hotShot

I like easy to remember rules :)! Nice that you agree. hotShot

Usually jumping to full game, implies partner should pass. There should be means in the system to show a hand that looks promising. But Bergen-raises, minisplinter, invitational jacoby, fit showing jumps or <place your favorite method here>, seem to be not available. I think a splinter should include an invitation to go further than full game. So a splinter would not make me stop, but i would expect a stronger hand 4 that. I don't like 2♦, with a delayed game rise, because that should show slam interest as well. If posted here, and not stating something different, i assume a pickup partnership, playing the usual "We did not talk about anything!" system.

Well i think you should bid 4♠. Partners HCP are irrelevant if they are in ♥. So this will be the best choice most of the time. If you are gready, you can try 2♦, if partner will not show ♥ (values), chances for more are there. By the way, your hand shows 26 ZAR, by bidding game you promise to have 26. (7 HCP, 2 Controlls, 15 DP, 1 extra for trump K, 1 extra for 5th trump) If your partner holds: ♠AQxxx ♥Kxxx ♦x ♣AQx After your 4♠ he will reevaluate this to: 15 HCP, 1 extra for 15+ in 3 suits, 13 DP, 5 controlls, 2 extra for AD in trump with fit = 36 ZAR 36 + 26 = 62 minimum for 6 level. So your partner could bid on with this.

Well in that case you will have to trust your insticts and bid: - 1NT, if partner agreed not to expect a ♥ stopper - 2♣, if this is not to much forcing - pass, trusting that partner will reopen, if your LHO will pass too.

Well this is not that simple. 1) Check, if the explanation is correct. Look at the CC and if it's not there, assume wrong explanation. 2) Is there any damage to NS? 3) Is 2) caused by 1). And this is not the case. If 1NT is natural 15+ and north holds 8 hcp, than north knows that they hold at least 23+ hcp. So west cannot (normally) have a game forcing. North has a right to know everything that east knows, and in this case he knows more, because he knows east is wrong. So the ruling is correct.

Well if you play weak jump shifts, you are stronger if you don't jump. So: 1♦ - 1♥ 1♠/1NT/2♣/2♦ - ? jumping to 3♥ must be a strong hand now. If partner did not bid 2♣ you can jump to 3♣ this should show at least 6♥/4♣ and strength. If Partner bid 2♣ you might try to aim a slam in ♣.

Hand one: ♣ to the King, small ♥ to the king, ace of ♠, followed by a small ♠ to ruff, small ♥ to the ace, a small ♠ to ruff, ♥Q (if ♥ where not 2-2), ace of ♣ dump the last ♠ and claim Hand two: What do you mean with "Opening lead ♣2 to Jack-Queen." ? Your diagramm shows KQ! I don't like that one, i'll try to make the ♠ run. Take the ♣ at south, ruff a small ♠ at the table, play a small ♥ to the ace hopping to see two trumps from opps, ruff another small spade, ♥ to the K, ruff another small ♠ might lose that to the J♥. I win ♦ and ♣ at the table, draw A♠ drop ♦ and if ♠ are not high yet i car ruff another spade, ruff a ♦ and home i am. (Hopefully!)

I have 2♠, 3♥, 1♦ and 4♣, 10 save tricks 2 more to go. I need to find K♣ and KQ♦ one with each opponent. Double Dummy, I can see, everything is as I need it. So I would like to play. Of cause, one could try to squeese East, who holds Q♠ and Q♦ and cannot secure both.

There are 3 Steps you should take preparing your declarer play. 1) Try to imagine the hands dummy, LHO and RHO are describing during the bidding phase. At the and of the bidding phase, ask yourself what line of play the bidding suggest. 2) If the dummy comes down, check if dummy is what you expected. Modify your "view" of LHO's hand, using his lead. Answer the following questions: a) How many (top) tricks do I have ? b ) Is it likely they will be ruffed? c) In what suit(s) can I develope the missing tricks d) What are the risks ? (Missing communication, can i lock out myself from a suit, is there an order of moves i have to follow) After that you should have a line of play. Now check if your plan depends on a single thing, like one finesse or a suit breaking 3-3, than take your time and think, if there is something better. 3) Follow your line of play, checking if everything runs as you expect it to. Update your mental picture of your opponents hand, and check if what you have learned suggests a change of line.

4♠ I see a fit in a major, so why search something else. And I'm not strong enough 4 more.

Opps seem to have: no ♠ fit no ♣ fit opener might only have one ♣ Partner should have: 4+ ♥, meaning opps can't have a ♥ fit too So i don't think opps have a fit at all, as a consequence we won't have a fit too. So partner should have: ♠ 1, ♥ 4, ♦ 5 (4), ♣ 3(4) Taking opps points into account partner might have something beween 16-18 HCP. He knows he must downgrade his ♣, because opener is short, but he must also be sure that declarer cannot drop all his ♦ and ♥ looser on ♣. I expect our side to make 1♣, 3♦, 1♠ and 1-2 ♥ tricks. So pass is the best choice.

We play: dbl = 4♠ 1♠ = 5+♠ This way opener knows if we have a ♠ fit.

Taking the amout of tourney that run on BBO every day, I think the number of complaints posted here is rather small. The people that run tourneys are more like "hosts" than TD's. I often see that people describe their hand, if asked. They do it to avoid discussions about wrong explanations. This is of cause wrong, but it avoids a lot of trouble.

Where do you want to go? First we go for 3NT, if possible . So we show stopper, that are good enough for 3NT. If it's clear 3NT is no good choice, we turn to the minor, showing stopper helps to decide if 4,5 or 6 is the limit. 1♣-2♣ (10+HCP, 5+♣) 2[NT] = stopper in ♦, ♥ and♠ (usually very bad ♣ not strong enough for 3NT opposite of minimum) 2♦ = stopper ♦ no length required, stopper in a major is missing (Partner will bid his ♥ prior to ♠, 3♣ shows the inabillity to play NT, 2/3NT shows everything needed is there) 2♥ = no stopper in♦, but ♥ stopper (no length required) 2♠ = ♠ stopper, not stopper in ♦ or ♥ 3♦, 3♥, 3♠ (Mini)Splinter can be minimum HCP in openers hand 1♦ - 2♦ (10+HCP (4)5+♦ 2[NT] = stopper in ♥ and♠ 2♥ = no stopper in♦, but ♥ stopper (no length required) 2♠ = ♠ stopper, not stopper in ♦ or ♥ 3♣ = ♣ stopper, no length required 3♥, 3♠ (Mini)Splinter can be minimum HCP in openers hand

Seems that your opponent does not know what a psyche is. This could be a language problem. And he seems to have given the TD a hard time, hitting the TD Button a lot. To improve the TD quality please read my post on: How the software could help TD's

It takes a few hours until name-servers all over the wourld have learned where http://forums.bridgebase.com is is to be found. The problem should be solved by now.

I think there are three major problems that lead to TD calls: players want to ensure that they get AVE+, when the time runs out players feel damaged because of a missing alert someones Explanation does not fit the hand There are a few things where the software could help. 1) A psyche-Button Next to "Alert" there should be a "Psyche" Button. If someone intended to bid something different than the agreement, this button should be used. As a result the TD (and only the TD) can see that the bid was a psyche (e.g. red background). The software should generate a database entry containing players ID, his partners ID and a hand record. The psyche bid should be annotated showing something like: This player made xxxx psyches before, yyyy with this partner. If the "psyche" button was not used, the TD can rule that the explanation was wrong. 2) Measure time and log disconnects Computer can measure time, so it should be possible to find out who was playing to slow. This is not a simple task, as discussed in another thread, but I think it can be done. 3) TD ruling charts Now that the BBO-Software can open a HTML-Window, we should prepare ruling charts. The ruling chart should show the workflow a TD should follow to make a ruling. This chart could be translated in different languages. Even TD's with limited skills should be able to follow that chart. It might be possible to display this chart to the players (in their own language) so that they can understand, what the TD is doing. 4) A ruling queue If the TD is called and he needs to look at a board later, he should mark it to be put to the "ruling queue" this way he has easy access to it when there is time. If the tourney is finished before the ruling queue is empty, the result should contain "provisional" in the title and something like xxx boards to review. All of this is a lot of work, but it could improve the performance of TD's a lot.

I don't think we need such an AC. Since the BBO software prevents revokes, insufficient bids, bids and plays out of order etc. Whats left are UI and missinformation cases. Due to the selfalerts, that partner is unaware off, a lot of UI cases are prevented. Based on what facts should an AC act. How could they determine players of equal skill? How could they know if they deal with a first time pickup partnership or an established partnership with new BBO nicks. How can they rule on a timing issue, if they have no information other than some players accusation? In a f2f tourney you can ask other players, because they don't log off within seconds. Every day at least 162000 times 4 people meet to play one board on BBO. Most of them in the MBC but a lot of them in tourneys. If there is an AC it will have to deal with more than a hundred boards a day. Who will volunteer to host a tourney, if he has to reseve additional time to deal with appeals?

Dear Tim! If a player with a low rating : finds a killing lead plays a finess for a Jack, wenn all kings are offside makes any very good action then he must be cheating. If players that have a low rating bid a close game or slam that makes don't bid a game or slam with a strong hand, that cannot be made defend succesfully by "guessing" the right contract then they must be cheating. And since opps where cheating my own rating should not drop. If some player has a better rating than I think he/she should have, he/she could only have gotten it by cheating. Because bad players have to play bad, every single board, they may never improve at least not when they play against me. Got the idea? hotShot

I have no doubt that an advanced / expert player can tell, It's beginner and intermediates I'm not so sure about.

How do you tell that you are playing with an expert? I often read something like: But true Experts avoid to do a finess, because a 50% chance is the best a finesse can get you. Preparing a squeese or some kind of endplay often has better chances. So maybe advanced card play, is sometimes to advanced to be understood bei intermediate players. What other examples of advanced play can you think of that might be hard to understand for intermediate players.

It is implemented, if the TD enables the Barometer Options, you will get your result (*) (**) displayed at the end of each round. Only the total / temporary rank is missing. (*) If there are more than one section, seems that you get your section result, which can differ from the overall result a little. (**) If boards are adjusted after the round, your score might change a bit. But it is not updated until the final result is calculated.

Well i don't know if every chess player can tell you how his ELO number is calculated, but it is accepted, because it works. The player with the better number is more likely to win, the bigger the difference is. I think the "real" question is, can those selfrated "Experts" deal with a rating system that rates them as "Non-Experts".

Dear Alex! I don't think what i said is asking BBO to invent and implement a rating system. So I will help you to understand my posting a litte better. This is a personal statement, saying that I am interested in a working rating system and why I think it is interesting. I further stated that a working system does not exist. My interests are my own, and I state them any way I like. Here I state that a rating system won't help much to form a good pair. Since this is the main reason people ask for one, stating that it will not work is directly related to rating systems. Here I state that players stick to partners that have proved to be compatible. In fact I read every post here, that is related to a rating system. And by doing so I discovered that most of the "social effects" are consequences of flawed rating systems. A rating system that improves your rating if you win against weak players, is a flawed system. A rating system that ruins you rating if you play with a novice, is a flawed system. But the most importent thing I learned from reading those threads is that people don't want a working rating system, they want a system that proves they are good players and that helps them to form a winning pair. Both of this goals cannot be reached with a true rating system. So I will keep my interest for a true rating system, and I have accepted that until there is an accepted working true rating system, it should not be intruduced to BBO. Sadly your posting is not up to your usual forum rating :P hotShot

I would be interested in seeing my own rating. A working rating system, that shows how you improve. Unfortunatelly there is no such system. Most people want a rating system, to select the best available player as partner or opponent. But don't we all know that a bunch of good players are not a good team? The fact that a player is very good, does not mean that he will form a very good pair with someone. There are so many little things where you can have different style or a different attitude. I have seen true World Class players, performing poorly together because of incompatible styles. This is why strong players don't change their partners to often.