Old York

I will allow my BBO Forum signature to answer on my behalf :unsure:

I think it ironic that, when using FD, the only thing that is not disclosed is the manner in which it is being used There was a recent example in an Acol Club Team Match, where only one side were using FD The non-fd side had a tiny bidding mishap, which could never have happened using FD. The FD team had a "perfect" bidding sequence on a different difficult hand and landed on a pinhead into the only making contract The FD side were victorious, but it was a hollow victory. All the kibs were left with a bad taste in their mouth. Later, I learned that the non-fd side were not aware that the fd team could see explanations of every bid, The Team Captain said that they would have objected to fd usage, had they known this in advance Tony

Many, many thanks for taking the trouble to do this research, it is certainly thought provoking and I will look into this much deeper. Again, this highlights a big difference between Imps and Matchpoints Cheers, I owe you a drink Tony afterthought: If the make/fail is double dummy, maybe the 1611 is actually higher in reality :P

I have also noticed that many .lin files do not display the GiB analysis button, but it appears on others. I think this is again peculiar to individual hands downloaded as .lin files With no Gib button, I am forced to do a lot of cut-and-paste editing to fully analyse the hands by transfering them to a blank template which includes GiB Tony

I have absolutely no idea what it means, either. It must be one of those new-fangled Americanisms, like trick-or-treat That is the main difference between Old York and New York, 2 nations divided by a common language, but as it does not directly affect me, what is the problemo? Tony

Most BBO players who use FD actually believe that there is no need to alert their bids, this has been discussed in another thread recently. This means that the FD "explanation" is actually being used as an "alert", so there is no confusion on that point You cannot force your opponents to switch off their display options for "explanations", maybe this is OP's reason for opening this thread In a perfect world, Bidders should always alert their bids with no explanation being visible until an opponent clicks on the bid, then, and only then, would the FD Explanation be made visible, and only to the opponent who clicked Nevertheless, FD is better than receiving "no information" or "no agreement" when you ask for an explanation, this outweighs many arguments Tony

Fair comments, but in the context of this thread and my post (in it's entirety), it should be impossible to think that I intended to mean manually inputted alerts I always thought that FD was a great idea, and many of us have spent hours compiling an FD which accurately describes our bidding, even in complex and competative auctions But I still feel very uncomfortable about allowing my partner to see my FD alerts, perhaps I am simply being too ethical about such things, np Thanks for the input Tony

I must say that I am surprised that there is an option to view your partner's alerts. This should definitely be removed. There is no such option. Sorry, Fred, but there is such an option.... and it is switched on by default http://www.bridgebase.com/help/3/common/te....html?fdoptions Perhaps you meant that this option does not exist in the web version? My main concern is the one expressed by OP, this problem would be eliminated (to a large extent) if this option was turned off by default (especially in pay tournaments) Players who then wish to display explanations of all bids to all players would, perhaps, have the option to turn it back on at their own discretion Best regards always Tony

Many have still failed to give their reasons for prefering 4♠ or 3NT, North's 4333 shape should deter most from using any form of 3♣ bid, but congratulations to all who found the Spade game. The spotlight now switches to the defenders How can West find a lead from his hand, either red suit could be fatal, and cashing an ace could present declarer with a trick, so lead a trump? Declarer now has many problems, needing 3 diamond tricks and a club ruff, while keeping control of trumps and leaving communication in hearts. many failed to handle the hand, unless presented with easy tricks by defenders The "correct" defence would be to find the safest opening lead, and attack Hearts at the first opportunity, this give no chance to Declarer, even if he is world class http://cid-a2215bf240b1bba1.skydrive.live..../Old%20York.lin Tony My only regret is that I was not allowed to play this hand at Imp scoring, where I would not need the committee's approval to get a decent score

This looks like another hopelessly bad Director's decision I cannot see how your partner saying "one monent please" constitutes a hesitation, he could have been interrupted by phone/doorbell etc Even so, a hesitation is not unlawful. Neither is it unlawful to receive unauthorised information. The oppo must prove that they were damaged by your taking advantage of unauthorised information, which seems impossible This type of adjusting is giving online bridge a bad name Tony

Eloquent and concise as usual, Ken Well said :rolleyes:

The OP asked the question "What would your play be for the above contract?" This implies playing the hand for 9 tricks to guard against any adverse distribution. Obviously this is not what OP intended, as he asks for an overtrick Playing the hand for 10 tricks is not the same as playing the hand for 9 tricks and an overtrick (if it drops in your lap) Sorry if this caused confusion Tony

I agree totally, but should North use normal Stayman with 4333 shape? My main point is that 3NT is the "practical" contract and I expected it to score more than 54% 4♠ scored exceptionally well simply because many declarers failed to handle the 4-1 split, so why did 3NT score so badly? Matchpoint scoring just seems so unpredictable, to me Tony 83 players scored slightly more than me, 109 players scored considerably less Traveller at http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands...16&username=old york

A second Club should be fatal for the defense, West must switch to a high Heart to defeat 4♠ In the event, it was declarer who commited suicide at many tables Tony perfect bidding, normal defence, but still 1 down http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...ayed=1257023965 http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...7864-1257023965

Is the rebid 100% game forcing? that rather depends on partner.... sigh http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...7814-1254803993 The only way to prevent bidding misunderstandings is to allow your partner to see your alerts by using Fd..... but, of course, this is unlawful Tony (hope this link works) http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...ayed=1254803993

.... unless you are playing matchpoints Clearly, an overtrick is highly likely. The odds of a tenth trick are huge, but a rubber player would never play for 10 tricks on this hand, and many imp players would see the danger of a Spade switch, but probably "go with the odds" I would treat this hand as an easy 9 tricks and get on with the next hand if an overtick failed to materialise with no assistance from defenders Risking game for 1 Imp is a cardinal sin Tony

I won Spade lead with Ace (slightly deceptive)... maybe Queen better? West continued Spades after he won ♦Queen at trick 2. It is dangerous for West to cash ♣Ace at trick 3 at matchpoint scoring, at Imps it would be much easier to defend correctly. Should West be rewarded with such a good score, after failing to defeat an unmakable contract? I hate matchpoints :) Tony Edit: The bidding with a regular partnership might be... 2NT - 3♣ (asking for 5cM) 3♦ - 3♥ (shows 4 Spades) 3♠ - 3NT (Shows 4333) 4♠ - p (showing no slam ambitions) 4♠= scores 77%

Give North ♠QJT9 ♥KJ(x) ♦xxx ♣Kxx South's lead may not be "honest" if you play for 10 tricks, you could end up with 8, losing 2 spades, 2 hearts and 1 club Tony

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sk932hk96dj32c976&w=st764hqt8dqt8ca84&e=s5hj754d974ckjt32&s=saqj8ha32dak65cq5]399|300|Scoring: MP would you expect to reach 3N or 4S?[/hv] Played at 242 tables, so comparisons are abundant I played this hand in 3NT as South with an unknown partner but was disturbed to get only 54% after a spade lead. Are Matchpoints too random? The hand is an interesting defensive problem for West. Both 3NT and 4♠ should fail Tony

I hate to disagree, but imps is imps ♥10 or ♥Queen @ trick 1 guarantees the contract, later establishing a second club trick Your only concern at imps is to secure the contract. Overtricks have little value Now, if this was matchpoints...... Tony :) Edit: Even ♥Ace works, oppo can only take ♥KJ

Such people undoubtedly cheat at Patience - sigh The Lawmakers are sleeping soundly, I agree, but my main point is that BBO should not be seen to be encouraging the unlawful misuse of the site Tony

We need more Survivor Tournaments The Tourney host can then decide what percentage of low scoring players will be removed. TDs waste most of their time chasing slow tables and replacing unresponsive players Unclocked tournaments are also undervalued, they move tables as needed - so faster players will be seated with fast opponents, and slow players will not be allowed to play all the boards. The title "unclocked" is actually a misnomer, timing is critical in an Unclocked Tourney Tony

BBO players are prone to bad connections. Don't assume that stalling and bailing are always deliberate Set up your own table. As host, you can control who visits your table. If you frequent the small clubs, or join private clubs, you will soon learn who are friends or foes I notice from your profile that your preferred system is Acol please visit our website.... http://www.acolatbbo.org.uk/ If these problems continue within the Acol Club, please contact Aacol or any "senior" club member Tony (Acol Club Player)

How should the auction have progressed after 1♠-1NT(Forcing 6-12hcp)-2♦ ? (Genuine Question) BBO-Advanced Fd seems to fizzle out at this point. According to Fd, the 3♦ bid in the actual sequence already shows "extras", so advancing beyond 3NT may have been optimistic with only one keycard, but I can see how a GF 2♦ response would make West reluctant to pass. Not a good hand for any system Tony

My appologies to Claus if that is true. It is very easy to type one thing and actually mean the opposite I agree totally with OP, and I still believe that Fd is a great idea. The title of this thread should read "Misusing full disclosure CC can damage opponents" But it is definitely being mis-used by many. It is unlawful to see your partner's alerts, and highly unethical to actually use this unauthorised information Personally, I wish that a simplified Fd should be compulsory in tournaments, but only visible to opponents Tony p.s. In my own tournaments, I ask that complex systems should use Fd, in the hope that it helps oppo more than it helps the bidders. Failure to use correct alerting procedure is the biggest problem in tournaments