Sir John D

Yes, I added them before I created the tournament

I am having trouble adding people to my custom list. I have added them to it for a tournament next week and also added them to my friends list, but they still appear as blocked. Is there anything else I can do? This has happened to the last 4 people I have tried to add

I am an Acol player With South's hand, I would open 1♥ as I would use high card points and length points to create a 12 point hand. As I have a 5-card major, then I do not open 1NT. If my partner changes suit, then I would rebid 2♥ to show a minimum hand (ie 12-14 points) and at least five hearts If I had been East, then I would also have used 2♣ as Non-Promissory Stayman (obviously by agreement). I might have been tempted to pass the 2♦ reply as it shows that West does not hold a 4-card major. A bit of a risk, but West may have length in one or both minors. At worst, it may be a 4-2 fit. But, if my diamond suit had been 3 or less cards, then I would have rebid 3♣. This would be my way of showing a weak hand (ie 0-10 points) and 5+ ♣. If I had held a strong hand, then I would have jumped to 3♣ in response to the opening 1NT bid. The NP bit of Stayman is to cover weak minor suit and not necessarily having a 4-card major. North has a difficult decision with regard to using a defence to the 1NT opening by West as there are not many points. If only using the bid to show shape, then could use whatever their agreement would be (eg Pottage, Landy). If North is responding to South's opening of 1♥, then they may raise to 3♥ to show 10-12 points and support (using high card points and shortage points) or even 4♥ if they use the losing trick count (reducing by 1 loser for the fit). As the cards lie, N/S would need a gift to make 10 tricks

Just to confirm, a few weeks ago, I set up my first Howell tournament. It was an experiment and I set it up for 6 pairs only (ie three tables) and for one board per round. So, as there would only be 5 rounds, we had a maximum number of 5 boards. The tournament was CLOCKED. But, it worked. Each pair met the other pair and played their board. I usually organise my tournaments for up to a maximum of 36 pairs. I do this as it would give me two sections of 9 tables, and thus, it would run like two Mitchell-styled tournaments. With 18 boards, the field is happy. Again, the tournament is CLOCKED. So, each N/S plays all the E/W. I only use the Howell Movement if I have 3, 4 or 5 tables. This means that I can organise the number of boards per round around sensible numbers of 5, 7 or 9 rounds. However, the BBO Computer can cope with up to 40 pairs. How that would work, I can't imagine. With 20 tables, the mind boggles as to how it organises the boards per round. My lot prefer to play all the other pairs and have around 18 boards. But, the Howell works. So, thanks to BBO Management and BBO IT Team [see https://blog.bridgebase.com/2020/04/18/how-to-run-howell-for-small-tourneys/]. Those Hosts with permission can now set up a Howell Tournament. Keep safe

Yippee! I have been given the facility to run Howell Movements. I am not sure why it has to be given. It would be a lot easier to tick a box when setting up a tourney. But, at least I can now set up a Howell Comp. Now the problem is the number of boards and the number of rounds. So, I have worked out or found this out: I put +howell+ in the description of the tournament (not +Howell+) and the BBO computer "knows" that it is to be a Howell Movement. Plus, I make sure that all my tournaments are CLOCKED so that the pairs don't move earlier than the rest. There is a way to let the computer put breaks in to the movement or automatically work out the number of boards, but for the moment, I haven't got my head round those. So, until I do, I have to consider the following: To work out the number of rounds in a Howell, I multiply the number of tables by 2, and then deduct 1 from the answer. So, for a 3-table Howell, I would expect 5 rounds. That is, ((3x2)-1) using my simple math's brain that uses thick crayon. Now the number of boards. I find that players don't want loads and loads. So, I can consider: 2 tables - 4 pairs - 4/5/6 boards per round, which equals 12/15/18 in total as there are 3 rounds. I would probably aim for 18 3 tables - 6 pairs - 3/4 boards per round, which equals 15/20 in total as there are 5 rounds. I would probably aim for 15, but with a stronger field, 20 4 tables - 8 pairs - 2/3/4 boards per round, which equals 14/21/28 in total as there are 7 rounds. I would probably aim for 14, but with a stronger field, 21 5 tables - 10 pairs - 2/3 boards per round, which equals 18/27 in total as there are 9 rounds. I would probably aim for 18 With 6 tables (ie 12 pairs), then it would be 11 rounds and the total number would be 11 boards or 22. Many players seem to dislike one board per round but 22 boards would be too many. The more tables, then the more boards. So, a similar problem. It is interesting that in F2F clubs, players don't mind 24 or more boards, but for some reason, they dislike that many whilst playing online. As for Mitchell Movements, then I have discovered that the BBO computer does its own version. As long as I organise a CLOCKED tournament, the computer will let the N/S "stay and the E/W pairs, will "move". However, as everyone plays the same boards at the same time, I doubt that the movement works out in the same way as if F2F. I am not going to even try to work it out. But, there does not seem to be a need for a skip or share and relay with even number of tables. But, what I like is that by using the CLOCKED element in the creation of the tournament, there is no worry that players will be playing the same pairs over and over. Again, I need to consider the number of rounds and the number of boards. The BBO computer will create the Mitchell-styled Movement for tables up to and including 15 tables. So, I can consider: 5 tables - 10 pairs - 3/4/5 boards per round, which equals 15/20/25 in total as there are 5 rounds. I would probably aim for 15, but with a stronger field, 20 6 tables - 12 pairs - 2/3/4 boards per round, which equals 12/18/24 in total as there are 6 rounds. I would probably aim for 18 7 tables - 14 pairs - 2/3/4 boards per round, which equals 14/21/28 in total as there are 7 rounds. I would probably aim for 14, but with a stronger field, 21 8 tables - 16 pairs - 2/3 boards per round, which equals 16/24 in total as there are 8 rounds. I would probably aim for 16 9 tables - 18 pairs - 2/3 boards per round, which equals 18/27 in total as there are 9 rounds. I would probably aim for 18 The problem for me is that for 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 tables, I would end up with one board per round or two boards per round. That would give 10 to 15 boards or 20 to 30 boards. This part of the Movement is awkward. However, once the tournament can register 32 pairs, then the BBO computer will create two section of 8 tables. So, each section keeps to itself and can play 16 or 24 boards. I haven't experimented any further but would imagine that the computer will create another section if more tables were added. What the split would be, I don't know. There does not seem to be a clear document that gives such information. For me, it has been trial and error and trying to figure out from others. Ideally, I would be happy with two sections of 9 tables playing 18 boards. Sadly, I doubt that I would get that many players to register. Also, the Howell Movement does not permit more than one section and so, the BBO computer does not automatically do it and the movement is capped. I didn't register at what limit as I would only use the movement for at most, 5 tables. Although not ideal, and there is room for improvement, at least I can now manage my smaller tournaments. Am learning lots but just wish it was all in the same place. Keep safe ♥

I suppose my point is that I would like to play a game of bridge where I meet the rest of the field. So, although it has taken me ages to work out what the BBO computer does, I have "proved" to myself that I can set up a tournament for different numbers of pairs. For example, I now have the facility to organise a Howell Movement. I personally would only use them for small groups of 2 to (and including) 5 tables. With 6 tables, it would become an 11 round comp and that doesn't work well for me when deciding on the number of boards. I like to aim for 12 to 18 boards, and I can manage that with the Howell Movement that uses 2, 3, 4 or 5 tables. When the tournament is CLOCKED, then I have discovered that the BBO computer will create a Mitchell-styled Movement. Again, when considering the boards, it works OK up to and including 9 tables. With 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 tables, the boards would have to be one board per round and that is then 10 to 15 boards. Players seem to dislike one board per round movements. I don't blame them. A comp that is 20 to 30 boards would be too much. However, I have found that once this CLOCKED tournament gets to 16 boards, the BBO computer automatically creates two sections of 8 tables. So, that means I only have to consider 8 rounds. Therefore, I can get away with 2 boards a round and 16 boards in total. But for me, as I have chosen to create tournaments for locals who cannot get to their local clubs, I restrict to a Custom List. So, numbers are not that great. A struggle to get 16 tables. Difficult to tell people they can't join if I have enough for 9 tables. I personally don't want to play 8 boards as quickly as possible. Nor do I want to play the same players again and again. But, when I see tournaments with 200 pairs, then I don't understand how it works. How can that many just play 8 boards or just play 12 boards? I know I am not good with super math's and I am not a computer whizz kid, but it just seems bonkers. How can it be a fair score to play against a massive field? I did write to some of the Hosts/Directors of such tournaments but suspect that they are new and have no idea. I don't know if the BBO splits them in to sections but certainly can't be 8 tables in each section. I am missing something. But, I thought if I could find a movement that would suit these massive comps, then surely we would all benefit. I admit that I have no idea what I am talking about with regard to computers and systems but this web movement idea would surely give a better concept of having a "good game". Keep safe

It would be interesting to see if there is any tax involved in all this. I would have thought that any UK citizen who is paying $ may be able to get a refund for the tax paid. But, if bricks and mortar clubs are also getting the tax refund but not passing it on, then this becomes a tad awkward. If the case, then they are getting paid twice. Surely, I am mistaken. Please tell me I am mistaken.

I didn't appreciate that. Have been wasting my time. Gutted. It would be helpful to have a facility to contact all on the Custom List, for example. Saves all the faffing. Have tried to understand computer programming but sadly, beyond my brain. Even in lockdown, all the time in the World, is not going to help. Keep safe

I am an Acol player that is used to ordinary tournaments and if my partner had opened 1!h, then I would expect to be in a slam, but which one? I would delay the game slightly, by responding 2!c, which shows 10 points and at least 4 clubs. When my partner rebids 3!h, then I can start to guess what they have. With my 19 HCP and partner's expected 15+ HCP, then I can 'see' at least 34 HCP, and at least a 7-card heart fit. What is my partner's distribution? With at least 6 hearts, they have 7 other cards. I need to check if I can protect those losers? I can estimate 2 losers in my hand. I would need to know if they have the Aces and King of Hearts. I would expect losers to go on the clubs. So, in an ordinary tournament I would go to RKCB based on 1430 answers. With the right answers, then I would be looking for 7nt. However, this concept of speedball is the issue here. I have not played in such a tournament but can imagine that speed is of the essence. In Goulash competitions, the regular players create a particular method of bidding to match the type of hands to expect. I can imagine that playing at speed would need such a system to manage the speed. At speed, perhaps the majority would go for 6!h, and so to ensure a win, perhaps a bid at the 7 level is necessary. Wish you could ask the bidders as it would be useful to know their thinking. Keep safe

I must admit, my brain is still trying to work it out but there may be someone who can make sense of it: The English Bridge Union have some information about web movements - the use of the word web does not refer to being online: https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/articles/web-movement-16t12r.pdf It gives details of how to work out the tables and boards for 16 tables (ie 32 pairs). If someone knows someone who has an interest in computers and writing programmes, and yes, it may well be a three year old, then I am sure they have plenty of time on their hands at the moment to jot something down. I have already sent details to BBO about Howell Movements for small tournaments of between two and six tables. So, perhaps, during these strange times, there will be something positive to come out of all this. maya angelou's quote to "be a rainbow in someone else's cloud" seems quite apposite in today's World. Keep safe

Next time a director uses the blast method, ask them how they did it. It may be that they have a special gadget or BBO have given them an extra facility.

When I asked when BBO was going to lift the limit of free tournaments as it looked like capacity during the evening was similar to earlier in the day, I did not expect them to shift the time. The UK are just trying to adjust to the times you gave in the first place, which of course will shift the volume. When I ask for BBO Help, the reply is more to do with letting clubs that make money have priority even if they have only been established since March 2020. On here, the problem is traffic using the BBO Site. There is a message in the News in the BBO Club and a link to a message dated 1st April asking those in the UK to play from 11pm at night until 9am the next day (ie the best time to play). When I first saw that, I thought it was an April Fool. Is it for real? Does anyone from the UK play during the night? What is the actual problem? I am not a computer expert, but when I see the same capacity of Users online AND a vast number of free tournaments, then I do not understand why it cannot be done in the evening with the same capacity of Users. Please can someone help me understand as I have to field the complaints I am getting from Users who want to play in their usual tournaments. Plus, if you do respond, then I would be grateful if you could use thick crayon. Keep safe

I wish there was a way to do this, too. Other than to create a separate email list, I can'f find a way to talking to all. With current Data Protection legislation, I am loath to set anything so formal. I have noticed that if I am looking at the details of a tournament and it starts, then I get the welcome message to the tournament. There is a way for a Director to chat to the tournament during play, but I can't find a way before or after the tournament. It is times like this that I wish I understood how to create computer programmes, as it would be a useful to respond quickly to this query and set something up. To all, keep safe

A friend went on to the BBO web site today and noticed that during the afternoon (UK time), there were just under 46 thousand players online and about 100 free tournaments set up to start by 5.45pm (BST). Yesterday, there were similar number of players but in the evening (UK time), there were not many free tournaments. So, it would seem that there is capacity to cope with a huge number of players AND tournaments. This is great news. So, when will BBO be lifting their ban on UK free tournaments that start between 1pm to 5pm (EST) (6pm to 10pm British Summer Time)? I am sure that BBO Management will appreciate that not everyone wants to play in the English Bridge Union tournaments that have been introduced since March 2020 and although they are available at 7.30pm (BST) and 9.00pm (BST), many BBO players would prefer to give their allegiance to the tournaments that have been in existence for many, many years. It is good to see so many free tournaments still being allowed but now we know that the capacity exists to cope with the volume, UK players look forward to supporting the long established bridge tournaments, again. A big thank you to all those that give their time for free in these strange times and to all those on the the uncertain front line. To all, keep safe