely meant to show just how much leeway licensors generally have in controlling licensees. It was meant to illustrate in a simple (and somewhat humurous fashion) that BBO has the right to do as they please so long as its "reasonable."

The legal issues are "minimal" unless BBO takes some very silly approaches such as publicly exposing the cheaters. This is a private site. We are all here at BBO's leisure. BBO can, in theory, throw off anyone they so please for virtually any reason they please. They can also choose NOT TO throw off someone who perhaps should be thrown off. Why? Because we are all LICENSEES of the site. We are here at BBO's granting and BBO can withdraw that grant of a license however they want. Sure, BBO could throw me off the site because they don't like the color of my eyes... legally there would be nothing I could do because it's their right to do so as long as they didn't go around and falsely call me a murderer at the same time. No one expects they will do anything extreme like that of course. But, this goes to my post regarding setting the bar too high. They are under no obligation to let "anyone" stay who they don't want here. They, technically, don't need much reason at all to ban anyone they see fit to let go. Thus, they can set whatever standard they like. Really they don't even need any standard. Lawsuits are a non issue unless they act unreasonably. Surely they won't do that. Now, taking off my legal hat, as businessmen/women they have an obligation to their customers to provide an environment that promotes fair and ethical play or risk losing their customers. If BBO gets a reputation as a cheaters' paradise they will suffer. They, therefore have in my opinion, tremendous incentive right there to police this as best they can. If this thread is doing nothing else, it is showing there are people here who are concerned enough to volunteer in helping in this situation. I repeat, if you just police clubs and tourneys you aren't solving the problem at the systme level. It would be in BBO's lesser interests to approach the problem that way in my opinion. OK Bridge used to have a relatively blind eye to this kind of thing. They suffered a hit to their reputation until they hired a professional director to head up and investigate these kinds of allegations. They claim they catch and ban 2 people per month on average now for cheating. Now, this is not meant to imply cheating no longer takes place there. But, the "perception" of OKB improved almost immediately once its customers viewed they were "serious" about the issue. I do not think they limit their investigations to just tourneys. I know I wouldn't because I'd worry about how my customers perceive how I am running things. If BBO were your site wouldn't you?

I would open this hand 2 clubs to start. It meets the 81/2 trick requirement and also the 4 defensive trick requirement. From there its straightforward and relatively simple to reach 7 after a 3club rebid. Responder will bid 4n (or 4c if minorwood) and locate all the cards need to reach 7.