DrTodd13

I think that one of my previous suggestions may be helpful here. When asked for an explanation of a bid, you don't get just a text field to type in. You get a dialog box with multiple items like point range, length specification for each suit, indicates bal/unbal hand, etc. You would be forced to enter a certain subset of the information and could also type an additional explanation. Once the user has specific such thing as suit length and strength you can now automatically check their hand versus what they've described and if the two don't match then you can record this deviation from the stated agreement in a database and we could possibly extract habitual providers of MI.

I agree. We need two classifications...one related to personality and the other related bridge ability. However, when it comes to tournaments, I don't want to play with either category.

I've suggested this multiple times. Even better would be my enemies wouldn't even be able to see that I'm registered at the partnership desk and if they just typed my name in then it would be nice if it automatically rejected enemies in those cases.

Personally, I'm very happy to review a case and given an opinion based on the laws. However, once a director has essentially broken the laws of bridge by prohibiting psyches then I have no interest in reviewing the case. Maybe we need a forum for those who want to rule according to the laws and those who want to make things up as they go along.

I was surprised I didn't even have the option of saying I wanted to open 1♥ with these 4414 and 4405 hands. If you want something reasonably standard then move these hands into 1♥ and then use multi/muiderberg for 2♦ through 2♠. DrTodd

If you want to shift up the NT range to 14-16 that is fine and then 1♦ followed by NT is the 12-13 hands. What I like to do is play a 12-15 NT and never open an 11 point balanced hand. I think this increases the precision of 1♦ because you know it is an unbalanced hand.

Justin, You're too passionate about the game man. You'll never be able to stop. You're addicted like many of the rest of us are. Don't want to call you a liar but anybody want to take odds about whether Justin's hiatus will last longer or shorter than Gerard's? DrTodd

I second that. We need an "idiot" designation separate from the enemy designation. Enemies should not be able to communicate at all with you where as idiots can communicate. However, both should be forbidden from inviting you to play in tournaments. Right now, somebody invites you to play in a tourney and the dialog box is model and you can't even go investigate what comment you've given to this person or whether they are an enemy or not.

I thought I was going to be a lone dissenter but I did hear one voice for 4♠. This appears to be a distributional hand and in such queens and jacks should be highly devalued. I've already forced to game by not bidding 2♥ immediately and from my point of view, this hand isn't much better than a minimum 2♦ call. Yes, I would say that under the principle of fast arrival that 3♠ would be stronger than 4♠. So, I consider this hand so weak that I'll bid 4♠. Was this question designed to see whether 3♠ is not an indicator of strength since we have serious 3N available after the 3♠ bid? In the context of serious 3N, what does it mean to bypass even the possibility of using it?

Give me a black suit K rather than the ♦K and I may contemplate slam. Given the hand though, I have to echo "what's the problem?" Todd

So many posts! Here is one more....summary of some thoughts over the past 80 posts. Sure, playing in front of a computer is not as nice as playing at a regular table but is it that much worse than playing with screens? There are numerous benefits to computers versus screens. When you have to alert, you could have an application with a set of saved alerts and you could send it with a click of the mouse. You could get around language problems by having your saved alerts translated into all appropriate languages and the application would see what language your opps understood best and would then send the alert in their language. For cases when you don't have a saved alert, you could even do something like send the alert to a real-live translator who was working at the tourney and he could translate and forward the text to the questioner. Personally, I don't want this game to be about sorting cards and handling flimsy pieces of paper. I don't believe that physical card manipulation is part of the game and so I have no problem with engineering out the possibility of revokes. There are times online where I've read an opponent's slight hesitation correctly to figure out what the best play was. If I can do this across the world over a crappy dial-up connection then reading hesitations over a high-speed network localized to a single hotel is not going to be a big problem. While I agree that this is a slightly different game from screens, I also believe that screens are a slightly different game from f2f bridge with no screens so why are people complaining about the next logical progression. The "all the souths" in one room concept will solve a lot of problems but inventive cheaters will still be able to cheat. Even with proctors watching, you'll have to be sure they don't have something like a wireless device in their shoe. Maybe if you run them through a metal detector on their way into the room you could guarantee no extraneous communication.

I'm looking for an expert+ or world class regular partnership that are interesting in a weekly practice session on Sundays around 1 p.m. PST against another expert regular partnership. Let me know if you are interested. Todd

Luis is right as usual... .this just doesn't make sense. My point too... Sorry, I don't follow here. I don't know the law but if we assue that the accusation is 100% right, I would find it outrageous if they only lost the good score in this specific board. For one thing that would make cheating a no-risk strategy -- after all just cheating on one hand per set would be enough to gain a huge advantage. Arend I think you misunderstand. It is not that they cheated on just one hand. If it is proven they cheated on just one hand, that is more than enough for the actions taken so far and more to follow. It is just hard to imagine that, sans any other evidence before that this confirms, that this just one time event with one hand can be proof of cheating. At least in the Reese/Shapiro case, they got lots of people to watch future hands to try to confirm cheating was going on, so there was a record. Just some thoughts. I don't think we should have a system that can only catch stupid cheaters, namely those that cheat in the exact same way over time. If you were planning on cheating, wouldn't you encrypt your illegal signals in such a way that they resembled noise. If you were accused of knowing how to finesse due to partner coughing then if you randomize your signals it could be lack of coughing on the next hand that indicates how to finesse. You could say "see...on this hand we coughed and I finessed the other way and made it so I was just lucky. Given smart cheaters and our desire to catch them, we are going to have to make tough calls like this one. Are we going to catch more innocent people this way? At first we will but people will become more robotic so that there is no appearance of impropriety. Given that we'll catch some innocents it may be good to not have a lifetime ban until the 3rd "proven" offense. Before it gets to this point, incidents like this one will drive the highest level events onto computer. Players will be physically separated from everyone else and will use a computer with no other applications available other than the bridge app. Everyone will have a proctor to prevent consultation of notes, etc.

I was playing with a random partner in this tournament and in the process of winding up in 3♥ he made 4 bidding mistakes (even though 3♥ is a reasonable final spot) and made at least 4 big blunders in the play of the hand. Of course, this qualifies this person to call himself an expert. Yet every time he made a mistake, it always happened that the only low percentage lie of the cards that would still allow him to make the contract was present. Any other stories out there of somebody making 8 or more major blunders in one hand and still making the contract and getting a decent result?

♣AKQ, ♣ ruff, ♠A, down two... In spades by south, this defense is automatic. I lost interest in the hand once I saw down 1. :) So, this is even worse, you can't even safely retreat to 3♠.

If you use this, you owe me $100. :) What I like to play is roman to the first trick when there is doubleton or longer in dummy. With singleton in dummy, low (playing udca) asks for continuation, high asks for the obvious shift, and ridiculously high (like wasting an honor) calls for the lead of the non-obvious shift. Todd

After 2♠, what is partner going to do if my LHO makes the only reasonable call which is pass. What is he trying to accomplish with 3♦? Anyway, it seems like north is going to be pretty aggresive after a 2S overcall. On a good day you might get him to stop in 3♠ but he might push to 3N which you'll then have to correct to 4♠, -1. That being said, I'm split right down the middle on this one. I've tried hanging out with this sort of hand and backing in once they've reached game and even though the odds dictated partner should have a modicum of support I always seem to get singletons and voids in dummy. Hanging out puts no pressure on them. Conversely, bidding immediately can distort the hand and also lead to problems.

On a couple of occasions, my FP partner and I have had auctions where he has alternated between clubs and hearts and I have alternated between diamonds and spades, all the way up to the 6 or 7 level. That long string of bids on the table alternating colors is quite aesthetically pleasing.

I also prefere Root-Pavlicek structured reverses.

This is pretty funny. A system is worrying about a NT rebid being 12-15 when its opening range is 13-21. Perhaps if the system didn't have the first gaping problem then the second problem wouldn't arise. Seriously though, it is amazing how ignorant people are of their own systems. I know people who have played SA for decades and still don't know things like 1♣-1♥-1♠ may be 18 points. They've been taught rules and never learned why those rules exists so they miss things like this. If people realized how truly awful SA is I can't imagine it would be so prevalent.

My understanding is that avg/avg+/avg- cannot be assigned unless it is impossible to determine a likely bridge result. Please see Law 12C1 and 12C2. Todd

Here's my take on the situation. Let's say you got an immediate alert and an accurate description from east. What will NS likely do? South will still bid 3♣. Without the alert, 3N seems a natural bid. With an alert, N will downgrade the ♠K within the context of a ♣ game but might give it more value if he declares 3N. Without the alert we'll never know but a reasonable course of action is a simple raise to 4♣ given the downgraded ♠K. If there is an infraction and damage then NS get the best result that is likely to occur. So here is the litany. 1. Was there misinformation? You don't say when director was called but assuming it was after the 3N call then yes there was misinformation. 2. Was there damage? You would give the ♠K less value if east has spades and that may influence the final contract so yes I would say there is potential damage. N may well only bid 4♣ instead of 3N. NS get the benefit of the doubt so we'll assume that S makes the reasonable decision of passing 4♣. 3. If possible, I'd assign EW a procedural penalty. 4. I'd adjust to 4♣-1 for NS. With respect to hotShot, I cannot see N not taking any action with this hand vulnerable at IMPs.

If you have an iPod or similar mp3 player, there is software that lets you say "I want to listen to Internet radio talk shows X, Y, Z, etc." Your computer then automatically downloads those shows whenever there is a new one and then downloads them to the iPod when it gets connected to the computer. In this way, you can listen to the shows whenever you want without the hassle of manually downloading them and remembering to look to see if there is a new show available. You can still do it manually but the idea is that this makes it easy to do it automatically. Perhaps more importantly, the podcasting sites provide a centralized location for people to register content and in this way it is easier to find the sort of stuff that you're interested in. There has been some bridge journalism before but I just wonder if this new technology will make it easier to produce bridge content. On a side note, I remember seeing an interview that this guy did with Rodwell after he had won some big event. The interviewer asked him how he had won, expecting Rodwell to talk about strategy at teams and their superior judgement. Rodwell said something to the effect of "the opponents made many mistakes."

Here are my rules for doubles of 3N. 1. Has the doubler bid a suit? If so, lead it! 2. Has dummy bid a suit? If so, lead it! 3. 1N-3N, lead a heart. 4. Some other auction means make an unusual lead.

One of the latest trends on the Internet is podcasting. The way I've heard of thinking about podcasting is like TIVO for Internet radio broadcasts. There are lots of small niche shows out there at places like podcastalley.com. Do we think there would be any interest in a weekly bridge podcast? Both from a would you listen and a would you participate question. Todd