Karert

As far as I understand or recall ACBL tourneys, they invite you to ask to be made permanent if you play six or more boards. Doesn't happen automatically, and obviously annoying if you play 10/11 boards, only to be replaced at the end, but unless you ask, I believe there's a good risk of you being booted after you've completed the tourney.

It's only been a fairly recent development, but I've noticed that sometimes (not always) when subbing, and being replaced - perhaps by the director, rather than the software (when the original player returns) - I'm not just removed from the table, but logged out of BBO. This is very annoying, particularly when no notice is given - why should I sub if someone has the control to log me out of BBO? Only today, I lost my chat history as a consequence, in the middle of a conversation, but I don't have their details, so can't follow it up.

I’ve been playing in the Express a lot – convenient when you can only commit for a few minutes. It’s a standard 2/1, confirmed in the chat when the tourney starts, and the CC is available for all to see. And conveniently in the Express, there is no chat, so no-one can “get partner to play your card” – which is an odd idea anyway, when there is a prescribed system for the tourney: which partner prevails if they have different views? Nearly none in the Express. What is actually played is a complete crapshoot: 1NT-2NT (minor transfer) is only ever played as quantitative; 1/2NT – 4NT is never played as quantitative, only ever Blackwood (but no-one knows how to count Aces, even if there are only four aces); Transfers themselves are optional; all doubles mean whatever is most convenient for the doubling hand – could be penalties, support, take-out, or simply lead-direcitonal; 2 Clubs (with a good partner) is perhaps forcing for one round, but can be passed if ptnr has a bad suit, and will never create a game-forcing auction; Being a 2/1 system, there is actually no game-forcing bid – in response to an opening bid, or otherwise, as 2-level responses can mean anything; if a partnership agrees a trump suit, a trial bid/cue bid/splinter, will all obviously be better suits to play in, so you can be sure you’ll be dropped in that short side suit; Stayman is far too antique (and who’s ever heard of Smolen), so the only feasible reply to it Stayman is 3NT; replies to Blackwood will never, ever resemble the amount of Aces held, whether you count four aces or include King of trump. I should include the option that overcalls of 1NT are also completely random, but never follow the system of 2 clubs showing a single suit, and the majors showing the suit & a minor. Why would they? It's much easier for random players to play their own system, and expect random partners to know what they're playing! The only certainty is that the opening lead is one of the thirteen cards that player held at the start. it could be 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th highest, but at least you'll know that player held that card at the start. In the ideal world, the bidding at least (as it is the robot’s systems that often apply in individual tourneys) should be reviewed automatically, and players ranked on it, banned if they fall below a certain level. But of course, BBO would never do anything as novel as that.

The number of tables is the number of tables that played that same hand, and includes all results with the same cards - nothing to do with similarities-of-outcomes, only what else happened with the same cards. Even if a tourney had a thousand entries, not all entrants will play all the same boards as you, and any one board is typically compared to 20-30 other players/tables.

Thanks Diana.

Thanks for the efforts & answer, that makes sense, and is a fair reason. Maybe with permission from a moderator (are these available at all?) I'll be able to post with permission.

Thanks for the comments/feedback/info. I hadn't seen the other thread, but as a comment on the operation of the forums, here seemed more appropriate; I'm sure the mods could merge the threads if they deem it appropriate. And if it is because I'm not a regular on the forums, that would be odd - how do you encourage comments if the routine threads like books are blocked to some?

That's the one. But whereas at the bottom of this page, I can click "add reply", on that page it has "this topic is locked".

There's a thread on favourite bridge books, promoted on the News Feed on the main site. A perfectly good discussion. But it's locked. Is there any reason why this thread would be locked? And if so, what's the point in promoting it on the news feed? Karert

When I learnt this game, my first lessons taught me that it’s based on ethics, morals – that you’re honest to your opponents: when you communicate with your partner, you don’t try to conceal the meaning of your communication (bid or carding signals) from your opponents. I know standards have slipped at even the highest levels on occasion (even in recent years), but if I ask for an explanation of a bid, I would expect it to be provided clearly & accurately – just as I would always explain as clearly as possible to my opponents. The suggestion that an opponent is cue-bidding their controls as their first bid, before even exploring a trump suit at all, is novel to say the least; when a director is complicit in this, accepts & endorses such an explanation, I think standards have slipped. And as I love this game, I think that’s very sad – it does annoy me!

WHy does this change anything about the thread? I'm asking about the specific explanation of the cue-bid - which the director said was a standard, control-showing cue-bid (although no suit was agreed). Regardless of what views are held about the bidding (some of which I understand & agree with in principal), it's the question about the cue-bid - and whether you can cue-bid without even agreeing a suit - that I was asking about. Possible wild distributions of the cards should not change the meaning of a bid. Edit to add: I really don't understand the comment from smerriman. Do people play a different style of cue-bidding based on the style of deals? It's either a control-showing cue-bid (which would infer a singleton/void on my left, despite not having an agreed suit that you're showing controls in support of); or it's a Michaels - which could still have 3!Ss on my left. Why would a goulash deal make any difference to the bid?

Thanks for the comments so far, all appreciated. We're playing in an individual tourney - assumed SAYC card - so no other formal agreements, unless the players have previously agreed something. I don't understand why pescetom would think it's a standard take-out - why not a routine take-out double? This bid should show something different to a standard T/O double. (Actually, I think on reflection pescetom is expressing a perception of the director's interpretation, not their own view - apologises if I misunderstood/misrepresented your comments/views, Pescetom) I agree entirely with Felicity - I much prefer a 3!S rebid, but playing in this Goulash tourney, many players are blunt in their bidding, just blindly jump to a game/slam, so I consciously kept the bidding low, hoping I could explore controls for a possible grand. And I agree too with Helene - thank you for your views. I thought it was a ridiculous description to simply say "cue", and then tell me to read a book. I expected the director to assist, but as I described, they were no help. If they simply said "Michael's - !Hs & a minor" I would have been more than happy; even "Michaels" would have been enough. But to describe it as some sort of control-showing cue-bid, with no description or inference of suits held at all, I thought was ridiculous - particularly when that view was offered by the director!

I faced the bidding sequence below, and asked about the 3!S overcall - sounds like a routine Michaels, but some players go rogue, so I asked for clarification, and apparently it's not. [hv=pc=n&n=sakqt98654ha52d3c&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp2cp2dp2s3s]133|200|[/hv] I was advised it's a cue-bid, "and if y dont know what ios a cue go read bridge book". I've read some books in the past, and I've always considered a standard "cue-bid" (as opposed to say, a Michaels cue-bid) is used to show a control, when a suit is agreed, normally exploring for slam. I called for the director of the tourney, seeking a clarification, and the director ruled that "cue bid not only michael, its different. He just showed short in spade and ask to his partner for bid excepting of spade". Am I going crazy? When did the bridge world start cue-bidding controls before even agreeing a trump suit? Is it customary now just to bid controls, and hope we find a fit at the end of the sequence?

We all know when the game is up, when a contract is down, the number of tricks is clear. And playing in a 3-robot tourney, the quick & easy way to move onto the next hand is the claim button (on this hand, conceding one down). I was playing day-one of the Weekend Survivor when this hand came along- a reasonable grand, the bidding (pre-dealt & bid hands) puts us in a small. Odds against, West has all five trumps - even the small can't make in clubs. After playing a trump, I paused to consider any remote end-play against West, how I could reduce trumps & put West on lead, but I don't think there's any options - West's trumps are too many & too high. For no good reason, I played out the hand anyway... and a silly error from GIB gave me the contract - GIB throws away a winning trump trick for no obvious reason at trick 6 - hands me the contract, and with it c.99.5% of the match points. http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=Karert&s=SAQHDAJ9854CKQT73&wn=Robot&w=ST43H752DT3CJ9854&nn=Robot&n=SK52HAJ93DKQ7CA62&en=Robot&e=SJ9876HKQT864D62C&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=P1N(notrump%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-5%20%21H%3B%202-5%20%21S%3B%2015-17%20HCP%3B%2018-%20total%20points)2D!(Cappelletti%20-%20majors%20--%205+%20%21H%3B%205+%20%21S%3B%2011+%20total%20points)3C!(Lebensohl%20--%205+%20%21C%3B%2010+%20total%20points%3B%20forcing%20to%203N)P3S(3-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-5%20%21H%3B%202-5%20%21S%3B%2017-%20HCP%3B%2017-18%20total%20points%3B%20forcing)P4D(Cue%20bid%20--%205+%20%21C%3B%20%21DA%3B%2016+%20total%20points)P4N(Blackwood%20%5BC%5D%20--%203-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-5%20%21H%3B%202-5%20%21S%3B%2017-%20HCP%3B%2017-18%20total%20points)P6C(Odd%20number%20of%20keycards.%20Void%20above%20C%20--%205+%20%21C%3B%20%21DA%3B%2016+%20total%20points)PPP&p=DTDQD6D4C2H8CQC4C3C8CAS6C6H4CTCJSTS2S7SACKC9H3H6C7C5H9D2SQS4S5SJD5D3DKS9SKS8D8S3HAHTD9H2D7HKDAH7DJH5HJHQ