hotShot

And if they log off and log in with a different ID, how do you suggest we recognize that it is really the same person? ~snip~ It's a little late now, but how about linking an email address to every account (and only 1 account per email address)? Most people have multiple email addresses so they could have more than 1 account. However, if all of them are blocked they'll need to create a new email account somewhere, create a new BBO account,... until they're blocked again. Also, if several accounts from 1 IP address are blocked, I think it's pretty safe to assume you can just block the IP address instead of the user. (might be too simplistic since it's my first thought) The biggest problem is, as I said, all accounts that have already been created need to be linked as well... The IP-address is not good enough, as it is possible that a provider accesses the Internet via some sort of proxy and all their customers seem to have the same IP. Every Network card has a unique ID, that could help to identify a computer, but the use of some sort of proxy would give you the ID of the proxy and anyone who is capable to use Google can find instructions to transmit a false ID. Of cause BBO could leave a "Marker" on every computer that connects to BBO, but nobody can guarantee that they can't be manipulated. But even if you could identify a PC without any doubt, it could still be a PC from an place where a PC is available to the public (a library, some sort of restaurant). How can you know that the person that logs into BBO, from this computer is the same, that logged into BBO from this PC before. You can be sure that Uday and Fred are able to identify a specific PC with reasonable accurance, but they can't be sure that the same person is using it.

Steve Jobs about Flash on iPhone and iPad

Of cause there are, but (AAK) is better in both offense and defense than many opening hands with 12-14 HCP.

Clear pass in 4th seat. Just because on one particular hand you can make 10 tricks in Cs does not mean it is wrong to pass as the odds favour the opps being able to outbid you. I don't think that the odds favor opps. Since everybody in front of you has passed, you can expect them to hold their share of the average 9 2/3 HCP. Your side will hold 21 HCP more often than 20 and usually holding 20+ HCP you need a positive score to get a good result. Passing will just give you 0. Since you hold 3 cards in each major, the average length for the remaining 3 player is 3 1/3. That would add to 6 2/3 for opps, so they have 7M cards more often than 6, but 7 is not a fit yet. So if opps outbid you, they will usually play a 7 card fit and hold less than half of the points, of cause this does not guarantee a good score for your side, but you should have a reasonable chance to score better than 0.

The usual cheap hosting offers do not support server side java, forget about that. If you do everything in Javascript, it will run on the client computer only. If there are more than one player they have to sit in front of the same computer. Another problem is that Javascript behaves different on different browsers, using the right libraries might help there. If you want to target more than one player on different computer you need to run some part of it at a server. Most hosting packages offer PHP for that some have Perl and others too. So I would suggest PHP. If your former programming experience is in C you might recognize a lot of the PHP syntax.

Maybe some posters should not use the internet for fun during work. A posts in a thread like "how to kill time at work" could get them in trouble....

Since there is no other way (after my 1NT bid) to show my ♠ fit, I'll have to bid 3♠ now. There is not enough room to show ♠ fit, ♣ fit and stopper in the red suits. I assume that 2m instead of 1NT would have shown a 5 card suit or a stronger hand.

Imagine there is a commercial bridge site, that has a monthly membership fee. They make a deal with the national internet providers, that their data will be transported 3-times faster than the data of their competitors especially FBS (Free-Bridge-Site). As a result of that deal, at speedball tourneys at FBS most boards cannot be finished within the time limit. All play at FBS get's significantly slower. Now FBS can chance their business model and change a membership fee and pay for faster traffic, or they will lose their customers, because they are no longer satisfied by the service. Would you consider that the American method? In theory someone could limit your data traffic speed, hope you are in a business where you depend on quick access to news, like a broker or a journalist. Would that be democratic?

Blasphemy

There are 2 issues to discuss: 1) Why are "young" people not interested in learning bridge? How do we get their interest? 2) Does system regulation drive (young) player away from bridge. ad 1) Bridge has a bad image (at least around here). Most people (here) only read about Bridge in some Agatha Christie novel. Their impression is that is a boring game for old people to waste time. Chess has done better advertising, being a chess player has a positive image. ad 2) Of cause people like to experiment with the bidding system. If they can't practice their ideas, they could get frustrated. Offering a regular "all systems allowed" session, could help a lot. But don't we all put to much weight to the bidding system? It's much easier to change your bidding system, than to learn to play/defend well. Many player know lots of conventions, have an elaborated bidding systems, but lack good judgment, decent declarer play and defense.

1) Without screens South has the UI from the missing alert that partner probably forgot the agreement, so South is not allowed to correct to 4♠. 2) With screens South does not have the UI from the missing alert. 4♥ should have a systemic meaning here, that could be short or long suit trial bid, Cue-Bid, .... If South has a plausible systemic meaning for 4♥, we need to know it. Form the OP my impression is that 4♥ was not alerted by South. So we need to know how alerting at the 4 level is regulated in your jurisdiction.

(Some) 2/1 answers in SEF are forcing and promise a bid next round too, so they are almost GF.

The main point about the athletics comparisons is that even if you don't notice it, technical development has changed the sport. Look at the development e.g. of the shoes, the chances of the running track, etc. You can hit a tennis ball much harder with a modern racket than you could with a wooden racket.

In the 50th the average distance a soccer player had to run during a match was between 2-3 km. In top competition today player run 8-12 km during a match. So soccer has turned into a different game over the time. I assume that any star from the 50th, would be a star today too, if he had the same level of training that player have now. But if you take a former star from the past from the time of his peak performance and let him play with current stars, you'd be disappointed.

With weak hands West could just bid 2M, so 2NT must have a minimum strength of at least an opening. Without knowing EW agreements about this minimum strength it's not possible to make a decision.

They wanted to give a win more weight.

This time there was more action, but I think we have to thank the rain for that. It seems to me this seasons running gag that Vettel leads and is stopped by a technical defect.

I think this is a typical case of a pair that has made some agreements and are left with a hole in their system. I am almost sure that 2NT would show some 2 suited hand and that dbl is agreed to show shortness in opps suit. So East has no systemic bid available and is to strong to pass and has to "invent" an underbid of 1NT each time. If I'm right with my assumptions that 1NT was misexplained, since it contains an implicit agreement to open some stronger hands 1NT too. But I don't see that the MI damaged NS. I don't think it's UI to East that he underbid the first round, so I guess I would let the table result stand, unless I have prior knowledge of a similar "psyche". However I will point out to EW that they have an agreement now they have to disclose.

I read the problem as: 1[cl][space][space]2NT![space][space]3[he][space][space]p West: What was 2NT? South: DIAMONDS plus a MAJOR UI-Alert for North East: But your SC says: "Lower unbid suits" UI-Alert for West South: SC is wrong! Now West is not allowed to use the UI that East expected the 2NT to mean the minors. West has to assume that East showed 5♥. 1) A bravo for Wests ethical behavior. 2) A warning to East, not to produce UI. 3) A big warning to NS to know their system and keeping a correct SC. 4) Adjust the score to 4S= (or whatever that makes).

How many wasted ♦ values are in partners weak hand? You can splinter 4♦, but if partner signs off you end in 5♣ when you could have overtricks in 3NT and 6♣ may still be possible. If 2♠ is (game-) forcing and partner does not bid NT, he won't have a ♦ stopper, which means that he does not have many wasted ♦ values. If 2♠ is GF, partner should take from your 4♣ later that you are short in ♦.

I don't know for sure, but rumor is that this graphic system can display a "clone" of the original screen on the 2nd display. So I guess the answer to your 2nd question is "Yes". I think the answer to question 1 is "No", because that not the clone mode. I think almost every modern entry graphics adapter from AMD or Nvidia supports at least 2 displays.

Declarer made it clear, that he would take the spade trick, if the 1NT bid does not deny a 4 card spade suit. Whether the duck might or might not work is irrelevant. How strong is: 1♥ - 1♠ something - 2♥ and does it promise 3 card support? If the above sequence does not promise 3♥'s or if it is stronger as: 1♥ - 1NT* 2m - 2♥ than it is illogical to agree that the 1NT bid denies a 4 card spade suit. Since West assures that 1NT denies a 4 card spade suit, I have to assume that this detail was discussed. Since the event was important enough to play with screens, I assume there is a written system description available to check that and we can ask East about the agreement and why he deviated from it. I suspect the result will be that EW did not have a specific agreement. Than there would have been a MI that caused damage. The score should be corrected to 3♦X made.

East did not raise the 1♥ opening with 3 card support, are they playing 4-card majors or is this a forcing NT from some sort of 2/1?

I don't like ♣ because the opp who is more likely to have honors there is behind partner. I hope that dummy or my partner will play ♥ to my king. I don't think opps can avoid a potential ♠ loser unless RHO has running ♣ (Holding ♥KTxxx I don't expect ♥ to run.) I think I'll start with ♦ as i expect partner to have 4-5 of them, hoping they not as solid as some think.

Perhaps I we are looking at this the wrong way. It says 3rd quarter, just 2 IMPs up. Obviously the former junior national team was a real threat, so the Nickell team needed any edge they could get. They should feel honored that their opponents needed to use all tricks from the (law) book to win (if they won...).