Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kit Woolsey
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 459 460 461 462
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think he is saying that if you click on East's call, that might wake East up to the fact that he made an error.

For example, suppose East, a passed hand, bids 2 in response to his partner's third seat 1M opening and doesn't alert. It is possible the pair is playing Drury, and East forgot. If you click on the 2 call, that will wake East up to the fact that he made a mistake.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bharat,

None of us are arguing against a 15 or 30 minute delay. If BBO can implement the necessary software so it will be the same as real time for the kibitzers, that would be great. We all agree with that.

What we are saying is barring kibitzers is not good for the game.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, the terminology makes sense. But your question doesn't. On the above example I would think everybody would treat the sequence as “equal-level conversion” even if they don't normally play it, since what else can it be – you can't make a takeout double of 4C with a heart 1-suiter, since partner's 4S response takes you above 4H. So saying you play it through a certain level doesn't really make sense since you may be playing it at a higher level but not a lower level.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Until you define exactly what you mean by “equal level conversion”, I do not know how to answer your question. For example, suppose the auction goes: (4)-DBL-(P)-4;(P)-4. That is certainly an equal level conversion in that you converted to a new suit at the same level, and any player might adopt this sequence. So, if a player does adopt this sequence, what would it mean if he were playing this as “equal-level conversion”, and what would it mean if he weren't?
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed,

The rules you are talking about are written for f2f competition. The parameters for online competition are entirely different. While one could debate what the rules should be for online competition regarding alerts, announcements, undos, claims, and so forth, the rules for f2f competition aren't going to necessarily apply. We aren't breaking the rules, because there are no universally accepted rules for online competition at present. We are doing what common sense dictates.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought that was what I said – avoid giving him the UI that there is some kind of mixup. If the announcement is consistent with his hand then there is no UI – you said what he was expecting to say.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed,

The only reason in f2f play we use alerts rather than announcements is because it is feared that announcements will wake partner up and avoid a mixup.

One of the advantages of online play is that partner doesn't see your explanation. Consequently the argument against announcing the meaning of alertable bids no long exists.

The conclusion is that yes, for online play if you make an alertable call you should include an explanation of the call as you make the bid. This has nothing to do with rules about alerts and announcements. This is just good old common sense.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It isn't a problem. If declarer has king-doubleton, he will go up king. If he has K9x, he will play small.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't accept the situation any more than you do. It is a matter of what is the best solution.

You believe the best solution is to not allow kibitzing.

I believe the best solution is for the organizers to not invite the cheaters to play.
July 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why is it difficult? Partner is marked with the ace of diamonds, since declarer would never be holding up here with Jxx in dummy. Since there are only 18 HCP outstanding, that means declarer has the rest of them. So I can count for sure 4 spade tricks, 3 heart tricks, 1 diamond trick, and 1 club trick for declarer. The only possibility for a fifth defensive trick is in the club suit, so the jack of clubs shift jumps out at you.
July 5
Kit Woolsey edited this comment July 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East has the ace of diamonds, but didn't double 4. If he had AJ, he probably would have doubled. So, I'm placing the jack of diamonds with West.

Why did West lead a diamond rather than a heart, considering that his partner didn't double 4? The reason is that West has a lot of length in diamonds, so he judged leading away from the jack was reasonably safe.

For these reasons, I'm trusting the lead to be an honest lead from J98xxx. This paces East with likely more clubs, so I'm playing the king first. After that, vacant spaces makes the finesse slightly superior.
July 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know anything about the status of online club games. However, if they are invitational, there is a very simple solution: Don't invite the player to play in the game any more.
July 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that is his business, not yours.
July 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course what Oren suggests is best. From the kibitzers point of view they wouldn't know or care that there is a delay. It simply remains for BBO to implement the necessary software an technology.
July 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I am proven wrong and somebody finds a way to create a cheating-proof environment for online bridge, that would be great. Then online events could have real significance.

Preventing kibitzing doesn't do the job.
July 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know. Does it really make a difference?
July 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael,

Perhaps it is wishful thinking. However, we did play against every team in the round robin (except the two teams who had a bye). Since my team was 4-handed, I played every board. At no time did I feel the slightest bit of discomfort about the possibility that my opponents were cheating.

If you have any particular reason to believe otherwise, I will be happy to discuss details in private. Such details of course should not appear on a public forum.

I don't understand where you get the impression that I think cheating in online games isn't a big deal. I think it is a very big deal. It is for exactly this reason that I do not believe online games have any real significance. They are not the Spingold or Trials, and never will be, for the reason that cheating is always possible and relatively easy to do regardless of methods of trying to prevent it.
July 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I totally agree with everything Bobby says. Scary.

We play in these tournaments for practice and because we enjoy the game. The USBF invitational was one of the most pleasant tournaments I have played in, and I would say there was little or no cheating of any kind.

While we all try to play our best in these online tournaments, as Bobby says they don't mean anything. They aren't the Spingold or the trials, and they never will be. The potential for cheating will always exist, regardless of how many cameras or delays we use. So let's just enjoy playing in these events and let the kibitzers enjoy them also.

As for the cheaters, there is a very simple solution. We are not dealing with any public membership organization such as the ACBL or the WBF. These are all privately run invitational tournaments. The tournament organizer is king. He/she can invite or not invite anybody for any reason, and that is that. There is no need to prove the a player or pair is cheating to some committee or court. The best defense against the cheaters is for tournament organizers to take a hard line and not invite them. The cheaters will soon find that they don't have a place to play.
July 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I much prefer some form of control responses to any of the above suggestions.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge logic should dictate that when a defender is 100% known to have at least 3 spot cards with which he can signal, as is the case here, then 3-way signals should apply. The definition of the 3-way signals depends upon partnership agreement. Most common is for a middle spot to be encouraging, with the highest and lowest spots being suit-preference. Thus North should play the 2 of spades, and South should then find the club shift.
July 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 459 460 461 462
.

Bottom Home Top