xarlos

I disagree. Throwing out extreme data (2sd+ from the mean) will result in regression to the mean.

Not a doubt in my mind that everyone here, at some point or another, has experienced the vagaries of one or two idiots skewing the IMP distribution. Is it too much to ask that we Delphi out top and bottom scores as artifacts?

Please share your thoughts: I am having a problem interpreting partners' opening leads to a no trump contract. Many years ago, I was taught that the opening lead to a NT contract is almostalways the same - 4th highest card in your longest suit. This is to send a signal to your P. There are exceptions, of course - as when you are able to run a long suit from Ace down. But these are only exceptions. And I abide by this convention. P should be able to look at the dummy and visualize a potential weakness in declarer's bid. Also, ideally, should we win the trick, P would lead back. Now-a-days, I find Ps leading what I consider "willy-nilly" and it leaves me wondering what they are thinking. I see this at all levels. I got into a conversation about this while kibbitzing a "star" game. Other kibbitzers chimed in saying, "Boy! You're sure showing your age." What am I missing?

Getting to game: North had 14 pts (including dist.). With 7♠to the A, opening 1 is weak - but N doesn't know what S has. I open 1 quite often with this hand - and wait for P. P's 2♥ promises at least 6 pts. and 4♥with at least 1 honor. We now have a minimum of 20 points - + North's 7♠to the A! The 2 rebid is weak - but necessary to further explore P's strength. P's 3♦shows secondary suit - 4? - + at least one honor. At this point, it N has all the information necessary to rebid at 4. It is up to declarer to bid game in his/her suit.

Partnerships require time and agreement. On BBO, there is little of either. In "live" bridge, there are subtle verbal nuances or facial language (eyebrows) partners can give that are in-and-of themselves tacitly agreed to such as "short" ♣ (a player might bid "a ♣" rather than 1 ♣) or a "take-out double". This is impossible online. This makes the alerts all the more important to partners, particularly when opening 2 in a suit and having to let your partner know whether it is strong if it is ♦, ♥ or ♠. If a player alerts and a partner is unable to see, it is the original player who is handicapped if the partner fails to get the nuance.

After having been here a while, I became aware of something yesterday that both surprised and disturbed me. When bidding, there is an opportunity to enter an "Alert." This alert then shows up in the bid box as bidding progresses. Yesterday. I learned that the "Alert" is not visible to the alerter's partner! It is visible to everyone else - the alerter AND the opposition. This is just a little disconcerting. I would think that the first person you would want to alert is your partner. If an alert box shows yellow to everyone else, why not to the alerter's partner? I emailed support with this. The response I got back was: "The BBO software is designed so that players alert their own bids. This is called "self-alerting" and it is opposite to the approach that is used in live bridge clubs and tournaments." What sense is this supposed to make? TIA X

How do report an individual who we might have reason to believe - "doesn't belong in the community"?