bglover

Depends on the strength of the hand... If I have GF points I start with 2c followed by whatever # of spades i need to bid. If i have 10 ish (up to bad 12) I start with 1 spade. A lot of this has to with general hand quality, the number of Diamonds, etc. If I am holding a stiff dimond, i downgrade, if I'm holding 3 to an honor I upgrade. Obviously, being able to rebid or raise diamonds has a great deal to do with how I evaluate this hand. I don't think even Bergen would agree with MAFIA on really good hands (13+) although he might. Best to bid out your pattern accurately with game forcing strength rather than risk bidding the wrong slam or game (because partner will NEVER believe you have more clubs than spades if you always start with 1 spade here). Now, if the sequence goes 1d 2c 2h 2s partner MUST RAISE spades with 4, even though 2s may be FSF. I had this come up in a mentoring session a few weeks ago. One of the mentees said "why should I raise, it is just 4sf." Well, sometimes it really is SPADES for goodness sake. If you constantly misrepresent hand pattern with good hands you are gonna have a peck of trouble in the long run.

Well, this goes back to several long-ago suggestions of creating a database of bad actors in tourneys. I was a proponent of such a thing when I was directing and I still am. Whether you make it public or private it still would work the same way... People are reported into the database for one of several possible reasons (say, frequently disconnects during tourneys, frequently runs out of time on hands, abuses partner/opps which is the most serious one as the others may be due to connection issues) and assign a # to each part of the database. What I mean is, bad abusers maybe get 2 bites at the apple (1 warning then no more) while people who frequently disconnect in a reasonable time period may get 3 bites. Now, to diffuse any criticism of this last one, let me make clear i KNOW some people have bad connections. There were 3 people I banned from my own tourneys cuz they always had connection issues. This may not seem fair, but in my mind it was perfectly fair. In clocked events, someone who always has a connection issue just creates a problem.

Actually, the type of cheating in tourneys I was referring to is often very obvious but impossible to prove. It usually involves people rejecting valid claims and then letting the clock run out. That was why I switched to unclocked events after BBO improved the movement. The number of episodes dropped to zero not surprisingly. However, it didn't improve in any way the amount of aggressively abusive behavior that I saw in tourneys. As I've stated before and in other threads as well, once tourneys were implemented, there was a palpable change in behavior. Even Uday has acknowledged that before. I lump active bad ethics in with all other forms of cheating. I don't make distinctions-- bad behavior is cheating if it is meant to gain an unfair advantage. I saw way too much of this during my directing time. Now, with TopFlight, I have none of it. Three director calls in 15 tourneys and no cheating accusations. Note that we specifically decided to not implemet any awards for our tourneys so that these types of accusations would not arise. None have as of this writing. Sure, I have a lot more non-directing work to do (answering questions, doing commentary, maintaining the club stuff) but the trade off is well worth it.

I switched from Norton to AVG (grisoft.com) three years ago. AVG is free. While I never had an infection using Norton, I did find it caused a lot of conflicts and registry problems, so that is why I switched. For a short while (maybe 6 months), I used both Norton and AVG running at the same time. In that time period, AVG caught 3 bugs Norton missed (or maybe just caught them first, but with all the other viruses that came through both programs alerted me). Also use Zonealarm's free firewall. That has caught a bunch of Sober viruses the last few weeks. One did actually get thu (I think I accidentally double clicked on the email when i was trying to highlight for delete and was my fault) but it had been flagged and AVG scanned it out of my system. I swear by both those products.

Well... The point is that during tourneys peoples' behavior worsens beyond comprehension. Somethimes you "know" a claim was rejected or a hand was slow-played because the contract was a bad one but you can't prove it. That is the nature of on-line bridge and the cheating that goes on with it. Sure, we all have witnessed players sitting at a table in the Main Lobby area who have played a number of hands in a fashion that seems improbable and we suspect they are getting information from a friendly kib or have a phone going. I'm sure that has happened to me on several occasions but I also know there isn't much one can do about it except keep an eye on him or her and see if it continues. But, the stuff in tourneys is "different" because it encompasses so much more and is so much tuffer to prove. Ya, I "know" so and so rejected a valid claim cuz time was running out but I can't report it to BBO because there is no way to prove these things beyond a reasonable doubt. So, when I was directing open tourneys I just blacklisted everyone that I was pretty sure was pulling this kind of crap. I did report a few to abuse due to extraordinary behavior that went beyond the realm of bad taste, but the reports weren't for cheating per se (altho I'm sure the behavior was meant to skew results and ruin the outcome). And, some of the people did get banned (and, thank Goodness, haven't returned that I know of). But, to repeat from earlier, I saw enough "bad stuff" during my directing that I certainly was no longer interested in doing it. I couldn't resolve the personal conflicts it created within me, since I abhor cheating and knew that tourneys were fostering it (and other kinds of absurd behavior) that I just never saw before tourneys were instituted here.

I must chip in again here... I have quit directing any tourneys but TopFlight due to the ongoing and apparent cheating in BBO tourneys. It was a giant source of frustration for me to watch people do some of the obvious things they were doing and have so little power to stop it. The best I could do was blacklist those I was pretty sure of from future tourneys and that would be the end of it. The problem with tourneys is there are so many ways people can cheat (particularly in clocked events). The fact so many people were so willing to do it openly left a bad taste in my mouth quite frankly. Now, with the advent of ACBL-sanctioned tourneys on BBO coming, this problem I fear will only worsen. I was an ACBL-certified director (no longer... my time ran out) and was asked by some of the other directors here if I wanted to direct some of these new sanctioned ones. My response was "I saw so much cheating when there wasn't anything at stake that I just cannot fathom the amount of cheating that will now go on; I want no part of this." His response to me was "Hey, you know they cheat, at least you'll be getting paid for your efforts" I think anyone here who directs and is a tourney-experienced player sees what I saw. The problem is that so much of it is "unprovable" that you just have to accept it as part of the online game... Or, you can do what I did. Principles are a tough thing to live with, but I am not sorry I have mine.

In my game, I strive for making as few mistakes as I posibly can. This includes always competing to the correct level, always giving correct count (on appropriate hands), using good judgment on sacrificing, etc. A couple times in the last month or so, my partners and I played "perfect" bridge in short (10 boards or less) tourneys. I came in 3rd both times. Now, I realize that with a short tourney there isn't a lot of time to generate swings playing the way I strive to, but that really is not my question. I was happy with how my partners and I played both days (who wouldn't be). My real question is this: When playing in live competition at high levels (flight A or above), how do you approach your game? Do you strive for the fewest mistakes possible or do you assume that everyone else will make about the same number as you and so try to "goose" your results by taking some chances? Perhaps pysche more or preempt on hands you might not usually open, etc.?

I have a variety of regular partners... perhaps a dozen or more. Some I have been playing with here on BBO for over 3 years now. I play what I term a "plain vanilla" 2/1 system... the usual conventions and not a lot more (jordan, inverted, blah blah). I have some partners who have added things over the years, others who want me to switch from, say, capp to woolsey over NT openings. There are quite a few others however, who want to complicate the system well beyond a couple of small changes, incorporating conventions I am only passingly familiar with and whose response structures take a lot of memory (if I even recall that the convention is being used at the time it comes up). I strive to play against the best opponents available and usually compete against better players (not always). But, what I've noticed is, my results are often worse playing with partners who insist on the additional complications in system. Invariably we will get a super-bad result due to me forgetting that x bid was conventional and I will flush a hand that way... All I can do is say "sorry partner my bad" and move on. So, finally, here's my question. Which "non-standard" standard conventions do YOU think are really necessary? I realize everyone has a "favorite" but thats not what I am asking. Which convention do you play that you think is essential that you would need to write in at the bottom of an ACBL card?

Like any convention, NMF has a variety of options and ways to be played. So, it is best to have a clear understanding in ADVANCE how your partner plays it. Just the other day, I was playing with a very good player. We had what I thought was a "normal" NMF sequence and we got too high. After the hand was over he asked me if I was playing "something funny." Nope, but he wasn't playing the same thing I was. (Frankly with a "new partner" I just assume we play "normal" NMF unless there has been a previous discussion.) The bids I made had a totally different meaning to this player because he probably plays a different variant of NMF than I do (I play the most common one laid out above). The point is, of course, that if you choose to use this "convention" and i strongly suggest you do, then be sure your partner knows it AND uses the same variant you do.

Well, Mike is not entirely wrong... There are some countries where winning a national title doesn't necessarily mean you are a world class player-- the community is just very small. Bridge in 3d world countries is undoubtedly a game for the very upper classes, and that could be a very small population. So, under Fred's criteria they might qualify for a star and yet be a so-so player for TopFlight level. But, he implies that many of the stars fall into that category and that is simply not true. MOST of the stars play at quite a high level most of the time. And, watching a tourney where the vast majority of players have one means that you, the kibbitzer, are likely to see a high-level game. When this idea first was in its baby stages, the other co-founders wanted me to be the sole arbiter of who was deserving to be in the club (because I've been here a long time and know most all the good players). I didn't want that responsibility frankly. Not because I'm not a decent judge of who can play and who cannot, but because that standard would have been way too subjective. After some bashing about of ideas we settled on the "BBO Gold Star" because someone else (Fred) had already determined these people had some noteworthy accomplishments. The standard is "fair" even if it is not perfect. I cannot stress that enough. It is measurable, it is justifiable. Maybe there was a better method available but we, frankly, couldn't come up with one. We get tons of thank yous both from participants and spectators every time we run a tourney. We average in the neighborhood of 75-80 kibbitzers every tourney. That's usually for 2 or 3 tables... People ENJOY what we are doing. Isn't that what it is all about?

Well I will report him... The reason I put this on the board is that the FREQUENCY is increasing. I see it personally on an almost-daily basis and I hear of it every day. People have got to stop this. It's a horrible practice and BBO and the rest of us must act to discourage this. As to Freee's comment... I, for one, usually have several kibbitzers. If someone is going to accuse me of cheating in front of often more than 20 people I do not want that person at my table. That is how rumors get started... I for one ABHOR cheaters and don't want that taint anywhere near me. After I have booted someone for making the accusation I always tell the entire gallery and table that I will not tolerate someone accusing me of cheating. I have a reputation to maintain and part of that includes some amount of integrity I hope. Nothing can bring that down faster than a cheating accusation and I will not tolerate it.

Today for the 3d time in two weeks I booted a player because he accused me of cheating. In this particular incident my play was entirely logical and he simply failed to see it... I was in the process of explaining to him when he "strongly implied" the only way to come to the correct guess was by cheating. (In this particular incident, since I had the outstanding high trump I could afford to lead a suit likely to give declarer one pitch, as I know one pitch won't be useful, for what its worth). These have been "world class" players (their designations) making these and it is frankly getting "old". Just because someone doesn't see the logic to the defender's (or declarer's) play doesn't mean there isn't damn good logic involved to begin with. These incidents have been increasing again of late and I feel strongly that BBO should implement a policy of immediately banning people who do it. I hear daily of this happening to people and it's creating even more hostility on the site. Sure, we all know some cheating happens, and sometimes its even obvious. But that doesn't give people the right to bring out the "cheat" card everytime someone makes a good play and the accuser merely failed to spot it. I repeat, this should be a BANNABLE offense. I personally am getting sick of it.

I originally posted this in another thread, but seems apporpriate here: If I may explain.... The Gold Star for admission was meant to be some sort of "objective" standard that we could point to, even if it meant some great players would not be admitted through invitation. We hoped (and still do hope) that the other truly good ones would be brought in through the nomination process. We are encouraging our members to help us expand through this method. Daily, I get asked by someone or another for admittance (including, I might add, Trpltrbl). I can say "need a BBO gold star sorry" and at least they understand "why", unlike some other clubs where admitting standards are pretty much at the whim of the owners. Our standards may be rigid (in fact, they are too rigid maybe) but they are also fair and measurable. There is nothing wrong with small tourneys or team matches if we maintain a high level of play. We certainly didn't expect to run huge tourneys when we started but hoped we would grow through word of mouth. The plan was that if we were able to stage small, high-quality matches, other great players would see this and want to play in our tourneys more. Indeed, we are experiencing a little growth in participation already. Our last few tourneys have been either 3 or 4 tables and over time maybe we will grow to 5 tables. If that is the case, great. If not, that's OK too. It is unlikely we would have have many more than 6 or 7 tables given that we have a limited membership. But "size" was never our greatest concern. Rather, maintaining an environment where great players want to compete and where spectators can watch and learn has ALWAYS been our goal. A secondary benefit (we hope) is that we will attract more great players to BBO so they can participate in TopFlight events. Sure, you can spec another tourney and find as many or more stars playing. But, are they playing against "like" competition? Not usually, unless it's a team match. That's the entire point. For the spectators, watching high-quality opponents engage versus each other can help them learn and improve. We try to have commentators at our matches (often I am the commentator) to explain the processes, much like Vugraph. It is a service we are providing, both to our members and to the BBO community at large. No one would think to criticize OK Bridge's Goldway matches, yet they are just team matches with great players competing. We view TopFlight more as competition to that than as competition to any other club on BBO. And, given that we are very young (really only 4 weeks old) I think we have been mostly successful. We are still experimenting with days and times. We must be careful not to overlap with other, more established club tourneys. It's still a learning process for us. If we do our jobs well, learn from our mistakes and listen to our members, then we will succeed. If we do not, at least Ben, Ece, Alex and myself can say we tried to do something for the greater "good" of BBO. Better to be a noble failure I say.

If I may explain.... The Gold Star for admission was meant to be some sort of "objective" standard that we could point to, even if it meant some great players would not be admitted through invitation. We hoped (and still do hope) that the other truly good ones would be brought in through the nomination process. We are encouraging our members to help us expand through this method. Daily, I get asked by someone or another for admittance (including, I might add, Trpltrbl). I can say "need a BBO gold star sorry" and at least they understand "why", unlike some other clubs where admitting standards are pretty much at the whim of the owners. Our standards may be rigid (in fact, they are too rigid maybe) but they are also fair and measurable. There is nothing wrong with small tourneys or team matches if we maintain a high level of play. We certainly didn't expect to run huge tourneys when we started but hoped we would grow through word of mouth. The plan was that if we were able to stage small, high-quality matches, other great players would see this and want to play in our tourneys more. Indeed, we are experiencing a little growth in participation already. Our last few tourneys have been either 3 or 4 tables and over time maybe we will grow to 5 tables. If that is the case, great. If not, that's OK too. It is unlikely we would have have many more than 6 or 7 tables given that we have a limited membership. But "size" was never our greatest concern. Rather, maintaining an environment where great players want to compete and where spectators can watch and learn has ALWAYS been our goal. A secondary benefit (we hope) is that we will attract more great players to BBO so they can participate in TopFlight events. Sure, you can spec another tourney and find as many or more stars playing. But, are they playing against "like" competition? Not usually, unless it's a team match. That's the entire point. For the spectators, watching high-quality opponents engage versus each other can help them learn and improve. We try to have commentators at our matches (often I am the commentator) to explain the processes, much like Vugraph. It is a service we are providing, both to our members and to the BBO community at large. No one would think to criticize OK Bridge's Goldway matches, yet they are just team matches with great players competing. We view TopFlight more as competition to that than as competition to any other club on BBO. And, given that we are very young (really only 4 weeks old) I think we have been mostly successful. We are still experimenting with days and times. We must be careful not to overlap with other, more established club tourneys. It's still a learning process for us. If we do our jobs well, learn from our mistakes and listen to our members, then we will succeed. If we do not, at least Ben, Ece, Alex and myself can say we tried to do something for the greater "good" of BBO. Better to be a noble failure I say.

Since you seem to know something about this... I have a husband/wife pair who use a cable modem and a router to share connection. When they both are online, both are extremely slow. Not nearly as bad when only one is using the connection. They keep asking me for help and I really don't know what to tell them. The only other thing I know is that they use a firewall as well as the router. Don't know if this is affecting anything. Any help would be appreciated. Steve

Well.. since I wrote last I played a few hands and had a couple of undo incidents come up. The problem with playing online with multiple partners is that sometimes you honestly forget agreements. Today I was playing with someone who plays Bergen raises are in effect even by passed hand. I completely forgot we played it til it got around to the passout seat... then i stated to the table "I forgot our agreement sorry" and then asked for an undo. It was granted but then one of the players left imeediately. Maybe I should have asked for a redeal instead. That might have been the better solution. My point of course, is that it was an honest mistake and they come up more in online bridge than f2f because of 1. the nature of the mechanics of computers (mouse slips do occur) and 2. the average online player has many more partners than would the f2f player and there are that many more agreements to keep straight. Perhaps most importantly, there is nothing at stake besides having some good practice when playing online. No masterpoints.. no awards (usually anyway). I can see where MAYBE in a tourney not granting undos might be allowed, but not in the open room.

I certainly am sure it doesn't directly come out of your software. That's why I said it was more likely coming from a club. (The reason I said this was that I used to belong to a few clubs and the two I received were both members of one of those clubs). Clearly, there is an infection on someone's mailing list tho. Since I wrote this morning I have received 2 more Sober virsuses (did not recognize the names however, but still suspect there is an address book of a BBO member out there generating it). I would be surprised, of course, if it came out of BBO's mail list. As a software developer and provider they must be extra careful and guard against this. I happen to know that one of the people who sent me the virus was not using anti virus software up until a week or so ago. Matter of fact I implored that person to download some. Obviously my plea fell on dear ears and the result was a reformatted hard disk-- something no one really wants.

I am vehemently opposed to people who do not grant "obvious" misclick undos. It is their right not to grant them. It is my right to never play with them. Last week I played with someone who was in disguise. The reason she was in disguise I presume is because she knows I no longer want to play with her due to her stance on undos. Well, a few hands into our session I made an obvious misclick and asked for an immediate undo. Rather than grant it I was interrogated as to whether it was really a misclick or was I not paying attention and now wanted the benefit of her largesse (with the clear implication that if I got the grant it would be cheating). I got up from the table instead. Since, from these actions, I knew who the person now was I told her in a friendly manner that I no longer would play with her and that she might want to reconsider her position on undos. I recommended to her she either NEVER or ALWAYS grant reasonable undos and stop that 3d degree BS. How she handles it in the future is no longer my concern. She agreed to never play with or against me again. That is all i wanted.

I caught 2 viruses this week on my PC. Both were the Sober virus, and both emanated from BBO users. The virus infects a user' address book and then generates emails to spread itself. Fortunately, I recognized both email addresses from which i received the bugs and informed both parties that I had gotten an infection from them. However, it is clear that there is an infection being spread current either through BBO itself or (more likely) some people who have gotten on a mailing list, most likely members of a club. Since it has already replicated itself it is likely to be sent to anyone who has been on that club's mailing list at any point. The Sober virus is nasty if you don't catch it in time. Already, one of the people had to reformat their hard drive to get rid of it. Symantec's web site has a free program to clean it off your computer if you already have it. If you don't, make sure your anti virus software is up to date as it is clearly spreading. I use Grisoft's free AVG software and it flagged both viruses (altho I had to scan out the second infection, it did kind of get through).

I have a simple rule I follow about 4nt.... Over any NT bid its quantitative and over a suit its RKC. I think that treatment is pretty common in undiscussed partnerships and would venture that's why you sometimes get the response you aren't expecting from your partners.

It is a simple matter to see who is online prior to tourney start. Simply open the registration list and click each pair. Their boxes pop up if they are online and if they are not you see a message "Xyz is not online". If you are running a small tourney this wont take but a minute to do. If you see many pairs not online you can quickly expand the number of entries in anticipation of many empty tables.

It's just that simple... why some of these remarks have upset me. There shouldn't be a problem for anyone. Thx Ron

The whole purpose to this (beyond bringing more star players to BBO) is to provide an avenue for these people to practice against several opponents of similar abilities rather than just one pair. We will be quite satsified if we draw a minimum of 4 pairs per tourney (that's a team match). The members can be sure when they log on at an appointed tourney time to find a few or more stars at BBO and can be sure they will have an opportunity for good practice time against varied opponents. Hopefully, word of the concept will spread to other players at other sites, bringing BBO new star-worthy players who wish to avail themselves of the opportunity to play in this sort of competition and there will be growth that way. We are prepared, as I stated earlier, to invite in non-star players of worthy accomplishment if the roster is not large enough to sustain ongoing matches of at least 4 tables. We recognize that might be necessary but hope that it is not. If we need to go that route, we will consult with our members to ask which BBO players who do not have stars already should be invited in. We know we need a "critical mass" of people for it to work.

I apologize if my last post seemed harsh... I was trying to make a point and perhaps my anger got the better of me some... Was not my intention but it is HARD to take some of the things being said by Claus as anything but outright negativity. If he doesn't like it, fine, that's his or anyone else's right. But for him to continually say it's a bad idea unless his ideas (which are idiosyncratic at best) are used and a bad idea if they are not is hurtful. Each of my teammates in this endeavor has read his posts and we were all upset by them. We three have a right to be upset. We are working very hard on a project we hope will benefit everyone on BBO. To fill these pages with that sort of negativity (AND USING THAT HUGE TYPE/PICTURE THAT IS SURE TO BRING HIM NOTICE) and sit idly by was more than I or doofik could take... We are working hard to make BBO a better place for all of us strictly out of altruistic tendencies. We want BBO to thrive even more. Had Claus said "Great idea... I hope you require partnerships to post cc's and alert all bids fully for specs" he would have made same point without openly villifying what is being done. It hurts when people take something that is filled with good intent and openly villifies it, I am sorry. There was absolutely no need for that.

I notice Claus has a private club for Precision players only. My, that is VERY EXCLUSIVE. I would guess 90% of the players on BBO (ok maybe 75%) couldn't be in Claus' club. I couldn't. I don't play Precision. Claus, you segregationist, how dare you start a club like this! You are polarizing BBO people. We can't join. How dare you set restrictions like that? Did you start this club to help anyone but yourself? Maybe so you would have a warm and comfy place for you to play and feel that you at least would have some like competition? Certainly it wasn't to benefit the majority of the players? I think your club is a TERRIBLE idea and should not be allowed. Why? BECAUSE I CANNOT JOIN IT. Do you enjoy me villifying your club in public? No? Well, please consider what you are doing here! We would all be better served if people like you, who go out and do one thing (create an exclsive club with restricted membership) and then criticize people for doing something similar, just kept your mouth shut. I have tried to respond to questions/concerns openly, honestly and politely here. You, on the other hand, have made several statements that appear to have no purpose other than to stir trouble. So, I am finding it harder to remain polite. As to edvin's comment that BBO should have done this itself... They could have, and had they asked us to stop our endeavor and they would take over the reins, we would gladly have said "Sure, go ahead, you are in a better position than we are to promote the idea." No one said that, but Fred, Sheri and Uday all accepted our invitation, so I think we can safely assume they at least tacitly approve of what we are doing.