TimG

If you click on the "Log Off" button when leaving, as opposed to just closing the window, then it is better at remembering the current settings for the time that you next log on. At least, I think that is the way that it used to behave, and I have just tested it out and it remembers (on my machine) the pane size settings if I do it that way. Thanks, I'll give it a try. Also, thanks for the pointer to "interesting tables" option under "bbo now".

I like to resize the panes and would like the resizing to become my default so that I don't have to do it every time I log in.

From a Houston appeals case: "East–West thought South’s BIT at his second turn to call was eight to 10 seconds." Shouldn't that really be: "East-West thought the 8-10 seconds that South took at his second turn to call constituted a BIT"?

How do you do that when you are kibitzing a table?

If you want a variety of part-score, game and slam deals, I think this will be very difficult to constrain. I would suggest two separate exercises: play of the hand for an assigned contract; and bidding practice in the style of Challenge the Champs. If you have to have deals for both uncontested auction and play, I'd suggest a combination of some simple constraints (like no good six-card suit for the non-opening side) and then going through them one-by-one to make sure they meet your criteria.

What many do not know is that teams can ask to play up and the request will often be honored. I would imagine this is especially true of foreign players.

They play in things like the Mixed Pairs, the IMP pairs and the Fast Pairs. There are also frequent team events that carry NABC rating, but which are somewhat secondary events. But really, if you have too many of these events you reduce their significance to the point where they aren't special.

A couple observations after watching vugraph with the web client today. 1) The contrast between the color of private chat (green) and public chat (blue) is not strong. It would be nice for the user to be able to set these colors. And, to have the option of also setting automated messages in a different color. 2) I miss the ability to see what other tables are active. In the windows client there is an option to see tables or lobby/friends at the top of the chat window. When there are multiple vugraph tables open, or when you kibitzing at one while waiting for another to start, this is a nice option. Tim

Given that 1st is far enough ahead of the field, I consider that somewhat unlikely, since you basically have to blitz every match to have a lead that big...and it's hard to be that high in a reasonably sized swiss after getting blitzed even once. Perhaps you are right about this in a large field. But, in a smaller field I think it is common for the leaders to have played most of the other high finishers. I recently placed 3rd in a 22 team, eight match Swiss. During the course of the day, we played 6 of the 7 other teams that were in the money, including 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and one of the teams tied for 7th/8th. That included a near blitz loss to the 2nd place team. In my experience, this is rather typical.

This also happens in the Windows version.

Balicki held ♠KQT73 ♥43 ♦QJT9 ♣94 at none vul in second seat in a close Vanderbilt match. He saw this auction: Pass-Pass*-1♥-Pass 1♠-Pass-2♦-Pass 2♥ and he came in with 2♠. He played it there and made an overtrick. * I wonder what a 2♠ opening bid would have shown.

Perhaps I should not mention this here in the B/I forum. But, there was a Josephine Culbertson hand where she was 5503 and opened 1♣ in hopes that partner would bid a major and remove any guesswork. It worked for her!

Yes, I saw you post the 3rd quarter results last night. Then I switched tables and saw the vugraph operator there say "please don't ask for match scores". She/he wasn't going to type them in. Which seems perfectly reasonable to me. (I tried copying the results you had posted, but the windows client doesn't seem to allow for copying chat.) Doesn't really matter, though. The ACBL should not rely upon a BBO vugraph to post the results. And, what happens if I'm late tuning into the 4th quarter and have missed your score update? BTW, checking the scores to see that they make sense and then pushing a button sounds trivial to me. But, to repeat, up-to-the-minute scores seems like overkill for the moment.

I believe the dealing machines that the ACBL has are the bar code reading variety. But yes, they could buy new machines that don't need bar coded cards. I believe they are more expensive, right?

It would be nice if partner were the one doing the keycarding since we have little beyond the keycards and four trumps -- he's likely the one looking at the long-card tricks. I like a 4♦ bid, raising the splinter must mean that the hands fit well. Perhaps partner can bid keycard over that and I can tell my whole story when I show 4 keycards.

...

I would not be surprised to learn that the ACBL did not have enough screens for a round of 32. The vugraph operator one of yesterday's matches, commented before the 4th quarter started that the players were all there, but that the directors had not brought the boards. That suggested to me that the board might well be duplicated. Maybe that was just for the single match that was being broadcast on BBO? It would not surprise me to learn that Phil is right and duplication starts later in the event. There seems to be resistance on the part of the ACBL directors to spend a lot of time duplicating boards. And, there is likely a reluctance on the ACBL's part to spend the money needed for the dealing machines, bar coded cards, and extra director pay. I was happy to read the 3rd quarter scores early the broadcast of the 4th quarter last night. But, striving for real time scores throughout seems like overkill to me. (Though I understand likely a trivial matter once electronic scoring devices are placed on each table.) As a spectator from home, it would be nice simply to have updated quarter scores online a few minutes after the quarter ends. I don't think there was anything available on the ACBL website between the end of the play last night and when the online Bulletin was made available. (I see that the Vanderbilt pairings are included in the "daily results" file. But, there are no scores, and I don't know when the results were posted relative to end of play and Bulletin publishing.) As an aside, I think 25 masterpoints for a first round bye plus a round of 64 win is a lot. It also seems a bit strange to me that the #3 seed gets the same number of masterpoints for beating the #62 seed as the #62 seed gets for beating the #3 seed. (Even overlooking that the #62 seed had to survive a first day match instead of sit on the sidelines with a bye.) Certainly beating the #3 seed is a much bigger achievement than beating the #62 seed and should be worth more "rating" points*. * Yes, I know that masterpoints are not rating points. But, not everyone does.

In today's Daily Bulletin, there is a hand reported (on page 4) where the auction starts: Pass-1♣-1♥-1♠ 1NT And Rodwell's 1N advance is described as a "good heart raise". Does anyone know what the rest of the structure is? It seems a bit strange to me that with 2♣ and 2♠ available for raises, along with a direct 2♥, that a 1NT advance is used for a raise. Perhaps 1N is a transfer to 2♣, which is a cue-bid in this case; 2♣->♦ natural; 2♦->♥; 2♥ = weak raise. But, there again, that's a lot of raises. One might also consider that the overcall was made on ♠4 ♥KJT84 ♦973 ♣QT87, so maybe having a weak 3-card raise, a constructive 3-card raise, and a "good" 3-card raise available would be of some use. And, a natural 1N advance in the face of two bidding opponents might be something easily given up.

You could use the myhands feature to see when they last played a hand on BBO. And, for that matter, to see how often they are playing.

Do you mean that 1D-1S-2N is forcing?

That seems a reasonable choice since you could pass with responder's suit (even if you are under the bidder) some of the time.

Does reading BBO Forums count? I have a few favorite bridge books that I reread from time to time. I also have some older bridge books and a bunch of Bridge Worlds that I browse when I don't have other books going. Very often when presented with a card combination, I will open suit play and look through the different holdings (I wish I could do it in my head better -- I know: use suit play less often) or put the different holdings into a spreadsheet to compare lines. I also sometimes look the combination up in the Dictionary of Suit Combinations and inevitably get sidetracked on a few other combinations. I try to keep a set of system notes for regular partnerships. I also review hands from online play with some frequency. Most often for systemic issues, but also defense and declarer play.

This is mentioned in WJ05 A Modern Version of Polish Club. It was the first place I had seen it in print, though I doubt it is the first it has appeared.

I'm interested in hearing from both those who play a natural NT overcall and those who prefer 1N to be some sort of takeout. Which of 2x and 2y are natural? What about double followed by a minimum bid in x or y? Is double two-suited takeout, or is it takeout of x or y?

Already set. Again, just a curiosity, and between you, I think I've gotten the answer. Thanks.