bobade

Thanks for the good ideas, Diana

When playing over the past couple of days - free tournaments and challenges, so far - my play on a board has been frequently interrupted by the table closing and the error message in a yellow box on the screen: "An error has occurred. Table Closing" Is it possible this is a problem with my system (router, PC, or antivirus/firewall software), or is this certainly a Bridge Base problem?

Sorry for the confusion. I'm moving this topic to the Support discussion.

When playing - free tournaments and challenges, so far - my play on a board is frequently interrupted by the table closing and the error message in a yellow box on the screen: "An error has occurred. Table Closing" I have noticed this for a couple of days. Is it possible this is a problem with my system (router or PC), or is this certainly a Bridge Base problem?

smerriman, thank you so much for the great information about testing GIB's performance using the Practice bidding table. Your example code was particularly helpful. After playing with this for a while (starting with the auction 2C - 2D - 2S - ?), I have made the following observations (not statistically tested): 1) When GIB makes a "cheaper minor" 3C bid, the bid explanation may just say "cheaper minor, forcing to 3S" or "cheaper minor 11- HCP, 12- Total Points, forcing to 3S." This happens with weak hands and with strong hands, and is unpredictable. 2) As you mentioned, when GIB has a hand with 5 or more clubs and 5+ HCP, it will bid 3C and alert it as cheaper minor (using one of the two descriptions.) This is a bug. 3) GIB is very aggressive counting points, counting a hand with 4HCP, no 5 card suit, and 1 -2 cards in openers suit as 5+ points. 4) Therefore, after 2C-2D-2S it will bid 3D or 3H with a 4 card suit (headed by an honor) and 4 HCP. 5) The one good thing I can say about GIB: with 3 card support, it will raise openers suit after 2C-2D-2S rather than bid its own suit. My conclusions: 1) Though I didn't test GIB after 2C-2D-2N, I think (based on playing experience) that sequence is probably safe, as would be 2C-2D-3N. So opening 2C with 22+ HCP and a balanced hand is constructive. (But what to do when GIB responds 2N to 2C? I didn't evaluate whether GIB responds logically to 4N quantitative or plays 4C as Gerber.) 2) If you have a long suit and want to open 2C, the suit had better be excellent, able to play opposite a stiff, and you better be near game in hand, because there is a good likelihood that you will never be able to tell what partner is bidding on until you see the dummy.

There is a GIB bug which has never been fixed and nobody seems to care - the "cheaper minor" bid after 2C - 2D - 2M. I raised this as a topic on the GIB forum and was greeted with a big ho-hum. Because I find myself playing with a robot partner pretty often (Daylong tournaments), I'm hoping for some partnership understandings. Not just the expectation that GIB will never be perfect. Sheesh! . . . Neither will I. My plan was to test GIB on Robot Challenges, opening 2C on every hand, rebidding 2M, and compiling a series of hands where GIB bids weaker minor. Trouble it, that auction sequence did not turn up in 32 challenge hands. There must be a better way. Is there a way on Bridge Base to set up a testing platform where I can set criteria an have GIB play a bunch of hands? I might specify opening human as having 22-25 HCP with a 6 card major, and his/her robot partner having less than 11 HCP and no suit longer than 5C. After 100 hands like that, I think we would have an idea of what algorithm GIB is using in order to choose a "weaker minor" rebid.

The bot interpreted 3N as showing 25-32. But that just isn't logical, imo.

I'm seriously question whether it is worth ever opening 2C with a robot partner. Here is my most recent misadventure: https://tinyurl.com/ydmn4k97 A search of this forum shows that the dreaded "cheaper minor" bug is not a new problem. But it apparently never has been fixed. How do you interpret a robot "cheaper minor" bid: a) As a second negative (showing no "values" (2 queens, 1K or better)? b) Showing values and a real suit in that minor? c) Another waiting bid, showing nothing and asking for further description? How should I have responded to 3H in this example, to avoid the robot precipitously jumping to slam? My experience is that after an opening 2C bid, the cheaper minor response comes up frequently. Is it avoidable? I'm inclined to think that opening 2C with a robot partner should be limited to balanced hands preparing to rebid 2N or 3N, and otherwise risk opening at the 1 level. What do you think?

Nullve, don't you play 2H as 4th suit forcing in this auction? If so, 2N would not be the correct response. 2S should show 3 card support, not a doubleton. so I guess I'd bid 3D over 2H. The auction might continue: 1D - 1S 2C - 2H 3D - 3N 4N - 6N

I can't date it exactly, but for at least a month the BridgeBase app crashes on my Samsung G7 Android phone, usually during the animation of a card being played. I'm then offered to send feedback to BBO, which I do, but have never received a reply. The app is currently worthless. I can't even finish an 8 board challenge without a crash. Please fix it!

Thanks, Barry. So does the Star know when they get beaten by a mortal, and vice versa?

I've been playing a lot of friend challenges lately, and find them to be more entertaining than Free Daylong Tournaments, in that it is possible to win! Star challenges are also pretty entertaining. I find the human opponents more consistent than those in arena challenges. In fact, I've never had a Star fail to finish a round. Because the results always return immediately, it seems these challenges must always be initiated, and completed, by a Star before being offered to us mortals. There are differences in Star Challenges I'd like to understand: 1) What is the incentive for "Stars" to play in these challenges, rather than "Challenge a stranger"? 2) Why is it that the stars always play the boards first? I ask, because results are always immediately available after completion. 3) When a Star initiates a Star Challenge, how many of us non-stars play that set of boards? More than one? 4) Is it possible to see statistics, like win percentage of everyone who participates in Star Challenges?

I've been playing star challenges and find the human opponents more consistent than those in arena challenges. In fact, I've never had a Star fail to finish a round. Because the results always return immediately, it seems these challenges must always be initiated, and completed, by a Star before being offered to us mortals. My question - which I'm sure a star could answer - when star initiates a Star Challenge is that challenge played by only one human opponent or by multiple humans?

Incidentally, another variation of non-standard NT opening that was successful in this tournament, was opening 1N on a hand like this: AQTx Axx x AJTxx

I've been looking carefully at my hands and results in the ACBL Individual, and have noticed a recurrent pattern. Don't try this with your favorite partner, but opening 1 NT with 14 or 18 balanced, on many occasions, let to top MP scores. What I don't know is the denominator; how often a non-standard NT opening led to a bottom. Is this a viable strategy for success with robot partners, or is it an example of playing differently than the field and ending up with tops and bottoms?

The solution, for anyone with the same or similar problem, is to update your internet connection drivers. In my case, this was a LAN adapter, but it could also be a wireless adapter, depending on how you are connecting to the internet.

Thanks for the reply, barmar. Using Chrome, I get 3 bars for about 10 seconds and then 4 bars continuously thereafter. I am using a 2 year old desktop computer with Windows 7 and an Ethernet connection to a router; speedtest shows 30/30, which is just what Frontier Communications advertised. The computer has no other problem. I get similar BBO problems using Opera as I do with Chrome. Not only does loading the tournament list sometimes hang. Other BBO sites sometimes hang, too. For example, the initial bridgebase.com site frequently loads part way (the first 5 lines) and then sits chugging away, trying to complete loading, and even the bridgebase.com/forums page sometimes will not load. There has never been a problem with play, other than my own stupid mistakes :) Before replying, I removed Chrome and reinstalled. No change. Also, I exited my antivirus and firewall. No change. Interestingly, my 5 year old laptop, which is now running Windows 10, when connected to the same network via Ethernet (wifi off) works perfectly at times my desktop hangs up. I've compared the LAN adapter properties and can't see any meaningful difference (though I'm not an expert). It sounds like a problem with my computer, but I'm stymied figuring it out. Do you have any more ideas about how to troubleshoot?

When I click on "List All Tournaments", it is fairly frequent that BBO hangs up on "Loading Tournament List - Please Wait". When this occurs, the Refresh button accomplishes nothing. If I wait long enough, the tournament list may refresh automatically. I'm using Windows 7. This problem occurs with Chrome, IE and Opera. BBO support had me clear the browser cache and also "delete all sites" from Adobe Flash (accessed from the Control Panel in Windows, but this accomplished nothing. I also tried a brand new installation of Opera with newly installed Flash to no avail. This is a problem which has been occurring over the past few weeks, after years of trouble free BBO service. Any ideas?

Playing in an ACBL Speedball tournament we encountered a pair playing transfer responses after a 1C opener. The 1C opener was alerted as 2+ length, but no strength requirement. Is this legal? I called the TD who said it is, but I'd like a second opinion. Surprisingly, the ACBL position is not so clear from what I can find online, and I would be curious if anyone knows. The responses are not mentioned in the list of GCC or Mid-Chart conventions. Regardless of the ACBL position, BBO can clearly set its own rules about what conventions or methods are allowed. Are transfer responses to a non-forcing 1C opener allowed on any BBO tournament, or are there restrictions? Thanks in advance. Bob

One of the many challenges of bridge is figuring out how to describe your hand using the limited bridge vocabulary. As we study and play more we become less bewildered and less dependent on random guess; i.e. we learn how to bid. Partnership understandings are a valuable part of the descriptive process, and should be explained - alerted in fact. I suspect that many of us recreational players encounter situations, particularly in competitive bidding, where a bid needs to be chosen, or an opponents bid needs to be interpreted, outside of specific partnership understandings. The frequency of these competitive situations makes mastery of them critical to success at the table. When I decide to make a competitive bid (with no partnership understanding), hoping to best convey my hand to partner, I am the only one at the table who knows for sure what my bid represents. In my opinion, the essence of bridge is individuals' and partnerships' skill at interpretation limited to the permissible bridge vocabulary. I do not think that the reasoning process of bid selection should be verbalized until the hand has been completed. However, if BBO wants players to explain their bidding rationale, outside of partnership understandings, then everyone at the table should have equal opportunity to hear the explanation.

This is what is written the in ACBL Laws of Duplicate Bridge, 2008 version: Section 20.1.F "1. During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding." However, the issue I am raising has to do with asking for information which is not a matter of partnership understanding. Vampyr, do you have any documentation for your assertions?

Thanks for the concise language, Paul, which addresses the issue of how to explain a complex issue in a small text box under speedball conditions. But what if my hand also included strength in the opponents suit, and I was hoping that partner elected to leave the double in. Would I need to disclose that, as well? In this case, once the opponents were informed that the double did not represent convention (or partnership agreement), they must have been asking if it was a penalty double. If my intent must be disclosed to the opponents, shouldn't it also be disclosed to partner? The bigger, more important issues about disclosing bidding rationale (excluding conventions and partnership agreements): Does BBO really want a policy in which any such bid requires an explanation, when asked? If so, shouldn't the information be available to everyone at the table?

Playing in an ACBL Speedball Pairs tournament on BBO against opponents who classify themselves as "expert" and "diamond life master", I held: ♠ QJ92 ♥ J7 ♦ A64 ♣ J732 The auction (RHO dealer): P - P (me) - P - 1D P - 1S (me) - 2H - P P - X (me) - P - 3C At this point, I was asked (by clicking on my bid) to explain the double. My explanation: "No Conventional Meaning." (Incidentally, we are playing Hardy-style 2/1, with negative, support and responsive doubles.) RHO refused to bid and called the director. Ultimately, time expired before this could be sorted out, and the director gave us an average minus. For what it's worth, my intentions with the double were flexible; to allow partner to pass if he had strength in their suit (which seemed possible based on the auction, since an immediate double by partner would be a support double), to rebid his diamond suit if it was more than 4 pieces, or to show a club suit. The double was neither specifically for penalty or takeout. Putting aside the intelligence (or lack therof) of my double, the question is: should I be explaining to the opponents my intended meaning when I doubled, in a situation where we have no partnership understanding about this particular situation? It seemed to be the contention of the opponents and the director that I should be providing additional information, but that position does not seem to be consistent with the only two explanations I can find on the BBO site for alerts: Under help: "A polite opponent will always make sure he alerts all conventional bids or calls. These conventions should also be explained when asked. Please remember: The NAME of a convention is not an explanation. So 1s-P-2nt should not be explained as 'Jacoby' but should be explained as 'strong spade raise' or any other complete explanation (X number of points, X number of spades). Although you may not be able to understand why the "expert" opponent you are playing against doesn't know what Jacoby 2NT is, trust me, it happens. Explain your conventional bids by what they mean, not by what they're named." Under Rules of This Site: "The management of BBO is not going to get involved with trying to make rules in this area. It is up to our members to try their best to provide their opponents with information that may be helpful to them. Always remember that it is against the laws and spirit of the game of bridge to conceal information about your partnership agreements from your opponents. The BBO software is designed so that players alert their own bids. This is called "self-alerting" and it is opposite to the approach that is used in live bridge clubs and tournaments. If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert. If an opponent asks you for the meaning of one of your bids, you are expected to answer them politely, even if you think the answer is obvious. An appropriate answer can be "I have never discussed this with my partner". You do not have to tell the opponents how you intend your bid - only what you have agreed with your partner. It is innapropriate to use chat to explain your bids to your partner unless you get permission from the opponents first." I realize that difference in format between BBO and face-to-face duplicate requires a different alert mechanism. Certainly, we should all do everything possible to make our conventional understandings available to the opponents. However requiring a player to provide information to the opponents about his or her thought process (separate from conventional agreements) seems wrong in many ways (to list a few): 1) It devalues the learning many of us have accomplished through study and play; 2) It provides the opponents with information not available to partner; and 3) It invites "fishing" for additional information, slowing down the game. Hardly appropriate for a speedball. If this issue has already been thoroughly aired out in this forum - I apologize. Alerts, and provision of information, is an important enough topic to deserve comprehensive treatment on the help pages, if we are expected to do more than load a convention card and inform our opponents about conventional understandings.

Shintaro, are you using Qbridge for network play?

Greetings! I am teaching my wife how to play bridge, and would like us to play against computer opponents, using separate computers, either over our home network or by connecting our computers directly. What would be the best software product for this? Or can you think of another way we can play hands in a setting conducive to teaching? We have Bridge Baron 18 which allows us to play this way, but the program is buggy. In online mode it will not pause after each trick, for example, making it really hard for her to remember what has been played. It also does not allow hands to be replayed, and it crashes frequently. I can see that Jack has the capability of network play, but not on the demo version I downloaded so I can't test it. Any of you have experience with network play using Jack? Perhaps there are more programs that do the same, or other strategies for my teaching her during actual play. Your thoughts? Thanks a lot for the assistance! Bob