MiltWork

BBO is one of the greatest Web aps ever developed and it helps to understand that its no substitute for serious bridge tourneys. The diversity of the players is BBO's greatest asset and given the nature of technology, buzzes around cheating can not be dodged. And I pose the question, does a better social networking site exist? When I am accused, I try to have something humorous in reply. i.e. we would do even better if we knew all 4 hands, instead of just the 2, or there's static in skype today and I misunderstood what clubs my p said he/she had. My thoughts are most cheaters are just experimenting and will give it up soon enough, and there's no reason to spend much energy on them. If perhaps they cost you a win, alert the TD of your suspicions but again we're just here for fun anyway.

I agree that most players like to play this way, but I don't think the BBO development team designed the software with the intention that players had to reveal their hands when an indecisive opponent needs some input to make a decison. The alert button was present years before there was even a tourney. The sad truth though is even "star" players use the alert button to get information that helps make a decision. But usually a "star" is content with "no agreement". The software could be easily enhanced so that the alert procedure was uniform and clearly understood. I suggested an enhancement in my first post of this topic. The downside of the present situation is 1) it creates a lot of animosity when you don't give in to opponents and an uninformed TD, 2) Players are in for a shock when they go to play live bridge and are told they are only allowed to ask about partnership agreements. 3) Its going to be difficult to ever run a meaningful tournament with the overall BBO bridge population. Say BBO wanted to sponsor a BBO championship someday. I imagine it would be possible to get 1-2000 players at X$ a pop to participate. But administering this tournament without adhering to common bridge laws would be a nightmare.

what is very typical and I would venture generally accepted on BBO is for opponents to hound your p for information that you do not have. On average I see this at least 10% of the boards. It also slows down the game. Here's a recent example(s) from an indi, you are sitting S: W: 1H N: 2NT E: X (after long wait) The wait was because opponents have interrogated p to clarify what 2NT means. Now as S, you are at a big disadvantage because the opponents know the nature of your p's hand, but you are still guessing. Do you want to know what 2NT really was? 1st time is was the minors 2nd time it was a balanced 18 both times you are SOL because you are the sole player guessing. Now what gets really thorny is when you make a creative bid: W: 1H N: P E: P S: 3NT After your (S's) 3NT, the opponents usually vehemently want to know what it means. What can you say? If you say "I want to play 3NT", the button pushing continues until you clarify the hand. A typical question is "do you have a solid minor"...what can you say? Its a real mess. The interrogation will continue until blood is spilled by being called a cheater or having the TD summoned. Most of the time, the TD makes you tell your opponents what is in your hand. It gets even worse if you are taken out of 3NT by opponents or P. Your p is really at a disadvantage now. One time I balanced 3NT and was told that it was an illegal bid because it was not a convention (by an "expert" opponent) who summoned the TD in order to complain. This led to my getting ejected/blacklisted from the tournament because I did not alert what was in my hand. In this case, I did have a solid major but around 18 points. The TD (who claims to be ACBL certified) said this must be alerted and explained, subsequently adjusting the score for the opponents. Gave us and A- and opponents an A+. What's even worse, is that this all took place after opponents misdefended and the hand was over. True story, I promise you. ___________________________________________________________ just for the record, this is from the ACBL Code of Active Ethics: "Principle of Full Disclosure The philosophy of active ethics tells us that winners should be determined solely by skill, flair and normal playing luck. Actively ethical partnerships take pains to ensure that their opponents are fully informed. A major tenet of active ethics is the principle of full disclosure. This means that all information available to your partnership must be made available to your opponents. " Using implied logic, this also says that if your p has no understanding/agreement of a particular bid, then the opponents have no right to your p's interpretation of his/her bid either.

After seeing some guidance on cheating and self-ratings ("what is an expert") in the "News" feature, I was pleased to see an explanation of Full Disclosure. However I would have preferred the title "Alerts" instead of nosy opponents and an explanation of what the alert procedure is for. My observation is the general BBO community outside of players with previous tournament experience still misunderstand "Alerts". Associating the alert procedure with partnership understandings is neither supported well by the software nor well known by TD's. I would venture the majority of the bridge population feels that an opponent must be alerted by a bidder when the bidder is deviating from any normal course of action known by the opponent. I could give numerous examples since it is such a frequent occurance. This is a recent one from an individual (I am sitting S): W 1NT N 2D E X (after 1 minute wait) The reason for the wait was both opponents were going back and forth with my partner, getting an explanation of the 2D bid. After the dialog, they both knew that my pards meant 2D to mean the majors. I had never played with this partner and of course had no special understanding of what 2d means. But now the opponents did and had unfair advantage. The software makes it convenient to continue hitting the alert feature until an opponent explains his/her cards. Many times if an explanation of "We have no partnership understanding" is given, the TD is summoned and the bidder is forced to disclose his/her hand or leave the tournament. If the software was enhanced so when the alert feature was pressed to include a script saying "Partnership Understandings must be explained clearly" with a checkbox for "no partnership understanding", the alert issue would cease. Does anyone feel the same or perhaps have a different opinion?