Grypho

I use BBO software to generate hand diagrams and auctions. If you input exactly two hands (North and South) and an auction then export to a handviewer link you get a display. In the flash version, you get a beautiful two hand diagram with the auction displayed to the right. The hands are large and there isn't anything else displayed to take the reader's attention away from the material. If you display in the html 5 version, you get all four hands displayed, even though two of them are blank. This is not ideal as a teaching tool because it adds extraneous information to the reader and can divert attention away from where the teacher would like it. Is there a simple fix to this problem? I love the software in general and am hoping you can find a quick fix for this display issue. HTML 5 [/img]https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|,,,|md|1STHAQT73DQ74CKQ83,SHDC,SJ962HK854DAKCAT5,SHDC|sv|o|rh||ah|Board%200|mb|1H|mb|P|mb|2N|an|Jacoby%202NT|mb|P|mb|3S|an|0-1%20Spade|mb|P|[/img] Flash [/img]https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?s=STHAQT85DQ73CKQ85&n=SJ862HK932DAKCAT2&d=s&v=o&b=11&a=1HP2N!(Jacoby%202NT)P3S(0-1%20spade)P[/img]

I am Kevin Wilson and I'm investigating why your anti-virus program would reject BridgeIQ+. I believe that it was rejected as an "uncommon program". Not that many users in the world have tried to install BridgeIQ+. I went to AVG and have asked them to test the program and remove it from this status so that it will load properly. I understand the need for safety and I will make sure that AVG allows my program through their firewall as soon as I can. Thank you for reporting here so I am even aware there was an issue. Long time no see Ken. I'm 44 now so that was some ago. I have very fond memories of Alice's pool. Thanks for the kind words.

Instead of complaining, we should just focus on getting maximum attention and attendance. No method was going to be perfect given the very short amount of time available. There are some positives that are worth mentioning. Anyone can play and because there is no travel requirement it will be truly open to all. The players will not need to find teammates so that players who dont know alot of other players can compete equally. The cost of this format will be very low and that may allow for some training/travel once the teams are selected. As far as Matchpoints is reasonable because with imp scoring (especially imps across the field) there is far greater potential variation per board. At matchpoints each board is equal to roughly 4% of the total score. At imps across the field, 1 or 2 huge board(s) played against an inexperienced pair may be roughly the positive score needed to place or win for the entire session. In a previous thred, I have posted strongly against this format and if there was more time to plan I would continue to be against it. In this case I support the committee's decision. Given the short amount of time we should just not worry about it and move forward. Good luck to all!

I think the way we pick teams depends on the goals of the USBF. If the goal is only a fair trial, then pairs qualifying is perfect because a pair can compete without knowing anyone else in the trials. If the goal is to compete and to win then pairs trials is horrible. 3 pairs do not come close to making a team because as part of a team you must attend meetings, communicate, listen to criticism, travel, practice, eat, and often room together. Unless you have lots of time to figure out if you can tolerate everyone's quirks, there is no way of knowing if you like and enjoy each others company. If people don't like each other, and I mean really well, the team will suffer at the first sign of adversity. And there WILL be adversity. Its hard to prepare for the food, the time change, the dislike of Americans, the excitement of a World Championship, the lack of family/friends, and etc. If the only goal is to have the best team, then probably a committee selecting pairs and teams is best. Unfortunately, its nothing close to fair because then it can become a game of who you know or in what part of the country you live. I do believe that a large committee of experts who had about 6 hours a week for a couple of months could select the best players and partnerships and maybe even teams if they spent time getting to know each of the players. This scenario is IMO not possible at this time. I am completely opposed to an internet competition! When the tournament is being played its not being played on the internet and everyone seems to agree that the conventions allowed/conditions of contest should be much closer to what the participants will face in the finals. Not playing face to face is a huge blow to someone with card sense and the ability to read people. I can't believe that this is even being discussed. It all goes back to what the goals of the USBF are. Part of the goal is to introduce players to international competition. Part of the goal seems to be that everyone has to play even if its to the detriment of the team (an idea that i disagree with). Part of the goal is to make it easy for eveyone who wants to compete to be able to compete. Part of the goal is to be fair so that everyone who competes has a chence to earn a position on a team. Because I feel that its only part of the goal to win, I think the most likely path to a winning team is through a team competition. Why not make it a complete round robin (like the finals) of 2 days and then a semi-final (1/2 day) and a final with carryover (also 1/2 day)? There should be a focus on a long round robin because thats the way of the finals. 3 days seems to me like a reasonable commitment given the reward of winning. I have some experience when it comes to practice. I coached teams that say they will practice but then can't or won't when the time comes. There is no effective way to deal with this fact either, other then having a long qualifying period with many sessions and a large committee watching. I agree with the comment that alot can be learned but what about selecting people based on their passion and their desire to improve? I think the participants should be made to understand the practice expectations in writing and then the captain or coach should have ability to remove if a major problem exists. this practice plan would allow the USBF to name an alternate pair and have an 8 person 4 pair practice squad which could play against each other. It would be motivation for pairs 1-3 to focus and to practice. IMO opinion the practice planning and scheduling is equally or more important to winning then selecting the participants. I know thats a bold statement but I really believe it! Kevin Wilson former Junior Trials Participant 1990, 1992, 1994 and Non Playing Captain of the 2006 World Schools Championship (under 21)

I bid 6 clubs. partner has 4+ clubs so at worst I expect slam to be on 2-2 trumps. Partner likely has 3 spades since nobody is bidding them so there is no diamond loser. I would expect a positive with an Ace so there is no grand. I agree that there is no problem on the hand but pass is IMPOSSIBLE.