bearmum

I totally agree :ph34r:

Glad to see BBO high on list - but possible due to B being the second letter of alphabet?? :huh:

I am adverse to "rating" tourneys for all to see - :D Why not put comments on a particular director on their profile -- so you can avoid a director you dislike? IMHO ALL the directors I have played under have been hardworking volunteers doing their best to provide folks like ME with a place to play bridge. HOWEVER if some tournaments are being run by PROFESSIONAL directors I support somewhere to send legitimate complaints BUT I think some would not be upheld in a review -and for that reason I'm against any 'rating' being performed at all ;) I for one prefer to play in non pay tourneys as I have rarely played with the same person twice online so PAYING for that raffle for partners to ME isn't worth it :D -- but there seem LESS FREE tourneys at my preferred time to play :( -- NOT BBO's fault tho :rolleyes: )

I agree with your reasoning Todd - EXCEPT in BBO (and other online sites) where a LOT of us players have few (if ANY) regular partnerships --- where it's IMPOSSIBLE in the short time available to play hands to agree on defence to really esoteric systems - GEE it's ALMOST impossible to even agree on ?System-transfers? NT range? carding? blackwood or RKCB 0314 or 1430? --- and that's why I TRULY believe that those folks who want to play "guess what opps have and HOW in the H*** do we defend against them " should get a private "anything goes " club :blink: BTW - are "fert" bids another name for psyches?

ANY bid which requires an alert HAS to be alerted EACH and EVERY time -- without exception!!! so the precision pair should be sanctioned by director (IMHO)

Well - I would bid 1♠ over 1♥ - JUST for the reason that 1NT gives you problems IF the auction proceeds as you asked 1♥ 1NT 2♥ X P -- I just hope that partner meant the X as transfer to ♠ BUT I suspect ACOL bidders will not play it that way --- in which case I refer back to the fact that I believe that 1♠ overcall better :blink: As to the last question I have NO idea what to do :P because I WOULD have bid 1♠ over 1♥

Immaterial to me as I don't PAY to play - even though it means I play LESS in BBO since LOTS of tourneys that USED to be free now charge ( albeit only a SMALL amount I agree) -------- but I have decided that I prefer not to pay ANYTHING to play in an online venue :unsure:

NOW Here is one comment I totally agree with ------- 4NT can just be "I don't have ANYTHING else to Q bid BUT MAYBE you still want to try for slam Pard ;) (HOPEFULLY one would only force to the 5 level if one was sure that 5 level was safe :P

Sorry, probably my post was chaotic :) (and yes, most BIL players do play splinters and J2NT). Lat Train and Lackwood are not taught in the BIL, as far as I know. Last train was mentioned to me privately by Luis, just to make quickly a point that 4H may be a tempo bid, a sort of squezze cuebid (we know already of the minors control, so 4H is a "superfluous cue showing that the hand still has slam interest but misses something) But squeeze cuebids were dealt with i the BIL (actually one example occurred the hand before this one), so I took 4H for such meaning: not necessarily showing (nor denying for what matters) a H cue, but not enabling me to ask RKCB cos I was unaware of H controls. So please let's not focus on the Last Train issue but rather on whether or not responder should bid 4NT. WOW I have rated myself "intermediate" but have never heard of squeeze Q bids -(or last train OR Lackwood for that matter--apart from reading these boards)---- so I guess I ought to downgrade myself to "beginner" if all those are going to be taught in BIL lessons :D A Pity the BIL lessons are in a time IMPOSSIBLE for me to attend

and hopefully IF you get money from ads SOME of the tourneys which USED to be free will revert to free again --- since PAY tourneys have come in I find it almost impossible (due to the time zone I am in I admit) to find a FREE tourney to play in at a time I am able to be online :) BUT I would HATE popup[ads -- or those you have to click on to get rid of - banner ads are OK I can ignore THEM :D

Maybe I'm missing something here :D ---- in BIL would luis be teaching last train OR Lackwood :) AND have BIL members been taught Jac 2NT and/or splinters?

I PASS and put a possible BAD result (like 6♠ COLD) down to a GOOD 3♥ prempt :rolleyes: if P has AQxxxx---- which is what I would hope he has still no guarantee for 6♠ and I think even with Axxxxxxx ♠ I would hope P would bid 4♠

1/. xx AKXX AKQXX XX Open 1 ♦reverse to 2♥(MINIMUM reverse tho :blink: ) 2/. XXXX AJ KQJ KJXX I would downgrade the hand (AJ♥not worth full points -- open 1♣ and bid 1NT over everything except 1♠ 3/. AKXXX AXX QX QXX Open 1♠ as I prefer NOT to open 1NT with a nice major suit 4/. XXXX XX AKQ AKJXX Open 1NT 5/. AXX AXX AXXX AXX CLASSIC 1 NT opener 16 points FLAT hand 6/. QJX QJ109 KJ AJ10X once again I would open 1NT 7/. QXX AX KJ AKXXXX Prefer to open 1♣ with a SIX card suit

well we play precision SO 1NT =13-15 1C/1d(<8) 1NT = 16-19 1C 1D...... 2NT = 20- 21 2NT = 22-23 1C 1D.......3NT = 24-26 Opening 3NT = gambling solid minor I believe that it's a good idea to only have a 2 point spread when opening 2NT ( or as we do in the 1C 1D 2NT sequence) as it means that the responder can COUNT points and therefore has a better idea of IF to ask opener to "bid game/slam IF Maximum" All the bids over 1C 1D show NO five card major BTW and we play transfers and Stayman over opening 1 and 2NT As we also have a relay system for responder to show 5/5 over any nt bids we would not need to use a JUMP to the 4 level over 1NT 2H 2S 4 C to show a singleton club :) SO it's relatively simple to stop in the 4 level if that's all that's there ( although SOMETIMES we make mistakes in judgement :) )

4th hand after PPP - PASS as fast as you can :D

I would try my hardest NOT to lead from any of the tenances you asked about :D

being a computer "no hoper" can u tell me where to find 'Windows symbol.ttf' :D

well............... only if you have agreed that with P - so then U HAVE to alert opps to that fact :D

X :D

Interesting Precision bidding (BTW I am not a fan of 1NT 8-13 with a POSSIBLE five bagger )but assuming a possible STIFF honour somewhere OR a 5 bagger to nothing - can I ask - HOW many "asking bids" are allowed?? (assuming counting after the support asking bid of 2H ) -- and all others are CONTROL asking? MY SECOND asking bid would be in ♣ IF reply is favourable I MIGHT ask a THIRD time in ♠ Pard has ONLY 8-10 :D so IF he replies 2♦to asking 3♣(nothing in ♣ ) I will sigh off in 4♥ as I think any ♠honours pard hiolds are not useful in POSSIBLE ♥ contract (at theh 6 level anyway)

I would accept that. I think it is a bad law, and I might lobby to change the law, but for as long as it is the law then it is a compelling argument.This law has been created clearly with kiebitzers at table in mind. If applied the way McBruce suggests, there must not only be no kibs at online tourneys but also no online vugraphs and even no vugraphs at the tournament side like they had in Malmö. This is simply ridiculous. My oppinion is that kibitzers should be allowed. First of all because if something like cheating is going on, the last thing I would accept is that these cheaters force us to make decisions that make the environment less enjoyable. This would be a victory for the cheaters. However, I did co-direct in a tourney several times where kibitzers were not allowed. I asked the host about it and he explained that he knows the names of pairs who did not show up anymore since the time when he first disallowed kibitzers, and he had suspected them of cheatin before. Then, one day, the host was not able to direct the tourney himself, and somebody had allowed kibitzers for this tourney. My attention was drawn to a pair by their opps, and I looked at their boards after the tourney and found enough evidence that I reported that pair to abuse. I had not much time to kib this pair during the touney, but when I came to their table close to the end one time there was a kib present with no country and empty profile and with no records in myhands, as I found out later. But even after having found this case I still believe that kibs should be allowed. I rather encourage others to look at the boards of suspected pairs and report them, too. This way we do not only get those cheaters who cheat with kibs, but potentially all of them, except maybe very cautious ones, but I doubt that very cautious cheaters exist. And, as I said before, I would not enter the sublist of a tourney without kibs as there is no way to tell how many boards are left to be played. If all did the same these tourneys would be always out of subs. Karl MAYBE the direcftor SHOULD have reported the suspect pair AFTER the did not play in tourneys AFTER he disallowed kibitzers :D

Open 1♦ and then rebid them second time --- honestly not sure WHAT I am hoping for from this hand but will ALWAYS open :)

Thanks Uday - I didn't know that :( (I am a real fool )

I REALLY wish there was a "leave table after THIS hand" button because I would really like to be able to leave the table AND STILL say thanks to my partner (and opps :rolleyes: ) before I LEAVE the table AND ----------------------------- not be sitting in MY seat when NEXT hand is displayed :blink: which means that others might be able to SIT :rolleyes: I ALWAYS tell pard and opps if I will be leaving AFTER current hand has finished BUT I WISH ( WISH WISH WISH :P ) that there was a WAY to be able to "stand" after the hand and still be AT the table and allow onother player to take MY place -- and I could be able to talk to players at table

Hogarth - I THINK you and I are on same wavelenth - I DO NOT want directors to be burdended with MORE alarms :) (They do a GREAT job -- and ANYONE who disputes this should be FORCED to direct TEN BBO Tourneys and deal with ANY disputes which eventuate -- IF they can't do a 'good directors' job than BANNED from complaining for at LEAST six months) I agree FLAGGING ( where BBO loggs flagging -- as opposed to the director of the particular tourney) psychs is really good idea ( that's what I thought "alerting to director" was doing ;)) AND MAYBE the director could "wander by a table" and be INVISIBLE (once again IF) the programmers of site are able to arrange it :P