jammen

Here is a screenshot if that helps: http://i.imgur.com/DMIk8G5.png

Well, I spoke too soon. I'm back to the same problem, even after deleting all cookies. Removing the zero after arcade no longer works either. Could you guys just remove me from your test group?

Solved. I just removed the 0 after arcade and i went to the normal site.

Still not working for me. I get this url:http://arcade0.bridgebase.com/web0?cb=124k

I can play Video Bridge (which I never play), but Just play bridge and Bridge 4 only show black screens. I use Linux Mint 18.1 with Firefox 55.0.1 with no previous problems.

And another thing. My opponent robots play double dummy while my partner robot plays like a dummy. How can I cut one of my opponents as a partner?

After two passes RHO bids 1D. I overcall 1NT and get raised to 3. LHO opens the jack spades. I have K9xx in dummy and AQx in hand. Is it really possible for LHO to lead the Jack from Jxx when partner has opened one diamond? I'll accept my occasional bad play, but these guys are picking my pocket and I have no recourse and no director to call.

Board 2 there is a directors call on Kranyak for BIT club shift. It's about time.

I don't believe that there has ever been a case in bridge history where a defender is penalized for UI resulting from partners BIT. Declarer wins the opening lead in dummy and plays a trump to his king. LHO tanks 3 minutes and finally plays small. RHO wins the next trick, and having deduced that his partner has the ace of trumps and hence where the other high cards are located, makes the killing switch which is not found at the other table where there was no BIT. Nothing can ever be done about this kind of cheating and it's probable that the partners involved aren't even aware of it, as it is unintentional and has been approved by the ACBL as "thoughtfulness".

So there can be UI caused by a BIT during the bidding, but not during the play? Why? Anyone who has watched the USBC's knows exactly what I mean. I have never seen a call made against players who signal their high cards through a BIT. From the laws: "During the auction and play, communication between partners should be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves. Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste." (emphasis added). Bobby Wolff "2. Never break tempo as a defender if the slow choice of what you eventually decide could be thought to be unauthorized information (UI) to partner. If the break in tempo (BIT) occurs, partner should lean over backwards to follow your suggestion (even if he suspects by doing so he is possibly committing bridge suicide), rather than taking advantage of the UI". http://judy.bridgeblogging.com/2013/03/27/the-controversial-disposition-of-the-semi-final-vanderbilt-appeal/

A BIT is considered a serious violation during the bidding and causes many controversial committee rulings. Yet a BIT during play is considered normal expert practice for certain slower players. Why? When defenders tanks for several minutes before finally ducking the trick they are illegally signalling to their partners that they could have won the trick. Why is this allowed? Why can you use a BIT to illegally signal high cards? You might as well say out loud "partner, I have the ace but I am going to think for a long time and then play a small card". Furthermore, why are "slow" players allowed to use this illegal signalling method to help pinpoint their defense. There are expert "fast" players who never tank on defense, they play smoothly and in rhythm. Watch the USBC's and you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Thanks for the replies. I assumed that it would be legal as we already see wild preempts and two-suited bids being made at the expert level when white vs red. But I am surprised that I've seen nothing systemic being played that incorporates opening bids and overcalls.

I have been away from bridge for decades and am curious about what is currently legal in tournament play. Would a bidding system based upon the board's colors be legal? Similar to the Woodson 2-way nt concept that was weak or strong depending upon vulnerability, this system would alter the meaning of many bids, not just nt, depending upon the specific vulnerability status when they are bid.

My work IT guy has a policy against any streaming. Is bbo through my web browser streaming? I always thought streaming was audio/video content only, didn't consider this to be.

The USBF is ridiculed all over the internet because of the draconian sanctions it proposes. Whether or not the sign "incident" is an issue, the USBF itself has now become the news. The ACBL and the USBF are in the process of destroying themselves; Their over-response is alienating core members. And the irony is that these organizations don't understand why young people aren't becoming members!