runewell

I was playing in Individual Tourney 1228 last night. Several of us are waiting for the last board to finish. 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 (edit:ui) 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. :lol: 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.

Well, you'd better alert the ACBL. Here's an instance where they had eight teams play seven matches against each other and mistakenly called it a Swiss. Come to think of it, the ACBL made another mistake. In a "Swiss" where there were more teams than matches, they put us in something called a "round robin". They even put an RR on the scoresheet for the first round. Funny thing is, I only played two other teams in this "round robin". Flt A/X Swiss Teams Both Session November 11, 2007 Scores after 7 rounds Team Wins Score O/All Rank MPs 3 5.00 96.00 X 1 1 5.50(OA) Gary Larson - Barbara Larson - Evelyn Chien - Dixie Hart 4 5.00 78.00 A 2 4.13(OA) Robert Otto - James Carbaugh - Frank Hellenthal - Mark Patton 5 4.00 76.00 A 3 3.09(OA) J Hughes - Paulette Koontz - Bill Kent - Gary Mehlin 2 4.00 75.00 X 2 2.92(OX) Doug Schlosser - Martha Schlosser - Paula Crabbs - Terry Crabbs 8 3.00 69.00 X 0.78(SA) Maureen Garlich - Arnold Adelberg - Leroy Knutson - M Tibbetts 7 3.00 58.00 X 0.78(SA) Carol Whiteis - William Whiteis - Dennis Affholter - Albion Young 6 3.00 57.00 X 0.78(SA) Larry Delfs - Betty Tomanka - Charles Woodruff - Virginia Krueger 1 1.00 51.00 X 0.26(SA) Jim Callison - James Carey - Marlys Barby - Charlotte Klatt

Given the popularity of KOs at regional tournaments, you would think there would be a place for them in cyberspace. The limiting factor is that KO's are typically multiple-session events and might require a bit of administration - but I think they would be popular. I can't see this happening over the course of twelve boards though. That's only a reasonable time for one good match or two short swiss matches. Two short swiss matches would only be enough to accomodate a field of 4 teams. I have no idea what the masterpoint awards would be as a result either, having no experience here. Perhaps the entry fee should be increased to $2 and the tourney to 24 boards. Then you can arrange four rounds of six boards or perhaps three rounds of eight. It occurs to me that what I'm really asking for is a bracketed Swiss, where teams are grouped in 4's and 5's according to total masterpoints and play every other team, because if you have a KO then what do you do with the people that get knocked out? A bracketed Swiss eliminates this. All you would have to do is write a program to break out the number of teams into 4-5 team groups and then have the program record all the victory points. There would also be some miniscule per match award. The other thing is that 4-person events would need to be entered, getting confirmation from all teammates. Suppose 31 teams enter. The computer splits them into teams of something like 4/4/4/4/5/5/5. The top 16 teams play three rounds of eight. The bottom 15 teams play four rounds of six. Then you would need to know what to awards to give out. I was trying to imagine if multiple-session KOs were feasible but that just seems to be asking a lot from the internet. Thoughts anyone?

1/3 of the pts to achieve a rank can be online, not 1/2 (unless it changed recently). So only 100 online pts toward the 300 needed. Lots of misinformation. I didn't think the definition of flighted above was right either, sounds like stratified to me. When I think flighted I think strataflighted swiss. Stratafied is everyone plays everyone, A/B/C. Strataflighted means A/X plays separate, B/C/D plays separate but the flights are stratafied. So I would think Flighted is the separation into different playing groups. But what do I know.

Let the masterpoint inflation continue! (Although for as large as the games get on BBO I think it's justified) Effective January 1, 2008 The Swiss match awards are increased to .015/board at club-rated events and .02/board at club championship-rated events. Section awards will still be limited to 1.50 for an open rating point game. Overall awards are allowed for all games of 16 or more tables. The maximum allowable overall award at an open club rating point game, or an Internet club game is increased to 2.50 at 0.10 per table. The maximum for invitational and lower games is increased by the same percentage.

Sign me up

I'm a bit disappointed to what has happened to the slowball tourneys. My regular partner can barely play 2 hands in 14 minutes as it is, so speedball isn't an option for us. As long as one decent sized section can be maintained that would suffice, but I've seen instances where turnout is very low or a cancellation is necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if speedball brings in more $$ but you may lose the customers that want a slower game. I'm going to have to look into the alternative sites as a result to see what is available. I don't want my tournament to be a no-show again.

I know the opponents were vul, don't remember if we were. Partner opens 1C, RHO bids 1D. I'm staring at: ♠ Q8xx ♥ Qx ♦ Axxxx ♣ T9 Evidently what little I can find on the subject says you can bid a 4-cd major here. I don't care for that since I can't show a 5-cd major. 1NT is also an option, but for the moment I pass. My partner reopens with a double and now LHO bids 1H. I proceeded to bid 1S now and partner raised to 4S with ♠ KT9 ♥ AKx ♦ xx ♣ AKxxx in which case 3NT made easily but 4S was down one. I'd be interested in your commentary/critique.

I would enjoy the chance to play a longer tournament, 16 or 20 or 24 boards. But the 12-board format is very convenient, it's nice to be done in 90 minutes and it's enough time to sort out some winners and losers. It's not uncommon to see 80 pairs = 40 tables, tournament size. It would be nice if the ACBL sanctioned some 24-board online club championships maybe twice a month and dole out some real overall awards - maybe 5 points or so - and charge some $$. The tourneys as they are now remain an incredible value. I pay 20% of the club rate, play 50% of the boards and get 80% of the award. I do enjoy the game too, not just the points or the economics of the situation. I think that the level of play is pretty good. Once in awhile you will get someone not as good - but that happens at the club too.

A 299er game already exists. Everyone else plays in the regular game. What incentive does a LM game serve? Maybe some people like the idea of bidding undos or mid-chart conventions. But not very many, by the looks of it. If the LM's are advised to play in this new game, who is supposed to play in the other game? NLM's with 300+ masterpoints? I just don't see three compelling segments here. :blink: If you had a list of people's masterpoint holdings, you could hold an <1000 game and award some fraction of masterpoints between the 299er game and the open game, otherwise I have a hard time seeing what the LM game will accomplish. I do appreciate the fact the Bridgebase wishes to offer us more choices, I'm just trying to help us understand why this new option hasn't been well-received thus far.

On the last board of tourney # 835 I was about to make 4CX for an excellent score. But time was running out, and with two tricks to go suddenly everything disappeared and I finished 9th with an Ave- on the last board. I griped with ACBL_08 about how unfair this is; on any other board the director routinely adjusts the board to a reasonable score. But because this was the last board it was simply too late. I am thankful to ACBL_08 that after all was said and done, a change was made and I placed #2. It only seems fair; untimely results are generally never discarded at the club in my experience. I just wonder if some control should be put in place so that the tourney's end arrives once the last card is played and not once the clock runs out. The director can always speed the hand up when the result is obvious.