Stefan_O

Thanks, I corrected my post :)

I think the OP expects GIB to rebid 3H on that hand. I would, too. Likely A bug in the bidding db.

Hi Bavard. Woiuld you care to post a link to your deal too, where the DD analysis is still wrong?

We were playing a BBO Teams Game today, 12 boards. One table completed all 12. The other table was quite behind, and immediately after board 11, the games just finished with A== on the last board. Is there a time-limit on Teams Games? If not, what can otherwise cause this? Two players had some connection-issues during the match, but at the time of cut-off, everyone was at the table.

How do you create a new Personal CC on BBO these days? The helpfile - https://www.bridgebase.com/help/v2help/convention_card.html seems out-dated, it refers to a button "My BBO". But when using the current client - https://www.bridgebase.com/v3/ I don't see any such Button. When I click Account => Convention Cards, I see a list of my old ones, but find no button to create a new Personal Card (other than ACBL card, which is useless for our purposes; Swedish club games). Any clue?

Hi Jyrki, It's generally easier to answer to such questions, if you include a link to the hands to show exactly what the situation was. You can find them in your history.

Another solution (perhaps easier to implement) would be, just remove the requirement that people have to be online to be reserved. Allow Reserve a set, even if the user isn't logged in, yet. That would work almost as well.

Aah, thanks for hint, manu. Yes, I missed that, sorry :) But still, if everyone is not online yet, it would still be very desirable to block others from requesting seats in these games. Very annoying with those unwanted requests pouring in continuously.

If you start a Teams Match with known friends, it's very annoying that unknown players start requesting to sit immediately. When I have tried, as soon as you create the table, you get new requests from unknowns every few seconds that you need to click Reject or Ignore. In the old webclient, you can fill in the player names before creating the table, but if all players are not yet logged, it is still not possible to start the table. In the new webclient, I don't even find a way to fill in any names before creating the table, and unwelcome request from unknown people immediately start pouring in. Very annoying. Unless I have missed something in the current functionality (if so, please enlighten me! :) ) I do request a checkbox option when starting a Teams Match, that ONLY PEOPLE I INVITE can sit. When selecting this option, other players should NOT be able to request seating by their own initiative.

I tried that, but table will not be created unless all named players are online. Can you explain how?

Also, the daily "DayLong" tournaments are free 8-board robot-tourneys. There is no time-limit per boards, other than the 24h limit to complete the tourney. You get scored against a large field of many 1000's of players of varying strength, and can then see your success/progress over time. I enjoyed it daily, when (before corona) commuting to work :)

what means +nokill+ and +silentspecs+ ?

When setting up two tables for a Teams game with known friends, if I don't fill in all names at the start, I get continuous requests (like every few seconds) from unknown people to sit, that need to be rejected/ignored. Is there a way to prevent this? Preferably, that people can ONLY sit when I invite them?

What a brilliant idea. But only if you enjoy going for +90 or -50, when you have +140 or +110 in the cards.

Yes, I can see there is a dark ring around the digits in the new interface. Screenshot: Is that what you mean? I agree it makes readability worse. A workaround is to use Export=>Handviewer link. Then you end up with the same html-viewer as in the old apps --- no dark rings. But I recommend to BBO to remove the dark rings in the new view, it's clearly worse, esp on mobile screens.

Nope. Std meaning of rebidding your opening-suit is either a 6card suit or a 4-5 hand where you lack reverse-values for showing your higher suit. I don't see how opening the 4-card suit gains advantages to outweigh its drawbacks in a standard system context. On the other hand, in a strong-1♣ system, we open 1D and rebid 2C with both 4-5/5-4 in minors as well as 4144/1444 with singleton in responder's major, so that method works, too.

Hi BBO, What is the reason moneybridge is terminated? Unprofitable? Legal reasons? Or what?

You really don't need the 2S bid. Bid 1S with both 4spades, or as 4SF. Pd will bid 2S if he has 4spades. You can then use 2S to show a good hand with 4+club support.

Slam bidding with GIB, IMO is mostly a total random affair. Both the methods and the robot "judgement" is beyond horrible. Always feels like Russian roulette when the dummy comes down. And no way to tell beforehand what sequence will lead to success --- only afterwards (looking at other tables) you will know... Btw, that 3♦ bid (holding 5♥s)... is that really part of the soloway method?

>"What does GIBBO want with 3d?" It's probably thinking, "I show my diam support once more. Anything that goes wrong from here, fortunately, will be pd's fault."

Probably based on simulation. All bid descriptions, "X", above the 1-level or so should be read as "X, or simulation-based". Only when *human* makes a bid, the robot will take the description literally. That's my general understanding.

Just noticed, in the system-notes it says. 1♦ - 2♣ response is forcing for one round, but not game force. http://www.bridgebase.com/doc/gib_system_notes.php I don't have an example at hand right now, but I'm pretty sure, when you play, it says "forcing to 3NT" in the description, which also is consistent with my experiences at the table, and a bit different definition, since "forcing one round" could mean forcing to 2NT or forcing to 3C, etc So would be good if the system-notes says the same.

I don't get what you mean here, sorry... "depending on opponents bidding" -- All decent declarers, of course, take opps bidding into consideration -- but I guess you mean something else? And, do you mean a) "depending on opponents bidding and (its own) sampling" --- sure, sampling is part of Gibs core algorithm -- do you think that is bad? or b) "depending on opponents bidding and (opps') sampling" --- the sentence is grammatically ambiguous... not sure which one is intended... ?

Here one spectacular "what could possibly go wrong" example, of Gib picking a "random-card" when "it doesn't matter" double-dummy: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/77882-why-does-gi b-defender-always-play-highest-of-equals/page__p__940482__fromsearch__1

I also doubt Gib is programmed to draw such inferences from players not bidding. It will recognize a passed hand cannot have more than some 11 hcp, but otherwise, I don't think so.