qwery_hi

You're right in that it is rare that slow play rarely results in a board being thrown out. The way these tournaments are run, there's no protection for the faster side. And the software already keeps track of how much time a player takes in the express tournaments. This code can be adapted to work for speedball also, so why not do it? One other point is that although boards get rarely thrown out, my guess is about 10 percent of the boards are adjusted by the director since they are not completed on time.

Did you look at the tournament I mentioned? Only 2 tricks were played on board 3 before the round was called, and the opponents took up most of the time on the first two hands. The software already keeps track of time for some of the automated tournaments, why can't it do the same in speedball? Clearly speedball is a big moneymaker, and Fred and Co. could be wary of making any changes, but the way it is organized today is very much lacking.

ACBL speedball directors are useless in penalizing slow play. What is the point of playing speedball if slow play is not penalized? Look at boards 1-3 of the Friday 7pm speedball on Friday June 24th. If the software cannot determine the time each player takes to play, it should do so. Why should the onus be on the players to keep calling the director for slow play?

References?

First, I don't know if serious 3NT is better or non-serious 3NT. So when I say serious 3NT, substitute non-serious if that's your cuppa. That's a good question, and from what I understand, serious/non-serious 3NT is a tool to make slam exploration more methodical. From what I've seen , this slam exploration is mainly for major suit slams, maybe it's used for minor suit slams but I don't know about that. Now to explore for a major suit slam, we need to be sure we're playing in the major suit. Hence the 9 card fit or the 8 card fit with extra values. so when a fit is found at the 3 level, and one of the partners is unlimited, then serious 3NT gives us a way to explore slam without unambiguity about strength. re the 8 card fit, one of my partners thinks 3NT should still be an offer to play, but I like serious/non-serious 3NT in all cases where we're found a 8 card major fit at the 3 level and one of the partners is unlimited.

IMO, serious/non-serious 3NT should be on when we have a 9 card major fit, e.g. 1N-2D-3H-3N*.. or playing 2/1 if one of the partners shows a stronger than GF hand with an 8 card major fit, e.g. 1S-2D-2H-3S-3N*. When undiscussed, 3NT serious/non-serious is off.

(move on) and play KOs and pairs.

If you never go down 1 or 2 you're not bidding as many games as you should be. Given today's aggressive game bidding, at teams I'd definitely want to be in game. At matchpoints, 3d is perhaps better.'

Online bridge might force the ACBL to make bridge more affordable. If the goal is to have a fun time, then a BBO speedball beats the hassle of driving 10 miles and paying 8-10 dollars. When more online masterpoints are counted toward the ranks, and there will be greater pressure from the members for this to happen, then online bridge is going to dominate club bridge. Now, if only we had a 2-2.5 hour speedball with 24 boards on BBO, that would be ideal for lot of players I guess.

Thanks

How can I see the list of kibitzers at a table using the web version of the software?

So it makes all the more sense to cater to the needs of people already interested in playing bridge. How about at each Nationals having a nationally rated pair game where superchart methods are allowed. AFAIK there isn't one. The people who'd sign up for this would know what they are getting into surely.

Even if you take away the spade and diamond aces, slam is on a finesse. So I would probably bid 5D as south, he can hardly have a better hand than this.

West should have looked at the CC. I'm confused if it is allowed/ethical for West to ask North what the double was in the absence of any information on the CC. I remember asking a similar question at a tournament once, and the director was called, and also at the end of the hand and the whole experience was distasteful at the time that I didn't bother to find out what the issue was. Now, however, I just want to know what the proper thing to do is (kinda like knowing which damn spoon to use at a formal dinner), and get on with playing bridge.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I have. What's your point? All the talk about bridge taking longer with screens is a red herring. Longer than what? A pair game where every pair has to move between hands and learn what new system their opponents are playing? I don't think so.

Yes, either allocate more time officially or enforce the existing rules. It looks like the directors are intimidated by the players to enforce time penalties.

So I've lots more free time recently, and am going to try to play team matches on BBO fairly regularly again. Using the new web client, I've started a team match, and am going to be online everyday from about 9pm to 1am PST. I'd like to invite forumers to check out the pending team matches and join in. Lets play some bridge :)

Whats the web page with the current scores?

That's news to me! I'm sentencing you to life without parole. Under which law, I will not say.

OTOH, even if the event were fully funded by the participants, it is in ACBL's interest and good for bridge in general to keep the viewers in mind, after all the open trials are a huge advertisement for US bridge.

Rosenberg, Jonathan Weinstein and Baseggio are also members, although I don't think they're very active.

2S; perhaps partner can bid 2NT, or clarify his hand further.

Why no names? In fact we should publicly congratulate such fine examples.

IMO it's important not to make an adjustment in cases where declarer's play after a hesitation is suboptimal. I'm assuming here that in this hand declarer could cash his King first without risk. The Law says declarer takes inferences "at his own risk", and if an adjustment is made then there's really no risk, is there?