adamw

Thanks for the replies! This situation seems untenable to me. Why would one play when partner might or might not be using the same system? Shouldn't BBO at least make the message "…every player agrees to play GIB 2/1" ?

When starting a regular individual tournament (i.e., not a robot tournament) BBO posts a message that includes this sentence: "No chat is allowed, and every player agrees to play 2/1." Which version of 2/1 is this? Is there a convention card for it? Is it "BBO Advanced (2/1=GF)"?

Charles Lee has a nice collection of Dealer constraints suitable for BBO here: http://charlesandgerry.com/bridge/constraints.html I learned about it here: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/practice-xyz-on-bbo/

The link no longer works. I was able to find the page here: https://web.archive.org/web/20110207232627/https://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=bw_standard&f=bwstandardmainpage.html It's for BWS 2001, though. I've not yet spotted a CC for BWS 2017, the most recent version.

This deal has a few problems. First of all, there are two reasonable solutions: 1. The recommended line, duck three rounds of ♥ and then take the ♦ hook or cash the ♦A, depending on who holds the long hearts. 2. Win the third ♥ and retain the option of strip-squeezing West. If we win the third ♥ and cash the ♠s we learn that West holds 4♠ and is likely 4=5 in the majors. When no one shows out on the first ♣ West is 31, 22, 13, or 04 in the minors. The first two are more likely and allow a throw-in to succeed. Another issue with the problem is that East plays the ♥6 at trick 3. This is the lowest spot outstanding and makes it vanishingly unlikely that East holds 5♥. Another issue is that poor play goes unpunished. If declarer ducks three hearts, cashes four spades, and then cashes two clubs and the ♦A he should go down, but makes when BridgeMaster allows the ♦K to fall singleton. This destroys the main lesson of the hand, to take the safety play in ♦ while retaining control of the black suits.

I like being able to link directly to Bridge Master - I had no idea that was possible. That link, though, takes me to the deal selection page rather than to a specific deal.

I see them now! Mostly Level 5. Where is 2 D-28 discussed? The official solution looks perfect to me,

I love that idea. I have been told, though, that the method of composing Bridge Master deals is arcane. This would be a boon to many, but I can understand why it's not a priority for BBO.

Is there an existing spot for discussion Bridge Master deals? If not, this can serve as a start. I'd like to collect deals with errors or apparent errors. Whether they ever get fixed is a separate matter - at least we'll have a place where we can check to see whether others have spotted an issue and whether it's Bridge Master's error or our own. For example, on deal 3 D-28 I am allowed to make the contract if I play a diamond to the Ace at trick two and another diamond at trick 3. East wins and gives his partner a ruff, but West later allows me to discard a club on a diamond instead of ruffing my winner. This line is not nearly as good as the recommended solution.

Thanks for the speedy reply! I tried that but nothing good happened. I did get a message saying that next time I could check the "Remember CC#" box, but the checkbox is disabled. I've tried Chrome and Firefox on MacOS.

I.e., load a fixed additional amount from my credit card, as Starbucks and other vendors do.

Got it - thanks!

I issued an invitation to my partner. He was online and accepted the invite. At my end, I got an "Invitation in progress. Please wait..." dialog box and eventually an "Invitation timed out" message. I've written to BBO support and receved a reply saying they were overwhelmed so I thought I try here. We were able to enter a tournament on Monday. Is there a trick to this?

Thanks for the info! It sounds as though BBO is running its own servers. If that's the case have you considered moving to a cloud computing model? It offers a number of advantages, especially with scaling, and relatively few drawbacks. But you would need software changes regardless, so I know it won't happen overnight.

The only mailing list for bridge software developers that I was aware of suspended operations 15 years ago. If you know of one please let me know! In the meantime I've started a new one. It's open to anyone who's interested. You can find it at https://groups.io/g/bridge-dev Please pass this note on to anyone you think might be interested. Here's its description: Bridge Software Developers bridge-dev@groups.io A group for anyone interested in writing software for bridge, the card game. This could include software for playing, facilitating online play, scoring, analysis, training or education, player rating, storing results locally or in the cloud, or any of a multitude of things. There are no restrictions on membership, but the content will likely be of interest only to those who, at a minimum, are computer programmers who play bridge.