beowulf

I'd like to simply upvote this comment but, as usual, I've reached my daily limit of upvotes, i.e. zero. There are three reasons that individual events aren't popular (IMO): most experts don't play them because bidding and defense is a crap-shoot Bidding and defense are a crap-shoot because there isn't a well-known standard system. most of the denizens of the ACBL BBO individuals are people who can't get partners to play regularly with them.

Yes but, as others have pointed out, only due to egregious misdefense. Playing the ♠K wasn't terrible. You might have started with Jx (although the auction suggested otherwise). But throwing away ♣ instead of ♠ or ♦?? It's just bizarre.

Yes, I was thinking that too. We have a shapely hand that should probably at least invite game. Maybe best to just bid it and make it much harder for E/W to intervene

There was an ACBL regional a couple of weeks ago. But I noticed that the points won in that event do not appear in BBO totals like other ACBL events do. Is there a policy reason for this? Or is it just that nobody got around to doing it? Or it's just too hard for the BBO "platform" to handle?

Guess you've forgotten what it's like to be a beginner. But I imagine that when you were a beginner, you probably didn't have to learn during a pandemic where the only games were online. Or, maybe you'd just prefer to scare off all of those pesky newcomers and have the game die out completely in 10 years.

And it's not just the situations that Tom mentions. It is also confusing when you are kibitzing a table and you join the play after the opening lead has been made. Yes, it's perfectly easy to look at the contract, see that "West" (or whoever) is declarer, etc. etc. But that's no reason not to mark the dummy in some clear manner. Why make life more difficult than it needs to be?

I played in one of the new Swiss Pairs events today. It was a lot of fun. After the first round, we were at table 1 throughout. But, in rounds 5 and 6, we were matched again with our round 1 opponents, a very fine pair who ended up winning the event quite easily. We ended up fifth out of 10 pairs. My question is this: in a "Swiss," isn't the idea that you always are paired with the best team/pair that you haven't yet played?

I just discovered the hard way that BBO doesn't check for sufficient funds when signing up for a second tournament after signing up successfully for one tournament. These days, we need to do that sometimes simply to ensure that we get a seat. The result is that, when the tournament starts, the "offending" pair doesn't get seated. Apart from the annoyance and aggravation suffered by the pair (and, especially by the partner who did nothing "wrong"), this seems like a very unsound business practice. Since that pair can't be replaced by another pair, the tournament will start without the full complement of tables. BBO loses not only the $1.25 (for an ACBL speedball--more for one of the club games) for the player with insufficient funds but also the fee from the partner. There seem to be many possible solutions to this problem: Do what any bank would do and simply debit the player's account (especially if the player is a long-standing member who's paid thousands of $ to BBO) Check for credit every time a tournament is entered (without relying on the result from 1 minute earlier) Send a communication, via pop-up, in-mail, or email, to the effect that the credit hasn't been checked by the system I know I can have BBO automatically top up my account but that's only available for credit card, not PayPal which is my preferred way of doing it.

Of course it's a bug. We understand the necessity of reducing the idle period. But when you are in the middle of typing, or playing, or whatever and it asks you if you're still there, that suggests a poor implementation.

Personally, I think pass of 5!C is Quixotic. You have said that 5!S and 5!C are both playable contracts at the 5-level. At IMPs, it would be OK to pass 5!C. But at matchpoints? No, with Qx versus xxx, I think partner owed you a spade preference.

Yes, it's a strange poll that doesn't even include 1♥ as an option!

It's always good to tell us under what regulating authority you were playing. It stops us from having to guess. If you were playing on BBO and it was an ACBL Speedball, for example, you were playing under ACBL rules, even if you live in Timbuktu. Having said that, under ACBL rules, no doubles are alertable unless their meaning is highly unusual. In this case, their "agreement" would indeed be highly unusual and so it should have been alerted.

It's not unlike some clubs I know where, with one set of boards, 15 tables and 8 rounds, you might find yourself playing only half the same boards as your competitors.

It sounds like your partner made a bid that was risky but also had some upside potential. Doubling with a void is always dangerous as partner (you in this case) may convert with what looks like a solid, obvious pass. I appreciate you not wanting to criticize partner's bid, but there have to be some limits to "protectionism". As long as your partner was ready to apologize -- and not blame you -- then all is well. You were also a tiny bit unlucky in that responder didn't raise to 3H, assuming that he had three.

It's hard to imagine any 1♠ overcall that doesn't have some play for game opposite your hand (three aces and three trumps!). Chances of getting 4!DX down more than two are probably small.