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.

I wanted to simply up vote your answer, but I've reached my maximum number of up votes for the day (0)! But this is definitely an area for judgment once we've established that we couldn't open a weak no-trump for systemic reasons. Do we want to emphasize the fact that our values are all in the pointy suits? Or do we want to emphasize the fact that we don't have any shortness? Either could be right on any given day. But, for those of us who like to bid minor suit slams (this hand is very close actually) it's rather important to know that we have at least four of our minor (1♠ says we do, 1NT says we might). Admittedly, with the minor being diamonds, we know that opener has at least four as soon as he doesn't raise hearts.

Could it be that there are multiple sections (your posted score during the tournament is your section score, I believe) yet the match pointing is done across the field. Then if it turns out that the other people in your section have score less than 50%, you will appear to ranked #1.

Exactly. And I don't expect it to work, either. But all of your alternatives (most of which I've tried of course: team games, substituting, partnership desk) all require some effort which isn't worth it when all I have time for is a few hands. Thanks for your post.

No, you misunderstood. I'm more than happy to play with random people. Sometimes I only have a short time to play and I don't see anyone I know who isn't in a tournament. So, I click on "take me to the first table." Occasionally, I get paired up with someone who's played before and can follow suit. But that's rare. Then there's the opposite problem with the novices who think they are experts. I do something that (I think) most good players would do and, even though we may have gained IMPs, my partner doesn't like it and, if he's the host, he will summarily boot me off the table.

I've really had it with individual tournaments and random tables on BBO. I've had more than my share recently of people who just learned to play bridge yesterday and/or don't play transfers, etc. Even speedballs can be frustrating when your opponents haven't a clue. Why can't we have a section of BBO where you have to qualify to play? Perhaps it wouldn't be free. That's OK. My time is valuable and I really hate to waste it. What would the qualification be? That's a tough one. For ACBL events we could require players to be Life Master perhaps. Not exactly a mark of great accomplishment but I'd think most would know what a transfer is. Or perhaps there could be some sort of BBO threshold to meet (but not BBO points--those can be won quite easily by people with tons of time on their hands but who can't follow suit). I would particularly enjoy individual tournaments where everybody must play a standard card. It doesn't matter what the card is--just so long as it is published in advance. (I've suggested that before without much success). If it's good enough for Cavendish-type competitions, surely it's good enough for us on BBO? Now, I really should apologize for sounding elitist. I don't mean to and that's not my normal way. I just want to get to play with my peers. I will even volunteer to play mentor sessions with newer players who really want to learn. I certainly want to encourage new players! I'm sure it's as frustrating to them when I do something they don't understand. Ideally, I like to play team games because the standard there is generally so much higher. But far too many team games are ruined by players quitting when they don't like what their partner did. And then of course there's the impossibility in pick-up team games to actually sit down with a partner of your own choosing. What do other people think?

Surely, we are forced to either 2♠ or to punish the opponents for their transgression. Therefore, partner's pass should show a hand that is at least willing to defend 2♦X. He doesn't necessarily have a good hand, but he won't have a sub-standard hand. He might well have only four spades. However, given that we have four ourselves, it would be taking a very deep position to double here, I think. 2♠ seems totally clear. Of course, if they bid on, we will penalize them.

This does seem to be an area where the non-offending side is getting the old heave-ho. Or heads you lose, tails they win. I think it's quite clear that Barmar is correct in his interpretation of the laws. But the law can be, and often is, as the saying goes, an ass. That would be a British ass, not an American one, BTW. Presumably, this law dates (like many of the laws) from the days when conventions, such as Lebensohl, were much less common. Really, the only thing going for the opening side is that for many (intervening) pairs, just making the bid sufficient will be illegal because it is likely to carry a different meaning (not all pairs, obviously). But if I play that 2H is a natural overcall of 1NT and I start by undercalling 1H, the worst that can happen to me is that I have to bid 2H. It does seem a little unfair to the opponents (the opening side and non-offenders) that they are not allowed to capitalize on my error. Having said all this, I'm firmly of the opinion that, after an irregularity (either by partner or by the opponents) direct bids should be natural since, by law, they cannot have any pre-arranged meaning. So, to go back to the original post, it seems to me that there is nothing illegal in the following scheme after 1NT (IB): (don't accept) then use your normal agreements (the IB essentially never happened) (do accept) then take the (legally mandated) opportunity to bid naturally, so e.g. if you want to play 2C, just bid 2C.

Plenty of opinionated commenters on your choice of 1♣ opening. Best solution for this type of hand is for it to be in your 1NT range. Not much fun if partner has a Yarborough of course but it wins out on this type of hand. If you do have to open 1 of a minor, I think it's pretty much up to you to decide whether you think this hand is balanced or unbalanced. If balanced, bid 1♣ and then, assuming you don't hear 1♦ from partner, rebid 1NT. If unbalanced, start with 1♦ so that you can rebid clubs. The trouble with considering this hand as balanced is that you won't be thrilled rebidding 1NT over a major, and raising 1♥ to 2♥ is I think stretching things a bit. On balance, 1♦ opening probably best here. Mikeh's comments re: competition are also appropriate -- although if there is an overcall, I believe there will be a better chance that partner can make a negative double (or raise) if you start with 1♣ than 1♦ but the difference probably isn't great compared with the rebid problem discussed above.

I'm upset. My favorite partner and I almost never get to play speedball tournaments. We signed up for one this evening at 8pm. There was a big field it looked great. Actually, we signed up at about 7:40 just to be sure. At 7:58 we went back to our computers. I was still apparently logged in. The countdown on the tournament went from 1 minute to "<1 minute". At 8pm I hear from next door "my registration was cancelled -- your team was not all present." I'm guessing that I was logged out. But if that's the case, why did it appear to me that I was still logged in?

I mostly play ACBL Robot tournaments when I'm online and have no partner. Occasionally, I feel like some human interaction and I sign up for an ACBL Individual. The standard of play is unbelievably bad in these tournaments. I don't mean subtle/advanced stuff such as watching partners discards or signals. Or counting out the whole hand. I don't expect that. But really basic stuff like when you have just one more loser in a suit contract and you can ruff it in dummy safely and then draw trumps. Is that so very hard? Or not ruffing partner's established winners on defense. We're not talking rocket science here. So, it got me wondering. Is there any possibility that individual tournaments could be flighted? Could we have an individual tourney every now and then that is restricted to people who have reached Life Master status? I think that might be quite enjoyable.