BillHiggin

Actually, the cheater devices ought to be using spread spectrum technology (as used for wi-fi, bluetooth and other such wireless applications). They could be essentially right on top of the emergency frequencies and still function (and be relatively immune to most jamming). Spread spectrum technology involves either using multiple frequencies or jumping around a set of frequencies. If you do not know the "jumping" algorithm, it is difficult to even detect the transmissions and error correcting codes can deal with the occasional hits on fixed frequency signals. The fixed frequency signals will seem to suffer a very small noise level increase, but otherwise be unaffected. If we know the frequency hop algorithm, we can detect and we can jam the signal (by matching its pattern) and such a jammer would also be difficult to detect by a third party (i.e. the agency enforcing the jammer ban). Advancing technology is creating some new issues!

I have only played once when bidding boxes were in use. As I recall, the symbols were large and therefore not a real problem. The problems for me involve small symbol size and are most pronounced with lighter colors (I am not a pastel lover). When driving at night, green traffic lights at a distance are indistinguishable from normal street lights (fortunately, running a green light does not attract much police attention). While writing this, I see the four color card symbols above the edit area. It looks like they are around 10 pt size. The two minor suit symbols are very faint, while the major suit symbols are distinct (note that blue is the color least likely to be affected by color blindness). When the symbol sizes are smaller, they can begin to blend with the background color (which may not even be controlled by the software directly - it can vary by device and operating system). Early versions of the web based BBO application used a shade of red that caused me trouble. The OP seemed to want the colors because of issues involving use of a tablet. For me, a 7 inch tablet is too small for even the current red - the light green and orange would be impossible. But, at least I can control the size of screen, I cannot control my color blindness. When I first started playing on-line, I played at a site that used pastel red and green to indicate vulnerability. Before I found out how to customize their color scheme, I had to keep a red and a green piece of cellophane handy in order to determine what the vulnerability conditions were - not a pleasant experience.

At least one HAS objected (me). The orange diamond symbol becomes nearly invisible, the light green club symbol is a problem but not so much as the diamond symbol. Pick different colors and it will simply be different people who have the most trouble. Do not do this without an option to disable it (and current policy seems to be to not utilize options).

As I have done so many times before when similar suggestions have been made, allow me to point out that a significant number of men have some form of color blindness and this proposal creates a problem for us (or rather problems - different forms of color blindness will have different issues). If there is a problem with reading the symbols, please address that in a more appropriate manner and reserve color for making things pretty!

That is indeed what the bulletin says (not sure why the download worked for me)

The German team has been stripped of their title and medals. The Lynch team has been declared the winners! The 3rd and 4th place teams have also been moved up in the final standings. I would post a link to the bulletin from Sanya that reports this, but the target PDF file has an error (I read it ok, but many others cannot). (now we can have 3 weeks of meaningless discussions about how one of the other teams might have been the winner if not coughed out earlier by the doctors!)

Perhaps, set a threshold below which all non-empty tables are shown. For example, if there are 8 or fewer tables active in a private club, simply show them all without regard to available seats. I find it mildly confusing to go to IAC, see a non-zero table count, but see no tables (well, I have been at this long enough that the confusion is certainly short lived). Looking for a place to play may be the default, but I go to the IAC because I would rather watch people I know than play with the randoms in the main room.

imho, no. However, the ability to quickly and cheaply show a minimum balanced hand is a big deal, and that is what most transfer walsh systems are doing. I know some early transfer walsh systems did specify acceptance to show 3 card support, but by far the more common approach is simple acceptance shows minimum balanced hand with less than 4 card support.

Being a true trouble maker, I want to back everything up to the point where West led a card borrowed (or stolen) from North's hand. (OK, I will crawl back into the woodwork now) :)

I see a complication related to: Which computer makes the final decision? Answer - as the OP is presented, either might. The final decision will be based on what that computer knows - its own holding and what it has learned about the other holding. Any information it has told about its own holding will have virtually drifted off to bit heaven! (well, it may have been used to modify the messages sent by the other). The decision maker can be deduced from Ben's bytes simply by the parity of the byte - even parity means that the opener has made the final call and odd parity that responder has. But, that is known only after all the bids have been made. To demonstrate the dilema, allow me to deviate from the original scenario and present this as two humans with a defined system might do it. They might decide to have opener describe his hand and responder to merely relay for more information (creating that Fibonacci like sequence that Zelandakh mentions). Because of the constraints on end of auction, we get the curious condition where a bid of 4H by responder at any point in the auction whould essentially say "now that I know all about your hand, you should place the final contract". Of course, since opener knows nothing other than the meaning of the original 2N call, this becomes essentially a transfer to 4S and so all the sequences ending in a 4H call by responder are equivalent to the same sequence where responder instead bids 4S himself. The binary distribution of bids is appropriate if we wish to maximize the total information presented to the opponents (not the sort of priority we really want). Fibonacci distribution of first rebids by opener would be best if we wanted responder to be captain. If we want opener to be captain, then almost all his first rebids should be 3C (maybe he already knows enough to bid 7N!)

Even the blind bear gets the occasional acorn.

Nothing instructive here, merely interesting and then only for the rarity. I picked up AKxx AKxxxx Ax A (and noted sadly that this was not bridge for money) as dealer NV for IMPs. I ventured a 2♣ opening and rebid 2♥ over partners 2♦ call. He raised to 3♥, I chose to bid 3♠ and partner now bid 4N! Now, olds-timers must have kicked in as I admitted to only 4 of the 5 keycards. But, I corrected his 6♥ signoff to the next level. I am not sure that science has any answers when partner is invoking old blacky with no aces himself, but it seemed worthwhile to take that push. Unfortunately, his assets were limited to both minor Kings and the trump queen, but the ever popular psuedo squeeze prevailed (this was not a top level table).

May I humbly offer an opinion on LTC evaluation (which I believe to be a fine tool for I/A level players)? A factor which I have only seen mentioned once is that LTC greatly overvalues doubletons. This is OK for the first doubleton because that effectively just increases the negative value of 4333 shapes (and those hands need all the scorn we can muster). But, for hands containing 2 or 3 doubletons, the result is not pretty. If you are evaluating hands with LTC, count extra doubletons as negative factors! On this hand, I would count one negative for the second doubleton, another for the concentration of strength in a short suit, and then a positive for the favorable A/Q count - resulting in a net negative adjustment. Note that the responding hand has 9 losers plus a negative adjustment for the excess queen, so like everyone else says - NOT a limit raise at all! My blame split would be about 67% to south for a gross overbid and 33% to north for a lesser overbid. They are not equally at fault, but there is no innocence to be seen.

I see something slightly different - and perhaps I am just having "old eyes" issues. But, the diagrams with truncated descriptions both have scroll bars in the bidding box and the non truncated ones do not have scroll bars. So, we simply announce that all South players must not use conventional bids in long auctions! Problem solved.

I just checked, and I can log into BBO from Linux using Chromium. I cannot log in using Firefox, because of Flash problems (I abandoned Firefox when Adobe ceased support for it under Linux). You can check your version of Flash via https://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/ For Chromium, you will need pepperflash. Firefox is now stuck at version 11.2 for Linux and it appears that it will stay that way. I was having some problems with Chromium and full screen mode, but those went away with recent Linux updates.

This statement is appropriate for o/e signalling, but does not apply to encrypted signalling. With encrypted signalling, the signal will either be hi encourage or low encourage (substitute suit preference or other as appropriate), depending on some "key" so there will be a lowest or highest card except when there is only one card. Tempo issues could possibly arise with regard to other issues but not with regard to having an appropriate card to signal with.

Always unacceptable! There is never any excuse for this sort of attack (no matter how stupid they are).

GIB has very little ability to actually revalue a hand based on partner's bids (if it decides to do a simulation, then that may actually reflect such factors). Instead it really just treats all game tries as quantitative.

The GIB system notes do not go into detail on super accepts. My severely age restricted memory (i.e. too much age = not so much memory) seems to recall: 1) GIB never super accepts with 4-3-3-3 shape 2) GIB shows the doubleton except for the retransfer suit which it shows by a jump accept. (here the memory may be failing me) 3) I do not recall seeing a 2N super accept. IMHO, GIB is LOTT correct in its refusal to super accept with 4-3-3-3 shape. See the last chapter of Larry Cohen's book - To Bid or Not To Bid

It does look like your 1♣ opening might be best described as "either unbalanced with 4+ clubs or balanced". This is why the notrump range is needed if we really want to determine the frequency of short club holdings. But, if you use that definition, then you may well find that all the worry about short club holdings evaporates as you focus on "where should we be going if opener has a balanced hand".

From Bridge Winners: a google translation http://goo.gl/G2K6A2 from this page select the third item under "Papers" The translation is rather low quality - note that it fails several times to translate "huster" which is German for "cough" (and therefore quite significant for this case).

Using windows 7, I get the fatal "play button on left, play and options do not work" using both firefox and chrome. I tried IE11 and the handviewer did not display at all (but I never use IE anyway). Using Linxx with chromium, it works fine. EDIT - update, after restarting computer, it is working in both chrome and firefox (but IE-11 seems hopelessly lost - no real loss)

According to the official (and generally ignored) SAYC booklet: "NOTE: Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two level unless opener’s rebid is at the game level." The 2♠ call is forcing because it is not at game level so responder has promised another bid. This is often used as the basis of a trick question in "How well do you know SAYC" type articles. Given that very few players that claim to play SAYC have ever read that booklet, much less understood the implications of this note, the pragmatic approach would be to NOT expect 2♠ to be as forcing as the booklet suggests. Another similar related oddity: In the unopposed SAYC auction 1♠ 2♥; 3♥, the last call is technically forcing! Do not bank on it!

I agree! South should be taken out and shot! South's pass was, however, only the second worst choice of this auction. Apparently South has been taught (as have so many) that missing a possible 4-4 major fit is the end of the world. But, with 7-4 shape and a weakish hand, diamonds will play ever so much better (even if that possible 4-4 spade fit exists). A 2♦ call would work wonders.

OMG! Do you think it is even close? It is not. The finesse is nearly twice as likely to work as the drop. You might consider playing for the drop if you feel the entire field will be in slam AND you need a swing to move into the lead (i.e. swing by going against the odds).