BillHiggin

According to the "Neopolitan Club", the polish team is withdrawing from the upcoming EBL Championship Cup. http://neapolitanclub.altervista.org/eng/poland-withdrew-from-ebl-champions-cup.html This was also reported on Bridge Winners but almost immediately erased.

Should be, but is NOT! (just now tried and failed)

this one is not so useless (results) http://www.worldbridge.org/repository/tourn/chennai.15/Microsite/Results.htm

perhaps it has been fixed. I just downloaded it from that link without problem.

Plenty of evidence that can be verified. See http://bridgewinners...-fantoni-nunes/ You will find a table summarizing the observations of lots of videos that demonstrate their use of the angle of a played card (opening lead) which corresponds exactly with the holding in the suit led. Each example links to the video (with the time stamp of the lead) and a summary of all the pertinent details. Perhaps the evidence might not convince their mothers(as mothers never believe their children could misbehave), but it is very obvious once you know the code that they are cheating.

Would you be so kind as to actually read Mr Passel's account at http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-whole-story/ and then publicly state whether you still claim him to be a cheater? This story may be more about the total ineptness of the current official process of handling ethics problems (convict one innocent, fail to take action against 3 cheating pairs) than any condemnation of Mr Passel.

You do understand that everyone else can see kibitzers at their table using either version, right. The question might be why you cannot. Normal way to do this is select "who is online" tab on right and kibitzer tab at top .

Slight threadjack: A long long time ago, I was playing in a moderate stakes rubber bridge game (at a rubber bridge club). RHO was a top local pro, LHO was a local expert (partner and I were quite overmatched). RHO opened 1♥, and our side proceeded to expose his psych and then overbid to a diamond slam. LHO cashed the ♥A and I needed only to pick up the trump suit which of course was AKTxx in hand opposite 4 small. When I led the ♦K, the jack appeared on my left. I thought for awhile and then played the A, dropping the Q. LHO screamed "Just my luck to be playing this hand against the only player in the club too stupid to know restricted choice" (he never was a pleasant expert). However, I had spent a lot of time watching RHO, and knew that he never psyched an opening bid with as much as Qxx in a side suit. So the real unlucky one was my RHO who was playing with someone too stupid to play the honor he would be known to hold. :)

I will whisper this in your ear, don't let any BBO or MSN people know about this suggestion :rolleyes: [whisper] Use www.bridgebase.com to launch BBO and use MSN for other MSN games. You will still be able to use the same user name and password that you have been using through MSN, but will not have to put up with the "extras" that MSN tacks on (which mainly seem to serve to reduce the useable screen space). [/whisper]

[hv=pc=n&s=s9862hqt7643d7cjt&n=sakthakjd9862ca32&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1ddp1hp1n2d2hpp3dppdp?]266|200[/hv] To save others from looking up the images.

Playing with irregular but reliable advanced partner, how would you expect the continuations following a invite or better cue bid raise of an overcall to be interpreted? My thinking (and certainly looking for other views) would be something like: Intervenor rebids suit at lowest level to say "glad you have some nice cards, maybe we can make this" Any other rebid by intervenor indicates game interest. If advancer returns to the agreed suit at lowest level at next opportunity he is saying "more invite than plus, we might want to stop here" Any other rebid by advancer shows game values. Bids by advancer that commit to game other than actually bidding game suggest slam interest. Sample: (1♣) 1♠ (P) 2♣; (P) 2♦ (P) 2♥ I believe the 2♥ call sets a game force. (pet peeve - the forum editor is only offering me these cursed 4 color suit symbols - which seriously impedes my ability to read my own post! Bah! ) There is certainly a serious possibility that I am in some way confused or simply wrong.

Further checking: Linux (Kubuntu 15.04 64 bit) Google Chrome - same problems as Windows Linux (Kubuntu 15.04 6 4 bit) Chromium - same problems as Windows (we would expect Chrome and Chromium to behave virually indentical)..

This seems to be different. I did experience the earlier issue and that seemed to get corrected. Some observations: First I tried the lock/unlock toolbar that seemed to clear the issue before, and it seemed to not correct things but to make them a little different. Adjust the normal size window to leave about 1" of space above toolbar and then maximize - result is about 1" of white at the bottom of browser window which is otherwise correctly sized (i.e. the BBO display inside is wrong sized in a correctly sized window. Return to nomal size - browser window returns to original size, but BBO display inside it seems to increase to the point that all the chat display is hidden below the window edge (perhaps this is app display size of the maximized window, but cannot really be sure). A bit more playing around - and it seems clear that something is out of sync: adjusted normal browser window size to about half screen height. Maximize - browser window does maximize, BBO app display stays at same size (huge white bar at bottom). Normalize - browser window returns to a different size (about the size from before that resize to half screen height) and app display enlarges to too large for window. Note that after a normalize operation when the display is improperly sized for the display window that any vertical manual resize of the window seems to restore the app size to matching the browser window - but, of course that is not an option on the maximized window. All the above was done with Chrome. When I tried those experiments with Firefox, everything seemed to operate just fine (contradicting the results yesterday when Firefox also seemed to be affected). Chrome does appear to be slightly behind as far as flash version (but we have no option but to wait for them to initiate the upgrade) while Firefox is up to date.

Using either Chrome or Firefox on a 64bit Win7 machine, I am getting strange behaviour for the maximize button. Depending on the window size before maximize attempt, I end up with some white space at the bottom of the resized window. If I then return to non-maximized mode, the size will be different than before. This has been going on for at least a week (prolly longer - my memory seems to max out at about 35 seconds ago now). I tried Firefox on 64bit Linux and it behaved properly.

Try: Either close Chrome or un-maximize it (so that task bar is visible). Right click on the task bar and uncheck the "Lock the taskbar" entry. Reverse that and things may well be ok again (worked for me :) )

I too have been having this problem with Chrome. I just checked Firefox and it maximized properly (filled all but the task bar area). This is fairly new behavior by Chrome (which is the browser I normally use for BBO).

I just checked using Chrome, and had no problem. about 8:10AM Eastern. I also logged on last night at about 8:00PM Eastern using Chrome with no problems.

This may or may not be totally relevant, but I have observed a very prevalent problem with the way many intermediate (give or take a bit) player use Bergen raises (and other "LAW" based bids such as super accepts). They tend to worship the word "all" and fail to downgrade shapeless hands (i.e. 4333 hands in particular). If you decide that no hands with 4333 shape qualify as "four card support", you will see most of the too many off hands simply disappear. However, I strongly agree with Ken Berg - no convention is so valuable that a partnership will do better with it when at least one partner is not comfortable with it!

Things appear to be less than "back up". Minor issue - my existing bookmarks for the forum do not seem to be working (they dump me to the main BBO page, but this is easy enough for me to fix) But: Once I get to the forum from Firefox and attempt to sign it, I get: Chrome does not seem to be as upset (or does not care - who knows) and lets me sign in without complaint.

There is a certain risk involved with quoting only part of a post as I have done here! But, this paragraph seems to go to the heart of the matter. The OP actually IS designing a system which requires opening 1N on certain hand patterns which include singletons. At this point, all discussion of percentages is mute - the system runs afoul of (quoting from blackshoe's referenced article: Once you agree to do it, how often you do it no longer matters! There is a very real possibility that my reading/comprehension skills are faulty - if so, please accept my apologies.

Whether or not playing with another would or would not change your rating is somewhat irrelevant. The more important thing is what peoples expectation is (reality be damned). I used to play on another site with a rating system patterned after the chess "Elo" system. After some time, I became aware that playing with very weak partners actually would raise one's own rating. I did observe one individual who seemed to really exploit this (especially since he would "talk as dummy" to direct his partner towards lines that would be better than they were really capable of). Other than that one individual, most everyone else avoided those with low ratings. Perception trumps reality!

As one who is borderline diabetic, may I assure you that as far as your blood sugar is concerned, it is exactly the pasta, rice, potatoes, and bread that are the problem (I no longer get to eat those). Two minor sins that my meter claims I actually can handle are - burgers as long as there is lots of greasy beef (five guys works well, McDonalds is a disaster blood sugar wise), and thin crust pizza as long as it is somewhat greasy (fat is almost an anti-carb thing tho it certainly does have many other negative factors and certainly does not help with weight loss). (disclaimer - what the meter says after a meal may not always accurately reflect what will truly show up in an A1C test).

A definite design decision was made to minimize the number of user selected options. Those options may allow for greater individual choice, but the downside is that they are very confusing for many. I will not claim to favor every design decision (of course, I do not) but I do admire the consistency with which they have adhered to that principal.

Your user name is not actually case sensitive. You may login as MeshPlayer or meshplayer or MESHPLAYER as you wish, and others will see that particular capitalization for that session. The next time you login, you may freely use a different capitalization pattern.

I have wanted to advocate new suits after Texas transfer as exclusion RKC, but felt it was not standard. So, I am happy to see someone assert that it is somewhat standard. Do others concur that Exclusion RKC is standard for new suits after Texas?