hotShot

The laws don't have a regulation for unfinished boards. The TD can order slow pairs not to play the last board of a round, he can punish slow play, but he has to allow to finish the board. I don't know how an unfinished board could happen f2f. (OK a player could drop dead in the middle of the board, but I don't think you need a regulation for that.) The passage you quote expresses that the laws advise the TD to get a score whenever possible. (Remember: If a board is unfinished due to a disputed claim, the TD is instructed to finish it. If the players have put away the cards and are disputing the result, the TD has to reconstruct the most likely play. Even if revokes happen, the TD should try to get a score first. ) If e.g. someone is shouting at his partner "You should have bid 7NT at board 8!", any pair that has not played board 8 yet, has a huge advantage/disadvantage because they know the best play or contract for that board. Only in cases like this the TD has to assign a artificial score A+,A-, A=. I think that following the intentions of the laws, the TD should adjust to the likely outcome.

"... he thinks that trying to gain more information and/or enlisting partner's judgment is not going to help." I thought my example was fitting this category. Usually BBO or f2f player find less subtle ways, to express disrespect to their partners. I think our views on this are closer together than it appears in this discussion.

Sometimes a player has to make a decision, based of the facts he has (up to know). He will select the best action he can think of, using his judgment. How do you call partners aggressive game bid? How do you call it, when your partner goes for slam? How do you call it, when partner decides to sacrifice? How do you call it, when partner decides to make a penalty double? In all these cases, your partner uses his own judgment do decide the partnerships fate. The same could happen with preempts and psyches. It can mean that partners judgment is poor or worse, maybe it proves that partner is bigheaded, selfish and/or arrogant, but I think it's a bit touchy to think that it shows disrespect to you.

Lets see south has 3/4 aces and the K in the suit where the ace is missing, so opss won't have 2 top trick if he plays NT. He has 21 HCP and a semi balanced hand. His partner just showed 10+ HCP 2-♠ and has the ♣ suit. If not playing 2/1 2♣ shows 4+ or 5+♣. So there is a club fit and combined 31+ HCP. So you expect the normal contract to be 6♣, now if you want to score better than average, you need to bid NT. You don't need to to bid Blackwood because you already know that opps don't have 2 quick top tricks. If your partner is strong enough he will find 7NT. Sometimes 6NT won't make, but many if not most hands that make 6♣ will make 6[NT] too. 6[NT] is an excellent bid. Unfortunately north is not bidding 7NT although holding 3 important key cards.

Well suppose w/r the bidding was: pass - pass and you hold x xx xx QJxxxxxx. You can bid 3/4/5♣ or you can psyche e.g. 1NT planing to run to 2/3/4♣ if necessary. Both decisions are are made without involving partner much, both decisions are made expecting partner to pass. Why should one be ok while the other one is shows disrespect for partner? But after 1NT opps might not reach their best spot, while a club preempt might tell them that they must have a fit and good combined strength. This is not randomness and this has nothing to do with disrespect to partner.

We live in a time where everything has to be very fast.People are not interested in something that will take them years to learn, the want to have it in a few day's. Of cause you know all those books: with titles like "Learn XXXX in YYY days". So if you want people to enter the bridge scene, you need to give than an teaser that is fast to learn. Once they are interested, they might want more. So minibridge is something every beginner should start to play at the end of the first bridge lesson. They should learn playing techniques than, and very soon they will start to complain, that the simple rules to define the contract in minibridge are not good enough. They are ready to learn bidding system than. Starting to teach bridge beginning with weeks of bidding theory is the best method to drive people away from bridge forever. So bridge will benefit a lot from minibridge.

This type of of hands fall into 2 categories: 1) They are bid and played unilateral and are boring. 2) They really need an established partnership to bid or defend them.

A psyche is a deliberate gross distortion. While we might not be able to find out, if a distorted bid was made deliberate or accidental, we should be able to define what a gross distortion is. Kiwi's overcall had 4♦ instead of 5 and 5 HCP instead of 8-16, this is a 1 card and 3+ points deviation. I call that a deviation of 4 (1+3). Inquiry's hand had 4♥ instead of 5 and 11 HCP instead of 12+. I call that a deviation of 2 (1+1). I would call a deviation of 4 a 'gross deviation', while i would think that 2 is just a deviation. How many cards or HCP would you call 'gross'?

Photons have spin!

Instead of asking what effect technical developments will have on BBO, we should ask ourselves what features we would like to have using the BBO environment. Lets take the 3d desktop environment, no one needs it, it requires a lot of powerful hardware for doing nothing, but is't looking great. Would we like to have an avatar moving to a virtual tourney room, and sit at virtual tables? We could wish for a BBO-Hardware. It gives us real card with a RFID chip and has a display on the table, showing the bids made or card played. When we put a card on this device, the play is transmitted to BBO. This won't need more processor power, just some electronik work and USB connector and a device-driver. We could wish for voice commands, upps maybe vista can do that already. We could wish for a "TD robot" who runs tourneys. How about duplicate tourneys with GIB partners? The BBO environment has lots of areas where tasks can be distributed to more than one computer, i bet it is already done. These areas don't need to wait for faster processors, one can just add another computer. Other areas can't work parallel, the processing power may be a bottleneck there, but if all other tasks operate on different CPU's, even the existing hardware should have some reserve.

Wireless networks need hotspots, and they make sense in populated areas. Unfortunately while they work well, if you are outside, you'll have problems entering a building that has a steel frame or concrete walls. They are reducing the signal strength and cause data errors, so the data rate is reduced. Seems to me that this type of building has very common, in populated areas. Areas where buildings are more transparent for EM-radiation, have usually a low population rate and hotspots don't pay of. The bandwidth problem will be solved, TV on demand, VideoChat and other services you can make money with require more bandwidth. Most of the backbones are ready for it and the "last mile" will follow. Soon all phone call will be voice-over-ip calls, at least least among the phone companies, this includes mobile phones. You won't have different networks like phone, mobile phone, cable tv and Internet all these will unite to one network and you might have more than one device to access it.

Sorry Helene it is a cable problem. A shielding problem to be more precise. Assume you have a 2 wire cable to your place, than the signal will run all the way from ISP to you and back. The signal going back will have an effect on the wire leading to you, so the signal is distorted. This effect grows by cable length and signal speed. The solution to this is using shielded cables. Unfortunately telephone cables needed much less shielding than a broadband data connection.

South (non vul all )holds AQx in both suits opps bid and has a balanced 15HCP hand. Whoever thinks there is no need to tell partner about it, deserves to get robbed. I would have bid a simple 1NT here, knowing (hoping?) that a weak partner (less than 5 HCP) will run to his longest suit and we can play a 7+ card fit.

I believe in partners ability to find a bid with a strong or distributional hand in 2nd seat. So I am quite sure that we won't have 3NT, because if he had the strength needed for that, he should have bid over 1♠.

Let me provide another simple example: If I knew internals of the BBO protocol, i could build a client that shows all the played cards openly and the missing cards in each suit. the highest card in any suit is color coded, so that i don't forget to use them. An integrated suitplay utility could provide me with the best chances to play the suits. Some sort of hand generator could provide me with estimated probabilities how the missing HCP may be distributed. This client could alert me about opps signals. All this would allow me to get a top scorer in money bridge. I think it makes sense that Fred is keeping control here.

I'm not concerned about going down for a number, i have 8 looser and playing 2♣ this is down 3. Additionally if I go down 3, opps probably can make 6 something. And even if partner has few or no HCP, there is a good chance his ♥Q or T will make a trick, or ♣K is onside, or opps allow me to make ♥K. Down 2 doubled when opps can make 4M is no reason to worry. As others said, the risk is in allowing opps to bid game.

Additionally you avoid time pressure, and discuss each board with partner and opps if they ask for our opinion.

If he bidding shows 50 HCP and your partner has psyched 10 times before, will you be more careful (=fielding the psyche)? I think yes. BBO indy you and new your pickup partner meet a new pair, the bidding is strange. Who do you think is novice, lunatic, misclicking or psyching? Who knows! So it does make a difference, even if it's a "new" psyche.

The rules say: Psyches are illegal, if they get partnership experience. This is why psyching in regular partnerships is highly problematic. This is why there is (should be) a recording system for psyches.

I voted sometimes, because: opener could be playing acol showing only 4 cards, he could be psyching or it could be some freak distribution with RHO being ♠ void, so partner might have ♠'s. But this sometimes will be very rare.

A psyche is allowed by the rules, if your partner is as surprised by it as opps are. This can in fact only be true will an unknown, random pickup partner. If you psyche with your regular partner once, from that moment on he will consider the agreed meaning of any bid of yours, with the suffix "or he may be psyching". If he saw you psyche a few times, full disclosure of partnership experience will require him to say, my partner is sometimes psyching. A psyche is only effective, if opps trust their opponent more than their partner. Pickup partnerships have very little partnership trust, so it's more likely they trust you at least as much as their partner. If they are informed that you are (sometimes) psyching (meaning that you are not trustworthy), they will of cause rely more on their partner, making the psyche less effective. It's always easier to take candy from babies than from heavyweight boxing champions.

I would consider this 1♦ bid a psyche. It is a gross deviation from a standard 1♦ bid. But psyches are perfectly legal in bridge, and any tourney that does not allow psyches is not a bridge tourney. How come that player from a nation who created the "psyching card game" (poker), feel cheated when the same strategy is applied to bridge? Perhaps they need to feel superior to poker player and feel that allowing psychs in bridge would drag them down. Or is it just a matter of wording, it's not called psyching in poker?

GIB would benefit from "MORE POWER" <_<

If you think about a 3rd seat opening, you know that there is a 66.6% chance that opps have the majority of points. Usually the combined strength of 3rd and 4th seat is 24+ HCP. Opps are likely to have a full game if 4th seat has 16+ HCP. Holding 10 HCP in 3rd seat means that opps usually won't have game and are just fighting for the partscore. So while in 1st and 2nd seat, i think this preempt is fine, it makes not so much sense in 3rd seat. So the best strategy seems to be to pass and bid 2♦ later.

1) Your LHO showed opening strength and 4144 distribution. 2) Your RHO showed 5+3-(2-3-) distribution, and (much) less than 8 HCP. East could have opened a weak 2, so there might be a 4 card side suit. 3) How many defense tricks do you have? AK♦, the 2nd round of ♥ will be ruffed, ♣K seems badly placed. So I would not double 4♠. 4) How many tricks is your hand worth if you declare? Your partner has 3+♥'s so you should be able to get 5+ tricks with ♥ (2 drawing trump and 3 ruffs). ♦AK are 2 tricks which means that you have about 7 tricks. 5) What can you expect from partner? To make 5♥ you need your partners 5-9HCP to produce 4 extra tricks. ♦QJ ♥A ♣Q will do, but this is a perfect maximum without ♠ wastage. Holding this 4♠ won't make. But consider a lot of hands with ♠ honors will go down in 5♥, while 4♠ will not make. I would pass and hope partner has a better view on this hand.