TimG

How is anyone "punished" for having a good game late in the event? Because the top two pairs play in the last round, there is more room for the pairs a bit below them to play weaker opps and have a bigger round and win the event. I don't see it that way. I'd rather go into the last round with a few VP lead than get the slightly weaker opponent. In smaller Swisses where there is potential for great skill disparity between 2nd and 6th place teams so that you'd rather be in 3rd place and play the 6th place team than in 1st place and play the 2nd place team, it's very likely the 1st and 2nd place teams have already played each other before the last round. More likely that 1st is playing 6th and 2nd is playing 5th or some such. Perhaps that is a penalty, if I'm in 1st place going into the last round, I'd prefer to play the 2nd place team and have better control over the result rather than rely upon a lower team to give the 2nd place team a good match.

How is anyone "punished" for having a good game late in the event?

Probably also worth noting that there are very few "LOL" and "WTP" posts in rgb.

I noticed the redealing today and appreciated it.

She said

Half an hour with the same opponents is a good result for the main bridge club. I don't know why you'd want to discourage that. I do think that players who are signed up for a tournament shouldn't start a new hand within 5 minutes or so of their tournament starting. I have never set up a team game, so maybe this option already exists, but perhaps there should be an option to start the team game X minutes after invites have been accepted or at a set time. This way, people who are playing when the invite is made would have time to properly excuse themselves rather than just disappearing.

It takes a long time to completely fill out a FD card. Those who take the time surely have access to their system notes which they can just as easily refer to during an auction.

Isn't that more than a bit nuts? At what level is partner going to be able to later show the longer hearts?

There are Robot Races and Robot Rewards (I think those are the names). Anyway, one is best hand and one is random hand. Given the number of negative scores in the game you entered, I'd say you were playing a random hand tournament. Regardless, two is a very small sample size; I wouldn't infer much from the results of your first two.

Yeah I'm sure that's true but I still say it's no more than a 3.0. Basically I unilaterally (and without thinking about it until now) assumed a logarithmic scale not a straight line so out of the total bridge playing population maybe: 1.0 40% would get it right 2.0 8% would get it right 3.0 1.6% would get it right 4.0 0.32% would get it right 5.0 0.064% would get it right I would use the term 'expert' to describe less than 1% of bridge players (so not in the BBO sense of 'expert'). I think of things similarly, beginner might be the 1st 50%, intermediate the next 30%, advanced the next 18% and expert and other being the remaining 2%. Not exactly logarithmic, but similar to what you are saying.

I think you are probably right if you are talking about the population of forum posters, but in the non-forum bridge playing population, I expect fewer than 1 in 10 would solve this problem on paper. To me, when you are talking about the 90th percentile of players, you're no longer talking about intermediate players. I would put 90th percentile somewhere between advanced and expert.

You should be able to check your gut by going through your tournament history. It's all there and pretty easy to access in the web version.

I don't know how much you play, but for comparison, I have played 169 $1 robot rewards. I've had occasional stretches of 10 games where I have lost money. But, since game #34, every 25 game stretch has been positive. That is games 10-34 were positive, 11-35 were positive, 12-36 were positive, etc. My longest out of the money streak is 5 games. I don't think I am particularly good at Robot Rewards, my lifetime average is under 4000.

Rob's point is a very strong one (and what most pairs are doing when they can play such an opening) which is why I think it is foolish to have a defence to 2D Ekrens that is significantly different from the one you would use versus 2H Ekrens. But, if the opponents do play the inferior (in your opinion) 2♦ = majors, don't you want to have the superior defense available? As a player, I would imagine having different generic defenses based upon whether the suit opened is one of the suits shown. In Australia, are you allowed to refer to written defenses at the table (for certain methods). I imagine the considerations would be different if defenses had to be memorized rather than being available for reference.

What if the 2♦ opening does show 5+/5+ in the majors?

Is this an individual?

In revisiting this today, I went to the Defense Database to see if there was anything similar already approved and noticed that there is a defense to a 2♠ opening which sows the minors (unspecified strength). This does not seem to come close to meeting the standards of Perhaps it was approved when the standards were less stringent. (It seems to me that defenses ought be modified to meet the new standards rather than be grandfathered.) If I modified the above defense to handle a 2♦ opening which shows the majors, I would get something like: ________ Versus 2D which shows the minors Double = Balanced 13-15 or 19+. 2NT = Balanced 16-18. Respond as to 2NT opening. 2H = Minors only 5-4 (2S asks for five-card suit). 2S = Minors 5+ - 5+, (3H = club slam try, 3S = diamond slam try). 3m = Natural (3M response = cuebid). After: 2D - Double - 2 or 3 of a major: Double = Responsive. Minors = Natural, non-forcing. Majors = Cuebid. After: 2D - Pass - 2H: Double = 13-15 balanced or strong unbalanced. 2N & 3-level bids = As over 2D directly. After: 2D - Pass - 2 or 3 of a major: Double = Takeout. ________ I'm guessing that such a submission would not even be considered by the C&C Committee. What are your thoughts about whether it is an adequate defense (by your definition, not by ACBL's definition)? What about the approved defense for the 2♠ opening?

Recently a couple of opponents in ACBL speedballs have complained that I have no CC loaded. But, when I check I can see our FD CC loaded. I am using the web client. We've gone through the process of asking the opponents if they are looking in the right place and double checking that both my partner and I can see our own CC at the time when our opponents say they cannot see our card. The opponents apparently can see the explanations for our bids which FD automatically provides in the auction box. Is there a known problem with FD and the web client? I'd save a screen shot, but everything appears to be working on my screen, so other than seeing the opponents' complaints, I don't think it would be useful.

Have your hopes become reality? It sounded to me like a super charged iTouch rather than a scaled down notebook. I don't pretend to know about the details, but didn't read anything about the Apple OS being part of the iPad (which would be required to play bridge at BBO, right?). What's the scoop?

Barring specific agreement to the contrary, all low level doubles are takeout until our side has found a fit. debrose recently suggested this one: In comp, 5N is always pick-a-slam and a Q-bid of their suit which forces us to slam is always a grand slam try. I think of meta-agreements as general agreements that cover more than one or two specific auctions and which apply in the absence of a specific agreement. Meta-agreements are rules that you can fall back on in otherwise undiscussed auctions.

Leaving north with 12 cards and west with 14? Or are you proposing that two cards move?

This just discourages claims. If they hadn't claimed, they would have played their tricks from the top and taken all the tricks. Perhaps claimers should always state "from the top" along with "all mine". But, as Josh suggests, it ought to be implicit.

How come there has been no nomination for any thread which concerns convention regulation; suggests BBO institute a rating system; or discusses whether a "4 point range" is 10-13 or 10-14?

Most of us felt smarter than you the moment you suggested "computer rotating hands to equalice the strenght".

If my partner transfers to a suit in which I hold KQTxx, I do not automatically jump in the suit (or otherwise break the transfer). Perhaps this makes me a bad player. Does it matter if the south who actually held the hand is a similarly bad player?