[inquiry]

Chamaco, on Jan 10 2005, 10:15 AM, said:

inquiry, on Jan 10 2005, 02:09 PM, said:

I think our approach is to edit out names and let it stand, but this allows potential abuse of the rules. Any opinions?

I do not expect to be original, but my opinion is that in future "myhands" engine version, one should provide also a password to access his own hands.
This would eliminate the "privacy" issue.

Hmmm.. I sure would not like to see this. There is a lot of reasons, why I very much like an open myhands site. For one, many of us kibitz good players in real time, I also kibitz them virtually by looking up their hands on line. For instance, if you want to see the hands Fred played in a tourneyment this weekend with John Platt as a partner, just go to myhands and enter "fred" as the player name. Fred and Sheri also played against Rain and uday over the weekend, so if you missed that, you can go look that up too.

A second reason I would not like to see that is because the hands were played in public, and anyone could have kibitzed the hands at the time (well if no kibitzer options wasn't selected). But the public record is a guard against cheating. If someone is cheating on line, the record of that cheating is there for people who think cheating was going on. Without a maintained public record, cheaters would not need fear being caught. For instance, if a player never misguesses a two way finessee, this is easy to discover in the public record. Get 82 out of 82 two way finessees right (or hook when missing Qxxx when right and play for drop when right). I know you might suggest that abuse have priviledge to look at all hands, but the truth is, the only way cheaters are caught is if members report them. Abuse has a full time job just dealing with people who are extraordinarily rude to others. The public record is also a way to catch and warn/ban players who jump from table to table and bid 7NT, redbl when it comes back to them, and then leave to do this again elsewhere (or otherwise disturb the scoring for all players).

Another reason is that many of our members enjoy looking at all the hands in the tournment they play.. what they did, and what others holding their hands did.. the privacy guard you suggest would prevent that. If you don't want your hands to show up in the myhands site, then play total points. Those hands are not there. Most online sites allow access to all hands played online at least for a while. This is a feature I for one greatly enjoy. And it the long run, with hundreds of thousands of hands played on BBO each day, every day, does anyone really think their privacy is being violated to have the hands posted. Go online and you will find my blunders, my wacky bids, and my successes... these are all there in about the same propotions. I played Sunday in an ACBL individual. Go look, I didn't even make a 50% score, instead was in the low 40's I think (may have been even worse). Did I screw up? Sure. Do I want people seeing how I played one 3NT (rather than doubling 2♥) or my 2D preempt on J9xxx, 5332 distribtuion and not another hcp opposite a passed hand? No (well fro the record, my preempt got me 100% score, but my opponents should have doubled me in 3D as I went down four, but not vul and not doubled).

Since everyone knows myhands exist, the decision is easy. IF you don't want your hands to show up their, don't play in tournments or imps/matchpoint in the main room. Perhaps Fred and uday will see it your way. Perhaps they will make it where you can only see your name in the database, and all other names just come up as EAST, WEST, SOUTH, and NORTH. But I for one hope that day never comes.

Ben

[uday]

No plans to change anything in this area.

[hotShot]

Where should we discuss what happend at BBO, if not here?

I think your approach is the best possible.

If i realy want to know the names, i could sent a message to the poster in privat.

[mikestar]

Let me state this as strongly as possible. Were the first hand played in my club (f2f) and there really were a hesitation before 3H, 4H is the only call I wouldn't rescind.

My reasoning is that essentially every non-beginner on the planet will bid 4H. Now ordinarily, a player is not constrained in his choice of calls when the hesitation does not suggest a particular call, but pass or 3N or slam try is trying to guess why partner is hesistating and taking advantage of the UI that partner doesn't have a down the middle 3H bid.

It is fine to gamble top or bottom, but not when UI indicates that this is a good time for it.

So you should have bid 4H whether the 3H call took a millisecond or a month--the only penalty I would consider is a disciplinary penalty for the person who protested 4H.

[Rain]

Slightly off-topic: I think its possible to have a non-scoring option, where although the hands you play are compared against others, and you receive a score, you can't see other people's records and they can't see yours. (fair's fair)

Don't have to appear in myhands in that case(?)

Rain

[inquiry]

Rain, on Jan 10 2005, 02:42 PM, said:

Slightly off-topic: I think its possible to have a non-scoring option, where although the hands you play are compared against others, and you receive a score, you can't see other people's records and they can't see yours. (fair's fair)

Don't have to appear in myhands in that case(?)

Rain

I guess this is ok if and only if your score is not reflected in ANY WAY in the result of the hand...

In otherwords if you bid and made 6H and not a single other person bid to slam, you will see that you win a zillion imps, but your 6H making is totally invisible in calculating the score of the hand. After all, if it was reflected, I would be scartching my head as to why my 4H making six lost imps when it was the best anyone did (of what I could see).

You can already do this by playing preexiting hands..... (vugraph), as you can see how your scores compare against good players with your hands (has this been turned back on)?

Ben

[HeartA]

EricK, on Jan 9 2005, 05:23 AM, said:

Your 4♥ bid was entirely normal.

Partner's 3♥ was aggressive, but so what? If he bids only 2♥, you will make an invitation and he will accept. Anyway, what does a huddle followed by 3♥ imply anyway? If anything it implies that it is a stretch, so the UI would suggest passing rather than bidding on.

It really sounds to me like they had no genuine reason to complain. As Flame says, they are probably a bad loser. Although I am wary to make any diagnosis having only heard one side of the story.

Eric

I think 3H was normal. When in training session with my real-life friend, I told him that raised to 2 with 13-15 points (including distributional points), to 3 with 16-18, to 4 with 19-21, cue-bid at 4-level (or bid opening suit at 4-level) with strong 2-suiter (one of them is pd's suit, of course).

West has 13 VERY good hcp, good 5-card clubs, and 3 distributional points. It qualifies 3H raise.

[EricK]

HeartA, on Jan 10 2005, 07:24 PM, said:

EricK, on Jan 9 2005, 05:23 AM, said:

Your 4♥ bid was entirely normal.

Partner's 3♥ was aggressive, but so what? If he bids only 2♥, you will make an invitation and he will accept. Anyway, what does a huddle followed by 3♥ imply anyway? If anything it implies that it is a stretch, so the UI would suggest passing rather than bidding on.

It really sounds to me like they had no genuine reason to complain. As Flame says, they are probably a bad loser. Although I am wary to make any diagnosis having only heard one side of the story.

Eric

I think 3H was normal. When in training session with my real-life friend, I told him that raised to 2 with 13-15 points (including distributional points), to 3 with 16-18, to 4 with 19-21, cue-bid at 4-level (or bid opening suit at 4-level) with strong 2-suiter (one of them is pd's suit, of course).

West has 13 VERY good hcp, good 5-card clubs, and 3 distributional points. It qualifies 3H raise.

I think it depends to some extent on what your opening 1NT range is.

If you play a strong NT, then a raise to 2♥ may be on a weak NT hand, and obviously the playing strength of this hand is way above that. But if you play a weak NT then a raise to 2♥ will necessarily have some extras (either in HCP if balanced, or in distribution if unbalanced).

On the other hand, to say this is a raise to 3♥ suggests that with a trick extra you will force to game but with a trick fewer you would only raise to 2♥. I am not sure this hand meets those criteria: Is ♠4 ♥A743 ♦J85 ♣AJ863 even an opening bid? Only just, if at all. Is ♠4 ♥A743 ♦AK5 ♣AJ863 a GF? Maybe, but it seems a slight stretch when an invite will probably get you to 4♥ whenever it's right anyway.

Obviously, if Fred says it is a 3♥ bid, then it probably is. But this is my reasoning for saying that 3♥ is a bit aggressive.

Eric

[HeartA]

EricK, on Jan 10 2005, 02:35 PM, said:

On the other hand, to say this is a raise to 3♥ suggests that with a trick extra you will force to game but with a trick fewer you would only raise to 2♥. I am not sure this hand meets those criteria: Is ♠4 ♥A743 ♦J85 ♣AJ863 even an opening bid? Only just, if at all. Is ♠4 ♥A743 ♦AK5 ♣AJ863 a GF? Maybe, but it seems a slight stretch when an invite will probably get you to 4♥ whenever it's right anyway.

Obviously, if Fred says it is a 3♥ bid, then it probably is. But this is my reasoning for saying that 3♥ is a bit aggressive.

Eric

In my standard, ♠4 ♥A743 ♦AK5 ♣AJ863 certainly qualifies for GF (after 1C opening and 1H response from pd).

[fred]

EricK, on Jan 10 2005, 07:35 PM, said:

HeartA, on Jan 10 2005, 07:24 PM, said:

EricK, on Jan 9 2005, 05:23 AM, said:

Your 4♥ bid was entirely normal.

Partner's 3♥ was aggressive, but so what? If he bids only 2♥, you will make an invitation and he will accept. Anyway, what does a huddle followed by 3♥ imply anyway? If anything it implies that it is a stretch, so the UI would suggest passing rather than bidding on.

It really sounds to me like they had no genuine reason to complain. As Flame says, they are probably a bad loser. Although I am wary to make any diagnosis having only heard one side of the story.

Eric

I think 3H was normal. When in training session with my real-life friend, I told him that raised to 2 with 13-15 points (including distributional points), to 3 with 16-18, to 4 with 19-21, cue-bid at 4-level (or bid opening suit at 4-level) with strong 2-suiter (one of them is pd's suit, of course).

West has 13 VERY good hcp, good 5-card clubs, and 3 distributional points. It qualifies 3H raise.

I think it depends to some extent on what your opening 1NT range is.

If you play a strong NT, then a raise to 2♥ may be on a weak NT hand, and obviously the playing strength of this hand is way above that. But if you play a weak NT then a raise to 2♥ will necessarily have some extras (either in HCP if balanced, or in distribution if unbalanced).

On the other hand, to say this is a raise to 3♥ suggests that with a trick extra you will force to game but with a trick fewer you would only raise to 2♥. I am not sure this hand meets those criteria: Is ♠4 ♥A743 ♦J85 ♣AJ863 even an opening bid? Only just, if at all. Is ♠4 ♥A743 ♦AK5 ♣AJ863 a GF? Maybe, but it seems a slight stretch when an invite will probably get you to 4♥ whenever it's right anyway.

Obviously, if Fred says it is a 3♥ bid, then it probably is. But this is my reasoning for saying that 3♥ is a bit aggressive.

Eric

You are 100% correct that playing a weak notrump system 2H is plenty on the hand in question.

Assuming a strong notrump system, does adding the King of diamonds make the hand worse a game force? Close I would say. Keep in mind that all raises have ranges - they do not show specific hands. The actual hand is a minimum for jump raise (at least in my view). Adding the King of diamonds makes it either a maximum for a jump raise or a minimum for a game force. I would probably force to game myself, but I don't think that bidding 3H is awful or anything.

I don't buy your argument about the 1-4-3-5 10 count. If you knew that after opening 1C on such a hand your partner would respond 1H, then I think it is fine to open (because your hand reevaluates to be worth an opening bid and you can comfortably raise to 2H). In the much more likely event that your partner responds 1S, however, you will be in trouble. Therefore you should not open (unless your partnership has agreed to play very light opening bids).

One guideline I like to use when deciding between a single raise and jump raise is this: if partner needs nothing more than 5 reasonable trumps and the right distribution to make game a reasonable propostion, you should jump raise.

The actual hand opposite:

xxxx
KQxxx
xx
xx

for example, offers a reasonable play for game. So according to my guideline, it is worth a jump raise.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[luis]

This is the problem of online bridge, you can't punch this guy playing through the internet.
At f2f bridge you can just simply ask him to discuss the aspects of the bidding in the street....

[inquiry]

luis, on Jan 11 2005, 03:08 PM, said:

This is the problem of online bridge, you can't punch this guy playing through the internet.
At f2f bridge you can just simply ask him to discuss the aspects of the bidding in the street....

On line, the virtual way to invite your rude opponent into the street is to send an email to abuse@you knowwhere . com. This kind of talk is not acceptable (as Fred noted) on BBO. While it is true that for a first, and maybe even a second offense, not much will happen to the person speaking this way. But after a few times (or one extremely bad time)... abuse will more than figuratively punch them in the nose for you.

And if you actually think your opponents are cheating (as your opponents thought incorrectly I might add, that you were), you don't tell them that to their face. You write to abuse too... and let abuse handle that part for too. Of course, like everyone in this thread, it will be obvious to abuse that this is normal bridge... so about the only thing that happens is abuse will inform the complainer of such.

Ben