rduran1216

see if you can follow me, I'm referring to robot reward hands. I get 25-40 hands in for every 15 minute game, believe me I understand that some boards you don't bid on. However, the set of boards should be the same for every player. Even with best hand as a metric, if my deal generates with us having 38HCP vulnerable, I've just gotten 4-5 bid and made games ahead of you just because my set of boards generated this one, while the ones you play the most you ever had combined is lets say 23HCP. It is inherently gambling and unfair for the boards generated to be different for each player. Why not make the set of boards the same for each? This is a change that needs to be made. I don't know who is in charge of something like this, but we need to have a conversation about it.

Why do we still not duplicate the best hand tournaments? It's 15 minutes, who would conspire in these? These should be duplicated. It is nonsense to be dealt hands in best hand where your opponent opens the bidding 16 of the 28 hands you play and other players have scores north of 9000 because at their table they had a game in every hand. Whoever is in charge of this, this should be addressed.

Thanks for the info, this has been done.

I have had more than 1 incident playing BBO speedballs where something totally perverse to the laws and spirit of bridge occurred and another instance just took place in a speedball. I probably play 2-3 games a day when I can and will no longer play as long as the director who made this ruling is still working these tournaments. Surely there has to be some baseline of competence to be a director in a game people play for fun. Who is the right person to discuss this issue with, because garbage directing has killed local clubs and is a major deterrent to getting new people into the game.

huh?

mps AK9xx Qxx AQx KJ 2H 3D p 3S p 3NT p 4D p 5D p ?

Partner has 6 and didn't raise hearts, isn't declarer going after clubs first? partner may get in, but by then is he likely to hold a heart? If partner has a heart honor we are beating this, idk I think it's more likely his values are in a pointed suit given the auction, was why I was curious to see a simulation.

I think the issue for me is that this is pairs. In teams HK is obvious. But isn't it likely RHO has AQx of hearts and we are gift-wrapping a 9th/10th trick for no reason?

Can Someone run a simulation for me, and get opinions on this opening lead problem. MPs Qx KJ109xx xx Axx 1c 1H x p 2NT all pass. Your lead?

I look at it this way. When you are a guest somewhere, if there is a conflict or an issue there are two ways to resolve it. 1) Be polite in getting your point across and handle the situation with class. 2) Be obnoxious, condescending, etc. and hold your nose high as if your ***** doesnt stink. It is possible to be right and wrong at the same time. I like to use the analogy of this board. When I first started Phil and I would clash over every post and be condescending asswipes because its the internet and that is how people are on the internet. Once we met in person, and have played together a bunch of times, all of a sudden there is cordiality and that belligerence doesnt manifest itself in person. The many issues with this individual have not been the product of protocol, more than once opponents have been outright insulted, directors have been hassled etc. It isnt that hard to be courteous and friendly, but some people just dont know how to behave properly. On this particular issue, i was more curious about the sequence of steps when the opponent says "i dont know." The explanation by the 3D bidder away from the table was that her partner was new to precision and it was possible she didn't know and the card was marked as a limit raise, so the issue of whether she must verbally set the record straight prior to the lead was my only question.

I the director was not called to the table when the infracgion occured. This discussion took place after the round with undue emphasis on a "conspiracy against this player" which is ludicrous. I was genuinely curious about what is supposed to happen in this situation

Here's the full story. When the round was over, the player making the 3D bid asked whether she had to verbally tell her agreements. A well known pro player was on lead, and was belligerent about the situation, coming over to the desk and escalating it saying "She has to tell us their agreements, when the auction is over she has to tell us!" Anyway it was a big bruhaha, and I could find nothing in the laws that said the partner had to verbally disclose the agreements. As I asked what I believed were routine questions to the player on lead, like "did you ask to look at their card?" "Why didn't you call the director when an irregularity occured?" There became a hailstorm of bullshit from this player, capitalized by insisting he was right and she should be reprimanded for not saying anything. Anyway, was just curious about how this should have gone.

Is there concrete procedure for this situation?

auction goes 1d precision, pass 3D pass 3NT. the person on lead asks the partner of the 3D bidder what 3D means, which gets a reply of i dont know. What are the obligations/what is the rule associated with disclosure in this situation?

We have a winner for post of the year