bhugi

HCP count is just one of the bidding method, and it is too general, but easy to use. A are under valued and Q J over valued. Loser Trick Counts, Playing Trick Counts, Law of Total Tricks, Quick Tricks count, etc, has their own advantages. Only when a NT contract with both hands balanced and HCP evenly distributed that HCP counts can be used stand alone to generate good result. Personally I use Law of Total Tricks for competitive biddings, Quick Tricks count for defensive penalty doubles, Playing Trick Count for pre-empty bidding, and I used Loser Trick Counts the most, for suit contracts.

In my region, if a new suit is non-forcing, we alert it. e.g. 1s-2c-2h (alert: non-forcing) 1c-1h-1s is forcing, even with p - 1c - 1h - 1s, 1s is still forcing, 12-21+, partner have to find a rebid.

5c exclusive blackwood That's all. Risk is: playing at 5H-1 , but that chance is much smaller than to find a small or grand slam. It worths to take the risk.

I am still the very traditional one ~ open 1NT only with 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2 and 5-3-3-2 without 5 card major So this hand without doubt I just open 1D

I play disipline bidding, no 14 hcp 1NT So, for a balanced 22 (except for a QJ doubleton), I will open 2C and rebid lowest NT. When multi 2D is available, 2D and rebid lowest NT = 22-23, 2C and rebid lowest NT = 24+

how about just to increase the number of boards during the match? It seems that it is not support by the current software too.

"BM2000 level 1 to 5. " Not enough, but I think bidding skills, defence, table manner, knowledge on bridge rules, sportmanship also necessary for a players to name himself experts. World class are those representing their region in world wide competitons, but nothing to mentioned between the skill of an expert and world class if defined in this way. World class are usually experts but it may not be. Some region may let advanced to represent also.

two issues, whether you want to discribe more on hcp or on distribution. 1) If minimum rebid is use to show minimum hand 12-14, then: 1s - 2c - 2nt 1s - 2c - 2s Both show 12-15 minimum hands, but 2s definitely show 6+ good spade and 2nt show 5-3-3-2 2) If 2s is the only minimum rebid, then: 1s - 2c - 2nt show maximum balanced hand 18-19 hcps, slam possible 3nt show 16-17 balanced hand to play 2S show minimum hand 12-14, with 5+ spade For SAYC I preferred the 1st case, and for 2/1 I adapt to the 2nd.

Defence On Strong Club (DOSC), mine is: p :not the other cases x :at least same strength 1d:d+h 1h:h+s 1s:s+c 1n:both minors 2c:c+h 2d:d+s 2h:heart suit 2s:spade suit 3x:pre-empty

I also allow undos, because misclick problems arise in internet bridge. We are playing for fun, so just let them undo and I use my skills to win them, but not winning them due to their misclick. However, in a tourney, if one misclick and request for an undo, to have a fair game, it is a good code of practice to restrict yourself with lead penalty, major penalty card, minor penalty card, etc.

In real world competition a claim is reinforced by saying the line of play. We can have this in internet as well. The one who claim should type out the line of play (if need) before the claim button is pushed. If he did not do so and doubts arise, then director rule in favour of the other side. Cards will not play again by any players, but director try to play and rule the hands. e.g. In a suit contract, there is still an outside trump left, the last card played by declarer is not the action of drawing trump but just playing the side suits, the worst against his claim might be: a side suit is trump by defenders and defenders run a side suit where the declarer has no stopper. In this way, a claim of all tricks become getting none tricks. This is to protect the opponents of the side who claimed. There are chance that the declarer really forgets about drawing the last trump but he claims and opponents reject, then declarer realises that there is an outside trump, and declarer draws it now to get all tricks. Of course, which approach to use probably is changing according to the stardard of the players. In a world class match, we can just claim "double squeeze" and get all tricks only if it works, and get 1 fewer trick if it fails.

Good idea, but it is difficult to implement It may spend too much time selecting the person to sit. and what will happen when the host and the one who need partner cannot make an agreement? I have an modified version. Normally the host has the right to select who can join. We can try to add a new feature that the host pass the right to respective players. Decision making restrict to 1 person only, but now is the one who need partner, not the host. The host can choose reserve the right, than this new feature is hidden. I have another problem which happened several times. When I open a new table, I will need to decide the type of game (mp, imp or total points) Is there anyway to change the type of game during game, without all people leaving their current seats? Add a feature, an enquiry box (just like the one asking for claim or concede) when all people agree, they can migrate from mp game to imp game or vice versa?

I would not support rating system in BBO. It harms the friendly atmosphere there. Cheating, discriminating, criticizing, without tolerance, etc. All sorts of problems may arise and become a problemr, because people will then take it serious about the points they get for their rating. Diretors and Hosts are volunteeners who serve us for fun. If the atomosphere is no longer friendly and fun, but being too similiar to the hunting world for live or dead, that will decrease the attractiveness of BBO. =) Barry Bhugi

This is an add on, if not too difficult, it is always good to add the features. The features will be well function when there are > 30 tables in a tourney. It is a luxious function, not the first priority to be implemented :)

I agreed with edwin and uday's view points. People won't get any trophies or cash rewards from winning tourneys running at BBO, and fred made the right decision by not imposing rating system (With that system, chance of cheating increase so I don't like it). So cheaters just ruin their own games, learn nothing and can't improve themselves. BBO is a friendly, happy and convenient internet-based bridge game. There's no reason for us to spend lots of resource and time, make most of the normal players suffers in order to stop those minority cheaters ruin their own game, right? :P Internet bridge can't be totally reassemble real tournament in club house. (At least one can cheat by reading system notes before making auction to prevent misunderstanding, use instance messagers, etc) There's no way to totally eliminate cheating. kibitizing with two or more tables is useful somehow. e.g. when there is vu theater or a tourney with a great hand, I will kibitiz 2-3 tables to see how players deal with that board in a different way, or when I finished the board before the others, I will want to see how they deal with the hands with a different way to mine. Just let cheaters ruin their own life ... they can't enjoy bridge game as well as getting nothing rewardable in BBO.