Gerardo

THe idea was after min 8, dir can do the change manually, but probably a way to assign the result to a not yet finished table is equivalent

Karl: You're right, it doesn't work at all B) Sorry! I was trying to see why do you have a fixed pair, and found it (same reason [to not repeat matches]). Maybe fixed pair can switch directions in consecutive rounds, maintaining, the same pair movement? Then all pairs have a +1/-1 difference between NS and EW, am I right? THere are other movements possible, like the first N rounds of a round robin, or Howell (these two are too similar, if not equivalent, I think, big tables), or S,p,q odd primes, p!=q #tables in section S, S>p, S>q Two lists of S pairs List 1 jumps p tables, List 2 jumps q tables (mod S) Odd rounds List 1 sits NS odd tables Even rounds List 1 sits NS even tables In this one, all pairs visits each table once, changing directions each round, never repeating opps (not in p*q rounds) Tried S not prime but then, you have to discard some rounds which repeats (when lcd(S,R)!=1) Would need sections of different size :-/

What I thought was a fixed amount, per round, all rounds, like 21 mins/round+ 4mins/round bonus. That could help some tables fo finish, and the others have to wait, but if announced in advance, should be ok. Yes, I see about 3.4.7 (should it be 3.4.8?)

As mink pointed out somewhere else in these forums, a clocked tourney is actually two disjoint tournaments, as NS pairs only competes with NS pairs, and EW competes only with EW pairs. This is solved live changing direction of boards if monosession, or changing direction of pairs if multisession. As the costs for us to move people is zero (unlike live bridge), I suggest the following movement: Pair in table N NS moves to table N EW. Pair in table N EW moves to table N+1 NS.

What about adding a bonus time per round, and a change button? When normal time is up, bonus time starts running, and host/director in charge can do the change anytime. If bonus time is up, change is done anyway. I think that could make it easier the change round work, plus, total time can remain the same as current ;)

Drawbacks of unclocked: 1) Takes too long - true ;-) 2) Playbacks - Very true 3) You can't follow a player scoresheet and movie, those are tied to the table instead. In a clocked, easier because no wild jumps of pairs from one table to another. So, if you need to review a board, you would have to wait till the end, and get if from myhands. Meanwhile, player keeps complaining about that board ;-) 4) Slowest tables get overpopulated of kibitzers, who are noisy. Silent kibitzers solves that, but sure thing someone will ask you to be a messenger, as (s)he can't communicate with a player (inside BBO). [Already happened to me] About alerts: I think most people do alert, but you still need to deal with the ones who doesn't, or who doesn't do it properly ("cue bid" [argh! HATE that one], "polish club" instead of "12-15 bal, 15+ with 5+ or any 18+", you get the point)

As you know, I like to run clocked tourneys (in minority). Those had more work to the director(s), but I like them better, because of the drawbacks of unclocked ones (which I know are being addressed, I may switch in the future, or not). I use 3 boards/round, so round ends doesn't come so ofter, which is where clocked work really are. If you run a speedball, a min of 4 boards/round would be necessary. That modifies John's points a bit, so 1) I think his numbers are conservative for unclocked, and about right for clocked. 2) I make people responsible for asking for sub a partner, so they have to ask for a sub. Being timed, they usually make an earli(er) decision about getting one. I usually take the first available, but John's way is better, will do that way. But, once partner subs you out, there is no way back. 3) That's the burden of clocked ones, at the end of round, there will be some AVE- for both on timing up. So, I request an early call on time problems to correct some AVE- to AVE+ if one pair is clearly responsible for most of the lost time. I also use to adjust requested boards when time is up, no clear responsible of lost time, and end position is clear (usually unanswered claims). 4) Agree ;-). I'd also like to punish people who leaves tourney in middle, without telling directors, or stallers, if proven.

I mean by creator. Need 3.4.6 to create a tourney with undo allowed. Guess any client is OK after that, but not sure

Not sure if tourneys with UNDO are supported at this point, I think they aren't. ......after reading about Beta 3.4.6, downloading and toured...... I take that back, but you need the 3.4.6

I'd bid 2D if you have an agreement or otherwise understanding 2D there is not to run from 1NT, but to keep the bidding open (v.g. very high chances of NOT being passed). Else, I'd bid 3D, it's a much better bid than 3NT, IMHO. Shows your distribution better, and game can be 5D or even 4S with the right cards in partner, SHOW your hand and let HIM take the decision, he's better informed than you.

I had a hand almost like that one (with the Q in the long suit instead of the little stiff x ;D, TWICE :o), in a span of 2-3 months. Long suit Spades once, Hearts the other. Both times stopped in 5, one rightfully so, to receive the lead of the side suit A (of course), the other after receiving a faulty crodo response (partner playing for 30 years, won't play anything else, and still doesn't know how to answer with two Aces). Some people suggested me to open 6M. Horrible. You may not make it, or 7 may be lay down. Guess it's a good hand for Precision, with the asking bid in the side suit :)

Brazil stopped in 5H on a brain fart, as 5H was trump Q asking. I was told the Brazilian passed, started to push the tray, then realized it and tried to correct it. At first, 5H stood, then was overruled as foul board I'm not sure why. The uruguayan pair was using flannery, so responder had 5S, plus state of the match did it.

Luis, I recognized hand 3 ;-) Hand before that EW had a 4Sx+2, so N tried a misrepresentation of his hand to create a swing back. He had 6 spades (for sure), and 14 HCP if I remember well. Partner tried XX, which he passed, down 1. They have a 8-card fit in diamonds. They argued about this hand all over that session, even more than the X with 2 overtricks of the previous hand Final note (for cursing Ben ;-): Other room was 3NT+1 by EW, so it represented 6 IMPs even XX-1, would have been 10 without the XX. North is a GREAT player ;-) (not [just] for this hand, he just got what he wished here, but XX. Maybe he was lucky, but he did it on purpose). You NEVER know ;-)

4C 4H (1st or 2nd round) 4NT (1430) 5C (1 KC) 5D (Q ask) 5NT (Have Q, no (t shown) K, extras) 6C (SSA in C) 6D (CQ or C doubleton) 6S (signing off after a positive response?) With Q: 7S, with doubleton: pass Though probably hand with doubleton have no extras, and bids 6S over 5D.

Slightly Offtopic Please DON'T do that! NEVER leave IMMEDIATELY the table. Instead, PLEASE say "Last" and leave at the END of the hand. Thank you very much

Me too, I'll allow all of them, but if game went on, and info which wouldn't be available by intended bid/play is out there, I prefer to reject it, and offer a redeal instead. About cardplaying, usually new people who played online elsewhere double-click to play cards, with the side effect an unwanted card is played :-/, so an undo may be required in such situations ;)

I wrote a note for an enemy, it vanished

To add to Rain's reprted bug about table listings, the current table, in the list appears to follow the mouse to put iself out of (alphabetical) order, while the pointer is hovering over the table list. Also, current table appears at pointer's location if you just sit for a half second or so at the table list. Maybe a feature? ----------------------------------- Very miinor nitpick, can you correct the "Venezuela" spelling before going gold (current "Venezuala"). Reported to me shortly after 3.3.9 went gold. Thank you!