[wank]

rhm, on 2016-January-05, 04:11, said:

For the paranoid everything is suspicious, if it is not out of the completely ordinary.
Bridge is the ideal game for people with such tendencies

Rainer Herrmann

this is from someone who didn't know the doctors were at it despite being german. everyone else knew.

[Lovera]

Bbradley62, on 2016-January-02, 10:15, said:

---

Than i have done the right thing with my topic "The mirror top honor situation": one is this with Kings and Aces fourthemore in the same suits, in the post #11 by MrAce the board 11 is on limit (exchange K and A in heart suit) while in 12 there are the 6 in opp hand, in post #12 by oryctolagi we have Aces and Kings on the same line. Because these "situations" (i have found looking around another with three 10 more the three Aces and another is in post #9 by mgoetze in topic "Drury for GIB please") are frequent and i think not regoularment conducible at statistic could be a forced habit of informatic(=magnetic ?) type to have to consider. En passant : double is a bidding showing force, here the three Aces.(Lovera)

This post has been edited by Lovera: 2019-June-22, 06:52

[ArtK78]

rhm, on 2016-January-05, 04:11, said:

For the paranoid everything is suspicious, if it is not out of the completely ordinary.
Bridge is the ideal game for people with such tendencies

Rainer Herrmann

Just because you call me paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get me.

[nullve]

Suppose a 2N overcall would have shown 15-17 hcp. Then West's hand is arguably too strong for that, and also for passing, so a reasonable plan would be to double first, intending to raise spades or rebid 2N, the latter suggesting something like 18-20 bal.

A thinking player sitting East would then look at his doubleton diamond and wonder why North didn't raise preemptively at these colours. E.g. if 2♦ promised 6 diamonds (as it probably did), North would be able to make a Law-ful raise with 3-card or better support, but also with doubleton support whenever he could infer that EW had an 8-card major suit fit. So from East's perspective it would definitely look like West had 3+ D and therefore most likely 18+ bal. That in itself would not be a sufficient reason for passing, but suppose East also knew that North was a particularly aggressive player who would consistently raise with doubleton support at these colours, or that North just showed great discomfort over 2♦X. Either way it would look to East like West had not just three, but at least four diamonds. That would still not be a sufficient reason for passing (and a LoTT argument would show why), but I can understand why honest non-novice players might consider it.

The most likely explanation for EW's bidding, however, is that East was a novice.

[billw55]

MrAce, on 2016-January-03, 12:12, said:

I was south and there is nothing we can do to 3 NT. On the 2nd hand perhaps you may not agree with my 5♣ but at the time I thought pd has a shapely but broke hand and opener is on my left.
Funny thing is, my RHO called his pd out for it, not me. All i had to do was to click the "remove player" button. And we kept playing and having fun. It is good thing that I do not need to have a Kit Woolsey style statistical proof to decide who gets to stay at my table. I usually wait another 8-10 boards to decide but when his pd called for it, it was good enough for me.

You could also try disallowing kibitzers. That should work if the partner is not in on it. I don't know how else he could see the hands.


As for the OP, the hand doesn't mean anything by itself. Many BBO randoms do not know takeout doubles.

[gwnn]

Nullve, what do you do with 15-17 and no stop but some tolerance for both majors? Say, AKx QJxx xxx KQx

[oryctolagi]

I have no idea how you could completely prevent cheats on BBO - at least if kibitzing is allowed. All it needs is a phone call to a 'friend' with a BBO account, and ask them to kibitz the table you're at.

But I hope the feature isn't taken away from BBO. I've been kibitzing quite a lot, when I'm not playing. It can be amusing; and it helps me to learn new techniques without committing myself. I also spot many mistakes being made - sometimes self-evident even without sight of all four hands. All good education.

But it's only a game.

[1eyedjack]

oryctolagi, on 2016-January-07, 09:04, said:

But I hope the feature [kibitzing] isn't taken away from BBO.

There is no need for concern on that front, nor any incentive to change the software. The table host or tourney host as the case may be has the option to set the tables so that kibitzing is permitted or proscribed, according to the wishes of the organiser. You will encounter a number of tourneys and tables outside of tourneys where either setting may be employed. More commonly kibitzing is set as barred in tournaments than in single club tables, at least until the closing stages of the tournament.

[Zelandakh]

nullve, on 2016-January-06, 12:49, said:

The most likely explanation for EW's bidding, however, is that East was a novice.

Also for Timo's West but even more so.

[StevenG]

Zelandakh, on 2016-January-13, 03:33, said:

Also for Timo's West but even more so.

I do not like to publicly use the "c" word, but I checked out Timo's West at the time. He(?) was on plus 300 imps over 100 boards. He cannot be a novice, therefore he must be psychic.