USViking

Deal #8 from tournament #4344 Robot Duplicate- Matchpoints 2011-11-05 11:43 http://tinyurl.com/3q2cgdn GIB's 2♠ promised 4-card support, but delivered only Qxx. I cannot find any section on simple raises in GIB system notes.

Thank you for the quick reply. I had heard of minor suit transfers, but not minor suit Stayman. I don't mind your asking. I cannot remember why I ducked. Likley I didn't think clearly and decided " hold up" play was appropriate. Edit PS: Is there an expanation for lead of singleton King?

Deal #5 from tournament #561 Robot Duplicate- Matchpoints 2011-11-04 18:07 http://tinyurl.com/3vn8da7 Robot bid 2♣ Stayman here with ♠Ax and ♥Qxx saving me and 40 or so others from a likely fatal ♠ OL. Poetic Justice was served for several of us who were 3NT= or +1 for 10.0% or 27.8% And on the defensive side of the table how about the singleton ♦K OL?

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html? Computers should be easier. They really should.

I linked wrong deal. Let me try again; http://tinyurl.com/3g4m468 PS I was able to edit OP. I believe deal link is now correct.

It looks like half the field got soaked on this one: deal #6 of Tournament #4947 Robot Duplicate Matchpoints 14:36 11/3/11. http://tinyurl.com/3g4m468 (I have tried to figure out on my own how to post hand diagrams here and I am afraid I won't be able to do it without tutoring; hopefully it is an easy ~3-click copy+paste routine that I have somehow missed) pass 1♣(me) 1♦ X(Robot; negative) 2♦ 3♣ pass 3NT all pass Robot had ♦Jx and ♣Jxx; down 3. Robot's 3NT bid explanation included "likely" ♦ stop, but with both opponents bidding the suit, and partner showing no interest in NT shouldn't 3NT here guarentee a ♦ stop? And with Jxx in suit rebid by partner wouldn't 4♣ be the best bid with no actual ♦ stop?

Just a few minutes ago I discovered the threadtitle feature, and used it for two deals where I think the robot may have performed under the influence of a bug. Now I am wondering if BBO staff would rather have forum members use this message board for robot issues due to possibly much lighter traffic here. The deals in question are numbers 3 and 6 from #1423 Express Free Automated Fun which took place 2011-10-29 22:08 In #3 the auction was: pass- pass(me)- 1♠- pass(robot) 3♠- pass- 4♠ all pass. Robot led trump ace from A87 Q5 AQ76 9653 taking my singleton king down with it and costing very likely set. In #6 robot jumped to 6NT after opening 1♠ with AKJ932 AK73 KJ9 void and getting a 2♣ reply from partner. That one worked out a lot better for me since I was robot's LHO with both minor suit aces. The robot may have been misled since its partner only had 84 QT64 8 KT9653. The 6NT bid nevertheless strikes me as odd and wild.

Despite my username I will be pulling in earnest for you to pay 'em back.

The Netherlands had the best record in head-to-head competition between the eight semifinalist teams; W-L-T 6-0-1 Netherlands 4-1-2 USA 2 3-2-2 Italy 3-3-1 Israel 3-3-1 Iceland 3-4-0 USA 1 1-5-1 Sweden 0-5-2 China The Netherlands also led in semifinalist internal VP ratio, a number which correlates well with the WLT standings: VP/opponents VP 1.692 Netherlands 1.261 USA 2 1.019 Italy 1.019 Israel 1.000 Iceland 0.927 USA 1 0.720 China 0.680 Sweden

3334 sounds a bit too restrictive and inflexible. I would like to see simulation results. I cannot believe they would be anywhere near zero. I will go along with Mr. Bradley's earlier comment here, and add that if specific rule patches can be made in the form of what I called an "easy fix" then why not make them?

This occured on Deal 2 of #6141 Express- Free Automated Fun at about 10:00am Sunday 9/25. Robot doubles 7NT, on OL, possessing an Ace, partner silent. OL = low from T643 2nd strongest suit!!! Is an easy fix possible?

Thanks, I could have sworn I tried that but I guess I was dreaming, because it does solve the problem.

Message Panel Blocks View Would it possible to move and reduce the size of the green message box which gives notice of pending player removal from a tournament and of mail delivery? In my (Web) version it is several inches long by about a half inch wide and appears in the lower middle of the screen, blocking view of cards and chat unless adjustible panels are sized just so. It could be made unobtrusive by making it smaller, and placing it in blank felt-green areas. An accompanying warning beep would also be helpful.

I have just posted a message saying "test test test". I then replaced "test test test" with the word "delete". I do not think there is a significant difference between a message consisting only of the word "delete" and removing a message from view as though it had never been posted, unless someone has repied to the message. Therefore the question becomes whether there should be a time limit on editing, and what effect if any a reply to the message should have. IMO no edit should be allowed if someone has replied to the post, and 60 minutes should be a fair time limit on editing.

delete

I am right to be unhappy any time a fair score is nullified. So is any contestant in any game. You gotta problem with that? And in case you are wondering I really do mean "fair" as in I would rather be awarded a zero than anything else if zero is what I earned. I am not so unhappy as to wish to belabor the point any more. Nor do I wish to continue listening to someone who began by providing useful information, but now appears to intend to give speeches. Good bye.

Thanks' date=' I do know how to navigate to these pages. What I was going by was another archive page accessed on the newer (Web?) version: My BBO>Hands and results>Recent tournaments>#4436 Express>My Hands. There the two 50% scores are omitted. (I tried to provide a link by copy-paste from the address bar, but that didn't work) I also performed this exercise and the small difference between the two scores above is what I meant when I said earlier that one was not much better or worse than the other. If my side's fairly earned scores of 87.5% and 62.5% were included then my 6-deal score would have been 61.8%

Thanks for the information. I am still not sure why no result rather than 50% was awarded for the two deals, but I guess neither is a much better or worse a procedure than the other. Scoring aside, I have played enough to know that I personally would prefer a longer clock to having play interrupted, and would not mind subsequently waiting longer for final tourmanent results to be posted. Perhaps that issue had been discussed in the past, and what we have now is the best combination of player consensus and owners' business needs.

As I said in another thread: I have recently discovered BBO tournaments and would like to thank the owners and developers for providing the feature. The experience is worthy of a grade of 99.9/100 and any comments I may have are only meant to see if it might be possible to nudge it another few 1/100ths of a grade-point upward. Prior to a tournament I played in yesterday 6/22/11, out of several dozen tournament deals this month where time expired TD has corrected all but 1-3 to some result which looked fair to me. In those 1-3 an “Ave” 50% was awarded. A sudden occurrence of 2 apparently defective results in 6 deals in tournament BBO #4436 Express makes me wonder if there could be a bug somewhere that needs to be looked for. (1) On deal #2 Partner made a good claim at trick 7 but the opponents did not respond, and the round clock expired. We were I think first given 50% for an “Ave” score, and now it appears that our result has been completely removed; either way we deserved credit for 6NT= and a score of 87.50. The issue might not have arisen if the round clock could be programmed to stop running after a claim is made until the claim is resolved either by opponents' reply or opponents being removed for taking too long. Would this or another fix be possible without going to a lot of trouble? (2) In deal #6 of the same tournament time expired during trick 7 with the opponents headed for a 4Sx-1 at best, and a score for my side of 62.5% at worst. Again I think my side was first given an “Ave” 50%, and then the result was completely removed as in deal #2.

Thank you for the helpful explanation, and for the tip on using the pointer on GIB bids. Someone in my unadvanced state of Bridge development should keep a tab open to the internet Bridge Encyclopdia.

♣I have recently discovered BBO tournaments and would like to thank the owners and developers for providing the feature. The experience is worthy of a grade of 99.9 and any comments are only meant to see if it might be possible to nudge it another few 1/100ths of a grade-point upward. I did wonder about the robots's bidding as South in the following: [hv=pc=n&s=sak43hk6dkq7654ck&n=sqj65h875datca654&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=ppp1dp1sp4cp5cp5sppp]266|200[/hv] I had no idea what 4♣ meant. I did not think it could be Gerber, but could not decide if it was a cue bid or natural and finally chose 5♣ as being good as any given my confusion. Pass after the robot's 5♠ was just hoping for the best, and it worked out since I botched the play making only 11 tricks while 6/9 others made 12 or 13, although only one bid slam. But getting back to the 4♣, was it Gerber after all, since it seems hard to justify as a cue bid? If so I cannot find Gerber in the BBO advanced system notes except after a 1NT opening. Have I missed it there or elsewhere?

I misunderstood this- I thought "Aberlour10" was a German goverment health organization. I thought rinsing produce was modern standard operating procedure, and that there was no disagreement that doing so significantly reduces the chances of contacting food-bourne illness. I do not know how effective rinsing is specifically against E coli. I suspect it is enough better than doing nothijg to make it a worthwhile practice.

Please read a bit more carefully, and think a bit more carefully about what you have read. The information I obviously meant to convey, emphasized in bold, was not data, it was the fact that health care facilites and staff are in a state of crisis overload due to this E coli epidemic. If health officials are right that bean sprouts are the source of this infection' date=' then yes, I think there is enough of a possbility of significant reduction in risk to avoid eating bean sprouts for the time being. And I am willing to bet that a sudden overwhelming epidemic such as this is among the LAST thing any medical profession ever wants to see.

I suggest you bring this data to the attention of the German health authorities: German Hospitls Struggling to Cope (from link, emphasis added) I am not sure medical staff will appreciate your suggestion that no one need take any measures to reduce the risk of coming down with this illness. Maybe if you explain very slowly and carefully to them...

German health oficials now say that German-grown bean sprouts are likely to have caused this outbreak: European E coli Infections One big problem from the beginning with the theory that Spanish produce was the culprit was the fact that the only two Spanish victims had recently been in northern Germany. Spain is understandibly upset by the $100s millions in economic loss resulting from misattribution, and is threatening legal action against Germany.