silvr bull

The quote below (from this link recently posted in a different thread) explains why my TCR was reduced when I had to leave a tournament I was a substitute in: "Substitutes do not get penalized if they fail to complete a tournament due to being replaced by the tournament director" (my added emphasis) It appears that the TCR is reduced if a substitute leaves for any other cause than replacement by the director. In my case, I tried to minimize the disruption to the other players by logging off from BBO immediately after I messaged the TD to tell him I had to leave. In an earlier chat exchange when I told a different TD that I wanted to leave, he told me to just go because he did not like quitters. I thought that logging off BBO would "encourage" the TD to find a substitute quicker than if I just asked him to do that. I learned, however, that BBO does not penalize substitutes who want to leave early ONLY if they stay in place but refuse to bid or play until the other players press the TD to replace the substitute. The link above also says "but if they complete the tournament in which they are subbing, it counts as a plus for their TCR." Does that mean substituting into the final hand and finishing that hand improves a substitute's TCR? If playing only the last part of the final hand is not sufficient, then what (% of the tournament, or number of hands) does a substitute need to do to get TCR credit? If BBO really means "Subbing is an excellent way to increase your TCR percentage.", then BBO should consider eliminating TCR penalties when a substitute leaves for any reason.

Que bidding a KQ (like in the West hand) as a first round control creates a risk. What if the East hand was x void AKQxxxx AKQxx? Then the only card that matters to East is the SA, and East will likely bid the Grand if West que bids 4S as a first round control. I think the OP bidding should go: 2C - 2D 3D - 4D (Good hand and good support. Let's talk about slam.) 4H - 5H (Slam looks good, but I have no 1st round controls. Is the HK is a key card for you?) 7D

When I played controls, my 2NT was specifically three kings to get some small chance at right side when we play in NT. Now, I prefer 2H as an immediate "double negative" (to quickly tell my sad story and to caution opener against over enthusiasm), and 2D waiting with a king or better. If opener raises my weak 2H to 3H, then I can pass with a very bad hand. If opener bids a different suit, then I treat it as a one round force.

I have concerns about both count and attitude signals in NT. If partner expects count and hi-lo is an even number, what do I play from T2 after a low spot is led and dummy plays an honor? The ten can easily be too valuable to waste as a signal. If partner expects attitude, I will have the same problem but with T9 doubleton, and no way to show a negative attitude. Another problem can be if a doubleton or stiff honor wins in dummy after partner leads a spot card. What should I play from T92 and no attitude? If I give count with the 2, Declarer may have KJ or QJ doubleton, and the suit is blocked. I prefer Foster Echo the first time we lead any suit against NT. Foster Echo is an easy signal to understand (and easy to remember too!), but knowing that I have one card higher than I have played will often give partner enough information. At trick one with the OP West, I would play the D9 to promise that I have one card higher than the 9. Then after winning the C, I would lead back the D8. Partner would not know for sure who had the not yet played 4 and 3, but he would know that I still have one card higher than the 9.

If the North hand had stronger Hs and weaker Ss, like KTxx KQxxx Tx XX, I too would overcall 1H. With the OP hand, however, I would double 1D to get both majors into the auction. I view the strong 4 card S suit as a more important feature than the 5th H in a hand so weak that I can barely justify any bid at all.

Soon after I relocated my computer closer to my router, I had very bad BBO connection problems. There is more about that here (http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76274-bbo-connection-problems/), but the short solution was to connect my computer by cable instead of WiFi. At 8' apart, my WiFi signal was so strong that it overwhelmed my laptop computer's receiver and that resulted in garbage in the signal. For anyone who is close to their router and has connection problems, my first advice is to try moving the computer to a greater distance away from the router.

I pass the OP hand in either system. When I must choose between bidding more or less, I usually bid less until I can limit my hand, and then bid more if there is opportunity later. If I open this hand, partner will always expect more than I have, because I could hardly have less. If I open 1S and partner responds with a forcing 2H, I don't know how to tell partner that my hand got worse and I wish I hadn't opened.

My bidding style is the same as this, except with less than 6 points responder says PASS. Responder first bids a 4 card major, even if his Ds are much better, unless his hand is strong enough to reverse into his major later. With that agreement, a 1NT (15-17) rebid by opener is automatic. If responder bids 1D and there is a 4=4 major fit, responder will have a strong hand and will bid his major next.

I don't know of any way to slow robot play, but there is an easy work around. Just click the closed trick BEFORE you play to the next trick. The trick will open and you can look at all the cards played in it. I sometimes have the opposite problem. After clicking the trick, it opens in a way that partially hides the cards of my RHO. When that hand is dummy, I cannot see some of the cards there until the open trick closes automatically after a few seconds.

I will gamble with the DK. If I try a passive lead, I expect it is more likely that I will get end played later than that I will win two D tricks. The most I can hope for is that partner will have a king or a QJ to take a major suit trick. On a good day, partner can have DTxxx and my DK lead could force an entry into partner's hand for a C shift. On a REALLY good day, dummy will have 3=3=2=5 and declarer will have 4=4=2=3. Then the top D lead will give us at least 5 tricks (4 D + a C), if partner can stop one of the major suits.

Thanks for your clarification above without adding insults. I added a comment to my post #32 to say thanks for your helpful suggestion that I should make my comments earlier. BTW, if you are the West OP with a hand like void void QJxx KQJxxxxxx and South opens 2S, what would you bid?

Awww, isn't MrA** cute? He has a personal vendetta against me. When others post ideas he disagrees with, he can sometimes respond with something reasonable. But when MrA** sees me post, all he can do is froth at the mouth and pound insults into his keyboard. I have pity for MrA**, just like I would for an idiot savant who cannot tie his own shoelaces. Note that I have never tossed a first insult at MrA**, but I am forced to respond when he insults or attacks me. Note too that I did not criticize the 5S bid by MrA**. I simply said that for me, a jump to 4C is strong and a jump to 5C could be necessary with a hand like void void QJxx KQJxxxxxx. What would you do with that hand MrA**? To quote a legend in his own mind, "You have unlimited time to respond to a topic. You do not have that luxury at the table or in BBO!" In fairness, I must admit that MrA** excels at making assumptions. Maybe MrA** assumed that 4C would be Leaping Michaels before his very quick bid of 5S. Some people say that assume makes an ass of u and me. However, in a sportsmanlike spirit of friendship, I am willing to offer MrA** a wager. In all my years of playing bridge, I have never bid or agreed to bid Leaping Michaels. My bet is that there are a few other people who play in BBO that also do not agree to a Leaping Michaels bid convention. If I lose this wager, I will publicly admit that MrA** is better at some parts of bridge than I am. In contrast, if he loses the wager, then I expect MrA** to admit that he is not ALWAYS right. Deal or no deal, MrA**? Edit to add: I am happy to discuss comments about Decision Point, but I prefer to do that in the Decision Point thread. I have confidence you can find that thread, if you have comments to make, but I am less confident that you can post reasonable comments without cloaking them in attacks or insults.

i am late to this party, but I wanted to offer my lonely vote that pass could be best. I read many comments here that said West must have a HUGE hand because of the rule to not preempt a preempter. I agree that a jump to 4C would show a strong hand, but I have a different view of the 5C bid. West can show a hand too good to jump to 4C by double or que first, but there is only one way to jam the auction to the 5 level immediately. Consider a hand like void void QJxx KQJxxxxxx. With that hand, I will not let the opps play 4M, and probably not 6M either. I cannot imagine bidding less than 5C immediately to force the opps to guess at a high level. I would bid 5C even if the auction was P P 2S because a passed hand opposite a weak two can make game, and because partner needs only the DA or K for me to have an excellent play for 5C. I agree with the comments about the value of discipline, and my jump to 4C would be strong and disciplined, but a jump to 5C must be an available option for a hand that cannot bid less. Edit to add a note of thanks to MrAce for "gently" pointing out that my post above would have been better if I posted it before comment #5 in which manudude03 said that a West jump to 4C would have been Leaping Michaels, which I do not bid. I will try to make my future post's more timely.

This is the second time that you have focused your attention on getting irrelevant information about me (and then broadcasting that useless information to all who read it). Wouldn't it be easier to answer simple questions than to search for and broadcast details about the person who asked the questions? If anyone in BBO will answer simple questions, here are mine: 1) Does BBO have a new policy to discourage people from being substitutes in tournaments? 2) What is the BBO policy on TCR for substitutes? 3) How many hands, or what percentage, does a substitute need to play in a tournament to improve his TCR? 4) What are the conditions that allow a substitute to leave without reducing his TCR?

Yesterday, I knew that I might need to leave sooner than a tournament would end, so I signed up as a substitute. After playing a few hands, I did need to leave, but I expected no problem. BBO in the past said that substitutes would get TCR credit for playing parts of a tournament, but would not have a TCR penalty if they leave before the end of the tournament. That was one of the attractions that made being a substitute worth the aggravation of playing with frequently bad players. Today, my TCR is below 100% for the first time in many months. Since my substitute experience yesterday was the only time I did not complete every tournament I played in, it is clear that BBO does penalize the TCR for substitutes. Does BBO have a new policy to discourage people from being substitutes in tournaments? What is the BBO policy on TCR for substitutes? How many hands, or what percentage, does a substitute need to play in a tournament to improve his TCR? What are the conditions that allow a substitute to leave without reducing his TCR?

I remember a poker version called "Pass the trash!" I hope I can bid later, but I must pass first with this so partner does not imagine I have a great hand.

This problem arose several times before, but today was especially painful. LHO opened 1NT and RHO bid 2H, which was alerted as a transfer. But then LHO passed, and the defense was confused thinking declarer had Ss. When it became evident that declarer really had only two Ss and five Hs, I almost called the director, but I waited until the end of the hand. Looking at the hand later, there were no alerts and the opps did not claim to use transfers. The alert during play was a GIB thing that appeared to tell us what a robot would mean, but that was just false information for the system the human opps used. Is there any way to STOP the false GIB alerts when humans are playing?

After using the search options at the base of each forum, I can say they work well. Thanks Lovera!! I can also add two notes of interest. First, you must be signed into the BBO forums to see or use the options for threads you started or replied to. Second, if you select one of those options and check the box to remember it, then after you sign out, you can no longer view that forum until you sign in again. If you want to view the forum while you are not signed in, select a different search option and check the box to remember it.

Are suggestions of unethical behavior like that really necessary in an intellectual discussion? :( I do not see what is so complicated about this. Full disclosure means that partner should tell the opps any relevant information about my bids and as much as he can, and I should tell the opps the comparable information about my partner's bids. Full stop. Full disclosure does NOT mean that I should describe my hand to the opps, and it does not mean that partner should describe his hand to the opps, and it absolutely does not mean that the opps deserve to gain an advantage over us by learning more than we know about the hand. Why do people make such a simple concept so complicated? If partner is not sure about the meaning of my bids, he should ask me to leave the table (the director and opps could also ask that) so he can tell the opps his best guesses about what my bids mean without telling me what he is uncertain about. How can anyone think that in a F2F game that I could be obligated to tell the opps anything about MY bids or MY 13 cards? The full disclosure that the opps deserve is my partner telling the opps what he knows or can guess about my bids, and me telling the opps what I know or can guess about my partner's bids. There is good reason why there is no self alerting in F2F games. In addition to waking a sleepy partner, self alerts would create a situation in which a player must tell the opps something about his own hand, and that is not what bridge is about. It does not matter whether or not I like the self alerting feature of BBO online. It is what it is. I comply with the letter and the spirit by telling the opps what my agreements are relative to my bids. When I have no agreements or discussions with an online partner, then I answer questions about situations in which we have no agreements with "No agreements so no information." Again I ask, why is this so difficult for people to understand? FYI, a few hours ago, I asked ACBL for clarification of this situation. I hope ACBL will post their view here.

We can agree that there is a lot of nonsense here. :rolleyes: My bids always describe the 13 cards I am holding, and my bids always fully reflect our agreements. I am so predictable :D, but sometimes partner may not interpret my bids correctly or he may not understand them at all. Anyone who says that "the director can require your partner to leave the table and then require you to tell your opponents what your agreement is" must understand that translates to the director insisting that I give the opps full disclosure about any meaning for MY bids. Since my bids mean the 13 cards I hold, the only way I can give full disclosure about MY bids is to describe MY hand in as much detail as could have ever been possibly discussed with this partner. That is exactly the equivalent of forcing me to reveal part (perhaps all) of MY hand to the opps. Consider another nonsense example. On a Tuesday a decade ago, my current partner asked me to use a specific bid sequence to show a hand pattern of 6=1=4=2 with 17-19 HCP. He called it our Tuesday convention, and I remember it clearly because I was sure it would never come up. Two days later he asked me to use a different specific bid sequence to show a hand pattern of 5=2=5=1 with 19-20 HCP. He called it our Thursday convention, and I remember it clearly because I was sure it would never come up either. Today for the first time, I have a hand that is perfect for one of those two bid sequences and I bid it happy that I could remember it after not discussing it again for a decade. Unfortunately, partner answered opp questions with repetitions of "We may have discussed something like this many years ago, but I honestly cannot remember." Anyone who says the director can force ME to tell the opps with full disclosure the exact hand pattern and strength I have for MY bids is requested to show me the law that requires me to give that much information (which partner does NOT have) to the opps. I am happy that you agree that it is nonsense in my earlier hypothetical example to expect a stranger to have any idea about the meaning of MY bids. I trust that you would also agree that it is nonsense for anyone to think the director should force ME to describe the meanings of MY bids (which cannot have ANY meaning to my stranger partner) to the opps.

I would like this to be re-considered. I agree that dropping out of a daylong should not create a TCR penalty, just like a substitute dropping out before the end of the tourney. If a daylong is completed with no dropouts, however, it should give credit to the TCR in the same way that a substitute gets credit from completing a tournament. That would be an easy rule for BBO to implement to encourage users to sign up for and complete daylong tourneys without dropouts.

Thank you! That was very helpful, and exactly what I needed to know.

I almost agree, but not quite. I see the operative words in Law 20F to be: "where these are matters of partnership understanding." The opps are entitled to know all relevant information about our partnership understandings. Where there is no understanding, however, the opps are NOT allowed to demand that I tell them what my bid meant, or what my hand looks like. In an individual playing with a stranger that I have had no previous contact with, there obviously can be no 'understandings", and nothing for either of us to alert or disclose to the opps. I can hope that partner will have enough bridge knowledge and experience to correctly guess a possible meaning for my bid, but there is no rule I know of that requires my partner to "teach" general bidding theory to the opps in hopes they will then have enough bridge knowledge and experience to guess a possible meaning for my bid. Where there is no understanding, there is no obligation to disclose more than that there is no understanding. Consider a hypothetical situation. By a lucky coincidence this morning, partner asked me what it would mean if I jump to 5M after he opens 1m. There are a few players who might not be sure what meaning to apply to that slightly unusual sequence, so I was happy to discuss it with him in some detail. Now playing an afternoon session, partner opens 1m and I pick up the perfect hand to fit our defined meaning of a jump to 5M, so that is my bid. Before the next opp can do anything, partner shouts ALERT! and he is fully ready answer any question about out agreements. Aren't lucky coincidences grand? But before the opp passes, or asks any questions, partner becomes seriously ill and must be replaced with a stranger that neither of us has had any contact with. The opps ask the substitute what my 5M bid means, but he can only shrug his shoulders and say he has no idea, so the opps call the director. I explain that I know exactly what my bid would have meant to my previous partner, but I have no guess how the substitute would interpret it. Can anyone seriously believe that the director would then tell the substitute to leave the table, and tell me to show my hand to the opps (or comparably tell the opps in detail about the meaning my previous partner and I would have understood)? If my partner does not remember a convention that we may have discussed years earlier, then I think it would be reasonable (because partner may have memories that he cannot easily recall) for a director to tell me to leave the table, and then to ask my partner for his best guess about what my bid could have meant and about what approach he will use to respond to it. But there can not be any situation in which I must show my hand to the opps, especially if that is done in a way that disadvantages partner or us (by giving information only to the opps).

i tried searching the BBO forums for a thread I started more than a year ago, but the search is always limited to the previous 365 days. How can I search for older threads? I should be able to see any thread I started or posted in since I created my BBO ID. Thanks!

I have a different viewpoint. I think you are allowed to ask only about information that BOTH opps know through their agreements. If one opp honestly forgot the previously agreed meaning of a bid by his partner (or never knew and can only guess), then I do not think you are entitled to know what the bidder meant. It is OK, of course, to ask the meaning of a conventional bid. If the responder opp answers that he does not know, then asking the bidder opp what he intended to say is the equivalent of ask that opp to show you part or all of his hand. Asking the responder opp to leave the table so you can ask the bidder opp what he meant is a request for more information about the bidder opp's hand than the responder opp can know. This situation comes up often in an individual tournament where no agreements have been discussed. If RHO opens 1H and I call 2H in a BBO individual, opps will often click the 2H bid to ask what it means. Although partner and opps should assume it is Michaels (SAYC robot standard), if I have not discussed it with that partner before, then I respond: "No agreements so no information." Opps can only ask about bid meanings we have discussed and partner remembers, but are not entitled to know more information than partner knows.