TimG

Still playing these mods?

Does this work for non-FD CCs too? I created an ACBL CC last night. I added my partner's name to it. I saved it. My partner reports not finding it today. I suspect operator error (mine), but want to confirm that this should work.

Internet Explorer seems to be working. I did not think to have him change browsers because Firefox works fine for me....

Seemed easier to use my phone since I was not going to be posting from his computer. No bother of looking for an app to paste it into and then saving and sending to me before posting.

The sliver that appears below hrair's hand is the King of hearts. If you mouse over it (or maybe click on it) the rest of the card will appear. Notice the yellow "it's this player's turn to act" aura over the top of hrair's name even htough it is santino10's turn to act. http://www.ghsbuzz.com/images/bboa.jpg

I do not know whether he has changed magnification. But, it is not a matter of the images being too small, it is a matter of only part of the image displaying or not displaying at all. Still, I will suggest changing the magnification.

My father is experiencing what I would best describe as video lag. Cards played do not always appear and sometimes appear only partially. A trick might be played and the cards will disappear from the hands, and a new quitted trick appears, but the cards played never appear in the middle of the table. The yellow "aura" that appears around a player's name when it is their turn to bid/play does not always fully disappear when it is no longer their turn. The login window is missing the top 1/3. Often clicking on the partial card (or anywhere else) kicks things in and gets them to appear properly (but this is not very useful when no cards to a player trick ever appear in the middle of the table). He's running Windows 7 on an 3.3 GHz machine with 4GB memory. I don't know what kind of video card he has, but it would be whatever was standard with such a system. He is using the web based version of BBO. Hoping for suggestions.

I believe the critical part to card memory is to put it in context of the whole hand. I was once told of a study done with chess masters. They were presented with a board with some pieces on it and given some number of seconds to memorize the position, then asked to duplicate the position. Players were very good at recalling the positions that came from actual games, not so good at memorizing the random assortment of pieces. I believe the same sort of thing applies to bridge. If a player notes a card played because of its significance in the hand, that is much more likely to be remembered than if the cards being played are considered a random assortment of cards. If you look at a lead and notice that it is the lowest outstanding spot or that there is one lower outstanding (and note the importance of that) you are more likely to remember the card played than if you just try to remember it was the three and make the connection three tricks later. That sort of thing.

An internet search did not produce any VP scale for MP matches. Others have also mentioned it. Can someone provide a link? This makes it sound like Swiss pairs and matchpoint pairs are different. Can't Swiss pairs be scored by matchpoint? Or, am I misunderstanding?

If Swiss Pairs are common in the part of the bridge world in which you live, would you mind sharing the types of events and format used? Club games or larger events? One-session or multi-session events? How many boards per round? Are round results converted to VP? Typically IMP or MP scoring? Thanks.

ACBL ought to be using the masterpoint formula to encourage two-day premier events rather than discouraging them. I recently noticed (because of an ad on Bridge Winners) that the Flying Pig regional in Cincinnati includes a two-day pair event. Even though I am not a contender in such an event, it is the sort of event that would increase my interest in a regional. The tournament flyer claimed something like "mid-west's only two-day pair event". I looked around at regional schedules as a result and found them quite disappointing. Most have a bazillion events with no clear "premier" event on any given day. One regional cut through the messiness of scheduling by running the same events every day Tuesday through Saturday: A/B/C Pairs (open stratified); bracketed round robin teams; and Golden Opportunity Pairs (750 MP limit). It is strange to me that such a regional has any appeal.

For 2016 I found: Gatlinburg 8323 Rancho Mirage 3931 Hilton Head 3567 Penticon 3156 Houston 3057 Sarasota 3056 Atlanta 3015 Monterey 2860 Orlando 2760 Raleigh 2602 Charlotte 2570 Santa Clara 2502 Las Vegas 2406 Myrtle Beach 2348

When you do 95% pairing, am I correct in assuming that the 95% of boards that have been played are scored for pairing purposes? At least 8 rounds? So, an evening of four seven-board rounds would not be desirable no matter the size of the field?

Does ACBLScore support Swiss Pairs? What software do you use with the BridgeMates? This software has the option of staggering the pairings or waiting until all boards are complete? Or, do you manually indicate when to start pairings? Are there minimum field sizes that make Swiss Pairs feasible? Or, small sizes that make a regular MP event a better option?

No masterpoints for shorter matches? Seems reasonable, but also awarding masterpoints for shorter matches (meaning more people win masterpoints) also seems like a possible draw.

Yes, I did find two articles on David's website. They were helpful to get a basic understanding, but I am now looking for something more. A few questions: 1) I am in the US where players are used to playing 2 or 3 boards per round (24-28 in a session) in club play, often in a Mitchell movement. I think that players (especially at the club level) enjoy the social aspect of frequently switching opponents. I think they would resist a change to Swiss Pairs if they played against only 4 opponents in a session. So, I am particularly interested in how efficiently Swiss Pairs can be run if there are something like 8 rounds of 3 boards each. Does the pairing time add significant time to the event? 2) For multiple session events, let's just focus on two sessions for simplicity, is there typically a qualifying session and a finals/consolation session? 3) I imagine that including a match element to the scoring helps to retain interest late in an event even for those that are apparently out of the running. But, there must still be some inclination to drop from an event if a pair is doing poorly. Does this something that is acceptable? I can remember times many years ago where it was routine for Swiss Team participants to drop from an event with a couple matches yet to be played. I have not seen this recently, but I wonder if this might be the case when there is not a "complete movement" that must be finished. 4) Is there "stratification" in Swiss Pairs? It is the way of the game in the US today. I understand I'm hijacking a thread, I hope no one minds.

Might it be the case that total MP is fine for events with short rounds but that VP is better for events with longer rounds? Does anyone know of an online reference for Swiss Pair events? I've done some googling tonight, but can't find much of anything. Most of the items I have found talk about pairing being staggered one round. Isn't this a thing of the past with the use of Bridge Mates?

The entry fee would not be foremost in my mind if I was disqualified for something a TD okayed.

I found the Bridge World issue that I was incorrectly referencing: August 1989. The ACBL Regulation cited: "Flagrant and deliberate attempts to lose tricks are detrimental to the game of bridge. Such action will subject the offenders to disciplinary penalty." The BW Editor asked: "Did you ever hear of this dumb regulation, astonishingly dumb even for the ACBL?" Have not figured out when this regulation was eliminated (or changed to that cited by blackshoe).

The term was used in bridge before VPs became the norm. Yes, Swisses (in bridge) used to be scored by wins and losses.

Thanks, guys.

Maybe I am confused and the "Law" I recall was actually an ACBL Regulation. Did there used to be a Law?

There used to be a Law which basically said contestants had to try to win every trick possible. It was worded such that something like a hold up play could be considered a violation of the Laws. I know it existed because it was used to support anti-dumping cases; I'm sure it was referenced in an editorial or Letter to the Editor in the Bridge World in relation to a dumping case (in the 90s). I just skimmed through the 2007 Laws and could not find the rule. All I could find was Law 72: "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants". This is a better wording that the Law which I recall from the 90s. Anyway, does anyone know of a current Law that addresses dumping? Anyone have a reference to the old Law? Anyone have any knowledge of the change or the proceeding involved in the change? Thanks.

The beginners that are looking to improve and come to BBO Forums in furtherance of that effort are not "most beginners looking to improve".

Don't forget about the terrorism that the US government conducts. Some would say that drone attacks are terrorism. Or this.