TimG

This means that the bracket was pre-determined, it was known that 74 would play 37 in a head to head. Then the teams that were seeded 65 through 74 were put in a hat and drawn randomly to fill the 65 through 74 slots on the bracket sheet.

I guess I shouldn't have said "likely". I knew the seeds were shuffled, just didn't know off hand how big the groups were. In this case, seeds 65 through 74 were shuffled, so the eventual 74 got a raw deal in having to play a head-to-head instead of compete in a 4-way with 3 survivors.

With three survivors from each four-way, you can't place those three in three different halves of the draw. The best you can do is make sure they don't playback until the semi-final. For instance, the 38 v 55 v 56 v 73 match from Monday places the #38 seed in the #3 quarter and the #55 seed in the #2 quarter; if they both keep surviving, they will meet in the semi-final. Perhaps the objective was to prevent playbacks until the semi-final, but that could have been accomplished with some seed flipping (as I did for the example for 30 teams). That would seem to me to be more fair to the #74 seed (especially given that the bottom group of seeds are likely shuffled anyway -- #74 didn't get there purely through seeding, but through a random draw from amongst the bottom few seeds).

24 posts from users with single digit post counts (not counting "advanced" who is critical of BBOSkill). That's not 24 different user names, there are a few users who have made multiple posts. So, less than half of your stated "50 people". They did not all post the exact same thing. Some posted a single line, at least one wrote a few paragraphs. No doubt they were directed to BBO Forums by a single source, but perhaps that is because more than one person has used and liked BBOSkill and would like to see it continue. Great for them if they can generate interest from multiple individuals and get those individuals to ask for the service back. (I don't recall ever using BBOSkill.)

I'm not sure why those individuals shouldn't be allowed to post without being called spammers. Do up votes cancel out down votes? If so, strange that no one has up voted your post?

I'm hoping the round of 16 Spingold match between #2 and #18 is on vugraph.

It appears there are 36 teams playing 4-ways with three survivors and 2 teams playing a head-to-head. That's 28 teams surviving from play today. Added to 36 with byes gets to 64. Today's matches are: 37 v 74 38 55 56 73 39 54 57 72 40 53 58 71 41 52 59 70 42 51 60 69 43 50 61 68 44 49 62 67 45 48 63 66 46 47 64 65 I don't know the rationale behind a single head-to-head instead of all 4-ways.

There should be a prescribed format for a field of 30 teams which says exactly which seeds are in which matches. If mini-Spingold CoC don't specifically state such things, then there should be a general ACBL document for the DiC to reference in order to consistently serve the "best playing advantage of the field". There is no easy answer to the seeding/matchup problem. Take Mbodell's solution of the top 12 seeds playing the bottom 12 seeds and 13 v 16 v 17 14 v 15 v 18 Would you rather be the 12 seed who has to beat the 19 seed in a head-to-head match or the 13 seed who has to survive a 3-way with 16 & 17? It would depend upon the difference in strength amongst the seeds in the middle of the field, of course, but assuming nearly equal strength of teams in the middle, the 13 seed has an easier path to the second round than does the 12 seed. The 13 seed has at least a 2/3 chance of surviving the 3-way (they are favorites against each of 16 and 17), meaning that the 12 seed would have to be at least a 2:1 favorite to beat the 19 seed in order for their path to be easier. 16 & 17 also have an easier path than 12. I could understand 12 not being happy with their seed! I think for 30 teams you should have something like: 1 v 10 v 24 2 v 9 v 23 3 v 30 4 v 29 5 v 28 6 v 27 7 v 26 8 v 25 11 v 22 12 v 21 13 v 20 14 v 19 15 v 18 16 v 17 (You do not want 1 v 9 v 24 & 2 v 10 v 23 in the first round because that could lead to a 1 v 10 or 2 v 9 rematch before the final.)

Best? Probably not, but we're not talking about someone who is trying to develop a "serious partnership", we're talking about an 86 year-old beginner. Useful discussion? It certainly can be. There are electronic hand records that make it quite easy for a beginner to review things and ask questions. If my son were learning to play bridge, I'd be quite happy for him to play online and ask me questions about what happened afterwards. Or, I could even look through the hands he played and bring up topics that he might not have known to ask about. Seems like a great environment to me.

I think online is a great environment for a newer player. And, no reason to assume poor computer skills just because the person is "older".

The message from BBO has consistently been that they don't want a rating system. The topic has been brought up many times and the response has always been the same. I don't imagine that you're going to get anywhere with a request for BBO to help in creating or maintaining a rating system.

If opener turns up with 15 or 16; or with 4 spades; or with 55 in the minors, and has rebid 1N, there is something wrong.

How is eight solid poor trumps?

I'm assuming a local club with a mix of social and competitive players. I would prefer to sit N/S if the E/W pairs were stronger and E/W if the N/S pairs were stronger. Not because I think that will help my score, but because I think it will be a more enjoyable bridge experience to play at tables with better opponents. I would not think less of someone who thought along similar lines. I might think less of someone if they chose to sit in the weaker direction because they think their result/award will be better/larger. I think the director ought to select movements that do not include "revenge" rounds so playing an opponent twice shouldn't be an issue. I would think less of someone who made an effort to figure out when the skip would be and positioned themselves to skip a strong pair. I used to place a fast pair adjacent to a slow pair because it would help move the game along. I think a pair that volunteers to be in that position should be thanked rather than thought less of. In my opinion, the director ought to take a look at the field before play and make adjustments when an imbalance is present rather than leaving it to the players to unravel by themselves.

I'm guessing Fluffy was East and has posted this in the 3rd person.

I'm pretty sure that the US Open isn't open in the sense that anyone can show up at Flushing and enter the tournament. It's open in the sense that amateurs around the country can play in qualifying events and eventually a handful can play their way in. Federer gets to skip that process (or has qualified through results in other tournaments). At least that is my guess.

Play tentative penalty doubles along the lines of those described by SJ Simon. The person I play almost all of my bridge with is the person who suggested playing this way, so there was no convincing needed. I should say that the lack of a negative double is much less worrisome in a majors first, four-card major, approach. The lack of negative doubles is not without cost, but the availability of tentative penalty doubles is not without benefit either.

Maybe it went 1♦-2N-3N at some other tables. Maybe opening leader has equal length in the majors and guessed wrong this time. They have 8 spades and 7 hearts, maybe opening leader made a poor opening lead choice for whatever reason.

Really? I would expect 1♠ to not only be non-forcing, but to deny significant extras; I don't think responder must keep the bidding open to cater to opener having a big hand. But, I don't often play negative doubles, so I'm ready to learn something.

I think there are two different kinds of luck in sport. There is the normal variation, the +/- 10% type stuff; whether you are firing on the +10% or -10% on any given day is a matter of luck. Then there is the unplanned result, the net ball that trickles over, the grounder that takes a bad hop or hits a bag, the opponent that slips, the equipment malfunction, the gust of wind. I think people are prone to apologize for the latter because they reduce the connection between skill and outcome.

It does seem strange to me that when you add a win to previous results your ranking can go down (that you can be passed by a player who played in the same event and did worse). I'm guessing this is because the 53-week old results are thrown out and the lower ranked player had a worse result thrown out. But, I would describe it as counter-intuitive that the winner of an event is passed in the rankings by someone who placed 2nd in the same event.

I overcall. If they have a spade fit, we're probably shut out anyway (which may not be bad at this vulnerability); if they don't or they don't bounce to a high level in spades, I can likely get back in and partner will know my diamonds are a couple cards longer than my hearts.

Sorry, I was sloppy; you are surely both right that the name was derived through religious practice.

I believe you are right. It carries no religious meaning.

I wouldn't think of passing 2♦. I wouldn't pass any rebid by opener (well, maybe 5♦).