shif6

After the play of the hand starts, is it possible to review the bidding?

Playing defense with a partner who rarely signals is frustrating. I thought one exception to this programmed unresponsiveness was that the robot would give attitude when a suit is broken on defense. Perhaps, however, this exception is only on the opening lead. In the middle of a hand in an instant ACBL tournament an hour or so ago, holding a 5 card spade suit to the K, the robot played the deuce in response to my spade A. The auction had gone 1h-x(by me), 2h-2s-3h-3s-4h-p-p-p. I did not lead the A on the opening lead, but led it when I got in. Seeing the deuce, I switched suits. Unless a partnership was playing upside down signals, no human being would play the deuce in this situation. Is this a glitch or is the robot actually programmed to be as unresponsive here as it is with its discards. And, if so, why is it programmed that way. With discards, why isn't the robot programmed to give attitude on the first discard and count thereafter? Why is no information (other than the robot can afford to discard a card) the default?

I started playing the B mp tournament daylong sometime after 9:00 p.m. in California. Probably less than half and hour later at 10:00 p.m. the table closed and the daylong tournaments disappeared. What gives?

The notice says the price of instant tournaments will go up. The price of those tournaments went from $1 to $1.25 in the last year which is well within the last 15 years. Are you saying the price of these tournaments are not slated for an increase.

BBO in the last year raised prices on the ACBL instant 12 board robot tournaments. It now says it hasn't raised prices for 15 years. Am I missing something? Is this product immune from the price increase? Please respond.

Does the tournament award BBO points?

Yes, it appears that most or all of the top ten finishers received 1.5 points on December 7. This is a paltry award given the number of entrants (about a thousand). Anyone, but leaders in the ACBL would expect the awards to be far more generous. Instead of pretending that the ACBL gives generous awards in events like those that now accompany the National tournaments, the ACBL should explain why the awards are so small in comparison with the live events. To be sure, there is an argument that excessively large awards might discourage attendance at the tournaments, but the awards are so comparatively small that the reasom must lie elsewhere. In addition, the ACBL needs to have a serious conversation whether its claim of generous masterpoint awards in the National online events is misleading and betrays a lack of integrity on the part of the organization. Full disclosure and appropriate discussion would involve a comparison of the formula for masterpoint awards in live events at the Nationals with the formula for the National online events.

How many overall awards are given? Does it depend on the size of the field? What is the size of the awards in the A bracket? The B bracket? The C bracket?. If it depends, please give an example. Finally, why are the awards not transparent? Is there any justification for the lack of transparency?

Thanks, I clicked on ACBL and it gave the monthly totals. I didn't know that was there before.

Why was the monthly masterpoint column dropped? It was helpful to keep track of monthly totals, and, with respect to ACBL points, BBO has to keep track of them in any event. Am I missing something? Is it possible to find the monthly totals.

How are the compatibility ratings determined? What do they mean?

What methods are used to classify players in instant tournaments as A,B, or C?