EdmundB

:lol: Star = Free fred might throw us out for this. ;-) Now, seriously, a detailed introduction to the web version might be good, as I couldn't quite find how to set up a tourney there. Or, again, instruction to this aspect of the windows client would be good. details of the web version are on this site, I'm sure, and I'll search for them half-heartedly.

thanks. I will use the web. The client has nothing like checkboxes.

I'm not really that hung up on the self assessments. Note, I'm not including "stars." :-) Just toying with the software. And there is an external ranking site.

The short version: Setting up 1-round, 4-pair tournaments, which are really team matches. Using the client software. This simplifies the process of running a team game in some ways, I think. Maybe it's just foolish. Having difficulty with the function that restricts the kind of player. Right now, would like to exclude novice / beginner / private (by including wc, exp, adv, int, but they're getting through. beginners are fine people, but in a tournament they can drive people nuts. 1. am I just screwing up by using abbreviations for world class / expert / advanced / intermediate? or am I just missing something. 2. Should I use web for tourney creation to do this? I do like the windows client, but the important thing is to get the job done.

How do the two GIB's (basic & advanced) differ?

K-S Update 1972 holds up surprisingly well, and I'm always happy to play it, with exceptionally minor adjustments (i.e. no Flint, expanded use of negative doubles, and kickback.) EdmundB

I'm curious about this secretive Masters Bridge Club. That is all. I noted that one of my kibitz-worthy friends was there, and it's as if the club doesn't exist. Except that it does.

Topic description says it all. If you know and are willing to share, thanks.

In general, I think psyche-exclusion events are not bridge, any more than 1♦ exclusion events would be. What are the best arguments, pro and con?

I'd try playing a card and then claiming.

Until we have committees, the director acts in a dual function. SirSatai is perfectly within his rights to adjust the score. But as long as he adjusts scores in this fashion, I will play in other tournaments.

What's going on? Have I been "warned" somehow? If so, for what?!

Amazing how so many people think if they make a misleading description of an illegal bid, they can call it a psyche and get away with it. If you have a method for fielding a psyche, such as checkback, it is no longer a psyche. It is part of the system. An illegal part of the system in this case. I'm a little tired of watching people psyche a weak NT and having their partner field it. Calling it a psyche isn't fooling anybody except maybe the opponents. Is that what happened here, or was this a case of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater? Damned if I know, I haven't seen the bidding after all. But I'm reasonably certain that's what the Lille case came down to. based on this line of thinking, if someone passes after psyching, then that's "fielding" the psyche.

I run survivor-style events. In this context, I am fine with players (and pairs) withdrawing at the end of a round.

This suggestion would likely be easy to implement: At the start of a tournament, list the players on the TD's chat. Whenever a player is subbed for any reason or by anyone, list this message on TD's chat. At the end of each round, on TD chat, list all players with assigned Ave- (by table), and all players with assigned Ave. Given this, all of us will be able to adjudicate boards more easily. And some of us could determine who to exclude from future events, based on the data generated. Personally, I'd generate custom software, but that's not necessary.

Hi Edmund There are many people who like McBruce's event just in the manner he designed it. There are many European player, who get up at 04:15 am to participate in the Alphabet-Points-Tournament. Nobody forces you to play in this event or another which rules you dislike. :angry: Why you don't have the tolerance to let every TD decide his rules and every player to register in the tourneys he likes? Sincerly Al Don't you have enough troubles in your life that you don't need to add "trolling" to them?

As a player, I despise unclocked events. Usually I'm fast enough that I end up playing in the "early-bird" group, playing with and against the same players over and over and over and ... But the other day, my partner and I got caught up with a slow pair right off the bat, and we could never get out of the "molasses" group. Please Don't Hold Unclocked Events. Thank you. And it was really rude of the player to enter the event, knowing that he's mess things up for everyone else. The sad thing is that in this day and age you can't discount the idea that he has a case.

I don't see any way around this, either. Same for the people who call the TD to the table to ask for an adjustment.

maybe we could charge the kibbitzers.

Never mind.

2nd tournament to TD online. I see a lot of MP events, usually about 12 boards, so I decided to go contrary, and ran a 24-board; 12-round 7-min per board, delayed 5% cut, swiss yesterday, and, yeah it was long. After about half the tournament elapsed, I noticed a tremendous drop in player problems, possibly because the better players generally play fast. boards to be adjudicated. there should be a list available to go through. either let players ask for adjustmens through a mechanism, (ideally consolidating them for us!) or (and?) Better, send all incomplete boards automatically to this list. option to continue round even if all players are done. two words: powder room. back to adjustments. I'd like something a little complicated, here goes: for pairing purposes: award A++, at least initially. slow players should not be rewarded with easy opposition. For final results (or cuts), award A--. Even more: if there's an adjudication that could kick a pair out, then a tournament hold occurs until the TD either adjusts score or takes a pass. if a board is pulled due to lack of time, and a pair takes more than... possibly ... 2/3 of the time on 1st hand of two-board movement, presumtively award A-+, with + going to other pair, partnership time on each board history. ideally relative to average time taken by that side of table for each board. better, I'd like an easy way to identify players who generally take a lot of time, and then to easily move at least some of them to a certain forward-going list, if my meaning is clear. Don't care to call them enemies; prefer to think of them as "time-challenged" or "connectivity-challenged." for survivor events: a self-bye-bye option (options: let p get sub, or (for pairs) taking effect at the end of the current round and dismissing partnership) would be nice. If someone wants out (or needs out), fine. and for those pairs/players that "play to time", a directed bye-bye option (again to take place at end of current round). Don't want to ask for sub, let them figure out cause & effect on their own dime. Yes, this is a VERY non-trivial list, but not asking for "cloak of invisibility" (not such a bad idea, actually), or AI adjudication for complex positions.

this or something similar would be great. 60 sec of non-activity at your turn should = RED - SUBBABLE by partner.

Since I don't normally have two hours to play anyway... :P

I like to say wdp often. but sometimes, it's not that partner was brilliant; it's that the opponents made a mistake. or two. Is there any BBO-acceptable way to say "you didn't give back the gifts, p?" <_<

I suppose you could keep track of average hands / partial hands played per table appearance. EDIT follows: In the MBC. I play a lot of individual tournaments, where it's natural to play only one board per partner.