hotShot

If you are put your name to the partnership desk, this is common procedure.

One more thing! Why didn't S bid 2NT at once? 21 HCP and 4333 seems perfect for that. This may show that NS had an agreement about 2NT openings, and the hand is not strong enough for a game force (even a semiforcing should have at least one trick more). The declaration of the 2♣ bid as strong is not very specific. Does strong mean 16+, semiforcing or game forcing. And if this hand is not an 2NT opening, what hand would be a 2 NT opening. Asking these question may raise a suspicion about an incompleat or unrevealed partnership agreement here. This might have been a reason for a score adjustment.

At higher level in f2f Bridge screens are used, so that you cannot see your partner during play. I that situation you have to alert your own and your partners bid and explain them to the opponent on your side of the screen. Your partner does the same with the other oponent. This is the closesed to what is done here at BBO. You only have to alert partnership agreements! So if in an Indy you have a partner you have never played before and u bid a splinter hoping your partner understands, you don't have to alert. You can of cause do it,if you like. The alert should prevent that your p gets more information from your bid, than your opps do. It is not so unusual that it is a partnership agreement that the sequence 1 something - 1NT - pass it treated the same way as pass - 1NT - pass. So playing Stayman and transfer is not unusual, but both transfer bids have to be alerted! It is your opps duty to alert their bids. If you ask about the meaning of a bid, you could create an UI. UI's are a very complex thing so you better ask your f2f TD about it. I will try to give you a simple example. If you opponent bids 2♦ in this sequence and you ask what it means and he says natural and than you pass, you partner could asume you have a lot of ♦ cards in your hand, and would have doubled if your opps bid was artifical. TD might have to adjust against you, if the ♦ lead of you p would be sucessful. Because your asking about the ♦ suit could be seen as a hint to partner to lead ♦.

Dear skorchev! So it is very important the TD is applying them right! 1) EW have no right to know what cards N holds, they only have the right to know about agreements NS made. Since S subbed in, it is save to asume they don't have an agreement. So even if N meant it as artifical bid, he did not need to alert. => no reasion to adjust. 2) The 3♣ bid was not alerted so opps have to assume it is natural. This may not be good bridge, but we are talking Bridge Law here. Bidding a 3 card minor suit as a natural bid is perfectly legal and not even close to a psyche. Bidding 3 card minor suits is standard e.g. in 2/1 systems System and there is no need to alert the bid. Even opening 3 card minor suits without alert is perfectly legal. => no reason to adjust 3) N was dummy here, so EW did see the hand after the lead. There was plenty of time to call TD while the board was still in play. If they believed it to be importent they had to call than. Calling 4 adjustment after making a double dummy analysis during the next board is not ok. => no adjustment 4) Please tell me how North could have know that the ♣ lead should be avoided? From the North point of view any suit could be the weak suit. The only way for North to know would be to know the cards S held. If you have reason to believe that, than adjustment is the wrong way. A report to abuse@ is the better way of action than. But this would require some solid evidence. 5) Usually a 2♣ bid is gameforcing, so N had to bid something. Strong NT openings can have 5 card suits. It is usualy better if the strong hand plays the contract, so bidding ♦ from N might not be the best idea. So what would be a proper bid for N ? I think your decision was wrong.

Well i did not want to but... I did not say that crossIMPs should be replaced. I did say crossIMPs have a effect on the result, when NS and EW are mixed up in one result and extreme scores happen. Matchpoints scoring has an effect on the result, as even a 10 point difference can give you a top. In Totalpoint scoring there are effects an the result. In a team match both tables either have the same result (0 IMP) or a different result leading to some IMPs. So what i expect from an pair tourney with IMP scoring, is that a contract leads to 0 IMPs if played from most of the other players too. At a team match the IMPs are not given compared to the best possible result, but to the (best) existing result. I admit there are problems if you don't have a contract played by most of the others, as TimG points out. Well in a team match you would either have 12 or 0. I have no problem with 8 here, at least it is consitent. Well i said the contract played by most of the others. I your example the majoraty is only a pair bigger than the minority. Using crossIMPs at two boards, where all but one play a (small) slam, it will happen that my slam is only worth 1.2 IMPs (because someone did not bid it) while someone else's is worth 1.7 (because someone bid grandslam and fails with redouble). If most players make the slam, both should be avarded with 0 IMP. I don't know how much CPU-Power your server has left, but Median and Butler scoring would require less than calculating crossIMPs. Sure the minimizing approach will cost (a little) more. And if it would be implemented, if somebody wrote the perl script, i guess i can do it.

This is the score with crossIMPs 6 times 6♠ +1 1460 2.21 IMPs N/S 12 times 6♠= 1430 1.26 IMPs N/S once 5♠+1 680 -11.63 IMPs N/S once 7♠X-1 -200 -16.79 IMPs N/S This is how it should be: 6 times 6♠ +1 1460 1 IMPs N/S 12 times 6♠= 1430 0 IMPs N/S once 5♠+1 680 -13 IMPs N/S once 7♠X-1 -200 -17 IMPs N/S (As you can see Ben, the sum of the N/S scores is not 0 and i don't care.) As we see the board is not very selective and the score does not split the field. How can that be reached: a) In a Butler way: Eliminate 2 Scores at top and buttom, and calcucate the mean: (12 * 1430 + 4*1460 ) /16 = 1438 score all pairs against this result. b ) using the "median" Meaning sorting the scores for NS by value and taking the one in the middle (with an even number you middle the two closesed to that) we have 20 scores here sorted scores 7-18 are 1430 so the median is 1430. c) minimize the "absolute sum of IMPs" At crossIMPs there were: (6*2.21 + 12* 1.26 + 11.63 + 16.79) * 2 = 113,6 As it should be: (6*1 + 12*0 + 13 + 17) * 2 = 72 Using crossIMPs in a tourney means that players making/defending the "par contract" will randomly get +/-IMP depending on which side the big scores/mistakes were made at another table. Selection is done by seating not by bridge abilities. The way i think it should be, seating is not (at least much less) selective. This is my final post to this topic.

Well 1eyedjack, do we have seperate results for EW and NS in tourney results here at BBO? No, we don't. 24 Pairs played the "par contract" at this boards, but half of them gets +1.26 and the other half -1.26. Now look at any tournament what a difference 2.5 IMPS does in the middle reagion. Imagine a swiss movement, each group of 12 is seated against each other. If they score the "par contract" there, half of them will be rewarded with the "plus score" - the other half wih the "minus score". Pairs of the same strength will get different IMP-Scores. This is unfair! So one would have to create 2 results, as in a full Mitchel-Movement or adjust the scale, so that the par of each board is leveled to 0.

Well you see my point. 1) It is usually negative, if someone on your side scores big. And you notice! 2) It is usually positive, if the big score is at the other side. And you don't care why it's good.

Uhhh Ben how can you score a team game with crossIMPs ? (But you are right taking a tourney like that was wrong.) The problem occurs only if you have more than one result. Take a look at this board: Example traveler We have: 6 times 6♠ +1 1460 2.21 IMPs N/S 12 times 6♠= 1430 1.126 IMPs N/S once 5♠+1 680 -11.63 IMPs N/S once 7♠X-1 -200 -16.79 IMPs N/S So every of the 12 EW pais that joined the 6♠= club leave the board with -1.26 IMP's for doing everything right. If you cut of the 2 extreme scores they would have been rewarded with about +0.5 IMP for not allowing the overtrick. Hope i made myself clear this time.

Usually negative? Every time it is negative for you, it is positive for your opponents. Hi Tim! Take a look at this simple tourneyresult: Example Tournament It shows 39 +IMPs to 45 -IMPs sum tham up and you get -6 IMPs. Meaning a pair having the average result at every board would have a score of -6 IMPs. You can look at other tourneys if you like, but it's the same (but don't get a survivor ...) Playing the average result each of e.g.10 boards will result in a negative crossIMP score.

The IMP scale should make sure, that playing 3NT+1 or 4Major makes an imp difference of 0. An overtrick should make not much of a difference but a missed game or an undertrick should cost. But if some major desaster moves the mean it can suddenly make a difference. This is why scoring to a mean requires cutting the extremes off. With CrossIMPs the IMP's with every other result are calculated und you get the mean of them. This is quite fair but, if you play 10 boards with the same result that most others have, your CrossIMP score will not be 0. Usually it will be negative, because someone playing your side scored big. How could that be improved? Perhaps by shifting the calculated crossIMPs. e.g. If i have 16 results, i calculate the mean of the ordered crossIMPs 8 and 9 and shift all IMPs that way that this gets 0. That way we could have the "average result" with 0 IMPs and differences from cossIMPs.

I still think the best way would be to create a team match with players sitout1-sitout8. After that the match is visible to all. Players can list as subs and the TD can use the existing subbing tool to seat the players. Tourney chat can be used to organise seating without flooding the lobby. Only problem is not to show the cards before all are seated. Since most of this already exists it should not be to hard to implement.

I as an director could live the the original suggestion, if every paticipant of the tourney would have to give a ruling. The satisfied players usually do not report, it's the unsatisfied players that would take any efford to rank the TD. This could lead to problems. By the way how do you -as a player- get the name e.g. of the particular TD who ruled over your unfinished board, if he is not at your table?

Well you can get the country/town of an internet user by tracerouting his IP-address. But those poor people you have in mind have computers, internet access, a credit card and time to play bridge? I don't think so. Even in that counties you might have thought about there are some privileged people who can more than afford a tourney. Nevertheless I don't play payed tournaments, so i hope other like me manage tourneys and play in those that are free. Have a nice day

Is it cheating if one: - notes all tricks played to help his memory - looks at his own CC - looks up a convention at a bridgesite I guess that is not what we are talking about. - missing an alert here and there - incompleat disclosure of partnership agreement - highly unusual agreements Probably we are talking about that Or even: - phone/chat with yout P - be your own kib - things that should not be published I think the last kind of cheats are much less that 10%. But playing turneys with only few boards make average scores very unatractive. So some players try their luck with high risk bids. If the are succesful their opps feel cheated. If they are not succesful they push their opps to the the top and everyone else is wondering how on earth they could get that result. I guess that causes a lot of cheating rumors. have a nice day

Hi uday! You say that at the login you transmit a lot of data to the client. Asuming the server would set a flag/coockie when playing a tourney, the client could sent a resume tourney request instead of a new login request. The server could put the player back to the tourney, sending the other data later. (i think the automatic update does something like that). After the last board played that coockie should be removed. This coockie (saved on harddisk) could even survive a reboot. have a nice day hotShot

Well paulhar, the basic idea of my suggestion is, that it can be implemented in a day or two. Developing a bridge playing robot, with diffferent skill levels is a matter of month or years. The next simple thing would be to let slow pairs finish the round, skip a board/round after that, to syncronize with the field again. This might even be better, because the TD would not have to adjust at all. A feature like that could also be used in unclocked events. The TD could define, that pairs that fall behind e.g. more than 3 boards, skip one so that the last tables will not get totally out of control and the faster playing pairs can catch up to the field.

Hi! I posted something like this this before and perhaps it needs some refinement. I assume the Server can score the boards that were finished seperatly. If a board is not finished the following cases can occure: 1) declarer is already down The software should now check: Assuming that the rest of the tricks belong to the declarer, test if the result is better or worse than Ave-. If that is the case the system should assign this assumed result, else Ave-. both sides 2) declarer has made his contract Assuming that the declarer will not get another trick, test if the defenders result is worse than Ave-. If that is the case the system should assign the assumed result, else Ave- both sides 3) everything open No help here. System has to assign Ave- both. * This way, a lot of obvious adjustmenst will no longer be neccessary. * Intentional slow play after the damage is done, will no longer be possible. Have a nice day hotShot

First off all: At online Bridge it is allways a question of how well a pair is familiar. If not and that is usually the case, you are allways in doubt if you/your partner is knowing sayc well enough. Second: Well I don't think the penalty double is so clear. East has 7 cards that are no trump, you can't count on the Q's to make a trick, North is one trump longer and ♠ KQ will make a trick, that are 9 tricks. How many tricks will a trump holding of AJ8754 make ? I would want to count twice before i penalty double a contract , that gets avarded full game if made and i must be sure that we will not make 3SA which ist not impossible with long ♥ of my Partner and his values in the minors. Yes with partners opening, somehow the contract should fall, but some hesitation is understandable. Besides that, he made a bid that is right acording to the system mentioned, his partner acted conform to that system and description. If the double is not negative, there is no logical alternative to pass. So the score should stand. The behavior of East is a different topic. Robert

Hi Mirjam! Since this is the last round, i would add a few extra minutes, giving the chance to come back. I would do that, because: 1) Any player who's at table 1 in a swiss movement deserves to see his/her name on the result 2) subbing in at the last board is no fun 4 the sub If the player does not come back lets say within 2 minutes i'd sub anyway Have a nice day hotShot

Hi! By bidding ♠ west gave the information to lead that color, east could only lead ♥ which makes no difference here. So no score correction. Since you cannot give a penalty to West only, by adjusting scores, i would not do that. I would probably exclude West from further tourneys i manage. Have a nice day hotShot

Well if we start a discussion about ranking systems lets start with the problems: First lets define some rules that must be applyed to a rating system, to make it work! 1) Winning against a weaker rated Pair/Team/Player may not influence the rating , that way playing weaker opps will not help you to improve your ranking, nor will it ruin theirs. 2) Winning against a better rated Pair/Team/Player should increase your rating 3) Loosing agains a weaker Pair/Team/Player should decrease your rating Now lets think about what d data do we take into account, and what the rating system should tell us. At a team event the rating system should tell us which team will me more likely to win. This is the most simple case, as to teams meat and one ist winner and one is looser. At a pairs event the system should predict the final ranking of the tournament. Here we have a problem. Let us assume we have a perfect “7 Table Howell”, we play 13 rounds. We have 2 top pairs, that make 100% against each opponent and get 50% if playing against each other. The other pairs are of exactly the same strength and play 50% against each other loosing only 2 the top pairs. What would we expect ? 2 Pairs at the top off the list with almost 96% and all other pairs should be equil at about 46%. But we won’t get that scoring in Matchpoints. We will have the weaker pairs distributed from 46% down to 41%. This range is created by the movement we used. At some boards both top pairs score NS or EW so the avarage score for the “normal” pairs is different depending on the fact that they are on the same side as the top pairs or on the other side. In any other movement than the “7 Table Howell” it is even worse. This is why typical BBO 8 Boards/ 4 Round/ lots of pair tournaments should be compared to lotteries and not to tournaments. This is why there should be special ranking pair events, with a small number of players and a big number of boards. Subbing should not be allowed ( because who’s strength do you take for the final result that of the sub or that of the player he subbed in for, and who’s ranking is adjusted?) All results of pairs that are eliminated should be erased from the tourney. Considered all that there are still 2 Problems to solve: 1) How do we find a rating for a new player if everybody else has a valid rating (this is easy if everybody else has one) 2) How do we get the initial rating for all, if nobody has one Have a nice day hotShot

Hi Paul! In a chess match one of the playes is the winner and one is the looser. In a bridge tournament you do not compeat with the opponent you play, but with the other pairs/players playing the board from the same side. Your opponents result is compared to all pairs that played the board his direction. So when you leave, there is no winner and looser, that is why the chess rating can not simply be used for bridge. Forthemore some hands are simply not selective. If you have some sort of ranking you might predict if a pair will perform better than another in a tourney, but to expect some sort of IMP-difference per board you can predict is not the way bridge works. I'm thinking and experimenting with a rating algorithm for some time now and it's not that simple. Have a nice day Robert

Hi! Asuming that North is a novice, i can understand the bids...... But opening 2♥ showing a 2 suited hand (5-5) with ♥ is a common thing. 2♠ is a normal response asking for the second suit, having at least 3 ♠ and not enough ♥. In that case a lot of alerts would be missing. I would check myhands for other results and keep an eye on both players. 2 ♥ is not a psyche, point range and color are within normal limits, having a 5 card major is highly unusual but no crime. Bidding with 2 ♠ with 10 hcp is something i would expect from an Novice. If i would have been on the E/W side i would not be happy either an probably report that board to the td, but calling opps oviously cheating is something one should avoid even in privat chat. I would not adjust the score. Have a nice day hotShot

Hi! How are players seated when a tourney starts ? One should try to order them by their skill level. Starting with an 'expert-expert' section, over 'expert-advanced' down to a 'novice-novice' section. Depending on the movement or tournament type the players can be seated in a way, that they play opponents with the same skill level or the same tournament result. Having set your skill level correctly will than result in more fun playing tournaments. Have a nice day hotShot