dbl118

I don't see why it would wash out at all if what I'm saying is true, that the quality of players differs between types of tournaments. Let's say in each tournament I'm compared to 100 players. If in one type of tournament, 30 of those players on average are "bad", I'm going to do a lot better than a tournament that requires you to pay a decent amount, where on average maybe 10 players are bad. Doesn't matter how many comparisons there are, you are comparing apples to oranges anytime you compare two totally different tournaments. In fact, the more comparisons there are, the more likely what I'm saying will be true.

I feel you are not controlling for the most important variable in all of this... the user pool. I play the daylong MP tournaments multiple times per week. They are free, and easy to do. I have never played an ACBL tournament, and despite winning free entry in the spring ACBL tournament, I didn't play that either. I believe my competition is made up of a moderate size of relatively elite players, and a lot of people that are fairly subpar players, or not trying very hard. Indeed if I take my time and possibly even take notes during the hands about cards played, it is very rare that I will score under 65% or so, largely based on my understanding of how GIB works, as well as how to fool it. If unfocused, my results can vary a lot. There are different types of players in each tournament. I play exclusively online, and almost exclusively with robots. I imagine the population that played the spring ACBL were people far more likely to play in clubs or other tournaments. They likely had less inside knowledge about how GIB bids. I am not interested in ACBL tournaments and I do not buy into the point system (I won free entry to the spring ACBL but chose not to play since I'd need to become a member).

But it doesn't always mean that. It could show a monster hand in a single suit for instance. Double is a catch all bid and is made with the understanding that it will be prepared in some way for all possible responses. Bottom line is that it is a forcing bid that will be explained more at the next point in the auction, which is difficult to do when your partner is unnecessarily triple jumping.

1. I'm fine with the double. The hand is strong you are probably bidding at least game no matter what. 2. If your 2nt agreements are clear enough that you'll be able to show this hand, then that is better. 3. I do not like 3 spades as it takes up way too much bidding room. 2sp seems plenty given the likely wasted diamonds. I'm fine with a diamond cuebid of 2d if that is available too. 4. 4 clubs is absolutely forcing in my mind. It's north's fault for making the auction so high though. 5. I'd probably respond 4d next. I think partner should be able to work out that you don't have club tolerance, and you like your spades. It leaves room for a 4h response if south has that as its second suit.

I'm more of a GIB player, but I would bid 1nt. Every time I pass in these situations it seems the opponents find a nice fit in the minors, and the opener usually wants to keep the level low. Or my partner gets in on the bidding and pushes us in to a bad fit or 3nt.

Autoplay singleton is a nice feature both for race events, and for just solo play. However I sometimes have a problem when playing with all robots. Sometimes I will be down to a single card in my hand and, and it will autoplay it. Assuming we lose the trick, GIB opponent will then quickly play another card, and it might result in another autoplay. At that point I can no longer go back and view the trick before, and GIB plays so fast I never saw the cards they played. I've gone down on hands like this before, because I lose track of trump because I don't know if GIB won the trick with a high card, or ruffed in. Overall I still like autoplay, but I wish this issue was somehow addressed, by allowing you to perhaps look back an extra trick to see what was played.

I like these 3 free daily tournaments, but I don't understand how for the total points tournament everybody can be grouped together and ranked. Yesterday I came 2122/3511. Not horrible, but not great. But when looking at the board I played, I think I had over a 60% game. The first place player didn't do much better than I did...his hands just contained better cards. I feel there should be some way of adjusting this so you are compared to your peers in some sense.

Give South another club, or the king of diamonds, and the contract is going down and maybe you have a top board. The double is aggressive, but it all certainly could have worked out.

I would bid 2d. It's worth noting that 3nt by South has a decent chance to go down, depending on the auction.

2h seems clear to me. If partner is strong, then he won't be letting you stop short of game anyway, so it probably doesn't matter since you'll get to show your diamonds later. However in the event that partner only has 10hcp or so, it makes me wonder why the opponents aren't bidding. I suspect it's because one opponent has a spade stack, and the other may have 4 hearts. 2h might be the last making contract.

This just happened. Human was North. Aside from east's terrible opening bid, west failed in the most obvious of signals and they couldn't find the easy switch. [hv=pc=n&s=s742hk4dajcqj9864&w=s5hdq986543cakt75&n=sqjt63hqj93dkt2c2&e=sak98hat87652d7c3&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp2h3cp3nppp&p=sas2s5s3hah4d3h9sks4c5s6d7dad9d2djd8dththkdqh3h5s7d5sqs8sjs9c4c7sth6c6ctdkh7c8d6hqh8c9d4hjh2cjcac2c3cq]399|300[/hv]

I'm changing my answer from council to X

council