bd71

Bridgemaster helpfully records success or failure for each of the hands that you have played, and also is simply blank for boards you haven't completed. Once I complete all hands at a level, is there (or can there be) an option to reset the results back to "not played" so that I can progress back through them systematically?

1. I agree that defense is LARGELY a partnership skill, but there are unique individual (i.e. just me, not partner) elements to defense in terms of different applications of counting, and different logical thinking approaches at IMPs. 2. I think you're a bit too harsh on GIB's partnership defense. My impression is that GIB does at least GIVE some signals adequately. I find GIB usually giving correct (standard) count signals. I see GIB often, but not always, give appropriate (standard) attitude signals on it's first discard. Not sure why (because to this non-programmer it seems like it might be easier to program) but GIB is poor on giving attitude signals to my opening lead. Beyond that (suit preference when giving a ruff, suit preference when signal couldn't logically be count or attitude), I agree GIB's not there. I doubt that GIB is any good at RECEIVING signals and making good use of them, but now that I'm writing this I realize I haven't taken the extra time to do that analysis to be sure. (After writing #2 above, I looked up this... https://www.bridgebase.com/doc/gib_system_notes.php ...which has info about GIB's defense, and it's mainly consistent with my observations above.)

I love this idea...I would play.

1. I frequently play in the Zenith Daylong tournaments, but results from these don't show up in my hand record history available at... https://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/ Am I doing something wrong, or is there a reason for this? 2. I use BBO both on my laptop and my phone. When on my phone, the Robot Rebate 55% tournaments aren't listed as available. Again, am I doing something wrong or is this planned for some reason?

Thank you Paul...useful videos. I'll preface this next comment by saying in general I think BBO is great. However, my assessment after doing a few of these team games and seeing Paul's videos is that the options for starting team games is sub-optimal and I'd encourage BBO to make enhancements. Possible ideas: 1. Prevent people from requesting to join a table repeatedly. Once someone is rejected one time, they should not be able to re-request unless the host does something specific to let them (i.e. hosts need to be able to reverse if they accidentally refused someone who does belong at the table). 2. Allow a host to perma-ban or perma-refuse someone from applying. This will help control those who spam a table with re-requests immediately after being refused...again and again and again. 3. Allow a table host to identify team captains (which might be the host) and delegate responsibility so that each captain can separately control who sits in their team's seats. This can minimize mixups on (exact) usernames and facilitate that each team's players are deployed how they want. 4. Most importantly, please make it so that when a request to join is made, the window/cursor focus does NOT automatically go to that request. Said another way, please allow a table host to finish typing a message or performing another task and NOT have the software FORCE them to deal with the invite (either by responding or navigating away) immediately.

Don't forget DEFENSE...partly due to Bridgemaster, I'm far better at the quarter of boards I declare, and much worse at the HALF of boards the opponents insist on declaring themselves.

In our new bridge world, I find myself hosting planned team games which I had never done previously. Looking for advice from folks who have figured this all out. Scenario: I have a planned team game where I know my teammates, but don't know the opposing players and have just communicated with the opposing captain. He has shared BBO usernames for his teammtes manually, but I worry they might not be EXACT (e.g. is the name "bd 71" or "bd71"?). I also do NOT know how the other team wants to sit at the table (e.g. who their pairs are and how they want to sit NESW). When I just start a team game without reserving seats, I get such an avalanche of requests from strangers that it's literally impossible to do anything else because each request demands my attention. I know I can reserve seats for specific usernames, but I worry I may have usernames slightly off and I don't know the desired seating arrangement. What is the solution to this? (Side request for BBO: Can you set it up so the requests to join a table don't demand immediate attention and take the window highlight/cursor away from the chat box? While I was trying to write a message I would receive a request, refuse it, return to try to finish the message but my cursor was forced to deal with the next request before I get even get another word typed.)

Apologies if this is not the right place. I just logged into voice for the first time on the new software. When I joined there was one voice commentator, and I had no problem hearing him. However, when a second voice commentator joined I couldn't hear him, even though there was clearly back-and-forth conversation (of which I was only hearing half). I was able to fix by "stopping" and "starting" to listen, but I'm sure this is an easy software glitch to fix.

My schedule changed to let me go to Chicago, and I have two open days -- Thursday/Friday Aug. 6-7 -- with no partners lined up. Used to be a more frequent reader/contributor to BBF, but still recognize that this community will be a much better place to find a decent partner than the partnership desk. I'm limited to 2/1 or Standard American, but am fairly flexible from there. In terms of competence, I am a good "B" player (district GNT champ or nearly so for last 3 years) and hold my own in local/regional "A" competition. Haven't played at the Nationals much, but in my one try at an open NABC open event, we missed out on qualifying for Day 2 of the Von Zedwitz Open pairs by a fraction of a matchpoint. Message me here through BBF if you're interested.

Assumed agreements: 2/1, Non-Serious 3N, 1430, cue-bids below game are 1st/2nd round controls, cue-bids above game are only 1st round controls [hv=pc=n&s=saqj2hkq432dk2c32&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1hp3hp3s(1st%2F2nd%20rd%20control)p4c(1st%2F2nd%20rd%20control%20%26%20slam%20interest)d]133|200[/hv] Exact hand details aren't relevant, but the key points here are (a) you are very interested in a heart slam, (b) you have two club losers in your hand, (c ) all other suits are controlled. In this situation, there's obviously a concern that partner has only the ♣K and we could be off the first two to ♣AQ with East. Questions for the experts: 1. Do you just ignore this and trust that much/most of the time partner will have the ♣A and East is doubling with secondary club honors? 2. After the double, do you have a way to check back w/ partner about whether his club control is the ♣A? 3. Do you have methods to both do #2 AND get partner to play 6N if he only holds the ♣K?

[hv=pc=n&n=s75h86daqj53caq72&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1h1sd3s5dp]133|200[/hv] Playing mainstream 2/1. Objections to X in lieu of 2♦ are noted...but here we are. Would you bid on?

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1h1sd3s4sp5cp5d]133|100[/hv] As North-South, what would this sequence mean in your 2/1 methods?

You are playing 2/1 in a matchpoint game. With partner dealing, our unopposed bidding has gone... 1♠ 1N 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ If you are interested in exploring a heart slam, can you infer that partner has club shortness? Or as you play do you need to allow for him to be something like 5242 with ♥Hx? The specific hand that raised this discussion with partner (void AJ98xxx xxx Kxx) did have clubs controlled, but say the hand was (AJ98xxx Kxx xxx), how do you feel about slam?

Starting with this sequence... 1N (2H natural) ...standard Lebensohl gives you ways to show: (A) 4♠ game-force hand with stopper (3♥ after 2N), (B) 4♠ game-force w/o stopper (direct 3♥), © 5♠ game-force (direct 3♠), and (D) 5♠ invite (3♠ after 2N). It does not give you a way to show (E) a 4♠ invitational hand. Isn't hand type (E) more common than (D)? Why wouldn't you use the 3♠ after 2N to show (E) rather than (D)?

Yes. Apologies for not anticipating that question.