broze

I look forward to it!

Wow. The worst I've seen!

Well, it would be frustrating to play all the boards and then have the other person decline the challenge or have the challenge time out. You may say that the two people might have corresponded with each other beforehand and agreed to play but in that case why not just do this on BBO in the form of issuing/accepting the challenge.

It was even how I assumed the challenges worked up until very recently!

If you play boards then it records the scores that you play. This was a very good idea on BBO's part. What is not good is that as far as I can work out if you accept the challenge late in the third day and play the boards, the person who actually initiated the challenge has basically no time at all to play it!

Finished my match with nullve. Was crushed in the first set (-56) and pulled back some pride in the second (+20) but not enough. Thanks nullve for the game and gl with the rest.

Hi Diana. I have been away but will definitely have time to play our match over the weekend.

Mrs Gren...

Nevertheless I think 64 boards is way too long - particularly for the early rounds. Difficult to fit this in (at least for me) if you're playing a round a week. If it was a v. serious tournament I would support longer rounds but feel it is unnecessary for the purpose.

Welcome to the forums delmo. It is 100% clear to pass now. You showed your hand well enough with a double and have no reason to expect the opponents will not make 4S.

I would be keen for this. I have voted for IMPs and no preference between best hand or not. I think the number of boards should increase throughout the competition. 16 boards is more than enough for the first round matches and to be honest 32 would be fine for the final imo. Playing your opponent is half the fun of the game and I see no reason why there should be any difference with robot bidding. This is a robot tournament after all...

Did we have a weak jump in diamonds available? If so what have I shown now? These questions are academic however because 3NT is clear imo. (Although partner can't possibly be 18-19 bal).

There is no reasonable alternative to 3♥ now. And I wouldn't call the hand a misfit when you have a known diamond fit! If p supports hearts you are worth another move. If he bids 3N then he likely has a singleton. Therefore you have a lot wasted so I would respect that and pass.

Good luck in the next round Thymepuns, well played.

I bid 3♣ and don't consider it close at all. Pass is wet. 1♣ is another planet

Managed a win in mine. +8 +25 +14 -11. Thanks for the game Wayne

Wayne and I almost at the end of our match now.

I was fortunate to gain a couple of the swings there. Thanks for the game

I have played my part of match one (as soon as I could). Thanks for the extension hrothgar - if I'm knocked out I look forward to the next one!

Yes sorry I have been away. I will be able to play the second half of our game tomorrow night. Hope that is okay. Thanks.

BBO said that it was Justin's dad playing SMH

I think one should preempt more agressively against better opponents. Either way I'm content with 2C here.

This is always the best way. Someone get something going and refinements will come.

I'd be up for this whether in a Swiss or a knockout. I also think that matches should be no more than 32 boards. I'm relatively neutral on IMPs vs BAM for a knockout (I agree with nige that BAM is probably a better test of skill) but for an ongoing Swiss I would much prefer IMPs. Don't mind best hand or regular. I think once a rough consensus has been reached a new topic should be created and pinned detailing the rules.

W/w MPs [hv=pc=n&s=s5ha9542dkqt83cj4&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2spp]133|200[/hv] FWIW you play a natural 2N response to a balancing double of a weak 2. Your call?