EarlPurple

[hv=d=n&v=b&w=sa6hj10642d6ckj1063&e=s852ha83dakcaq982]266|100|Scoring: XIMP[/hv] Hands are rotated. North passed, East opened 1NT, West bid a 2♦ transfer to hearts, doubled by North. East completed the transfer and South bid 3♦. Subsequently you end up in 6♣ by West with no further opposition bidding. ♦Q is led. When you eventually try trumps, North is void. So you cannot fully eliminate spades and diamonds while drawing all the trumps and leaving trumps in both hands before losing a heart. That means you must pick up hearts for just one loser by attacking the suit yourself. What do you think is the best way to do that? The following lines are options: - Start in hand with the jack. If North plays low, run it. Next round lay down the ace and hope to find North with Hx. If North covers, take the ace and lead one back to the 10. So either way you pick up Hx with North. - Start by leading a low heart from dummy. If South jumps in with an honour, on the next round finesse against North. - Lay down the ace, hoping to catch a player with a singleton honour, or KQ alone in any hand. This may also work as part of a partial-elimination. - Any other line? Not important what worked at the table. I would like to know what the correct line is.

I've watched a lot of bridge. Both on vu-graph and tourneys etc. I have found it to be the case - whenever a player goes into the think tank, they inevitably then emerge with the wrong card (or bid). So I will ask the "experts" - why do you think so long when it obviously doesn't help?

It is good that you admit to your shortcomings in the game - that way you are far more likely to become a good player than many of those who think they have already achieved that status. Most of BBO don't post here (I don't know why I don't see these forums under the links in the "Explore" section, but maybe I've looked in the wrong place).

I agree with your points, Nikos. It would be a relatively minor change, I guess, to change the broadcast message (i.e. the "live vugraph in progress.." message). I would prefer, however, if they could somehow arrange for vugraph results to go to a site a bit like the tourney results ones. May be kinder on the server too as I guess these results are stored on a different server.

I don't know what your standard is, but helium in the post below yours is looking for a partner and is also from Norway.

I thought that something like that may be the case. In that case you can use some delaying tactics. It might take a bit of programming but it would be an exercise. Firstly make the room invisible, so from the outside nobody sees it (and nobody new can enter), but it does not immediately go offline. Then perform a scheduled "boot" of each player at a time, but at a rate the server can handle, so, for example a loop of while ( specs_remain) { boot_spec( BOOTS_PER_CYCLE ); sleep( SLEEP_TIME ); } The boot_spec() command would simply tell the player that the broadcast is over (like it does now). They need not know that for the next 20 seconds or whatever some of the other spectators might not have been removed yet.

So you want an option to automatically ban enemies? That seems a feasible option but to apply to the host only, though. By the way, there are options to make other lists on BBO, so perhaps you could have different types of ban-lists. There are players I want to mark that I don't want to partner but that doesn't mean I want to exclude them from kibitzing at my table or ignore their chat, etc. So maybe a "ban people from list <x>" option.

oh, let me know. I am very good at fixing bugs...

I think it would be a good idea, when a substitution has been made, to put the name of the original player in the tournament results. Particularly if the substitute played fewer than half the boards (and the original player did). But in any case, the substitute would be playing on behalf of the player they replaced, which is, I think, how it works normally when substitutes happen in real-life tourney situations. Perhaps, the substitute could be informed when he joins who he is subbing for, so he knows when he looks up in the results how well they were placed. But I'm sure the sub will always do their best.

I was running a tourney and there were loads of connection problems, which led me to increasing the length of the rounds. I wanted to reduce the length of the tournament from 10 boards (5 rounds of 2) to 8 (4 rounds of 2) because I was getting concerned with all the disconnections, and wanted to get the tourney over quicker without abandoning it completely. It was, after all, a free "fun" tourney, so it seemed the best idea. When I tried editing the tournament and modifying the number of boards, I hit "Ok" but it failed to work. The number of rounds remained 5 (we were at the end of round 3 at the time). I got no error message, and the field was not disabled, but it did not work.

Some vu-graph commentators you may speak to (have +++ in their profile) and some do not. My suggestion is as follows: a general principle in GUI programming: - if something is not allowed, don't let the user do it. (Rather than letting them do it then giving them a message telling them it is not allowed). Therefore, if a commentator is of the type that cannot be disturbed, do not allow the user to send them a message, i.e. if the user clicks on their name, no chat box comes up. That's the "what". I leave the "how" up to you. But I wonder if the software stores the status of the commentator or whether it scans their profile every time a kibitzer sends them a message. Clearly the first looks more optimal (and we want to optimize, don't we).

Zmud99 has said a couple of times that he cannot close the theatre room if there are more than 400 spectators. Why not? Is this problem going to be resolved?

Adding to that, by the way, it is very easy to privately "kibitz" a player without them knowing by looking up their hand records on the online hand viewer site. Is that going to be considered abuse too?

Isn't the English word skeptic with a k ? But not everyone on here speaks English well and wouldn't necessarily know what septic means anyway, or that the name might be insulting. Perhaps there should be better guidelines of what is allowed in kib-chat? I think the fun of kib-chat is to discuss the hands being played. This may lead, on occasion, to criticising the players, but it is not meant as a direct attack on the player. Everyone makes errors. We laugh more when the player who makes the error is otherwise an expert. We do that to professional sportsmen too. That's why most kibitzers prefer to go to watch the star players. There may, however, be occasions, where we want to watch other players to assess them - we may be considering partnering such a player ourselves, and want to see how they play first. I have no idea what spectators are saying about me when I play, but if I make an error and get a grilling for it in the gallery I probably deserve it. And it won't bother me, unless the spectators then don't around broadcasting this error to the world as large, thus telling everyone what a useless player I am to have made such an error and to avoid partnering me, and I don't think anyone ever goes to such extremes. In fact if I post a hand based on records I only show player's names if they have made a skilful play, not on their errors, with perhaps a rare exception that I am doing a match report, and all the players need to be listed. Anyone who doesn't believe me should go and read my articles on Brighton 1994-97 on my website. Can you see anywhere where I insulted players there?

I was referring to a situation where the switch would happen automatically if a player disconnected. (Directors on BBO have to resolve more connection problems than actually do any directing. Anything that can be done to help automate the process would help). Perhaps give the player a minute to return before making the switch.

Here you are referring to playing in a tourney and restricting who kibitzes you, even though kibitzers cannot be heard by players. You are just worried about what they might say about your play behind your back?

I have 3.9.0 but I usually have music playing on my PC. Do you hear the sound even if BBO is in the background at the time? And will you hear it if there is music playing?

Maybe doofik and this kibitzer often end up kibbing the same table because they happen to be using the same criteria when choosing who to kibitz, i.e. they both happen to like to watch the same star player? Or that, perhaps, they are attracted to a table that has lots of other kibitzers? There is, on MSN, a "hide cards from kibitzers" option, and perhaps you could have an option here. While it won't prevent kibitzers, it will mean those players have option of not having kibitzers watching them with double-dummy information. I am pretty certain, however, that doofik's problem is that the kibitzer in question likes to discuss the hands with other kibitzers (not with the players). But in this case there is the option of putting them on the enemy list and blocking the chat so you don't see it.

East could be 4-4 in hearts and clubs, which would give West a very shapely hand (strange he passed in first seat). My temptation is to cross to ♥A and lead a low one to the queen. Does my queen win? Does West show out on this trick? Still, if East has 4 hearts but only 3 clubs I will have 5 clubs tricks, 2 hearts and 2 diamonds (or a spade if East goes for them), though I could go down on a spade shift now, then ♦ back to East's ace and another spade, still there is no 100% line. Clearly can't run my clubs now even if they break (my hand is horribly squeezed).

Why can't partner pass 2NT? What does partner do holding 4-4-3-2 and insufficient values to invite 3NT?

I have devised the following 2 systems: =================================== "Asptro" opening bids As part of my strong diamond system, my 2 level bids are asptro based (except the opps have not opened 1NT). Therefore 2♣: hearts and another suit 2♦: spades and another suit 2♥: weak 2 in hearts 2♠: weak 2 in spades. With 5-4 in the majors, show the shorter suit. Responses to 2♣ and 2♦: With 4 card support for partner's major, support it. With 3 card support, do so only with a side-suit singleton. Otherwise bid the "middle" suit. However the opening bid is non-forcing and you may pass it if you hold the suit and no wish to compete further (eg xx xx KQJxxx xxx, certainly you will pass a 2♦ opening bid by partner). Strength is, of course, according to circumstances. In front of partner, it shows a limited hand just below opening strength, so around 7-10 (but may be 6 with well-placed values). If partner has passed we can stretch the range further (particularly if green) because we are not pre-empting partner out of game. It can also depend on whether the suit combination is one that allows you to always stop at the 2-level. 2♣ pass 2♠ is natural and non-forcing. To force responder can bid 2NT or bid to the 3-level (but not in the suit partner has promised, which would just be a pre-emptive raise). After 2♣ pass 2♦, bid your 5 card suit, or pass if that suit is diamonds. Similarly after 2♦ pass 2♥ you bid your 5 card suit or pass if that suit is hearts. If the 5-card suit is the major and partner does not like it, then 2NT asks for the minor (the other suit will always be a minor). With 5-5 in the majors, opener can choose between 2♣ and 2♦. Either one allows you to stop safely. Perhaps you should show the weaker one, thus "relegating" it to a 4-card suit. ============================================ "Multi-Benji opening bids". This incorporates weak bids into Benji 2-bids. So 2♣ and 2♦ have strong options. 2♣ is either a "strong 2" bid in any suit, 20-21 balanced or a weak 2 in diamonds. Partner will normally respond 2♦ which you pass when weak otherwise show your hand by rebidding your suit or NT. 2♦ is either an unconditional game-force or a weak 2 bid in a major. Partner assumes the latter, and responds 2♥ unless he has a good hand or a good fit for hearts - in the latter case rebid 2♠. Any other response is forcing. I haven't worked out what opener should do with a strong hand if partner makes a non-negative response (leap straight to 7NT?) 2♥ and 2♠ show 5-5 in that suit and a lower ranking suit. 2NT response asks for the other suit. Haven't worked out what 2NT should mean here.

Just because you have the boss suit do you really have to go out and bid it right away? With the use of negative doubles, you often will not lose the spade suit. Holding 4-4 in the majors, if you are going to open with one of them, then 1♥ is better. Partner can raise it or bid 1♠ himself with 4. The opps will only be able to compete in the minors, unless, of course, your partner has no more than 1 spade in which case the opps have 8 and can compete in the suit. But I don't think that's reason enough to open it, after all you might be happy to defend a spade contract by the opponents if you know trumps break 4-1. Opening 1♠ and rebidding 2♥ on a 4-4 hand is plain wrong in my opinion, and is either going to land you in lots of 4-2 fits as partner gives preference to spades, or you'd have to use 2NT as "run-out" instead of forward-going.

This came up in a different discussion but it led me to think of the advantages of playing a 1♦ overcall (obviously the opps open 1♣) as follows: 1♦ overcall shows 4-4 in the majors and a weak hand. It is a semi-constructive bid. If partner has not passed, the bid is limited to 6-9 points If partner has passed, we can probably allow 5-11. You may wish to vary it according to vulnerability. So maybe vulnerable you'd play it as 8-11 (partner not passed). The purpose is two-fold (1) allow partner to compete in the majors (2) possibly disrupt the opponent's auction - while 1♦ itself removes no bidding space, you are hoping partner can with his bid. The disadvantages are: (1) You lose the natural 1♦ bid. With such a hand you may have to pass and hope to compete later. (2) You may place the cards for the opponents. This method could be used whether 1♣ was natural, prepared, strong or has multiple meanings. (If 1♣ is strong, you may decide to play a wide range even if partner has not yet passed). By the way, would anyone be able to run a frequency simulation to see how often such a hand will occur?

By the way, now we have this, and dummy cannot see the opponents cards, would it be possible to implement a feature whereby the director can move the dummy across to play the hand when his partner his frozen? Maybe even this could be done automatically if a player disconnects? (Yeah, ok, a weak player with a strong partner could quit on purpose to let his partner play it, then reconnect, but how many players do you know who will do that?)

oh, and once we've registered as a sub, if we are subsequently invited to play, have the invitation come up in the forefront, in case I happen to be here and BBO is in the background. And if a player does nothing for a certain period of time (when it is their turn to do something) then mark them as "idle" and let partner sub them out. Will solve a lot of problems.