Ant590

Many thanks for the continued coverage of major events on BBO. It is a shame, however that someone such as Roland has to periodically give the event's website for new viewers... could the theater not include an extra button (say in the big space bottom-left of the play area where the GiB sign appears, for instance) with a link to the event's site if available?

A slightly superior way that is less likely to annoy an opponent who is merely thinking of which card to play is to observe the number of people in the lobby. It generally ticks up/down every few seconds and if one is lagged it too stops.

<rant> If you continually extend round time because some people are replaced by subs (rather than let the movement continue and assign scores/ averages) more people will become frustrated and leave.... therefore perpetuating the problem. </rant>

Yeah, this idea (very similar to having a 'screens' option to limit inferences from hesitations) is great..... but aren't misbids and 'wrong card' undos AI to your RHO who would not see them?

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=shakq5daqj642cj65]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♥ - pass - ?[/hv] Your agreements are listed in the poll, which do you choose? and why*? Would you play 4♠ as a void-splinter, voidwood or something else? Cheers in advance, Ant. *I'm a beginner and this is not just about proving someone right-wrong, I want to know what i should be thinking here :rolleyes:

Hi, Me and someone I have played with for a couple of years play a 'natural' 3NT opener. We decided some time back to forgo any strong 2 level suited bids, and were not men enough to learn a strong club system. So we added NAMYATS and a 3NT 'to play' for a hand that is worried that a one-level bid might get passed out. I believe it has come up three times in 12 months, each time being a balanced hand of roughly 24 points. We have a modicum of system over it, but generally play pairs so 3NT is often a fairly decent spot, even if we have a fit on the side. We feel that the destruction we can cause with our 2-level bids (Rough 2s etc) gains us more MPs than we lose when we play opposite such a 3NT with a big fit on the side. Obviously we aren't great players, so my testimony bears little weight. Ant. Edit: Of course the assumed fit style pre-empts we play are not allowed in the US, which is a shame as they rock

Went to the first day yesterday (and am going this weekend too) and I want to get in first with saying what a well-run and fun evening it was! Many thanks and congratulations to Wayne and all the organisers :)

Do remember though that GIB's DD analysis is not necessarily how even the best players might play the hand- just what works with this *exact* layout. As for the 'ask GIB for advice', I couldn't possibly comment.

You can also be 'sucked into' a game if you click cancel during the waiting for permission dialogue box.

I agree that the team set-up is a little unintuitive: Team1's NS play against Team2's EW and vice-versa.

Considering myself as a recent graduate from group #1 of Adam's ranking I was wondering what are the 'tells' that one can use to distinguish between group 1 and 2 (presumably in a local event 3 should be obvious)? Are convention cards a good start? Age? Couples? Ant.

Hi, Can anyone see if they can replicate this bug.. When you speak to someone in the main chat window the "->" sign is used. On my screen when you scroll the chat such that the top line begins with a "->", it is in bold. When you scroll away it changes. Obviously this isn't a problem really, but weird all the same. Ant.

I guess for the price of one bad board you have helped the opps iron out an area of their system that they had not considered.... if only you did it by accident tho :(

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=saqxxxhxxdk98xxcx&s=skxxxxhqxxdajxcqx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You open a weak NT sitting south, and the bidding proceeds as follows: 1NT - (2♣)* - 4♦** - (4♥) 4♠ - All Pass *Asptro (Hearts and another) **Transfer to spades West leads a small heart which is won by East with the ace East then cashes the Ace of Clubs and returns the Jack of hearts If you decide to duck it he continues with a small club If you decide to put the queen on it West wins with the King, and returns a club You ruff the club, and draw trumps- West following twice and East discarding a small diamond on the last spade The position now: [hv=d=s&v=n&n=saqxxxhxxdk98xxcx&s=skxxxxhqxxdajxcqx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] How do you play the diamonds? HINT:

I think the colours are better overall, but I echo some of the comments: 1) BRB has been discussed and I agree 2) Difference between team colours is not enough, and the 'active player' highlight is too close to one of the team colours 3) The maroon used for headings (e.g. in movie) is out of tone with the mellow new scheme and looks garish in comparison However I think it is, in general, an improvement (as is the change to the star position in the lobby)

I'd love to have "Ctrl-1" for one column, "Ctrl-2" for two etc as I sometimes want to see people and sometime not :) (including on the table view)

Please see http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=15918 for the motivation of this post! Basically, when there are lots of kibs watching a table or many players in a tournament is is inadvisable to have chat to room/chat to tourney on as the comments can be overwhelming. However, it is sometimes nice to have a selected few's comments viewable e.g. a guest / coach, but someone who does not require TDing options. Would it be possible to have a list of exceptions to the 'no table/tournament chat' to facilitate this? Many thanks, Ant.

I completely agree with Wayne. What made matters worse is that at least half of the unnecessary comments to the tournament were of the "can everyone please stop talking" ilk. Also, the long time for each board encouraged people to get impatient and therefore to start chattering out of their room. What we need is an option for preference speakers during a normal table/tournamet/team match in the way that we do during Viewgraph. I think to trust people not to type in the occasional comment (and with over 200 people playing it was the cumulative effect of many people speaking once rather than someone constantly chattering that was the problem imho) is not the best way forward. I am now off to post in 'suggestions for the software'.... Ant.

This'll be in the UK, yeah?

Sadly I only saw the line you're all picking up when I had the complete deal. I played 4 rounds of spades, got the bad news and decided to hope the long spade hand had three clubs also, so I could get to dummy to throw a diamond. Needless to say he was 5422. Bah!

I was wondering if it would be (is?) possible for TDs to manually invite people to play in their tournaments? It would be far quicker than manually messaging people and then them leaving their table (and partner) and being bridgeless for the time remaining. This would also enable 'for friends' tournaments to be set up further in advance. Before Claus mentions suction, can I just say that I for one never mind a player leaving for a tournament (although prior warning is usually polite), the real problem is players 'table surfing'. Many apologies for bothering people if this feature is already in place and the TDs who organise the tournaments I play in haven't gotten around to using it yet. Cheers, Ant

Yeah, I'd really appreciate that feature too.