mpefritz

Ben I did that. Long ago, I replaced the chat wav with Homer Simpson (Woo-Hoo!) and the undo (which also serves as claim) with "D'oh!" My question is: Is there a sound associated with a pop-up invite? If not, could it be labelled as private chat? If it is associated with the public chat routine (which is the same sound as private, but i have turned off public chat sound), could it be changed to a private chat assignment? This might be a question for Uday or Fred. fritz

What sound is associated with a pop-up invite for a tournament? I have turned off sound for public chat, but have allowed private chat noise (Homer Simpson). I do have permission request noise allowed also. I was signed up as a sub while doing some work, but failed to be alerted that an invite was made to me. fritz

Claus, Let me repeat. YOU can make an announcement at your table that jumpers/tournament disconnects are not acceptable. Uday can add a statement to the RULES of this site that tournament leaving is unacceptable IF the table host has not been notified/accepted that you will be leaving. YOUR personal desire to see this activity stop, can be spread to others by YOU placing a warning at YOUR table that players who jump/get sucked out are not accepted at your table and that activity will be reported to abuse. Other hosts who find this to be a problem would then follow your lead by also placing such a restriction at their table by copying your table description. The hosts who did not worry about such problems could contine to host as they wish (allowing jumpers/allowing tournament suckers) Then any player who does this activity at your table or any other where the host felt this would be the height of rudeness could and should be reported to abuse. How can this be assisted by changes in the software -- in addition to your own changes which are available in the software already? 1) Make it clear in the Rules of this site that such activities are unacceptable WITHOUT properly informing the table host/other players of your plan to be joining a tournament soon. 2) Perhaps tag players with an "S" or a "T" so hosts who require permission to sit can readily assess whether a player might be sucked away before the host gives permission. Similarly tag players who are hosts so opps can know. 3) Give a pop-up reminder to players who sign up as a sub or for a tournament that playing in the MBC or elsewhere while waiting to play requires that they tell the players at the table what their plan is. 4) Give a pop-up to the table host in the MBC asking them if a sucked away player properly informed them that they were going to leave. If not, an automatic message gets sent to the server that player X broke the rules. Note this allows opps who stay and become the host to respond also. 5) The player who got sucked away without telling the host (according to the host) gets a message reminding them again of the rules of the site. If they continue to act that way, they will be barred from playing blah blah blah. Compile info and if this seems to be a real problem, ban players under a similar algorithm to tourney barring. Note that a host might incorrectly tag a player as not announcing..but that can be addressed after some initial data gets compiled. Maybe this is a real problem that the BBO community cares about and maybe it is one that it doesn't. fritz

Claus, Add a disclaimer to YOUR table description: "If you are going to be taken away to a tournament, please do not join my table. If you do, you will be reported to abuse (at) bb.com" Then when someone sits down, welcome them , and give them the warning from you. If they stay, great. If they leave right away, you are unharmed. If they get sucked away, report them. This is not that hard. Other players who have the same problem sas you will see your descriptions, and they may pick up on it, too. No software changes needed. Again, I am not condoning the acts of the people who sit for a few boards and DO NOT announce that they will be sucked away. That is rude, and should not be tolerated. Maybe a pop-up reminder to players once they sign up for a tourney is all that is needed. If the host does not want players for a few boards when the players announce that they will be sucked away, then the host can ask them to leave. No harm done. fritz

The problem at hand is that of a few players who do not announce they are going to be sucked away. As I mentioned elsewhere with a suggestion of a Scarlet S for someone playing in MBC who is a sub (and maybe table hosts can ban "SUBS"), perhaps the same can be done to mark someone with a T and the time of the tournament placed into their profile. This might take too much programming. You can always send a message from a tourney to people you were playing with to apologize if you forgot to tell them, but cannot receive a mesage back. Uday's original suggestion is flawed as many players sit at a table with their pard to play for a bit before a toruney. They can explain to opps what the plan is. If the opps stay, then they are informed. if the opps don't like it they can leave. Again a T or S marking with approx start time can inform other players of what is going on -- provided not too many people feel their privacy will be violated by such a marking. Yes, it is rude to be join a table and not tell the opps/pard what is going on. That should not happen on general principles, but the previously proposed solutions seem to harm a larger number than it would benefit. fritz

After using my ten seconds to evaluate my hand a la Ben, pass. Not only are my honors in a bad position, my passed-hand partner's spade honors are also. fritz

I think what you are seeing is that many scheduled tournaments that are posted several days in advance are restricted to private clubs. The members of these clubs can then see when a tourney is coming up. However, there are numerous "spontaneous" tournaments that are not restricted. There are also many "scheduled" tournaments which are not posted days in advance which are not restricted (except for enemies). fritz

Maybe the software could tag someone as a sub-in-waiting and list what tournament, so that if she sits at a table in main bridge club, all other players know. Yes, the person should announce this also. Being marked with a scarlett S would also remind that person that they are a sub-to-be. Yes, it would also be pleasant to see how many boards you are subbing for and with whom, but that certainly is not a necessity, but a nicety. I occasionally sub knowing that I may play with a clown (or my future partner may have the same opinion), but more importantly I feel I am helping BBO, the TDs and other players in the tourney. fritz

The one modification that I play is: Over 2N-3C-3D: 3N = 5 Spades and 4 Hearts 3S = 4 Spades and 5 Hearts 3H = enquiry as to Spade length, over which 3S = 4 card Spades, 3N = 2 or 3 card Spades. Note that this extra step to get to 3NT allows both Smolen-type calls, which the original poster was worried about. It also allows 2NT-3NT to be a transfer. BUT it also then requires no sleepy reflex 2NT-3NT auctions and no sleepy reflex 2NT-3C-3D-3NT auctions. So in my mind, major disadvantage: precious memory used and chance to screw up. I think the best way to remember such a convention is to go to the training rooms and deal yourself constrained hands and try to figure out the best sequences. fritz

The lunatics have spoken by signing up for 7 or 8 minute boards!! The shorter the time frame the more likely one is to make a bridge error -- overlook a nice line of play, miscount the hand. BUT , and I beleive this is true for the vast majority of players in BBO tourneys, 8 minutes per board is plenty of time for what they want to get out of the tournament. If everyone were trying to play perfect bridge, then the demands for 10, 11, do I hear 12 minute rounds would be overwhelming the directors. In fact, as I understand it, the STARS aren't griping too loudly about the time limitations for their tournaments are they? Ideal time per hand for playing bridge as a professional and ideal time for playing bridge for someone online trying to have fun for a few hours is completely different. And if they don't want time constraints, they can open a table in the main bridge club advertising 10 minutes per board and see how many takers they get. Or open a tourney with 10 min/board. Gripes and "disconnects" will abound. fritz

I think kibs should be allowed in general. When there is a group of kibbers, it is nice to have interaction between them discussing the hands while they are being played. Kibs not being allowed to chat to players should be fine. In fact, I just realized a real easy way to cheat. Be a slow player in an unclocked tourney, have a friend be a fast player and have him e-mail me the hands. I often immediately save a movie to my desktop, and use deep finesse to help me analyze it on the spot. Nothing to stop me from sending it on to someone else (oh yeah, except something called ethics, and the overwhelming guilt of destroying the game). If McBruce feels his core players prefer not to have kibs, then fine. He must balance the "allow all kibs" faction and the "kibs might help cheat so ban them" faction. I think someone can register as a sub and still kib. They just have to honest with the bidding and play of the hand if they saw one or two hands before they got called in. I have kibbed and subbed in and called the director on myself to verify that I was making calls that were appropriate. fritz

Claus, I think this is where you err. If you are caught at a slow table in the first round-- maybe one with a bad connection or needing a sub, you might be stuck in the late group the rest of the tourney. EVEN if you try to catch up the next round, the fast groups might have already charged on to the next board and you must wait for the rest of the slow group to catch up. In other words instead of being the slowest of the slow, you are now the fastest of the slow and must wait for enough slow tables to catch up. Bailing on a board requires 4 people to agree, AND it just then switches another two pairs down to the slow group. Now if all slow tables would agree to bail on all boards in order to catch up...well, then you just have a recursive situation which is now occurring in, say, round 4 instead of round 1. It might then condemn a formerly fast pair to the slow gorup :o . Also how would they know how many boards to bail on? You also seem to think a 4X4 tourney is the one to analyze. Ok all TDs, raise your hand if you usually (or ever) run a 4X4. I do like the idea of being able to somehow catch up, but it would just dump other players down to the slow group as far as I can tell -- which would cause more people to complain. fritz p.s. Claus -- I hereby grant you the right to my former signature "You don't have to agree with me, but it is quicker." :rolleyes: I am not saying this as an insult, but in respect for your desire to improve the software/playing conditions at BBO and your insistence for not settling for less than perfection. I still respectfully disagree with you on this topic, though. I just think your solutions here would cause more annoyances to more people than help the few. Proof not supplied, but a gut feeling on my part.

Welcome to the forums, cgull, I think Ben forgot to mention that. There are problems with both types of timing: Unclocked tourneys tend to have a fast group and a slow group. Just one slow pair can slow down many tables as a certain number of tables need to be freed up before a change can occur. That means that the last few tables MUST wait for the slowest table to finish. The wait time in an unclocked tournamant often then will depend on how slow your table was in the early rounds unless you can really play fast to "catch up". Also, the larger the field, the less likely you are to have to wait for enough other pairs to be freed up for the next round. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Clocked tournaments help, but sometimes pairs finish a round quickly and must wait. However, as I understand it from the TDs standpoint, the shorter the time per hand, the more likely they will be asked to adjust a hand -- which aleady adds to the excellent volunteer generally underappreciated work the TDs do on BBO. (note: I am NOT a TD) I assume that Swiss tournaments and Survivor (even "0% cut") must be clocked else everyone must wait for a slow table. So when you sign up for a tournament, look for the type of tournament and choose one that fits you. If you are a quick player, perhaps an untimed tournament would be for you if there is a large enough field -- with the warning that you will have to wait around for the final results AND might get stuck waiting for other tables to catch up with your rapid style of play. Otherwise, sign up for a timed tournament and you'll know how long it will take. Also understand that your clock going to, say, -10 minutes, could mean that you have played so much faster than everyone else that you are waiting for enough other "fast" tables to catch up. Also note that there are many reasons for "slow play" -- some due to bridge and some due to technical reasons. Good luck at the table! fritz p.s. I think you have run into a buzz saw as some of the TDs around here are getting a little frazzled as the membership at BBO grows and the gripes to them are increasing. I hope I have helped.

The only problems with 3♦ "NMF" are: 1) Your partner feels NMF at this level is still JUST "invitational" and decides to bid 4♥ with 3 card support and a max hand, instead of 3♥ which here is still forcing. Why someone would feel that way is unclear, but it could happen. Maybe he feels 2NT denies spades and therefore NMF is only asking for heart support. 2) Some people play the only forcing bid here is 3♣, so 3♦ might be passed? just some thoughts that run through my head as I try to make calls with a new partner...But again, the question is not with a random partner playing some random system, but "Playing BBO Advanced in an unpracticed partnership". Therefore 3♦ is a systemic no-brainer. fritz

Hand 1: 3♦. BBO Advanced, which you stated you are playing, uses Wolff signoffs. After 3♦, 3NT denies 3H and 4S. 3♠ shows 4 spades, but might have 3 hearts. 3♥ shows 3 hearts and denies 4 spades. However, if you think there will be a bidding screw up, then 3NT over 2NT (and explain to partner that you weren't sure of the follow ups :unsure: ). I believe 3♣ forces 3♦. After that 3NT is slammish in clubs. In any case, bidding 3♣ would be highly non-systemic. Hand 2: 3♠ to steal a little space without asking for -1,000,000 Also, perhaps their side might play me for a little more, because I didn't jump to 4S. fritz

Someone can correct me, but the answers so far are not complete. Assume you need 4 tricks: Q8642 A93 Assume A in declarer's hand. Cash A. If J or T falls to right, lead NINE and let it run (or cover if covered). If both follow small on 1st round, lead towards Q. If K does not show up from LHO, go up with Q (restricted choice against JT). thoughts? fritz

Umm.. As I understand it, Fred introduced BBO$s with the intention of allowing people to pay for whatever they felt had value -- lessons, tournaments, playing with someone and subsequent hand analysis, etc.. AND that a portion of each BBO$s purchase would assist in maintaining BBO as FREE. So in effect OneDown is trying to generate some revenue for BBO (and self) while teaching some B/I players. I know this opens a HUGE can of worms of who feels they deserve what, but BBO$s now exist. If there is no interest then the market had said so. I think it is up to Fred to determine what sort of advertising can occur in relation to these activities on his site, though (perhaps the advertisers must pay BBO$s for each chat message they send :rolleyes: . fritz

McBruce runs an SAYC individual for which he has created a website (see above). He went to the trouble of creating a BBO SAYC alphapoints CC that players are supposed to use. Furthermore, he has links to the ACBL SAYC CC and to a booklet for SAYC. he announces the rules and gives the link to his site many times before the tournament. I think his idea is to try to have an individual where the players are all playing the same system. He also has a warning that he WILL adjust if a non-SAYC call is made AND it is fielded by the partner. I believe this is the context of all of his ruling questions. All of these SAYC documents clearly state negative doubles through 2♠. I am not convinced that a penalty double of 3♦ should be pulled, although 3NT, 3S(?forcing to 3NT or 4M), and pass would depend on the vulnerability. 3DX looks to be a huge plus white versus red. BUT the fact that the double was not penalty already makes it a non-SAYC call that was then potentially "fielded" by partner pulling. Pass is certainly a logical alternative. Pulling the double to 3♠ when it was actually a penalty double should be allowed as the double would then have been SAYC, and then the opener used "judgment". Yes, this seems convoluted, but matches this director's rules. Please understand that I am responding under McBruce's rules, not whether or not I agree with them. On the first hand, the 2 defenders should be taken aside and slapped upside the head. Really really hard! And adjust as you did. Then repeat the slapping! fritz p.s. I e-mailed McBruce that he should have adjusted his own Jack computers as they made a non-SAYC transfer: 1D-1NT-P-2H P-2S-... The CC from the ACBL on SAYC says systems off after 1NT overcall except for Stayman...Clearly one computer made a "non-SAYC" call and the other one fielded it... ;)

Having actually played in the SAYC-only tourneys, I have seen a large number of really bad bids - some that work out and some that don't. Most of these relate to the INDY culture of grabbing NT first so you get to play it. (I do not play that way.) On the second hand, I would assume the players had no special agreements and blindly fell into a good (but maybe not great if 6NT makes 7) contract. BUT I would have them on my short list of checking their calls and plays on other hands. Something certainly reeks on the auction. However, the only person who bid really strangely was the 3NT bidder who pulled 5♦ to 6♥. If he knew the 2 hands, I do not think he'd make a 3NT call. I'd tell the defenders that i would be watching the opps closely, but without other info, I cannot give an adjust. Maybe he thought the jump to 3NT and pulling from D into 6M meant pass or correct to 6S. Who knows? I would ask the 3NT bidder to try to make SAYC calls in this SAYC tourney or risk not being allowed back in. That is an allowable "adjust" as the Tournament Sponsor! On the first hand, opener misclicked (or psyched). Pass and 5H are 2 possible bids. Opener either misclicked the first time (2♥and not 2♠ -- one click off) or misclicked the second time (2 misclicks -- "4" AND "♠" instead of Pass). I'd go with only one misclick or a psyche. I guess the one other option is that opener unilaterally decided to play strong 2s, and pass could work out very poorly. But the responder cannot field that option. no adjust, whatever 4S did is the result. This is not a legitimate purely SAYC auction. fritz

Thanks, that was the point exactly.... BTW, how close are you to fully agreeing with my solution now? Ben, I am not fully agreeing with your analysis of AK32 654. This is the beginner/intermediate bridge discussion. Let me ask you this Ben. You are playing against two Beginners and (for some reason) you cash the AK of this suit and LHO plays 8Q and RHO plays 79. What are the chances of a 3-3 split at this point. I propose to you it is as close to zero percent as possible, BECAUSE most beginners will play their lowest card available when following suit. So the roundabout point I have been prodding Ben to mention is that when players ALWAYS give count or ALWAYS play their lowest of equals, AND the declarer knows (or highly suspects) this, you are giving the declarer information that will let him better calculate odds. All of Ben's analysis assumes two things: 1) Each defender will randomly play from equals. 2) Each defender in these problems KNOWS that their cards are equals. Number 1 is iffy in most beginner play, and number 2 is very difficult even for the best defenders. If they are good enough to realize that all of their cards (QT7, say) are equals, then they have probably assigned some meaning to the order in which they are played. Now in the AK32 654 example, if the declarer closed her eyes and after 2 rounds asked if both had followed AND not known what the cards were, then Ben's analysis of the 3-3 4-2 chances (42+ to 57+) would be correct. But that is not how the game is usually played. fritz

I think Ben's original problem is a good one in getting newer players to think about how odds change as more information is available. Perhaps, as this is a Beginner/Intermediate discussion, an aside of how best to play the combination would have been helpful. But sometimes you are combining chances and the play of the suit as Ben played it would not be unreasonable. In particular, in the AKxx Jxx problem once you cash the AK and the Q doesn't fall, you know the Q was either Qxx or Qxxx. This changes the possible splits and increases the chances of a 3-3 split compared to 4-2. Let me digress to the restricted choice questions posed recently. They come in many forms: 3 cups, one with a coin underneath 3 prisoners, 2 to be shot 3 curtains, 1 car and 2 goats (The "Let's Make a Deal" problem examined in excruciating detail in American Mathematical Monthly several years back.) AKJxxx xxx cash A and Q falls behind A. Do you hook the next round? Let's look at the cup example and why the odds do or do not change: In the 3 cup problem there are 3 cups called 1,2,3 and one of them has a coin under it. Once you choose a cup that you think has the coin, the other player shows you that one of the other cups is empty. He then offers you a chance to change to the remaining cup. Should you change? Say you choose cup 1, and the other player shows you cup 2 is empty. Should you now guess that the coin is under cup 3? YES! Why? Say the other player has a strategy of always showing you the lowest number cup that is empty. When he shows you cup 2, you have not ruled out cup 3 as being empty. The odds are now 50-50. Now suppose he has a strategy of always showing the highest number empty cup. Because he showed you number 2, you are 100% sure that the coin is under Cup 3. Since his strategy is somewhere in between, you should always switch cups. If his startegy is to randomly pick between 2 + 3 when they are both empty, then the odds work out to be 1/3 that the coin is under cup 1, as you would expect because the other player has given you no useful information. What happens if YOU get to pick a cup to look under (after originally choosing 1)? If you turn over cup 2 and it is empty, the odds are now 50-50 that the coin is under cup 1. You have taken a risk of finding the coin, and when you take that risk, and it turns out in your favor, the odds change. The prisoner problem is usually stated as: 3 prisoners are in jail. 2 will be shot in the morning. Prisoner A bribes the guard with his last pack of cigarettes to tell him which of the other 2 prisoners is going to be shot. When the guard tells him prisoner C will be shot, does this change prisoner As chances of being shot? The answer is no (nothing risked), BUT if prisoner B were secretly listening to this exchange, his chance would now be decreased (he took the risk of hearing that he would be shot). So how does this apply to Ben's original problem? The declarer took a chance cashing the AK. If the Q showed up on round 2, he'd be sure (less misclicks or "brilliant" unblocks) that the cards were originally divided 4-2. Zero chance of 3-3. He took a chance of finding the cards 4-2. Since the Q did not show up, the chance for 3-3 is now increased. Thus his concept of a "positive" card. fritz p.s. Yes, i can calculate the numbers correctly and should include: 1) a priori chance of a given combination 2) the chance the cards would have been played through 2 rounds in such a combination -- this is key when computing the real numbers, but is washed out in this case as each would have the same factor after 2 rounds when the Q does not show up.

Ben, I usually agree with your analysis. But... 1) Why are you playing the original suit combination as you did? 2) You analysis of AK32 across from 654 seems off. After 2 rounds each player has played specific cards. Given that they are all equals, there should be no RC involved. Say LHO has played AB , RHO CD with EF still outstanding. Then the question is actually comparing a priori chances of: LHO RHO AB CDEF ABE CDF ABF CDE ABEF CD I believe this translates to comparing 1-1 split vs a 2-0 split. The exact numbers depend on how many cards have been played in other suits, etc. <temporary retraction of the above> <WARNING> Do not read unless you really really want to: there is a temporary retraction in the above logic as we need also factor in the likelihoods that AB and CD would show up in each of these cases. When those are factored in, the odds may tip away from 3-3 as AB CDEF would be played {1/C(2,2) * 1/C(4,2)} = 1/6 of the time as AB CD. ABE CDF would be played as such would {1/C(3,2) * 1/C(3,2) } = 1/9 of the time as AB CD, etc.. So those probabilites times the a priori of each would be more appropriate to compare. Using the same analysis using the AKxx Jxx example would give each of the a priori equal chance of having the spots show up as they did. So in the Q example, it would be (essentially, not exactly) comparing the a priori of a 1-1 to a 2-0. BUT in the AK32 654 example since the missing cards are not all known to be equals to the player playing them (say, from QTx) , the above factors (how likely AB and CD would show up from each of the mentioned combinations) be swayed back towards 3-3.... In other words maybe the Q is a "positive" card after all! I think then, in the AK32 654 case, the real chacnes are closer to 50+ for 3-3 and 50- for 4-2. The 52+% is close for the AKxx Jxx case and depends on how many cards have already been played. I assume there was an opening lead.. </WARNING> Therefore, I am now in temporary partial (dis)agreement with Ben on the AK32 654 :D > I am in full disagreement with the original playing of the AKxx Jxx, but do agree with the chance of 3-3, 4-2 at the point he was at in that problem. Anyone else? fritz

Is there a way to find out which "member number" you are? Or can there be a "Member Since" portion to someone's profile? :D fritz

Sorry uday, i wasn't clear. In my folder BridgeBaseOnline/hands/mpefritz, BBO automatically saves all Open Bridge Club play as .lin files such as 02-29-04-01 etc. Each time the score is reset, it creates a new appendix (-02, -03...), which does get to be annoying when I play with the same partner and have changing opps. MY tournament hand records are automatically saved in the same folder as "Tournament NUMBER DATE".lin So when I go looking for MY tournament hand record on MY computer, it is with all the other tournaments (from all other days), and I need to sift through all the info to find the date at the end.. (I know i could also do a find function, but ...) However if the tournament were saved on my computer as "DATE Tournament NUMBER", it would be much easier to find the hand records later if I want to review them. I am much more likely to remember the tournament DATE I played than the NUMBER. I think this is a function of how the .lin files are named from BBOs side. Maybe others just sift through the tournament lin files or remember the event number so the system makes sense to them. this is a minor convenience issue, nothing else. thanks for your hard work here. fritz

I have 2 questions/suggestions: 1) I know this is a low priority, but on v.3.6.3 I cannot pre-post my CC for tournaments. Was this feature deleted? 2) Could the name of the .lin file that gets saved on the computer be changed from "tournament NUMBER DATE" to "DATE Tournament NUMBER". This is purely an ease of finding the record issue. I will remember which date I played the hands, but I will almost never remember the tournament number. Or is this a problem due to world-wide times? Along the same lines, is there a way to reset the score at a table without generating a new .lin file? I sometimes don't want to reset the score when a new opponent shows up as I will then be creating a new .lin file, but playing with the same partner. thanks, fritz