BurnKryten

Just go to www.bridgebase.com, download the installation for the BBO client, and install. Seems like the easiest way to fix things to me. Just remember to check your options, like chat logging, once you have it working again. Good luck!

Today I was declaring a routine 3♦, and as dummy went down I noted the possibilities - however, I was mildly amused to find the dummy arranged thusly: ♦♣♥♠ whereas my hand was in this order: ♦♠♥♣ I pondered what to do with each suit, but found myself mixing the black suits. I think that it would be less confusing to have the suits in the same order in both dummy and declarer's hand.

The "Rule of Coincidence" is something that came up in the ACBL years back - and according to my quick research on rec.games.bridge there currently is no such rule, and may never have been. In any case, an ACBL rule wouldn't apply to BBO, with the exception of ACBL run tourneys. In any case, in the given auction, clearly someone has psyched, or a pinochle deck has made its way to the table. Even at your first call, holding 10 hcp, with the various other players promising 12+, 15-17, and 10+... let's see... 47+! Already your partner is the favorite to be the psycher, given that he has a passed hand partner. You clearly didn't allow for your partner to have psyched - with your redouble and double of diamonds, and your partner had ample opportunity to double himself and didn't do so. The auction and your hand make it clear that your partner has psyched, you don't have to be suicidal

This sounds like an ordinary, successful psych to me. It is legal to make any call at your turn, provided it isn't a concealed partnership understanding, and is not restricted by the conditions of contest of the tournament (For example, psyching a strong artificial two clubs opening is disallowed by some Sponsoring Organizations). It is also not permitted to make "illegal allowance" for your partner having psyched, but that's hardly the case here. Unless the TD had clearly posted in the tournament conditions that psychic bids are not allowed, then nothing illegal has happened here. Dismissing you from the tournament without comment also seems wrong - doesn't the TD have an obligation to inform competitors why they are being penalized? Regarding some of the other posters - I disagree that one incident makes an "agreement". I do not believe it is useful to one's opponents to disclose "Of the many times my partner has opened 1NT in third position, one was psychic." Perhaps some measure of frequency of psychics by a particular player or partnership would be more useful, or perhaps a description of situations where psychics are more likely. For my part, I am vastly more likely to psych in third position, white on red - is this alertable, or just bridge?

I think what Flame is getting at is a good point, and I tend to reject certain claims for the same reasons. For example, a recent game my intrepid opponents bid to 7NT, and on the opening lead, simply hit the claim button. No explanation. In truth, they had quite a lot of high cards, but there were not 13 top tricks, and there were several possible sources for the extra tricks needed. It is not the defender's job to figure out which 13 tricks are being claimed. Specifically, many claims happen that are incomplete. Simply clicking on claim without any explanation should be done only when the tricks to be taken will be quite obvious to the defenders. When I claim, most of the time I will include a statement of which tricks are being claimed, for example, "three hearts, ace of clubs, and four trumps". Even after seeing that I will make X tricks, I may play one or more tricks to make the position clear for the defense when I do claim - for example, disposing of potential losers in a side suit, or to allow a simple statement of claim. This is done not to delay play, but to allow us to move quickly and easily on to the next hand. I find this to be a far preferable method to claiming without explanation and letting the opponents figure it out.

I had a funny hand that happened playing in a tourney with my fiance. I was sitting South, and it went like this: [hv=d=n&v=n&n=shqjxxdaj9xcakxxx&s=skqxxhaktxdkxxcjx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] NORTH [space]EAST [space]SOUTH [space]WEST 1NT(1) Pass [space]2[cl](2) [space]Pass 2[he] [space] [space] 2[sp] [space] [space]4[cl](3) [space]Pass 5[cl](4) [space]Pass [space]6[he] [space] [space] All Pass 1) 12-15, balanced 2) Game forcing stayman 3) Ace asking (alerted as such) 4) 5♣ is systemically impossible, and I privately messaged the opponents to inform them. As dummy, I immediately noted the lack of spades in my partner's hand. Moreover, six hearts looked to be an excellent contract, misunderstanding and all. I messaged the tournament director at this point: "My partner has either psyched or misbid, and it is working out well." The TD had a look, and asked a couple questions regarding the auction, and I explained what I had told the opps, and what our partnership agreements are. He asked about the lack of spades in my partner's hand, and all I could say is "It's never happened before." I don't know if the opponents asked the tournament director about the hand - but the attitude at the table stayed cordial. Shortly after the hand, the TD messaged me "No adjustment," and suggested that I discuss the hand with my partner later. As it turned out, she had just misbid 1NT, mistakenly thinking "balanced". I do think that messaging the TD helped in this case, to keep him prepared for the inevitable click on the "Summon Director" button. Certainly it need not be mandatory, but it doesn't hurt.

My fiance and I play on BBO, and have our computers in the same room in fact. We can't see each other's screens, and our opponents don't have any problem with it (at least, no one has ever complained). Of course, if the issue is really that opponents might decide that you must be cheating, perhaps it should be pointed out that ANY pair can easily cheat simply by using an instant messaging client, the telephone, email, a chat room, or any number of great cheating methods. Strangely enough, I find that being in the same location can be a disadvantage, because I can hear if she says "What the hell is that???"... and then I'm ethically constrained to carefully avoid taking any advantage from that information. Just keep your ethics active and don't worry about any paranoid people you may encounter. John

With the new navigation interface in place, I noticed that the list of private clubs now goes onto five pages - would it be possible to sort the clubs so that those clubs with members actually present would be listed at the top? Thanks!

An interesting problem! After thinking about this for a few minutes, I have a few ideas. First, it does not appear that North and South are cheating together... It is easy to construct a reasonable sayc auction such as 1D 1H 3H 4NT 5H 6H that completely conceals any appearance of cheating. There is no reason to make illogical leaps like 3NT and 6H. Of course, perhaps no one is cheating. 1D is normal. 3NT is not very good, but at least the suits are all stopped and it will likely make. 5D makes some sense, assuming partner has a balanced hand to bid 3NT. 6H is a total shot in the dark - even 6C must be a better idea than shooting 6H. This bid, more than any other, really looks bad, and stinks of possible cheating. I have a really hard time picturing North bidding 6H on his own, without outside insight. However, if South was in on the caper, the auction would be far better than this. So, my guess would be that North may have received information regarding the hand. However, it is also clear that North did not receive such information early in the hand. Suppose North had information from the start, surely he would simply bid hearts, get raised, blackwood and bid slam. Therefore, 3NT I believe was unassisted. Upon receiving the 5D reply, North was under pressure to make the correct decision (after all, 5D may be going down), and at this point, if North was informed as to the contents of his partner's hand, the only way to get to 6H is to bid it on the spot. Of course, where would such information have come from? Although not out of the realm of possibility, probably not from partner - else they would have a better auction. Perhaps from a kibitzer? A player at another table who has just seen dummy come down? Who knows... This aspect of online bridge cheating inquiries will always be impossible to resolve. Still, you have to consider what evidence you have given, which is simply the bids at the table. I believe you must consider the evidence at hand, and decide whether cheating has taken place - I believe you should be quite sure that there has been cheating to convict a player. If it has, then the guilty party ought to be ejected from the tournament, and the details reported to abuse@bridgebase.com. If, on the other hand, you decide that the evidence is not sufficiently strong, I believe you have no recourse to allowing the score to stand, and perhaps keeping an eye on him going forward. I would not have assigned average to both sides - I believe this to be a refusal to make a decision. Clearly you had considerable doubts about the integrity of North/South. That being the case, I think North should have been removed from the Tourney, and average plus assigned to East/West, and average minus for North/South (Although, I'm not sure what options tournament directors have in this respect). This result may be unfair to South, but no result will be entirely just. After thinking about this for a while, I don't believe North has any bridge reason to stab at 6H, based on his hand and the calls available to him. I would have sent him from the tourney. Still, a tricky problem. Eagerly awaiting analysis of more experienced players!

I read a post by Gil Comeau on rec.games.bridge.okbridge that addresses this better than I ever could: Re: Comments at the Table In short, give people online some slack. It can be hard, especially in new partnerships. Most people are not trying to be rude. John

I psych with greater frequency than most players on BBO, and some of my partners are well aware of situations where I am more likely to psych. In the interests of full disclosure, I currently alert two situations with one of my partners who has played a large number of hands with me: Pass - Pass - Pass (1) 1) Alerted as "Very likely to not have a bust hand" Pass - Pass - 1X (2) 2) Alerted as "Occassionally psychic in this position" I do my best to mix up the psychics to avoid my partners picking up on my tendencies. Sometimes I bid a short suit, sometimes a long one, sometimes a balanced hand. The difficulty is that certain situations greatly increase the chances that a psych will work (for example, two passes to me, and I'm holding a terrible hand). Any thoughts on my efforts at disclosure? I want my opponents to have the information they are legally and ethically entitled to, but I don't want them to be misled by my efforts at disclosure. Perhaps a second question would be: Is it ethical to psych more frequently in positions where (in my opinion) it is likely to work? John

It sounds like the auction is actually this: Pass - Pass - 2C (1) - 2D (2) 1) Strong, artificial 2) Not alerted. Explained afterwards (to the director) as "I always make this call, regardless of which 13 cards I hold" Regarding the incident in question, no offense has occurred. His partner was no more aware of the possibility of a psych than the opponents. However, unless this player is going to have a new partner for every session, this psych quickly becomes illegal. It will rapidly become obvious to his partners that this two diamond bid "always" happens, and then the opponents need to be informed. John

Although I agree that reducing the amount of cheating is a laudable goal, I do not see how eliminating kibitzers will really help. If cheaters want to cheat, they will cheat. I agree, they will not have the knowledge of all four hands, but just the two hands of the partnership is sufficient to give great results. I think that Rhutobello has hit the nail on the head, and made the point that I really should have made. The cost (to the game) of disallowing kibitzers is not worth the reduction of cheating. John

Eliminating kibitzers does absolutely nothing to reduce cheating. There are so many good ways to cheat - such as instant messages or a telephone. I view tournaments as public events, and as such, kibitzers should be allowed to watch the game. In any case, players in tournaments are already barred from receiving private messages, so even the kibitzer would have to use a method outside of BBO to pass along whatever information. John

Um... ratings are evil. I would rather have the relaxed, friendly atmosphere that makes BBO stand out from the rest of the sites. IMO, where there are ratings, people are less likely to partner with poor players, more likely to be rude, more likely to show anger at mistakes, more likely to cheat, etc. Please, no ratings ever.

Often when I'm searching for a tourney partner, I find the partnership desk with many "offline" players. I can't see their profiles, and obviously can't offer to be their partner... Is it possible to "hide" those on the partnership desk who are offline? Thanks! John

I'll take my shot at these, they look fun :) #1 (1C)-2S-(3H)-DBL, where 2S=weak, 3H=forcing What should dbl mean? Answer #1: I haven't seen this before, usually I'm either raising partner or passing here. Absent other agreements, I think double should be Penalties. I'm probably crazy, but maybe there's a case for psyching this double on garbage and running to spades. #2 1NT-(P)-2H-(DBL) Pass-(P)-3H-(P) 3S Describe the 3Spade bidder's hand. Answer #2: If 2H is a transfer, and it certainly looks like it, then openers pass suggests only two spades (otherwise complete the transfer). Three hearts suggests a 5-5 hearts/spades hand for the responder. With his bid of 3 spades, opener prefers spades to hearts, so perhaps his hand is like this: AJ xx AKJx QT9xx. I'm still wondering about responder though... If RHO is doubling the transfer, then he has hearts as well, and responder knows it... and yet he bid hearts? Maybe responder, by cue-bidding RHOs suit, wants opener to bid 3NT with a heart stop, so that would make openers hand something like this: AJ, xxx, AKJx, QT9x. Dang pickup partners. #3 Pass-(Pass)-3D-(DBL) 3D=weak, preemptive 3NT What does the 3NT bid mean? Answer #3: 3NT is either "to play" expecting to make or psychic, with diamonds and nothing else. If psychic, the 3NT bidder will run to diamonds if doubled. #4 Pass-(Pass)-3C-(DBL) 3C=weak, preemptive 3D What does the 3D bid mean? Answer #4: We're both weak, so partner could be fooling around. Maybe it's just lead directing, and partner will retreat back to clubs. I'll be passing, in any case. #5. (1H)-Pass-(Pass)-2C (2D)-DBL What does the double mean? and finally, Answer #5: This one is difficult, I'm not sure what the default agreement is. I think Double should be for blood with the doubler holding a red hand. But... what if the Doubler really holds a hand with 4 spades an game aspirations, and decides on a negative double? Passing might be a disaster. With a strange partner (and I get some strange ones) I would play it as negative, since if I pull and I'm wrong, we can still try 3NT. I haven't seen this sort of sequence in a book... #6. (1H)-DBL-(1S)-DBL What does the double mean? Answer #6: The double of 1 Spade should be penalty. The call 1 spade in this situation is frequently psychic, so it's important to be able to show spades. Hope I got some of these right. John

Those are "Stolen bid" doubles, I believe. Whether they are a great idea is up for debate, but it's definitely an easy convention to learn. The major disadvantage is that you can no longer penalize the opponents for interfering over your NT openings, which may encourage them to do it more! ;D John

This function already exists. Just click on the double arrow at the bottom of the screen. Also, you can direct chat to just the LHO or RHO with the left and right arrows. John

By far the most frequent psych I make is a random bid (or overcall) of one of a suit in third seat with a very weak hand opposite a passed partner. For example, with two passes to me holding: Qxxxx, x, xxx, Jxxx I might call anything, even one heart! Below is a psych I made a couple months ago that I wrote up on rec.games.bridge to find out what other players might have done in my position. About 10 different calls were suggested, including natural calls in all four suits and NT! Playing Basic SAYC on Bridge Base Online with a pickup partner: EW vul, IMPs [fixed] West North East South .........1 D......Pass.....? [/fixed] You hold: AT9, -, AQ9742, T963 I didn't have any systemic call for this hand, since we were playing Basic SAYC. There isn't a forcing raise, no splinters, and 1S and 2C both misdescribe my hand to some degree. The opponents probably have a 9 card or better heart fit as well, given that my partner didn't open 1H. So, I called 1H to prevent the opponents from getting in, and to see what my partner would bid. Here's what happened: [fixed] West North East South .........1 D......Pass.....1 H Dbl......1 NT.....Pass.....5 D All pass [/fixed] Partner took 9 tricks for an average result :) by the way, posting in fixed text isn't as easy as I hoped :) Putting in the fixed flag, or changing the font to courier sort of helped, but yabb kept throwing away the spaces I was using. I finally ended up with an avalanche of periods >:D John

I have same issue. I've found that I get that jumpy/sticky mouse thing when I have run a number of different programs, or maybe have something like Kazaa running in the background. The solution for me is to just reboot and log right back into BBO, and all is well. I'm also running Windows ME - don't know if that's part of the problem. I suspect it's just a memory thing, and that you need a certain amount of RAM available to run the BBO software efficiently. Win ME, like the rest of the Windows operating systems, is notoriously poor at memory management, so this sort of behavior is no surprise to me. :) John

It's happened to me. I had a rather ill-timed psych backfire, and a couple hands later my new partner passed a bid I thought would be forcing. I ended up playing in a 3-3 fit. The host (an opponent) removed me without comment at the end of the hand. Agreed, it's rare, but these things do happen. Perhaps I should have reported the incident, but everyone has bad days... Even so, BBO is by far the most friendly site I've ever played on. John

I have a question - on the Zone when you move your mouse over a bid, it automatically shows the appropriate field from the CC. Is this feature possible (or does it already exist) on BBO? Last time I checked, it wasn't, but since CCs are rarely used on BBO, I'm not so sure. :) I ask because my fiance and I play a strong club, weak NT, 4 card major, majors first always system. I've gone through and created the appropriate CC, and we alert non-natural or unexpected bids, but it would be great to be able to have typed ahead of time what the common bids mean, like "1 spade is 12-15 hcp, 4+spades, could have longer minor", and have the opps easily access that information. Frequently, it seems our CC goes unlooked at, and we have to manually type the explanation. Worse, opps may be unaware of bids not alerted, such as natural signoffs over 1NT. As it is, I always pre-alert opps with this: "Vanya and I play a strong club system, with weak NT and 4 card majors, and always open majors before minors." I still worry about being able to provide proper disclosure to opps not familiar with this sort of system. Although most bids are natural, there are common situations where I would like to provide opps with more complete information about our agreements. Thanks! John