silvr bull

I played against a guy and his robot partner. The guy opened 1M and the robot responded 2C, with an alert that said 2C was forcing to 3NT. The guy raised to 3C but the robot passed! Partner and I chuckled, but the guy (who may have paid to rent the robot) was not amused since 3NT was an easy make.

The thread http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76274-bbo-connection-problems/ has more about this. My wifi internet worked great with every site except BBO, where I had very frequent connection problems. I also noticed that my primary computer (a laptop close to the router) wifi connection speed was only a few Mbps, but the speed on a different computer much further away from the router was much faster at 20 Mbps. A local tech suggested I connect by either net cable instead of wifi. I would have bet a lot that a cable could not solve my problem, but I would have lost that bet. My speed using a cable immediately increased to 20 Mbps and I have had almost no connection problems on BBO since switching to cable. My guess is that my primary laptop was too close to the router so the wifi signal was so strong that it caused glitches that BBO reacted to, but that did not affect other sites. As a first step in trouble shooting your wifi problems on BBO, try moving your tablet further away from the router so your signal strength will be reduced.

My guess is that N would open 2S if he had QJxxxx void xx QJxxx, but he needs something like that for the red jump to 4S. I will play him for a H honor and 3 or 4 clubs instead of CQJxxx. So I play the HA first, then lead toward the HJ.

Playing normal weak two bids and a strong artificial 2C, partner opens 2C but the next opp bids something at the 2, or 3, or 4 level. What type of hand would you double with? If the game format (MPs, IMPS, etc.), or the vulnerabilities, or the bid level would change the meaning of your double, please expand the discussion.

I would not let the opps play 4S, so I plan to push to the 5 level if the opps bid 4S. With the OP hand, I really want to tell P about the C lead, so I will bid 3H now and expect to bid 4C or 5C over their S bid. Change the hand texture to x KJxxx xx QJxxx (so I do not want a C lead against 5S), and I will bid 5H immediately to let the opps guess with minimum information.

At the table, I jumped the West hand to 2S, and partner reasonably bid 3D. That start made it impossible for us to bid higher than 6NT. After the hand, I commented that maybe it would have been better to RKC directly over the 1H bid. The plan would be to ignore the S suit and go directly to 6NT, but with an added bonus along the way. By asking again, I could confirm that we have all 5 key cards, just in case the HK mattered to East. On this hand, East would then have no problem correcting 6NT to 7H. After the H lead, I decided to set up a simple squeeze against either opp hand holding long S and the DJ, but with the added bonus possibility that S might hold all the high Cs (or N could have a stiff honor). So I cashed the CA before overtaking the DQ to run the Hs. Then the squeeze was automatic until I came down to SAKQx in dummy, and learned that the opps S were 3=3. LOL Thanks for the replies.

I do a first quick 4-3-2-1 count to triage the hand into groups (bad, OK, good, great, etc). Then I do soft adjustments to several factors (bidding, fit, suit lengths, supported tens and nines, etc.) more as plus or minus than numerical count adjustments.

13 top tricks on any lead except a H. How can we bid it? [hv=pc=n&w=sakq98hkdkqcat974&e=s52haqjt94dat97c8&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p]266|200[/hv] We got to 6NT. Our problem was that East did not know West has the HK, and West did not know East has solid Hs. Fun play problem too. 13 top tricks on any lead except a H, so N led a H, of course. How do you set up the squeeze for the 13th trick?

This hand could have the values for an opening bid, but only if E has a S fit. If E has x or xx in Ss, this hand will be a disappointment to him. If E does have a fit in S, then he will often bid too high. My guess is that the risk of a pass out when your side can plus in 2 or 3 S is less than the risk that E will overbid to a negative score. I prefer to pass the W hand as a desirable way to limit it (to reduce the risk of over optimism by partner), and hope I can then show values later by aggressive bids.

One of the problems with tournaments that enable the Tournament address in the chat box is that many players will select "Tournament" to send a greeting or thank the directors, but then forget that their later messages are also going to be seen by everyone (because the Tournament address remains active until a player changes it).Then those players will discuss the hand (that others may still be playing), or criticize their partner, or something worse. I would like BBO to set "Table" as the default address for any chat during a tournament. A player could change that address to Tournament to send a message for all to see, but after that message is sent, then the default Table address would be restored. Unless the sender clicks Tournament or Opponents for a destination on each chat message, then chat messages would be sent to the table instead of being distributed to everyone in the tournament. That change would make tournament chat messages more meaningful by filtering out some of the "noise" that the senders did not intend to be seen by all.

After an immediate double of our 1NT open, we use a simple escape method (described by someone else here) that does not use transfers: Pass is to play, so responder needs to have some useful cards; XX asks opener to bid his best minor. If responder has Ds, then he can correct opener's 2C to 2D; 2D asks opener to bid his best major. 2C, 2H or 2S are to play and presumed to be weak. Note that this works only if the double is immediate. If 1NT P P X P P, we do not have an escape method, so we pass after 1NT P only if we are willing to play in 1NT X.

There are related issues to consider too. Key cards are offsides and critical suits break badly far too often. The BBO "Devil Dealer" deserves its well earned bad reputation. Another frequent problem I have seen in many BBO tournaments is that one side gets all the high cards, while the other side has little more than quacks (and distribution that is unusually good for defense) to work with. That could be expected for a few hands, but not EVERY hand in a tournament. It seems like BBO reuses hands intended for one player against three robots in tournaments with all human players, without changing the orientation of any of the hands, so one side has most of the good stuff throughout the tournaments. BBO is not the place to look for "normal" distribution.

An update: My WiFi was my connection problem, even though the WiFi worked very well for a different computer in another room. It started strong, but would fade to bad within a few minutes, and the bad WiFi caused the BBO disconnects. I connected by CAT 5 cable and all is well now. I also re-checked the box to use hardware acceleration, and that did improve the way BBO moved the cards, but it had no observable effect on my now strong BBO connection. Thanks!

Thanks! After the suggestion to disable hardware acceleration, I did that and my connection icon then went from 2(+/-) bars to an almost sold 4 bars. This is the best it has been in weeks! For others with Chrome who want to try it, click the three vertical dots at top right, then click settings. Scroll down to the bottom of the new window and click Show advanced settings. At the bottom of the page, un-check "Use hardware acceleration when available". Close Chrome and then restart it. I have no guess about why that would improve the connection to BBO, but it does seem to work.

We are in the minority. :( I see players opening 11 and even 10 point hands, and I can only hope it is an over bidding craze that will eventually burn out. It seems that everyone these days asks how high they can bid in most situations. When both partners are bidding their hands to the "max", disappointment often results. My approach is to ask instead how LITTLE I can bid without embarrassing myself. By choosing to bid less in questionable situations (like this OP for example), I can limit my hand early, and then bid more later if appropriate. My partners are also happy that they can depend on most of my bids to have solid values. I prefer to open 12-14 NT and I would easily pass the OP hand. Add another J (AKxx Axx xxxx Jx for example), and I would still pass if playing 15-17 NT, but I would open 1NT playing 12-14. The key difference is that opening a 12-14 1NT with my example is a limited bid, even if it is a near minimum. Opening 1 of any suit, however, is not limited until opener can rebid 1NT. When opps take any action, it can be difficult to make that 1NT rebid, and partner will imagine that my unlimited hand has more strength than it does. Limiting a hand early in the bidding pays off with significant dividends later in this situation, and in others where the hand is strong enough that it does not need to be limited so soon. :)

lots of connection problems recently. See this thread for more about that: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76274-bbo-connection-problems/

I am not trying to flog a dead horse here, but I continue to have great frustrations with the current tournaments on BBO. The Survivor series too frequently rewards Wild A$$ Guesses with totally undeserved tops, and robots do weird things when there is a small change in the bidding or play. Those robot strange changes create an undesirable luck factor for, or against, the players. Decision Point scripts in which all players would work with exactly the same bid and play information would eliminate random guesses or robot quirks, so player skill would determine the player's score. Also, the Decision Point tournaments would be played simultaneously with identical hands and scripts for all players. That would enable players to compare their results directly with their friends (which is not possible now because different players play different hands). Another frustration I have is that some players will slowly and painstakingly play each card to the end, even though they may have had all winners after the first few tricks. In a Decision Point tournament, a player's score would be reduced when they have an easy claim but fail to do so. In addition to claims speeding the game, the players choices for bid and play would be time limited, with more time for difficult decisions and less time for easy ones. Decision Point tournaments would be speedy and painless! I thought about displaying some of the worst examples, and even annotating sample Decision Point scripts, but I have seen that too many readers want to chop down specific trees rather than consider the forest of gains that Decision Point would produce. Instead of offering examples (which many see as targets of opportunity), I propose that BBO develop the software needed to run a Decision Point script and track the successes (or failures) of each player. In return, I will do the scripts and the Decision Point scores for the sets of hands to run a few Decision Point tournaments, with a Silvr Bull byline for credit (or disgrace). I will also take the heat for the thousands of micro complaints about my specific choices. Despite those complaints, I am convinced that Decision Point would be a very popular format. Better players than me would be happy to create the scripts and Decision Point scores for tournaments they would get credit for. Decision Point tournaments could be created by knowledgeable players in just about any bidding system and language, so players would not be limited to SAYC robot rules or English language. My guess is that within a few months, player demand would cause BBO to transition from the current Daylong and Survivor types to Decision Point tournament formats. How about it, BBO? When can we get started on Decision Point tournaments?

My 6GB RAM memory was insufficient, and I had frequent low memory warnings when I had too many webpages open. Coincidentally and not related to this connection problem, I previously purchased 16GB for a memory upgrade. I installed that new 16GB RAM today, and I went to BBO to test if that would solve the connection problem. My first logon got 3 bars. My second logon was only 2 bars , so I doubt that deficient RAM would cause the connection problem, or surplus RAM would cure it. I also tested my internet speed and it was similar to when I had the connection issues. I continue to think that BBO internals are the most likely cause of connection problems. Perhaps BBO needs to upgrade the memory or speed of its servers?

During play today, I watched the BBO connectivity icon and did several speed tests with 0-1 bar (low connectivity) and several more tests with 3-4 bars (high connectivity). The speed test results were similar, and several times the speed was higher with 0-1 bar than it was with 3-4 bars. My sometimes bad BBO connectivity is not caused by internet issues, but is a problem within BBO. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

A simple way to do this is take a screenshot before you close each hand. Save the screenshots, and then you can review them as long as you like. Lots of software lets you take screenshots, or even screen capture videos. My favorite for screenshots is http://www.irfanview.com/.

I have had connection problems on BBO a few times, and yesterday was very bad. The connection icon at the top right of my screen dropped from the maximum of 4 bars down to 3, then to 2 and 1 and zero several times. At zero bars, my screen freezes, and I cannot enter a chat message. Once I was dropped out of a tournament but I was able to reenter soon enough to continue. While my BBO icon showed zero bars, I checked other websites and they worked normally, so I do not think this is a problem with my internet. The next time I see this situation, I will do a speed test to be sure the problem is with BBO. For now, I just want to raise the issue so others with similar problems can contribute. If anyone else has a similar problem and wants to check their internet while BBO does not connect, the speed test link below is an easy way to do so. http://www.speedtest.net/

Pass, and hope North doesn't bid either. 1S (or 2S if you could somehow stop there) could be your only plus, If this is a typical BBO "random" deal and you bid any number of NT, robot W will lead one of its 7 Ds to the AK tight in E, then E will shift to the CQ from QJx and you will enjoy pitching top Ss on the unending minor suit winners in W. In a money bridge game, dealt and played by humans, I picked up Axx Axx AKQJTx x. After P P 1D, I hoped P might have a 5 card major (instead of long Cs), and I said double. Then redouble by the LOL on my left and P P back to me. There is a risk that RHO could have 7 Ds and a major suit void, but I was there to gamble and I passed too. Imagine P's emotions as he went from the agony of defeat to the thrill of victory!

Many times I have spent a long time (seems like minutes) to draft and proofread a great message to send through chat. As soon as I click send, however, BBO tells me that I cannot chat because the other player is in a tournament (that may have just started), or he is my partner (and the next round just started). OK, I understand that I cannot chat then, but I would be happy to save a copy to send later. Unfortunately, BBO goes too far by deleting my message so it no longer exists, and I must start that message over. If my chat window is pointed at partner and I try to send a message while we are playing, BBO refuses to send the message, but does not delete it, so I can change the pointer to the table and send it OK. What can't BBO do the same thing with other chat messages that BBO will not deliver? Provide the non delivery notice but do NOT delete the message. A related issue that happens to me frustratingly often is when I am chatting with partner after a tournament. I type away (using a hunt an peck typing system so I must stare at the keyboard), and then press enter to send. Only then do I see that BBO popped up a screen with tournament results, and gave that screen priority, so all the typing I did after the popup (that I did not see) is wasted time because those keystrokes were ignored by the priority popup. Can BBO give users the ability to tell BBO to not give priority to tournament results messages? Then I could look at them later if I want to do so. I would be happy to eliminate the results messages, since I can easily see those results in My Hands. BBO can make the site more user friendly by giving users some control over how BBO displays messages. Thanks!

My system preference is two way Stayman (instead of transfers) over 1NT, so 2D (by an unpassed hand) would be game force Stayman. That treatment makes slam tries easier, especially in minor suits. If opener bids 2M, then a raise to 3M would be a mild slam try that invites opener to que if interested. If opener does not have a 4 card major, then I will bid 3S followed by 4H, and hope he does not have the dreaded 2=2=4=5 shape.

[hv=pc=n&s=s5h984dqt54caj983&w=sat73hkjt7dj92c76&n=sj64ha532dak7cq54&e=skq982hq6d863ckt2&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=ppp1c1s2c2s3cpp3sppp]399|300[/hv] My apologies for the subterfuge question about bidding. Both the 2C (self defense from CHO! in an Individual!! on BBO!!!!) and final pass (happy that the opps had not bid 4S) seem so obviously correct to me that I would not have wasted readers' time with posting that question alone. Fortunately, the diverse comments here make that portion of my OP worth the time to read. FYI, 3S was down one for an average score because many other pairs were allowed to play in 3C (making 3), or they doubled 3S (down 1). I really did want opinions about the opening lead, but if I posted only that part, more responses might have been "altered" than were already. The CA is such an obvious lead, after CHO bid Cs twice, that posters could guess that the winning lottery ticket would have a different number. The reason I posted that question is after the hand, CHO almost shouted into the chat box that I was an idiot because everyone knows that his C rebid told me specifically to NOT lead Cs. Normally, I would dismiss that chatter as the ravings of a double dummy resulter, but this time could have been a little different. This CHO self identified as an Expert, and he had a substantial accumulation of BBO masterpoints to back that up. I wanted to see if his clear and unambiguous statement (that his C rebid told me to NOT lead Cs) could be something I had not heard before but should know about. No offense intended to that CHO, or to any of the posters here. An additional comment on the opening lead question. If I had reason to worry that leading the CA might lose a trick for us (if RHO bid NT, for example), then the H9 would have been my 2nd choice. But absent any additional information, the question is whether the CA or H9 is more likely to win or lose. The risks of leading a C are obvious, but a H is not risk free either. Imagine CHO's reaction if one opp had HKTxx and the other had HAJx with a stiff C. Then the H lead would not only give away the HQ guess, but it would also make the C trick disappear. My guess now is the same as it was at the table, that both round suit leads have approximately similar risks. If that is true, then I fall back to an old axiom. If I lead the suit CHO bid (TWICE in this case), and it turns out to be not best, then we share the blame. If I guess a different suit, then I better be right or the blame is all on me. Thanks for all the input.