Playing with randoms

[wank]

In occasional moments of weakness, when feeling particularly bored, I play BBO tournies with randoms. Of course I realise this is a bad idea, but I need to be reminded sometimes.

 

 

On this occasion my 'expert' partner produced these two classics:

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sk3hkj2dkj8732cj4&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d4spp5ddppp]133|200[/hv]

 

-6 for 14 bills.

 

to punish me for my contribution to that board, he then did this (I had a void club so the 3NT opener was actually plausible from my side)

 

 

 

[hv=pc=n&n=st76hj43d8543ca96&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=3np5cdrppp]133|200[/hv]

 

 

with AK A and partner's A of trumps, i essayed a claim for 4 tricks and -3400 which the opps rejected, evidently desperate to extract the full 4k for the extra matchpoints.

[jjbrr]

standard.

 

i suggest alcohol before venturing into the world of bridge in the twilight zone.

[barmar]

What, he didn't 7NTXX you?

[MrAce]

In occasional moments of weakness, when feeling particularly bored, I play BBO tournies with randoms. Of course I realise this is a bad idea, but I need to be reminded sometimes.

 

 

It is almost as bad idea to play with your reg pd in these tourneys, letalone with randoms. Because, the field will be full of these people and its short boards. The chances of you will be frustrated at the end of the game is close to % 100.

 

Play GIB duplicate, they do very silly stuff too but at least they try to do it to everyone equally. And at least they dont try to teach you bridge after they do something similar to what your pd did in this topic.

[Antrax]

wank, after 3NT, 5♣ is Super Gerber. Then when he wasn't sure whether it's ROPI or REPO that's on after a NT opener, so his head exploded.

[gnasher]

Is it possible that after the first board you might have inadvertently given your partner the impression that you were disappointed with his action?

[wank]

Is it possible that after the first board you might have inadvertently given your partner the impression that you were disappointed with his action?

 

lol. actually, i never comment on partner's [honest] absurdities on bbo unless it's someone i know in RL. i realise it's more my error for agreeing to play with them.

 

still, i resolved to give this chap a few words of wisdom if i saw him online today, so i watched a few boards of his to give myself some ammo. his partner [if they're different people] produced this effort:

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sk9872ha954dkckj6&w=sajt5hq6daj73cq32&n=s64hkjt873dqcat84&e=sq3h2dt986542c975&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1sp1np2h5d5hppp]399|300[/hv]

[jillybean]

Playing with randoms is a habit you can break. I've managed to break the habit by resolving to read forums, The Rodwell Files or goof off playing bingo

when no partners are available. Subbing into random team games was the last to go, for a while I fooled myself into thinking these were better than other games.

I need to increase my list of both live and bbo partners, at least live you often have some idea of what sort of player you are getting.

[jillybean]

On second thoughts, playing with random BBO'ers perhaps isn't all bad. When I first started playing I had 1 maybe 2 BBO partners so I would play in individuals and sub for tournaments and team games. While I would have played with a lot of partners who were horrid players I'm sure I also played with some who knew what they were doing and often were happy to answer questions and help. I also got my fair share of being booted out after subbing into games :) but also picked up a few regular partners who must have been at a similar skill level to me.

[Bbradley62]

For someone who is new to BBO, playing with randoms is unavoidable; it's actually the best (only?) way to meet potential partners. You've gotta kiss a lot of frogs...

[mgoetze]

For someone who is new to BBO, playing with randoms is unavoidable; it's actually the best (only?) way to meet potential partners. You've gotta kiss a lot of frogs...

 

Oh, there are alternatives. You can just hang around in the A/E Forums all day making JLOGIC-level posts, some forum readers will surely be prepared to play with you then. ;)

[barmar]

In my early days of online bridge (20 years ago, on OKbridge) I played with lots of randoms. Eventually it got too frustrating, so I switched to mostly kibbing (before the daily JEC matches, there was a daily Dano set game). Now we have robot games.

 

If I want to play serious bridge, I play with people I know, mostly f2f in clubs or tourneys. If I just want to get a bridge fix for an hour or two, the robots let me do that any time of day.

[hatchett]

Maybe he thought your username was indicative of the style of play expected?

[HighLow21]

<snip>

... for the extra matchpoints.

 

Hahahahahaha!!

[BunnyGo]

Playing with randoms is a habit you can break. I've managed to break the habit by resolving to read forums, The Rodwell Files or goof off playing bingo

when no partners are available. Subbing into random team games was the last to go, for a while I fooled myself into thinking these were better than other games.

I need to increase my list of both live and bbo partners, at least live you often have some idea of what sort of player you are getting.

 

Yeah...but with alcohol it can be fun to slum. I enjoy getting myself in ridiculous contracts and seeing if I can squirm out.

[wyman]

Yeah...but with alcohol it can be fun to slum. I enjoy getting myself in ridiculous contracts and seeing if I can squirm out.

 

Now everything makes so much sense! :)

[jdeegan]

:P Playing with randoms can be rewarding. It is generally better for your game to play than not to play (remember the 10,000 hour rule). But it requires remembering certain guidelines:

 

1. Have a sense of humor. There is no limit to idiocy.

 

2. Play only BBO SAYC. This means regular Blackwood.

 

3. With only a few exceptions, starred players can play at least a little.

 

4. If a player doesn't self-rate him/herself expert, they are usually not very good. Some truly awful players do self-rate themselves expert.

 

5. For pairs games, there is usually a cadre of decent players at the partnership desk. About 25% of those who want you to pay their dollar are decent players. You have to figure out which ones. One way to do this is to look up their hand records for the past month or two. If they are minus IMPs, no way. When you find out one way or the other, you can make a note of it on their profile.

 

6. Indies are jungle bridge at its finest. Your variance of outcomes will be large: +30 down to -30 IMPs in eight boards. You should still come out +IMPs over the long haul.

 

7. You can drink as much as you want. Nobody cares, and sometimes it helps.

[barmar]

I occasionally play in the Express Free Automated Fun tourneys. I guess people think "It's free, who cares?" and do some of the craziest things. E.g.

[hv=pc=n&s=skt85h852d2ca9642&n=saj72hakj76daj5c8&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1hp1sp1np2cp3np4hppp]266|200[/hv]He then proceeded to play the hand practically double dummy, to take all 13 tricks (dropping the ♠Qx offside instead of taking the finesse). But if he actually had a wire, why didn't he bid the slam? Maybe they didn't want to make it too obvious that they were cheating?

[mgoetze]

4. If a player doesn't self-rate him/herself expert, they are usually not very good.

 

LOL.

[gordontd]

For someone who is new to BBO, playing with randoms is unavoidable; it's actually the best (only?) way to meet potential partners. You've gotta kiss a lot of frogs...

Having played for years on OKB until I decided not to renew my membership about six months ago, I tried doing this yesterday. The first thing that struck me is that that no-one talks. They don't discuss system, they don't say thankyou, they don't even insult their partners when they walk out in the middle of a hand - which they do so often that you need to keep looking to see if you are still playing with the same person who started the hand as your partner.

 

I found it hard to imagine anyone arranging a second game, let alone developing a partnership, under these circumstances. Is there more to it than I have seen?

[Bbradley62]

I found it hard to imagine anyone arranging a second game, let alone developing a partnership, under these circumstances. Is there more to it than I have seen?

When I played in the MBC, I would mark profiles with a particular color category designation when I played with/against someone who was "worth" playing with/against again. Then, I'd look for that color when looking for a table to join. This improved my chances of having better games, but I never got as far as developing an actual partnership.

 

There are "clubs" (BBO Hornets, BBO Fans, etc) that have tournaments where at least the universe is smaller, and players are generally more friendly.

[ArtK78]

I occasionally play in the Express Free Automated Fun tourneys. I guess people think "It's free, who cares?" and do some of the craziest things. E.g.

[hv=pc=n&s=skt85h852d2ca9642&n=saj72hakj76daj5c8&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1hp1sp1np2cp3np4hppp]266|200[/hv]He then proceeded to play the hand practically double dummy, to take all 13 tricks (dropping the ♠Qx offside instead of taking the finesse). But if he actually had a wire, why didn't he bid the slam? Maybe they didn't want to make it too obvious that they were cheating?

Which side was the Qx of spades on? I can't tell which way is offside.

 

:)

[Antrax]

gordontd, it varies. Occasionally someone will be polite and after a couple of hands decide you're decent, and then they might ask you about a hand, and typically at the end of the discussion they ask if it's okay to friend you. Most people consider it rude to comment about a hand if they weren't asked about it.

[Bbradley62]

I occasionally play in the Express Free Automated Fun tourneys. I guess people think "It's free, who cares?" and do some of the craziest things.

As has been discussed in another thread, I think people also do more strange things in the EFAF tourneys because chat is disabled, so they cannot be called out for doing it.

[Bbradley62]

He then proceeded to play the hand practically double dummy, to take all 13 tricks (dropping the ♠Qx offside instead of taking the finesse). But if he actually had a wire, why didn't he bid the slam? Maybe they didn't want to make it too obvious that they were cheating?

This hand does nicely demonstrate the randomness of EFAF, but as far as (presumably joking) allegations of having a wire... Remember that this is an individual event, so offline N/S collaboration is extremely unlikely... It was North who so cleverly played this hand. (Note that 7 of 8 Norths who played game in ♥ took all 13 tricks.) It was also North who tried to play in 1N, which would not have been a very good score.