Mr. Dodgy

yeah, 'survivor'-format tourneys do a fair job of this, 'eliminating' any pairs with a disconnected player before the start of each round. It's not possible to to run 'Individual' or 'Unclocked' tournaments with this option, however, and it doesn't really help much when players leave mid-round (or mid-board).

QUITTERS warning: long post, old rant, attempt at some sort of solution? I have been hosting tournaments on BBO for several years, just did my 400th :) . Whilst chatting with another experienced TD recently, the old and, in my opinion, prolific problem of 'quitters' and how to cope with them came up. Again :( . What I perceive as definitely too-frequent quitting in free BBO tourneys has been addressed on these forums before but it seems not much has changed. In a sample tournament conducted yesterday (which used a fairly extensive exclude list prohibiting known quitters in the first place), the TD needed to make 31 substitutions from a field of 116 Pairs - that's more than 1 in 4 Pairs not actually completing the 12 boards. Seems high to me. I mean, can you IMAGINE using 31 substitutes at a real tournament, even of this size? In an hour-and-a-half? How about 10 subs?! Yet I doubt that this high a quit rate is particularly atypical for a free BBO tournament. I have run tournaments in which a 50% quit rate has been recorded, and on rare occasions a tournament must be cancelled for a lack of available substitutes. A few rotten apples may thus quite spoil the game for many blameless others. BBO's own rules state: Sounds fair to me...but plainly it doesn't really work like this. Players quitting tournaments remains rampant, frustrating TDs and players alike. I know that while I make every possible effort to finish any tourney I play in, sometimes things go awry - such is life. But, I wonder, knowing also that I have failed to complete tournaments on at least two occasions, why have I never received ANY warning or ban? And why are other players whom I KNOW to (also) be ‘repeat offenders’ allowed to continue playing? Evidently, BBO does not really enforce this policy as stated. Believe me, I understand and sympathise with the difficulties involved in attempting to do so. If someone is simply unlucky enough to suffer from failing internet connectivity, they may be banned from tournaments and BBO’s administrative staff cop it, having to spend time explaining, checking, and resolving appropriately. And that’s one of the better cases, some people will undoubtedly claim all sorts of ‘real’ reasons to leave which are practically impossible to either verify or deny. Headache. Of course, it would be nice if a TD were simply able to mark quitters as ‘enemies’ on BBO, select ‘exclude enemies’ and, to use my fellow TD’s terminology “let them rot” :). Unfortunately this also doesn’t always work; BBO has acknowledged that there are limitations to the effectiveness of exclude lists – I have confirmed with another BBO TD [Hi Denis :)] today that enemies are able to register for ‘enemy excluded’ tournaments under some circumstances (I can’t readily confirm this myself as I stopped using the enemy function of BBO in this way a long time ago because it was failing this). [The limitations of exclude lists seem to be largely related to size; In testing today I was able to register for a tourney using an ‘excluded’ ID when the list was ~650 names but not when the list was ~480 names. The numbers do seem to vary quite considerably; I know of TDs with 800 enemies and no problems (yet).] Now I must say that I think BBO does GREAT things in so many areas, so I really hope all this doesn’t sound too much like a complaint. I feel immensely proud to be a BBO TD, and will continue to take it on the chin. I accept that there are technological limitations which effect exclude lists. Please read this as a sort of ‘suggestion for the software’. Further, I sincerely thank Uday, Fred, et al. for the good things they already do in these regards. Indeed, a very significant part of my support for exclude lists is the way in which the BBOWIN software can use them to help overcome name-swapping. Include lists work better in some ways, but an ‘enemy’ could very easily change to a different ID, get permission, and carry on with impunity. Exclude lists are less vulnerable to this thanks to Uday’s nifty programming. Include lists are also subject to size limitations though these are not as restrictive as for exclude lists. I declare – I enjoy being a BBO TD very much, despite the fact that if I were to list every ID I’ve ever had reason to put a black mark on, there would be over 5,600 names on it. I know of multiple TDs with more than 1,000 ‘enemies’. OK, one-off or very rare problems should probably be disregarded. Everyone has an exceptionally bad day sometimes, or really does lose power occasionally. It’s the serial offenders we want to keep out…but to determine who they are a TD needs to start keeping records, and that can be a pretty big task – there are tens (hundreds?) of thousands of IDs used on BBO. I’ve being keeping a fairly detailed record for a couple of years now, noting quits and other, um, notables during my tourneys (and others). Here’s a sample, ‘my’ page: (LINK REMOVED AS PREDICTED - Inquiry) Cool, in several sad ways. Now I can use these records to generate my blacklist. But by gosh it’s a pain to maintain – I now have almost 10,000 IDs recorded. A good include list would also require considerable maintenance (yeah yeah probably not THIS much, although I’d estimate that considerably more than 10,000 IDs have participated in my tourneys). Now, according to my algorithms and applying a ‘3 strikes’ rule, I get the ‘Dirty 389’ list, naming my most pernickety players of all time: (LINK REMOVED AS PREDICTED - inquiry) [i realise that the forum moderators may take exception to my posting other user’s IDs here in this way and might remove link(s). I do note that there are others who publish similar details publicly online – SKY CLUB have theirs here: (LINK REMOVED AS PREDICTED - Inquiry). Anyway, my apologies if this is not allowed.] (apology excepted. BBO does nothing about what you post on your own webpage, we can't police the universe. But we do not allow such posting on ours - Inquiry) Now, my criteria for a black mark may be different than yours, so you should take my ‘results’ as probably being biased, maybe even, yes, a bit dodgy. I hope and feel that I have heeded BBO’s rules and the Laws of Bridge as well as I can. My calculations punish incidents I regard as ‘quitting’, as well as those who are rude, or unacceptably slow, as well as things like failing to alert and/or announce in accordance with CoCs (including BBO’s), while offering some rewards for other, kinder acts such as filling in as a substitute and thanking your frazzled TD. I have shared my blacklist(s) with other TDs before and have in some cases been allowed to use their blacklists to add to my own. I update it reasonably regularly. If you would like to use it, feel free, though bear in mind that you may have players ask why they are excluded and you won’t really know LOL. I’m happy to consider incorporating reports submitted by additional TDs too. If you want any further details you could send me a PM here. Ultimately, however, I think the solution to the quitting problem more generally must be best enacted by BBO itself. BBO does, I understand, track deserters, and there are some bans imposed. BBO’s ability to track ALL desertions is obviously better than mine, as is their capability to enforce sanctions universally. In composing this little thesis, it occurs to me that even an only slightly more aggressive scheme of warning and minors bans might help considerably. If a player fails to complete, they get an automatic warning (perhaps at next login, like the BB$ and MB$ balances, a message advising that a quit was recorded, next quit will gain a 15-minute all play ban, and further quits will result in a 24-hour ban. The warning could expire after some period, or not :)). I reckon that would sort at least some of them out. Yes, sadly some unfortunates would get slapped with bans for real technical or emergency reasons, but to be brutally honest with y’all I don’t care much WHY they keep disrupting my tourneys. It’s an annoying inconvenience for me and the other players that we can do without - whatever the real problem is. Actually I’d prefer an immediate 15-minute ban, but I’m a vengeful sod (perhaps even better would be some ironic and perverse penalty, such as only being able to play as a sub until you darn well DO finish a tourney :) ). As BBO grows, and the number of players, TDs and tourneys increases accordingly, it becomes easier for quitters to prosper, jumping from a bad result in one tourney to a fresh start in the new one starting in 5 minutes time. It also becomes more difficult for TDs to effectively monitor or control. I’ll keep doing all I can to beat the lousy buggers, but it often feels like a losing battle, even using the tools I have developed to assist me. BBO: Some members are breaking your rules to the detriment of others on a disturbingly regular basis. Policing of serial quitters is seemingly left largely to individual directors or organisations as BBO-imposed sanctions are apparently too rare and/or ineffective at curbing this undesirable behaviour generally. PLEASE, ENFORCE THESE RULES and make BBO an even better place for us all! Regards, Justin aka MrDodgy

After only playing on BBO for about 4 years I have discovered the awesome power of the C:\Bridge Base Online\hands\MrDodgy folder in the last week or so :lol: It's great when I have have a session in one of the bidding practice rooms and can instantly pull up the hands for DD analysis by GIB. It occurs to me that these movies could be VERY useful for BBO TDs. The current 'show board history for a player' is clumsy. I have to click 3 or 4 times, and type in the player's ID, for EVERY board I wish to look at. This is time-consuming and frustrating if I am trying to investigate, for example, a player repeatedly failing to alert as required by the CoC. I think it would be GREAT if instead of selecting an individual board, BBO could bring up the player's tournament 'movie' a la the 'hands' folder. Any chance? Thanks, Justin.

My F2F partner and I have started playing support doubles/redoubles fairly recently. Can anyone suggest some (reasonably simple?) 'rules' about when they generally do or do not apply? The obvious ones are OK: Xapples-(Pass)-Ybananas-(Zoranges)-Dbl <---support double; shows exactly 3 bananas. Some notes I have from a respected teacher say that the following, amongst others, are also *support doubles: 1♣-(1♦)-1♥-(2♦)-Dbl* 1♣-(Dbl)-1♥-(2♦)-Dbl* 1♣-(Dbl)-1♥-(Dbl)-ReDbl* But I am unsure about auctions such as 1♣-(1♦)-1♥-(1♠)-X** **support, or values? The notes indicate that at the 3-level such doubles show values and strongly imply 3-card support, but is not specific about any 4-suited auctions. Also, is 1♥ in this auction promising 5, or 4 ♥s? I would have expected 5, and with only 4 that you'd make a negative double (and correct a ♠ rebid to something else?), but I have heard differing opinions. Which brings me to another part of the same notes which I consider an oddity; It suggests that after 1♣-(1♥), a double by Responder DENIES 4♠s, and that with 4+ you bid'em. This is certainly contrary to my understanding (and previous BBF threads IIRC) - that a negative double SHOWS 4 and bidding shows 5 - but I am informed that some local experts play like this. Is there a name for this method? A reason? Thanks, Justin.

YAY! Gee, I'd like to volunteer as a TD but I'd hate to miss out on playing. Decisions, decisions.

4♦, 5♣?

Standard American. So yes, opening 1NT is an option but with 2 suits wide open it's not my cup of tea. Indeed, on this particular hand we would likely reach 3NT and be helpless when opps run the first 5 tricks in ♠s. Playing NFB, the only strong options here now are ♠ cues or double.

Recently, a local expert loaned me 'Hand Evaluation in Bridge' by Brian Senior. I found the implication that I need to work on this area of my game intriguing, and there's nothing much in my first reading of the book that strikes me as anything I didn't already know. Perhaps I should read it again... Here are a couple of recent hands that might indicate that I do need to do more work on this. What would you do with these, and why? [hv=d=n&v=n&s=st9h75daq76cakqj7]133|100|Scoring: XIMP P-1♣-P-1♥; 1♠-Dbl-2♠-3♣; 3♠-???[/hv] OK, the Double might not be the best choice, but I suppose this is a matter of agreements. I play Support Doubles here with my F2F partner, but my BBO profile specifies Negative Free Bids and Action Doubles. Perhaps 2♠ would be better? [hv=d=n&v=n&s=st9h75daq76cakqj7]133|100|Scoring: XIMP P-1♣-P-1♥; 1♠-Dbl-2♠-3♣; 3♠-???[/hv] What's your call? Regards, Justin

Here's the full hand: [hv=d=e&v=e&n=s98763hq964dk65c9&w=s42hakt872da92cqt&e=skqjh5djt743cj864&s=sat5hj3dq8cak7532]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] I think I may have attacked trumps from the opening lead myself, but maybe I'm just trying to find excuses.

Yeah, I would expect partner to push on with 3+♥s on the 3rd/4th round.

Playing 1/3/5 leads I expect that the lead would be top of a doubleton. But I could easily be wrong, and am happy to be advised if this presumption is incorrect. How does the ♥7 signify posession of the ♦A better than the ♥2? Would the latter indicate a preference for a ♣ lead (thus a singleton/void?)

I would usually open with this hand, but this partner prefers sound openings.

[hv=d=e&v=e&w=s42hakt872da92cqt&s=sat5hj3dq8cak7532]266|200|Scoring: MP P-1♣-1♥-P; P-2♣-2♥-2♠; P-P-3♥-P; P-3♠-AP[/hv] ♥5-♥3-♥K-♥4 Playing 1/3/5 UDCA, and seeing the cards played to the 1st trick, I figured partner must have been singleton ♥, so returned the ♥2 for a ruff. Didn't work out so well. How would you defend?

Partner is a semi-regular online partner of mine, and has won multiple national seniors titles. He tends to be conservative in his bidding, but seems to be on a slight tilt this evening, perhaps enboldened by the MP scoring?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=skt832hkt2da754c7]133|100|Scoring: MP P-1♦-P-P; 1♠-X-2♣-P; ???[/hv]

As others, I'd assume ♣s and ♥s. However, the question is perhaps ambiguous...is the 2NT overcall in direct or balancing seat?

2♥ 1♥

I have noticed that in some tournaments, such as the ACBL, the ability of players to get a substitute for their partner is disabled and must be performed by a TD. Is it possible to have this available as an option for my free tournaments? Regards,

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sk74h62daq986ct82&w=saj86hqj3d743cqj3&e=sqt953hakt975djc5&s=s2h84dkt52cak9764]399|300|Scoring: XIMP Pass-1♥-2♣-Dbl; 3♣-3♠-4♣-4♥; Pass-Pass-5♣-???[/hv] Is the first 'negative' Double bad? What should I do now? (I should have given only my hand I guess, too bad)

it's a cruel game... I passed, and lost 8.4 IMPs. [hv=d=e&v=e&n=sq987hqt8765d84cq&w=sjt6h92dt7ck86532&e=sa53hjdaqj932cat9&s=sk42hak43dk65cj74]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Several N/S Pairs were allowed to make 4♥, though it can be held to 9 tricks, as can E/W in ♦s (♣s is better. we let them make 11). Resulting, I know. I'd probably overcall on the South hand myself. In my RL partnership 1NT is 13-15, 1♥ is also possible. Would you?

Seems Benazir was not killed - she had left the rally before the bomb went off. About 20 others dead, however. edit: oh, she was shot before the bombing? Some confusion in the news here...

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sq987hqt8765d84cq]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♦-P-P-?[/hv]

I am currently kibbing a table on board 553. I'm sure Uday could probably give a definitive answer if he felt so inclined, but I would not be at all surprised if it were 1000+.

Ack. initially I saw anti-clockwise (and voted thus), but with a slight tilt of my head was easily able to see her going clockwise. But no matter how I try I can't get her to change back! I'm sure I can see nipple. So apparently I'm logical until such time as I observe a prominent mammary protuberance at which point I become appreciative and fantasy-based. No great surprises there ;)

If Monty Python is allowed, I'd pick 'The Galaxy Song': (The last two lines seem somehow particularly appropriate to many pickup partners on BBO) I don't think I can really come up with anything quite as deep and meaningful as slothy's original post, however. There are many songs with great lyrics that have affected me for different reasons at different times in my life, even just listing the artists would be a difficult task. Top 3 would probably be Freddy Mercury, Roy Orbison, and Bono.