USViking

OK, OK: Old-fashioned, original, plain vanilla Blackwood is now a sort of archeological curiosity, unknown to the stratosphere of the game of bridge. However, there are many, as in thousands, of average casual players like me, who have decades experience, who make up most of the BBO popuation, who have never asked for specific Kings in their lives, and in fact do not know how to. I was, of course, the South player on this deal. The North player advertised himself as "World Class" Success depended on the diamond finesse, which failed. After the hand I upbraided Mr. "World Class" for not employing some science on the matter of the number of Kings held by our partnership. I believe a jump to 7 is plain crazy when two Kings might be missing. Also, even with one missing King, is the risk of going down at 7 worth it when the liklihood of making 6 must be much greater than 50%? Maybe at Matchpoints, but IMPS?

I am an intermediate player, as my profile advertises. The other guy advertises an altogether different skill level. More on that later. Any player with perhaps even a few days experience should be able to recognize a homely 5NT asking for #Kings.

I would like to solicit expert comment on the bidding of the following hand. The hand was dealt at the BBO Main Room. N-S were strangers. This was the second of three hands they played together. Neither bid the first hand. I may post a poll on the bidding of the third hand. [hv=d=s&v=n&n=sk92hkqj8daqj75ca&s=sa86ha10754d842ckj]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] S 1H N 4NT S 5H N 7H PS: Is there some way to generate a formatted bidding table? PPS: I am not expert or advanced. If my level players are discouraged from posting in this forum someone please let me know, and I will cease and desist.

I regret having given offence, but I have seen so many references to competing bridge sites on this board that I believe I was justified in assuming that ownership here would regard my own reference as innocuous. The following edited version of glen's post expresses other feelings of mine: Of course terms of service are not meant to be exhaustive, and certainly ownership is entitled to promote its interests as it sees fit regardless. However, I did read the terms of service when I joined here, and if such a clause had been included in them I might have remembered it, and not posted the offending comments.

I considered what you suggest as a possibility, but discounted it. I should have placed more weight on the inevitable baleful influence of an international bureaucracy. I should thank my lucky stars the bureaucracy is even letting Vugraph in the room! (I seem to recall our esteemed site owner starting a thread about bureaucratic paranoiac concerns over vugraph coverage) I would hope the clearcut results of the viewership "Democracy" would sway even the stodgiest bureaucrat. Even if the bureaucratas are unswayable they should be appraised of the numbers which show their dictates to be poorly concieved.

Thanks so much to BBO for the generous and priceless vugraph coverage. Both display and commentary are highest possible quality. I did notice in the AM 9/8 coverage that the Democracy of the viewership favored both Bermuda Bowl semis by about a ten to one margin. I was therefore a bit suprised to see the Italy-Bulgaria BB semis dropped from the PM coverage. Personally I am with the apparent viewership majority who would "vote" to see Italy-Bulgaria covered from start to finish without interruption.

Many thanks to Gerben42 for the interesting information. It must have taken a lot of work to compile numbers on so many different systems being used by over 200 pairs. Uniform? There is so little uniformity that the odds of two competing pairs using exactly the same methods must be tiny: 6: # of basic systems probably at least 6, possibly many more than 6: # of 1NT openings probably at least 6, possibly many more than 6: # of 2C openings 11: # of 2D openings 7: # of 2H openings 4: # of 2S openings 4: # of 2NT openings New method use is really a different issue from that of variety. I wonder of any pairs are trying anything untested at the world championship level.

I guess that's me you are talking about. I know how to start a new table, but I prefer to join tables already in session with three players seated. The site owner has very kindly related in another thread that the problem has been recognized, and will be addressed.

Intermediate player here. How can the hand be made double dummy? Only way I see is if H9 is led and East does not cover, and CT is led and East does not cover. Crazy defence does not = "makeable", does it?

Thank you for the link. Here is a partial explanation from the link: (emphasis added) I am astonished that anyone thought they could get away with such a thing. I am also baffled as to why no "convenient time" could be found. What in God's name is happening in Norway? In the USA we have not been getting too many things right lately, but at least our national bridge events seem to be proceeding without a hitch.

After 325 deals over 34 tables I finally became host. I believe that only occurred because at one point all the other players left the table. South and West were host at 32 tables, East was host at one table.

I notice Bocchi is absent from the Italian roster, and Helgemo and Helness are absent from the Norweigan. I hope they are all healthy. Can anyone explain why they are not participating?

I have now gone 162 deals over 11 tables without being host. I enjoy hosting sometimes, and the new system is bad because it is depriving me and I assume others of our fair share of hosting opportunity compared the old system. I have noticed hosts do not seem to rotate evenly between NSEW. Instead S and W have tended to monopolize hosting. That is also bad. If kibbitzers are perceived to a problem with the hosting system then disable them from joining table automatically. That would have the added benefit of preventing hands from disappearing after deal due to seating of kibbitzer who has seen all hands. I have lost a lot of interesting hands that way, and it seems to me to be an irritation which could and should be eliminated.

That was a 35-deal stretch during which I was never host, not 45 deals- sorry about the bad arithmetic. However, I have just finished another 31 deals without ever being host, for a total of 66 deals. Make it 67 since I was at a table for one deal. I do not think I ever went that long without hosting under the old system. I wonder how much longer it will be before I get to host again. I will let you know.

Please add my name to those in favor of going back to the earlier system of host selection. I have just finished a 45-deal set in which I was never host, and that strikes me as not fair at all. I am in favor of continuous quality improvement, but the new host selection system is not an improvement IMO. I think the best system would be to have host rotate to the player who has been at the table longest. Kibbitzers need not be in queue.

I voted I would not care. That is provided I did not know the result beforehand. I watched the 2002 World Cup final on several hours delay not knowing the result and enjoyed it as much as if I had been watching live.

Thank you for taking the time to respond, and you certainly have added to the discussion. It is clear from what you say that a flexible approach has been in place since the start of the open era, with input encouraged from anyone wishing to voice opinion. Under such a process I believe it can be safely assumed that most and perhaps all of the players are satisfied with the format. I spent several hours glued to vugraph in the last 10 days after having watched maybe about an hour lifetime previously. AAAAA+++++ to you and all your colleagues for making the experience such a pleasant one.

I was speaking of the upper crust. The only one of those who I am slightly acquainted with cyberspacewise is our site owner, who I had in mind as being hopefully typical of the class. The sole Bobby Knight type I ever heard of in that class was Barry Crane.

I will forgo several replies I was planning to make in the interest of eliciting authoritative information. I guess if the competitors are satisfied with the format then nothing else really matters. The only thing left to wonder about would be whether the competitors are too polite and averse to controversy to express any complaint (unlike several non-competitors who have posted here, myself included)

No. Your intellectual majesty has me cowed.

They may both be arbitrary, but they are not equal. One requires 240 more deals to play than the other, right? You should be able to come up with a better argument than x = (x + 240)

Thanks for dropping the cap lock, Einstein.

OK with the "openness", which suprises me, but I still fail to see the connection with justification for four byes. If there had been 270 teams then fine, several teams might reasonably be due four byes. With a field of 27 and one bye max the top seed would only have to play four rounds prerepechage, which does not strike me as unfairly burdensome. I am not all that opposed to two byes for the Hammans and Meckstroths of the world. You still have to make a case for four.

Stop screeching.

I am asking why bridge should be different, and replies like this do not provide any explanation. As for the "openess", there were 27 teams in the tournament, quite a few I will allow, but are you saying anyone could have shown up with a team and joined the field?