Grazy69

Pran was correct in his 1st reply .. and it is straight forward. Many posters on this forum are infamous for dis-appearing down unnecessary cul-de-sacs and this post is no different. Happy New Year

I have a copy of "How to direct high quality tourneys on bbo". If you email me I will send it to you. F2F then partner does alert but on BBO thats not the case. Section 37 says there is no bbo alert chart as such but impresses that all alertable bids are SELF alerted together with a full explanation ( privately of course ) when necessary.

Interesting thread. As a scorer for many years with a computer scoring program that dealt with this type of problem when a redeal is required part way through the evening.... I would let scores stand for folks already played the board as stanza 1 I would have the board redealt ( when discovered ) and all scores from then on would be stanza 2. As an aside ...... Many moons ago, on one of the forums or suchlike, someone came up with a very nice definition of manually well shuffled cards. It was simple ...you should try it. Suit the whole pack A23456 etc in all suits ( like a new deck ). Use whatever type of shuffle you choose, and there are many. Definition: A good shuffle is that no more than 3 pairs of cards remain together after the shuffle. Eh Voila

Is the TD at the table .. if not why not? If he is the TD should explain both alternatives L26 and L50 to declarer. The laws don't seem to indicate that either Law takes precedence. If L26 .. what was the withdrawn call ? It surely would make a difference to declarer's choice

csdenmark is correct. I tried this many months ago Open your convention card in an editor prgram .. notepad (for example) ..then reduce the code shown to ONLY the following line BUT still "save as" a .bss document *00{Test gone}=NYYYYYY note txt "Test gone" can be anything. Next time you are on bbo with same pd then "clear" the one that bbo automatically finds ... then ....load this "empty" cc as the BBO server must be trained to remember this new "empty" version. Eh Voila the cc loads but nothing is shown at all This is the only way as once bbo remembers a cc for you ( and a pd ) it is forever Edit: This for windows client

With respect to WBF minutes are the ones written before the new 2007 Law Book now invalid ? And only WBF minutes written after the issue of the 2007 Law Book currently valid?

Rik The above TD instructions are excellent and remove ambiguity in rulings of this type. Out of interest do you have a link to "instructions to TD's" in your country ? It would make a good read and compare with the UK's "White Book" Thx

It is quite plain that if there is doubt you should alert. It is also very plain there are bids that you should not alert. <Quote> from preamble (3) However, players who participate in WBF events are expected to protect themselves to a large extent. <Unquote> A player may then still ask about any non-alerted bid if they so wish ( "forbidden" ones for example ) of course bearing in mind possible UI A catch 22 situation maybe ? Cheers

The WBF Alert Policy is only half a page long It is obvious that if there is ANY DOUBT on YOUR part you should alert It makes a big point about full disclosure so do so when asked about a bid. So if you think that your bid MAY not be understood by the opps you should alert. If you play a system that is quite unique then expect your side to make many alerts. Thats the name of the game that YOU chose to play. I have met you so I know you are an experienced player so you will know what the "ordinary" player may not understand. There are thousands of players out there who wouldn't know a "Walsh relay" from an "Exclusion Blackwood" . Cheers

Blackshoe ; Most amusing :) OK I have "Deep Finesse" and "Jack 4.1" and "GIB" is available on BBO BUT none of them actually give you a list of the probability %'s Maybe you really ought to try it and dive back to the "Edison" days before windows. Its free btw. And if you really don't like DOS I'll bet $200 that you use the "Goulash" DOS program, if you happen to TD on BBO that is. Back to the plot. The Orange Book looks to be in error as KQJTxxx IS 6 clear cut tricks on any 4-2 split. Is the TD at fault when the ruling is wrong but has quoted the "correct" info from the trusty? Orange Book ? Maybe Bluejack can throw light on the discrepancy as the Feb12th 09 L&E minutes describing "Clear tricks" were his thoughts and Bluejack is also the Editor of the Orange Book Cheers

Blur Uriah AKQJxxx is 7 tricks 100% as 2nd best is 4-2. Blackshoe KQJxxxx Sure ; if one defender has A9xx then 5 clear tricks ; if defender has 9x then if pd has A8xx then still 5 tricks so more important maybe is "where is the 8 as well" lol ; how far do we go down that road. Using ncr! formula there is 5 in 30 combinations (20%) of A9xx being in one specific hand. So back to the original post the hand HAS a clear cut 8 playing tricks so it looks like a TD error But that is easy if TD didn't have an up-to-date copy of the Orange book-2009 update The L&E minutes of Feb 2nd 2009 show KQJTxxx as 6 clear cut tricks which is correct. Put it through the small dos program "suitplay" and see. So campboy ; 8 Clear cut tricks ; TD error Cheers

Again hopefully an easy one. What is the policy for BBO TD's for (additional) alerting when a pair of players have a BBO type CC running If the decription of an alertable bid is there for the opponents to see should the player self alert as well or not A Full Disclosure BBO type CC of course cannot contain every possible bidding sequence so it should be obvious to alert any artificial bid that has no description attached to it. Sometime ago a well known expert I was playing against, insisted that all artificial bids should be (additionaly) alerted by the player even though the bid was clearly defined on the displayed BBO type Convention Card Policy please Thanks

Apology if question has already been dealt with but search engine wont let me search for a 3 letter word. Why has GIB disappeared from hands recovered via "my hands" making post mortems much more difficult now Also GIB has disappeared from within tourneys when TD wants to adjust a hand for some reason I do not ever wish to play with GIB hence I do not subscribe to GIB But as a double dummy and post mortem solver it was invaluable especially in teacher/student sessions Please restore it on Windows client It does seem that several retro-grade changes have been made to windows client making it less attractive than before (host priorty etc) It this a round-a-bout way of cajoling players to use the web client. Thanks in advance

The conversation should go like this assuming the TD is at the table when the 1D bid is still on the table. If not the offender would be asked to put the 1D bid back on the table. TD to offenders LHO “ Do you accept the 1D bid”, and before LHO answers the TD read out laws B1(a) and B1(b)to the table explaining all options. TD to LHO “Do you accept the 1D bid” Answer “No”( already known ) Offender then bids 2D TD says to LHO “Do you accept the bid of 2D” and before LHO answers TD now reads Law 27B4 to the table explaining all options TD says to LHO “Do you accept the 2D bid ( As Law27A allows ) If LHO says “yes” bidding continues as normal If LHO says “no” offender can bid what he likes (but not X or XX Law 27 B4) and offender’s partner must pass throughout. Lead penalties may apply (Law 26) if the offending side becomes defenders. And Law 23 is checked. TD to table on leaving “If not happy you may appeal” Law 92

The solution to this problem would have been straight forward under the 1997 Laws Law 63 B stated .. <quote> 63B.Attention Is Illegally Drawn When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established. <quote> The revoke was established - play would continue - and at the end of the hand apply Law64 Procedure after establishment of a revoke. Does anyone know why this section was removed from Law63 (2007) ? With 2007 Laws its not so obvious how to continue after the "violation" but the result should still be the same as with the 1997 laws So the TD ruling doesn't look correct You would need to follow Law 64 to see how many if any tricks are transfered to the non-offenders