irdoz

Its sounds like adjusting from what you already play to playing 2/1 is not a huge transition - i.e. adding forcing 1nt and adding 2/1 as either 100% game forcing or forcing until rebid of responders suit. 2/1 is actually a catch cry for some variance in methods - and a lot of style questions / variations need to be discussed. And to play 2/1 well IMO there's a lot of 'system' that needs to be added to some sequences... In terms of useful articles available on the Internet 1. Really basic introduction articles. There's a set of four really basic ones by Fred Gitelman available from: http://classic.zone.msn.com/bridgeclub/tips.asp (you need a Microsoft passport to access this page I think) 2. Well written overviews of 2/1 in more detail can be found at: http://www.worldwidefolks.com/ and http://www.prairienet.org/bridge/2over1.htm 3. A (much) more detailed documented 2/1 type system can be found on Daniel Niell's system page http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000/sys/ Scroll down until you find supernatural (the old version - not the 'next version')

Lukewarm I can and did. We can agree to disagree. Saying 'I can't' is not an argument. If it helps I don't mind withdrawing the spoilt brat comment as it's a red herring. The issue is calling a td a cheat. This is a major offense - and not the same as 'no one should abuse anybody' which, while correct, is an argument that seems to be designed to trivialise the importance of the major offense. Saying 'directors should communicate well' while obviously true, is not a characterisation of the communication problem I see and experience online. A very common way in which players communicate their disagreement with a ruling is the one documented here by McBruce. I respond well to comments like: "I disagree with your ruling and would like to discuss it' or 'I want to dispute your decision. Can we discuss?' 'I want to appeal your decision. can you tell me how?' This sort of communication is common and generally the end result of any ensuing discussion is good when started on this basis. However just as usual are initial comments like: 'I can't believe any competent director would make that decision' or 'You are so biased in favor of your friends. I am never going to play in your event again' or 'That ruling is so bad - do you have any qualifications as a director?' or "I never get a favorable ruling from you. You are so biased'. This sort of communication never happens f2f - but it is fairly common online. What has been expressed in this thread is that this sort of communication should be seen as 'understandable' given the existing level of 'frustration' and that directors should 'communicate better' - yet there is no reciprocal responsiblity of participants to pass basic communication skills 101 and basic manners skills 101. If your starting point is the frustration is understandable and the conseqeunt actions excusable then its hard to see how a constructive dialogue about improving communication can occur. It might be better to work out how to avoid letting any frustration and annoyance affect how you communicate... When someone initially responds to a ruling with a statement like : 'You are so biased towards your friends. I am never going to play in your event again' then how does a director respond.. with a. 'thank you for sharing that?' b. 'have a nice day' c. 'I hope you find better places to play' d. 'You will find other directors agree' e. 'My name is Cliff. Drop over sometime' or f. 'Are you the author of the book 'how to win friends and influence people?'' g. 'Would you like to discuss the ruling?' When I first started directing online my response was closer to 'a' above. - or 'e' and 'f' if I wasn't having a good day. However as I've got used to online behaviour I have found it better to say 'g' above in terms of both an educational process and a better outcome. I've also counselled new online directors at the site i play to allow a bit of latitude and not to expect good behaviour - in other words to 'understand' that bad behaviour happens and to an extent excuse it - but then talk about it when the person has calmed down. All of this of course takes time. However, I do have some things I am not prepared to tolerate under any circumstances - and one of those is being called a cheat. The problem I had was with the focus of this discussion... that the problem is about how directors communicate when a major issue is how participants communicate with the director and the lack of educational processes to change this. Which brings me to your 'please explain' in relation to the 'ratings system' that I am more than 'luke cold' about - 'Antarctica' would represent my opinion of its chances of success. One of the major reasons that disputes occur is lack of knowledge about the laws. This proposal does nothing to address one of the major problems and instead implies director incompetence is the defining issue. But this is not the problem with the proposal. It is totally impractical in terms of the time commitment it would require. In any event of say 20 boards with an average number of virtual tables there are about 40 director calls in my experience on line. About 35 of these are fairly routine - although the 35 complainants may not necessarily agree with that assessment. 2 or 3 require some degree of judgement and careful consideration. And 1 or 2 may be difficult where your judgement can only be to some extent 'best guess' - for example such as hesitations and UI decisions where you are making a guess based about the probability of different logical alternatives and what 'most players would do'. I already send the more complex decisions I have for review and often publish them for comment. To do this properly takes about 20-30 minutes for each decision by the time you get agreement from the person who disagrees with the ruling that your representation of the facts in dispute is accurate. You are asking for some equivalent documentation for 40 rulings - the documentation would need to be equivalent if it was to be subject to peer review. That represents 20 hours work. or you are asking directors to self-select some of their rulings only. That would involve accusations of selection bias. I already donate 6 hrs a week to directing to give something back to the game I love. I have also attended and paid for 3 director courses, bought a number of books on directing, regularly read appeals decisions, participate in and read a couple of online director messageboards and news groups . You're now asking me to commit 5 times as many hours to a peer review process so that I can be judged. It is just a "tiny" bit impractical - for an outcome that would be extremely questionable - and a process that by definition cannot be anonymous to achieve the outcome of your stated intent of rating directors. In my experience knowledge about director competence already happens through discussion via friendship networks. This doesn't mean that there aren't worthwhile educational mechanisms that could be proposed to improve both participant knowledge of the laws and director competence - it's just not this proposal as currently outlined.

Well lukewarm it appears we sort of agree in most things... No - that's not what I'm saying nor my belief. Further to suggest I am so stupid or arrogant as to try and say to someone 'Im right 95% of the time' misses the boat completely. What I don't believe - as you implied - is that if someone believes a ruling is 'obviously wrong' that therefore ipso facto it must be wrong...and that my experience strongly suggests otherwise. If I go to the football in my country and sit in the crowd I will hear the umpire abused and called all sorts of names. It's part of the fun of going to the football. On the other hand if I am a player, or coach or official of one of the participating football teams and say the same things then I am subject to fines and other disciplinary action - including a potential life ban. The two acts of name calling are not the same - and your analogy about work not useful in elucidating the difference. Nor is it considered contradictory or hypocritcial that one act of namecalling in one context is seen as fun, but in another context highly regulated. There are very good reasons why abuse of officials by participants should not be tolerated. Those reasons double when the officals are volunteers. Around the world abuse of volunteer officials in sport is a huge problem - as is recruiting officials. If I was the td concerned and referred to the player complaining in abusive terms then you would rightly accuse me of hypocrisy - and I wouldn't do it. This is not whats happening here. As for the 'ratings forum' the way you propose it I must admit to a large degree of uncertainty that it would be effective the way you explain it

Lukewarm, after seing the td had been called a cheat and the tds response you initially said: However you want to read this, it unfortunately reads like an excuse for people calling the td a cheat. Then when a couple of experienced tds gave their opinion on this act you further tried to justify yourself by saying... completely and totally missing the point... the blackballing was about calling the td a cheat - an act which is never acceptable and in all jurisdictions I am aware of leads to an immediate suspension and immediate expulsion from a tournament. Online I tend to allow some latitude - but not to being called a cheat. And if in your lack of fairness you can't see that this behaviour deserves to be labelled as 'spoilt brat' well I'll just say instead 'jolly ho, it is not very nice. have a cup of tea. milk or sugar?' As for my other subjective figures about 95% - of course they were subjective duh. However they are made on the basis of hundreds of hours of experience tournament directing. Very often the person ruled against feels the decision is 'obviously' wrong. Most often those who feel that are, in my experience, incorrect. I have had a decision appealed (through a formal process) both online and in f2f some 75 times... 4 of them have been upheld, in 4 others the quantum of adjustment was changed - yet every appellant thought the decision obviously wrong sufficient enough to go to appeal. That's about 95%. That doesn't mean there are not obviously wrong decisions. The questions here are what to do when you feel there is an obviously wrong deciison. Of course an appeals process and the ability of the director to communicate are important here... but you assume those things in relation to communication were not done when in fact the director says they did communicate along the lines you suggest. In other words your default assumption is always that the director did not behave appropriately. Here's an example of why going public in this territory makes me nervous. One of my online rulings was challenged publically by an experienced and expert player. They claimed I had: 1. Called then ignorant 2. Refused to discuss the ruling with them 3. Presented a number of facts in relation to the case. Fortunately I had all communication logged. In actual fact they showed.. 1. The player called my ruling 'stupid and unfair' and called me 'hopeless'. 2. I did not respond to this provocation and gave him information about how to make an appeal - but told him I would refer his other comments to the management of the club 3. Was able to show that every fact he claimed was incorrect - and further had the acbl rules person comment on the ruling as correct. In the process I had my reputation trashed in public. The end result was this player was banned permanently. This sort of event is why I am nervous about an unfettered right to complain about tds decisions in public. On the other hand discussions of rules and about the reasons for decisions can be very good educational material for both directors and players. In my experience these work best when they are removed from the actual decision, and are not being used as some sort of finger waving recourse by the person who has been ruled against. When I have rulings I am not certain about I often send the details of those rulings to both the acbl and to an experienced national director here... I also publish my emails and the responses for educational purposes - even when I am wrong. I don't have a problem per se with my rulings being subject to public discussion provided it is done within an appropriate framework. For instance 'Here is a ruling where the td ruled against me. I think he is incorrect but I am not certain. I have discussed it with the td and we thought we'd put it here for discussion' versus' 'The td got this ruling wrong. It was outrageous. He did not respond to my appeals. I want help'... One seems useful. The other deserves the can of worms they opened. But if you allow discussion of the second type to occur unfettered then do not expect to keep any tournament directors for very long.

I have directed a few hundred tournaments online at another site... Directing online is much harder than directing f2f - and often the volunteers doing it have less experience than f2f directors. Here's some of the reasons why it is difficult... 1. You don't have access to non verbal communication - and 90% of communication is non-verbal - which is why communicating on-line is so difficult. 2. You are often dealing with people whose English skills are not good - as an example there are different meanings of 'negative' doubles based on language and translation. In many places 'negative' just means 'not penalty' and includes takeout doubles. 3. You are dealing with people both whose experience of how laws are interpreted and what is standard in terms of bidding varies according to the country they come from. 4. You are often dealing with very assertive and skilled players. 5. The internet itself produces bad behaviour that people would never indulge in f2f. 6. Self-alerts produce a whole set of challenges to the laws that are inadequately dealt with by the laws as they currently stand. 7. Pauses and possible UI are affected by the technology that is being used. 8. Everyone knows that illegal communication is possible online - often producing a whole lot of difficulties and zero tolerance infractions that the director has to deal with that are not experienced in face to face bridge. 9. There are often insufficient means that directors has to punish appalling behaviour. 10. You are often dealing with technology and software that takes a lot of time to do adjustments and a deal of experience before you are familiar and proficient with using it - this means you can't pay attention to to the niceties of communication - so often you get 'if only you'd said this...' from people whose own communication is appalling, who have been rude and who are simply rationalising their own appalling behaviour. 11. Often you have 5 or 6 calls at once - yet people demand immediate attention... in f2f it is easy to see the director is busy. There's only a couple of standards I expect when I direct online... 1. No accusations of favoritsim 2. No accusation of the director cheating. These for me are zero tolerance infractions. but what do we see in this thread... Excuses, excuses, excuses...like this... 95% of 'obviously' wrong rulings are correct in my experience - certainly a lot of seemingly obvious ones are in fact correct...but even if they are wrong there is NEVER an excuse for labelling the td a cheat or accusing them of favoritism. Around the world there is a shortage of volunteers. Behave like this towards tds and there'll be none. That doesn't mean you can't complain or appeal. It means you can't behave like kindergarten children and spolit brats. I have read a number of threads on this message board about directors decisions. Having been involved in hundreds of decisions and seen some of them complained about I have never once seen the complainant present the full facts correctly - and often seen them present them totally incorrectly. Yet the general standard on this board is to accept what is said as the truth. The court of public opinion where the complainant gets to present their grievances in a totally biased way is not a proper court. If I was a director on BBO and any participant used the word cheat about me then they would never play in any tournament I directed and would be expelled immediately...

Hmmm... Based on your frequencies the 8-12 range has mean of 9.953 and standard deviation of 1.313...and 11-15 range a mean of 12.665 and standard deviation of 1.365 - these calculations do not agree with your conclusion regarding the standard error - both in terms of the relative difference and the magnitude of that difference - but I might have made a typo with the data (cant see it though).

There are many sides to the argument... and while ever you frame the problem as one of binary opposites and sides no solution is likely and gridlock certain. At the moment 1. highly motivated skilled players who like systems and innovation feel disenfranchised if there are too many restrictions placed on what they can play and in the sometimes bizarre and inconsistent ways in which those restrictions are formulated. While these players are a minority - they are a really important and highly motivated minority who usually contribute a lot to the game. 2. people very keen about bridge but for any number of reasons (lack of time, lack of motivation) who may not play a lot (and may also play a lot) and are very uncomfortable when confronted with unusual systems and would prefer not to have to face them frequently. These probably consitute the majority of bridge players - and they exist in Italy, USA and Australia too! (Ive met lots of them...). It is not good for the game to make uncomfortable the majority of players unless there are policies and practice to deal with that discomfort in a useful way. But disenfranchising both populations or either population is not a great idea. Yet these do not consitute two 'sides'. There are also highly motivated players who like systems who believe that the restrictions are in the best interests of the game. There are people who do not have the time to invest in studying defenses to unfamiliar methods - yet are comfortable with dealing with unfamiliar methods and have enough skills and knowledge of the laws to insist on adequate disclosure or ask for defenses. There are also people who are on a spectrum between both groups. I work 50+ hrs a week in a profession that also requires 15+ hours of reading in non-work times each week - yet I spend a lot of time on bridge - but there are only 112 non-sleep hrs a week... I dont have time to familiarise myself or do the reading to keep myself totally up to date. I also believe the generic defense argument is somewhat "hog"wash - not entirely but at least partly.. there's a million miles between a generic defense and bidding against a method that you know well and where you are informed enough to also ask the necessary style questions. But if you want to have a useful discussion the starting point has to be that the needs of both groups 1 and 2 above are important for the game, and that there are a lot of players who do not fit into these 'binary opposed' groups - yet as a starting point solutions have to take into account both these groups and their problems and needs as real. This seems to be a more respectful place to start rather than one that seems like a 'war' of sides and misunderstanding and abuse... I happen to believe that in some places the lowest common denominator approach of over restriction is demonstratably not working very well - it does not however mean that an unfettered approach would work better. I don't buy all of the arguments and (ir)rationalisations those who argue for a totally unfettered approach use.

The rules are about protecting indecent pairs... B)

Yes, no-one should have a defense. Under the rules it should be a requirement that east/west have a defense available for their 2h open. If they don't then they can't play it.

Opps - sorry my terrible writing.... I meant I had always played Dixon - but here's something totally different....

I'd always played Dixon defense versus multi. This is a defence against a multi 2D that a Dutch friend gave me. I like it because I have found some good penalty x's with this defense. It's structure over 2d is: Double = opening values with 5+ in one of the majors 2H = opening values with 5+ clubs 2S = opening values with 5+ diamonds 2NT = 16-19 balanced, with a stopper in both majors (and systems on, so puppet/transfers) 3X = 7-11 with a 6-card Basically if the bidding goes 2D - double, then all subsequent doubles of a major show shortness in that suit. Some examples: 2D Dbl 2H Dbl = Heart shortness, 4+ spades and about 9+hcp Pass ? If dbler has hearts, they can happily pass and with spades they can bid a number of spades, show a 2nd suit, cuebid hearts or make a splinter bid. 2D Dbl 2S Dbl = Spade shortness, 4+ hearts and about 9+ hcp Pass ? If dbler has spades, again they can pass and with hearts they can bid hearts, show a 2nd suit, cuebid spades or make a splinter bid. 2D Dbl 2H Dbl = Heart shortness, 4+ spades and about (+ hcp 2S ? Now with something like Qx or Kx, dbler can double for penalties, knowing that South has 4+ spades and 9+ HCP. With very short spades or 2 little spades, North can bid 2NT, with 15+ 3NT, or 3H with good hearts. If the bidding goes: 2D Dbl Pass ? or 2D 2H Pass ? or 2D 2S Pass ? A 2NT bid by advancer is Lebensohl. This automatically implies that if advancer bids a new suit at the 3-level, this is GF (an acceptance of 3 in North's transfer suit is of course the weakest possible response). If the bidding goes: 2D Pass 2H A double by here is a take out double with short hearts and 4+ spades. 2D Pass 2S A double by here is a take out double with short spades and 4+ hearts. Again a 2NT bid by advancer in this case is Lebensohl and a new suit at the 3-level is GF. A special situation is: 2D 2H Pass 2S = 4+ spades and 10+ HCP The main advantage of this defence is that it is almost always possible to double the multi for penalties and minimizes the risk to start bidding a major in the long suit of the multi 2D bidder. The main disadvantage of the system is that with balanced 12-15 hands, you have to pass first, but usually you will get a 2nd chance in the balancing position.

I have been playing bridge for less than five years and remember well my initial forays into the game on the net. I have met a number of people via the net around my age and with similar length of experience. They are diverse, with a range of different skills and interests in bridge. There is no generic one size fits all method of teaching bridge. The notion that adult learning can be guided by some standard formula with a standard curriculum defies all adult learning principles. Many of the people I have met have an aptitude for computer programming judging by their work or qualifications. That aptitude often lends itself to bidding systems - and what characterises a number of the people I have met who are recent converts to the game is a keen interest in systems and a frustration about the 'forget systems, learn card play' diatribes that they have to listen to repeatedly. If your goal was to create the best bridge players then sure - teach them card play and defense and signalling and forget bidding for 6 months. The first peice of free advice i got on the net was 'go to the beginners room and play 1000s of hands then come back'. Well that might work for some - but playing with beginners without a structured learning environment like the BIL was a complete waste of time and turned me off totally. If your goal is to keep beginners interested in the game and turn them into bridge enthusiasts then tear the 'forget systems' formula up and do what matches their interests and aptitude. My first bit of advice would be after playing a lot of hands would be 'shop around for a teacher or mentor who matches your interests' and take some lessons (or avail yourself of lessons which are often free or part of subscription sites on the net). I have no problem with the notion of teaching a version of goren/wei precision to beginners. I have no problem with giving an overview of different bidding methods - from natural to relay as a 'wet the appetite' sort of thing. And I have no problem with introducing advanced card play concepts early on for the same reason.

I have been playing preciision for the last 6 months with my regular partner after a few years playing 2/1 as an experiment and to get experience playing a big club system. Up until now we have been opening 1nt 11-13 nvul and 14-16 vul and opening 1d when balanced and less than 17 and outside the applicable 1nt range. So 1d was either balanced or diamonds or both minors or 3 suited with diamonds or 5+ diamonds and a shorter major. I disliked the 1d open in competitive auctions intensely and we had to make a number of agreements once we'd identified some of the problems. So I decided to tabulate the last 3 months results. As a pair overall we average in the high 50s at matchpoints and about +0.5 in imps tournaments. Opening 1d vulnerable averaged 35 Matchpoints and -1 imps (a huge difference from the average). 1d non-vulnerable averaged 45 matchpoints and -0.1 imps. If I separate the 1d opens into competitive and non-competitive auctions (and most are competitive) it's clear that the problems are mainly in competitive auctions. This compares to opening 1nt 11-13 where over the same period we averaged 65 matchpoints and +0.8 imps. Opening 1nt 14-16 averaged 61 matchpoints and +1.5 imps. Part of the problem maybe our structure over 1d and the time it takes for pattern recognition to kick in playing new methods. So we've decided to open 1nt as 11-15 with 1d as always 4+. I can come up with an appropriate method to use with 1nt as 11-15 and I can see there will be problems playing antifield in bad 2nt contracts at the hcp ranges that happen to be the most frequent. (ie opening 11-12 and responder has 10-13). I am prepared to live with that - but I can also anticipate immediate interference will cause problems as it will take away the chance to do a range enquiry at the lowest possible level. Im wondering if there are any methods to counter this?

Good post Edvin I'm certainly aware that 2 logons from the same physical location is a way of cheating. I know numbers of people banned for this method of cheating from the site I play tournaments. They were banned because the evidence was collected. There have been a number of people banned at this site for using some form of illegal communication. The telltale sign with this method of cheating is often 'telling pauses'. The most frequent ways this was identified was by people kibtzing. Unsurprisingly some of these people who were subsequently banned were the most vociferous in support of a no kibitzers policy (this is not to say most people who want to ban all kibtzers or some kibtzers dont have good intentions).

Imagine banning all the spectators from Wimbledon because a member of the crowd may be illegally coaching a player which under the rules of tennis would be cheating. People would regard it as a huge joke and a monstrous, illogical and inappropriate response to a problem that has other solutions. Because of my job Im often on call and cant commit to play an event so will often watch instead. Bridge authorities around the world have policies which attempt to encourage spectating. Look how popular BBO is when big events are on vugraph. There are other solutions to cheating that need to be implemented independent of a blanket ban on kibitzers.

The intent of both the laws and the policies of most NBAs is to encouraging kibitzing. As a regular kibitzer there is simply no comparison between watching 'Live' and traipsing through old hand records.

It is perfectly valid for the members of a participatory forum to have debates about the rules that govern the forum with good intentions and without intending to offend anyone. Those who ask questions should not be made to feel guilty for debating those rules. This is not about 'market forces' which are not like some pure light stick that get waved around and produce truth, justice and the you know what. It's about process... Nor for me, is there argument about deleting vulgarity. If it became a problem I wouldn't take issue with putting limits on issues that are way 'off-topic' for a bridge message board such as politics in the middle east or the forthcoming US presidential election. What was at issue here was an edict which said in relation to a particular issue: "You can talk about how you feel but you cannot talk about the substance of the issue." (This may be incorrect paraphrasing) This is an extremely problematic rule. It is censorship. It is worth debating in a calm way. In saying so I realize there are pros and cons with the edict above.

I've played at an online bridge site where for a time players had the right to ban kibitzers or some kibitzers during tournaments. Here's what happened:- i) The request to remove particular kibitzers became a metaphor for a cheating accusation - and both the kibitzer and the opponents felt aggrieved ii) If one pair banned someones kibitzers the opponents 'revenge banned' kibitzers following the banning pair It got silly and ugly and the whole impact was to discourage any kibitzing at all and to hurt the feeling of a whole lot of kibitzers who were the unintended targets of a bad policy. The right to ban kibitzers with discrimination (ie not ban all kibitzers) turned effectively into 'ban all kibitizers'. The policy was changed and no-one had the right to ban kibitzers from their table in tournament play. I realize if you have an enemy who for example, you perceive to be stalking you you dont want them kibbing you in a tournament. However tough cases do not make good policy....and a discriminatory right, encoded in the software, to ban particular kibitzers will be abused way beyond the original intention of the policy. Don't go down this slippery slope...It's ugly. For tough cases make other procedures...dont effectively penalize all kibitzers.

A few comments on reading through this thread.. I understand the reasons for restriction lists on topflight and the beginner/intermediate lounge... both groups serve a particular and for me, worthwhile, function. I also understand the TD enemies list..not allowing their 'enemies' to play in their events but I would not like to see these lists have any use beyond that. However, I get uncomfortable with some other restrictions that exist in clubs on BBO and that TDs implement..they seem to go against some of the democratic and equitable philosophies of the internet. I'm not out to have a dig at anyone..but for example some clubs only allow entry based on personal referral. I'd be more comfotable if they exlcuded based on behabvioural criteria rather than entry based on who you randomly happen to know. And TD's excluding beginners or private...I can understand the motivation but these categories are totally meaningless and self-assigned... and take one second to change. This sort of restriction only encourages people to change their self-assigned ranking. And Im not sure what message it sends excluding beginners from tournaments. The 'private' thing amuses me. I see all the time in the lobby typed 'no private stats' - a hangover from okbridge. Given the so called 'stats' on BBO are all self-assigned and need to be interpreted very broadly and with some scepticism the notion that you would exclude people because they are hiding their own meaningless self-assigned rating is humorous. I have a few friends who say 'private' in their rating precisely because they realize the self-assigned assessments are meaningless. As one friend said 'if i put what I am according to BBOs criteria I am intermediate...but if I use the self-assigned rating methods that most seem to apply here I am expert. And there's so many "world class" players on here there must be a Bermuda Bowl every week...I refuse to lie.' And for choosing not to misstate their rating like thousands of others they get excluded from tournaments. Too funny.

Banning communications programs would be like banning conversation in a face to face event. It doesn't work. It's a waste of time. It's just security for the paranoid. Playing bridge for hours online is a socially isolating activity as it is...banning chat would make it more so. The one paragraph I this whole thread I most agree with was this by bglover... For me the most important thing is to have well publicised procedures and ethical leadership. The simple act of TDs announcing every event that this site frowns on illegal communications but any suspicions should be handled with privately with the tournament director or by email to abuse@bbo would be an example of well publicised procedures and ethical leadership. In an environment of perceived laxity I've seen what can happen in an online bridge site. And I think BBO is a great site and Im thankful for its existence. At the present time Id like its focus to be on further developing the software and the business plan so that it can be sustainable - policies and procedures like the resources to deal properly with ethical issues may flow when the resources are available to support them.

Here's 4 instances of suspicious things that have happened to me in online bridge 1. The bidding goes 1c-dbl-all pass The advancers hand was xxxxx Jxxxx xxx void The doubler has 22 hcp and 6 clubs Neither opponent are novices 2. The bidding goes 1d-1h-1s-pass 4nt-pass-5s-pass 6s The opener and 4nt bidder had 11 hcp, a flat hand and Hxx in spades. Responder who made a free bid of 1s had 19 hcp and 6 good spades... The 4nt bidder is no novice 3. The hand has been bid - I am declarer. Just before the opening lead on the table chat appears KQ109 K104 9 J10854 - it is a typed record of one of the opps hand - they suddenly have an 'emergency' and have to go. 4. The hand has been bid - my partner is declarer Suddenly on the table chat appears the typing 'I have a club single' This pair don't even leave embarrassed..they just say 'message was meant for someone else' (the stiff club was the vital info to set the contract). I reported all of these events (none were on BBO). Can I conclude anything from these events? Just that it seems something highly irregular was occurring, but in and of themselves they 'prove' nothing. My point in presenting them is that not all highly suspicious events may require hundreds of person hours to investigate. For these a well publicised reporting procedure is important. In my experience a proportion of cheating done online is indeed obvious and done by 'dumb' and 'dumber'... other cheating is more sophisticated or occasional or irregular and often almost impossible to make a confident conclusion about even after reviewing hundreds of hands. However if you don't deal with the obvious ones that many with the ability to recognize become aware of then it can contribute to a perception about a lack of effective procedures or lack of interest in the issue.

I crossed in diamonds and got ruffed :huh:. I noticed two of the better declarers played against the odds (they also had west bid to 6s (vulnerable versus non vul))...It made me wonder if they thought bidding to a vulnerable 6s (versus non vul) said something about west's hand. Guess it wasn't my day.

One other book on counting I found useful was Countdown to Winning Bridge by Tim Bourke and Marc Smith, because it does have some suggestions for how you gradually work up to counting hands fully and how to focus on the key information you need depending on the hand.

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sha6dkq742cakj642&s=sk9hkqj1084da5cq93]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] This is my first time trying to type a hand so don't jump on me This is an odds question. You made it to what looks a safe 7h after west bid spades to the 6 level. Lead is the ace of spades. One of these three things are going to happen i) trumps are 5-0 ii) west has a diamond void iii) west has a club void At the table how do you quickly work out the odds? (I always get these wrong..and I did).

Hi Mauro These are not some 'expert' comments from an experienced precision user - my regular partner and I decided to swap to precision 3-4 months ago. We have decided to play Precision for 6 months, Polish Club for 6 months and then maybe Power or Moscito for 6 months just for the experience (this is after 3 years playing 2/1 with variable nt). We based our initial precision structure on the advanced structures in Rigal's book 'Precision in the 90s'. This structure is very similar to what you are using. We also put strong 4/4/4/1 hands in multi. We also play a variable no trump. Our decision is not to open balanced 11-12 when vulnerable - this makes knowing that the 1d open is more likely to be diamonds much easier in competitve auctions when vulnerable. We did include 5c4M hands in 2c opens (but if it was 5 clubs and 4 hearts and 1 diamond we had a choice of 2c or 2h opens) - but had to find a good structure over 2c. We used Sontag's one described as part of Power Precision. Overall our results with 2c opens seem good. These are my experiences with using Precision: The up-sides: 1. Despite the bad press of 1c opens, when opps occasionally didnt get in your auction, asking bids etc. allowed some very neat auctions and located grands standard bidders couldn't safely bid. 2. The limited openings - this is the real upside of precision. I had to learn strategic underbidding and the paradox that a more defined opening range allows more low level penalty doubles in part-score auctions. The down-sides: 1. Interference with 1c auctions. This gets tedious - particularly when there are methods like '1h=13 cards'... . I needed to find some good interference handling methods. Rigal's book was a start, and the notes from experienced pairs like Hamman/Soloway useful. The most comrehensive write up of interference handling I found was in a book documenting Tanc (a precision like big-club system) by Bulgarian/Australian Theo Antoff. 2. The 1d open. In matchpoints not knowing 1d is diamonds in competitive auctions is a really big minus for me. And opening 1d with 2 in a balanced hand when partner can't mount a response can also be a disaster in matchpoints.