runewell

I played a robot tourney against my friend adelbe. The results were surprising... :blink: I'm not against the new stratification since there simply aren't overall awards, but it would seem fairer if jccasper and SandraGeb could have each shared 0.90 and Arnie and I could have each shared 0.63. Oh well :D Name Score ( % ) Rank A B C Prize Points jccasper 65.27 1 0.90 SandraGeb 64.65 2 0.63 adelbe 61.60 3 0.45 Section 2 Name Score ( % ) Rank A B C Prize Points runewell 59.46 1 0.90 chablis314 53.81 2 1 1 0.54 patosa 53.80 2 1 0.54

I appreciate that GIB now lets you double and rebid without showing 27hcp or whatever, but there is a bug. Tonight, 10:15 central time, tourney 3310, board 7 (played by runewell) In first chair I open 1C, 1H by GIB, 1NT by me, 2D new minor forcing by the bot (which is correct) Unfortunately my choices are not what I expect now: 2H shows a minimum hand with 4 hearts. 2S shows a jump shift 19-22hcp 2NT shows a 18-19 balanced 3NT is running suit (clubs) Higher bids may be splinters Seems that GIB has gone through the bidding sequence but thinks the sequence is only up to 1C 1H ? for the responses.

OK when a section is small, only 10 tables, it is true that the top award is reduced to 0.60. But, you only had to defeat 9 other players to achieve this award, instead of 14 or 47. In the end the new scoring system should prove more profitable, even if you don't get 0.90 with each win.

How does this format punish anyone? The most these 12-board games paid out was 0.90 to one person. The awards went down from there, and say that 40% of the field wins an award and 45 participate. Then the top 18 would get an award. In the new format the 45 people are divided into 3 sections of 15. The top 6 in each section win an award, so still 18 people are recipients. But now they give out the top 6 places x3. Three people can win 0.90 instead of one. People looking to accumulate masterpoints should love the new format, which isn't inconsistent with the way things are done today at a large club game. Sure, you can get unlucky and land in a challenging section, but in the long run it will certainly be more lucrative. Years and years ago on ebridge there would only be one section and it wouldn't be unusual for me to get 53% in a pairs game. That might be 30th out of 85 pairs, and I would win 0.04. I'm glad those days are over. I don't think that masterpoint giveaways should be ridiculous, but again I don't see any major flaws. Except that with the smaller sections there really shouldn't be any need to limit the number of registrants to 48, should there? If there were a reason to do so before, it would be because the awards got rather small.

In third seat I open 1♦ with 18hcp and it goes pass pass, 2♦ Michaels. In many auctions GIB on my left bid 4S with its four spades and near-opener and was destined to go down 2 because RHO was extrememly weak. But I doubled 2♦ holding AQTxx and all of the sudden LHO bids 2NT advertising 5-5 in the minors when it is actually 4-3. RHO bids 3C and I double this because they have a clear misfit, and LHO passes and goes down 1100. STRANGE. http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetchlin.php?id=2120882&when_played=1332192721

Popular sections are starting to max out the 48 spots available. I think BBO should consider removing this limit and breaking the size of the sections up a bit. BBO is leaving money in the table when people want to join but can't.

The uncontested auction went 1S by me, 1NT by GIB, 2H by me, 3D my GIB which the description says is twice biddable CLUBS which of course was nonsense, so something went wrong.

Plus you have a 1/3 chance that the opponents aren't going to have a clue what to keep, they can only have two cards at the end.

From a team game: http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...ayed=1276825689 ♠ A ♥ AKQJT862 ♦ A ♣ AK2 If I told you partner had only one face card, what would you bid? Click on the link to find out what happened.

I think I've mentioned this elsewhere before, but the new software lacks chat and therefore a capability for unknowns to arrange and play team matches, requiring me to stay on the old version, which I would happily forgo except for this one item. It would be nice if there were a facility for seeing people interested in a random team game. The current format is as follows: 1. One person shouts out to the lobby the intention to run a match. 2. Any number of people (from not enough to way too many) respond. 3. The director has to key in everyone's names, and in the minute it takes to do that, sometimes people go off and do something else. 4. Sometimes the director now has to ask again for more names. Team matches are an important part of BBO culture, I think there should be an area where people sign up to play a match. You could have options to match all experts, all advanced players, or combinations. Or someone could arrange a specific match and people could see it and sign up to play themselves. This might be deserving of its own thread. Any thoughts? Or is this too small a subculture to worth the attention?

I have never worn a tie, please revoke all of my winnings in events requiring ties. Thank you.

The conditions of contest give us almost an hour to play these boards. If the person is online, there could be a connection problem. Or, knowing I have 40 minutes left to finish the last four boards I could take a break and do some stuff and then return. I don't think you are going to find a satisfactory compromise here.

I'm surprised everyone is so huffy about waiting to see the results. Yes I like to see them too, but if you have 15 minutes to wait do get some water, write some emails, surf the web, do something else. You can always check back later too, the world doesn't hinge on whether you won 0.24 points or not. The time limit is an hour and we're entitled to use that hour.... :P

Bummer, I love playing team matches but getting them started is a lot less likely this way :lol:

I thought GIB's interpretation of my hand was amusing, I held ♠AJTxx ♥KQxx ♦x ♣KJx The bidding goes 1♦ on my left, pass pass and in the balancing seat I double. GIB assumes 9+ pts and 3+♣, 3+♥, and 3+♠. Fair enough, and GIB repsonded 1NT with 9hcp and six diamonds. As I reviewed a possible second bid, I looked at what a 2♦ bid would represent now. No lie, GIB says it anticipates: 4+♣, 4+♦, 4+♥, and 4+♠ :P In the end I bid 2NT which GIB passed, just making.

I'm trying to play using one of those newfangled 10-inch netbooks. On both the old and new site, I'm unable to see any chat. On the new web-based site, I can see an area for chat but I see no chat. That makes it hard to join team matches or set them up - you get the idea. Am I missing any kind of setting that makes it possible to see chat? :P

Even though defense is an important skill, I think it's better off giving the human the best hand, which usually means the responsibility of bidding and playing the hand. If the robots get a good run of hands and play 9 or 10 of them, what is there left for the human to show skill-wise? Not nearly as much.

I think the event is weird enough that it barely resembles an ACBL event. It's an unusual individual event and as such I just can't get excited about the idea of stratification. I fixed your quote (IFYQ)

This is a big can of worms. If the conditions are no undos, then there simply ought not be any. Otherwise, other people that might also benefit from an otherwise legitimate undo will not because they are playing by the rules and living without them.

25 23:32 GiB runewell GiB GiB 4♥E= -420 0.00% Movie or Lin Traveller 26 23:36 GiB runewell GiB GiB 3NS+1 630 79.17% Movie or Lin Traveller 27 23:42 GiB runewell GiB GiB 4♥S+2 480 62.50% Movie or Lin Traveller 28 23:44 GiB runewell GiB GiB 4♥N+1 650 58.33% Movie or Lin Traveller 29 23:47 GiB runewell GiB GiB 3NS= 600 75.00% Movie or Lin Traveller 30 23:51 GiB runewell GiB GiB 3NS+1 430 58.33% Movie or Lin Traveller 31 23:53 GiB runewell GiB GiB 2♥N+2 170 66.67% Movie or Lin Traveller 32 23:57 GiB runewell GiB GiB 7NS= 1520 100.00% Movie or Lin Traveller 33 00:02 GiB runewell GiB GiB 4♠S-6 -300 8.33% Movie or Lin Traveller 34 00:10 GiB runewell GiB GiB 6NS= 1440 95.83% Movie or Lin Traveller 35 00:14 GiB runewell GiB GiB 4♠S= 420 91.67% Movie or Lin Traveller 36 00:19 GiB runewell GiB GiB 2♦xE-1 100 66.67% Movie or Lin Traveller Played this one Aug. 2/3 - 63.54% 2nd place. OK not nearly as exciting as Bruce's result. This could qualify as a new event - get as high a score as possible but first make sure to get a bottom board.

Have you tried this yet? Earning ACBL masterpoints with GIB at your table? I've had pretty good success thus far. B) The bots are a bit quirky. On the one hand, when you scroll over a bid you find out exactly what the robot expects of your bid and what you should expect from it. On the other hand, sometimes you are in for a bit of a surprise. :angry: It is a definite departure from some aspects of the bridge game. You almost never need to worry about remembering conventions - although and unexplained Lebensohl bid finally popped up after no such excitement in maybe seven or eight tourneys. It's not so much a partnership game anymore as much as it is an exercise in bidding and declarer play. Those are valuable skills, but they will be overemphasized in exchange for little or no defensive action. :( One more thing, if you get the best hand at the table and it has 12hcp, that has implications that you might not get from a normal game where there is no such assumption. I think it's a decent alternative to the never-know-whatcha-gonna-get feel of individual tourneys, but it's a far cry from the norm. B)

How about blasting to 4NT? what you really need to know are key cards in spades. The hearts should be working. Then you can decide who gets to play the hand - errr I mean, which major suit is best as trump.

From the 10PM ACBL speedball tourney on 10/4/08 my partner picked up this unbelievable hand: ♠ AKT ♥ AK ♦ AKQ9 ♣ AK94 30 high card points, to say nothing of the spots. I'd say you need to upgrade this to 31 :blink: How do you bid this? Fortunately for us, my 2♦ response to 2♣shows values. However that only gave partner license to blast to 6NT, making 7 opposite ♠ QJxx ♥ xx ♦ Txxx ♣ Qxx

Thanks Jacki. I've since chatted with the director and emailed Jacki and the folks at BBO a response, some of which I'm putting here: The director was kind enough to explain the situation to me. I thought that was a very nice gesture. I've never been a director, and while this isn't the sort of outcome you would expect at a head-to-head ACBL tournament, it is for the best. Some of the results were half-reasonable but several were insane. It wasn't the same as deliberate 7NTs but it had a similar effect. And even though you takes yer chances in the individual, you expect better than this for your dollar and your hour of time. Don't go as far as to say it will never happen again. You may need to do it again. Maybe then there won't be someone like me making a fuss. Thanks for listening. In retrospect, I think the director did the right thing. Online bridge has its own particular challenges. Adjustments occur thousands of miles away and communication is a challenge. I didn't want to think that adjusting poor results was acceptable practice, but this certainly was an extreme exception and not the rule. And they didn't make me say this.

(edit: stuff deleted that allows id of a bbo member not here to defend themselves, nor the director) On board 12 several people made 10 tricks in spades, I was one of the ones who didn't. This person bids up to 5SX and then nothing happens, it's like the person is stalling or something. With 2 min to go the person sits there at 5SX and doesn't even make the final pass after the double. The director assigned some sort of A=+ for the time being. I take a look at the results and the person in question is in the high 30% range. I note to the director that 5SX is going to be more or less a near-bottom result. The director's reply to me was something to the effect of: this person is too inexperienced and I'm going to adjust everything. Next thing I know, that player is sitting at 50% and a lot of other scores have moved. This person definitely made some questionable calls on a few boards but I don't recall seeing the ACBL rule a persons results as unworthy of being included and dismissing them. If the person made a habit of bidding 7NT, OK that's deliberate. But I think this person made some interesting calls and is entitled to try to play bridge and have it count. No response as of yet concerning this conspiracy, we'll give em another day before forward it to the ACBL...