Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ping Hu
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 22 23 24 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David,

S has ready played a at trick 1. So it has 12 unknown. If you take into account of this adjustment, I think you would get the same number as I did.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How did you get North doubleton KQ and played 1 count as 23724? In that case N has 10 unknown cards, S has 7 unknown card (6 is known). So the combination should be C(17,7) = 97,240.
18 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you play Q and North did not play K, the case for N to have singleton K or void in could not be true. This changes odds a little bit. I have finesse probability as
10/22 = 45.5%

Playing A will win in following cases:
1. S has singleton K. Chance is about 26%.
2. either N/S has Kx and 3 or more .
3. N has 3 trumps with 4 or more .

All together playing A could win 62.4%.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is where you need electric scoring if you've already done it for pair game.
Nov. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John,

You could choose any number of rounds you want but there are a couple factors you want to consider.

First it takes extra time to move from one round to next especially without electronic scoring device. Players needs to compare scores, calculate IMP and report to you. More rounds would require extra time.

Second, less boards per round means the results could be more random because it is easier to have an upset with less boards. Will your players like it?
Nov. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is a link to youtube video for BOG meeting. Based on what I heard. Baze was cancel for the Fall NABC, but it might be considered if a Senior Swiss could be put into Spring or Summer NABC schedule in the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyC7GD8jzuY
Nov. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe ACBLscore also have an option to have a handicap game. For small game you could also run it with handicap.
Nov. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suppose you reference to the following document in your OP.
http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/clubs/SwissTeamsGuide2015.pdf

Club Swiss team game typically runs 4 rounds with 6 boards per round. You let players shuffle every rounds, play all boards (relay the boards between 2 tables) and compare scores. Then report scores to you and you manually input to ACBLscore. You also need to input player names manually. This is what most tournament TDs do today.

If you have Bridgemate or BridgePad, you could use them to run Swiss team and save the problems to have players calculating results and manually input everything. For Bridgemate you'll need my program to do this with ACBLscore. I have a separate post. Please look at
http://bridgewinners.com/forums/read/clubs-and-teachers/running-swiss-team-with-bridgemate/
Nov. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This program is to work with the existing ACBLscore that includes other functions like calculating ACBL masterpoints. It is not an independent scoring software.
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry. This was intended to post in the Club Forum.
Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just read the new chart. It looks like it outlawed 1NT for lower limit less than 10 HCP. However it also has a rule exception says any bids requires Average Strength could be made with near Average Strength in 3rd/4th seat. If this applies it is still legal to open 1NT with 8 HCP on 3rd seat if the range is 5 or less.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Take a little time to find out what I could do in old version. Some of the features seems not available.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This opening is allowed in ACBL, but responder is not allowed to use any conventional response. This is in Disallowed #7 in current convention chart. I believe the new chart has similar restriction.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a beta program for club that has been going on for quite a while. You could call ACBL club support to find out if you could get in. If you could not get information from them, send me private message and I'll help you to find out.

I work part time for ACBL as a consultant. I'm not directly on this project but is on a related project. It is a priority for ACBL to migrate from AS400 to cloud, club website is part of it. Supporting club is going to become more important based on priorities set by BOD.

I also want to echo the recommendation about special games in some post below. I had an early post about GNT game at club in this forum early. This month is also Club Appreciation special games and players could get gold point at club for this special game.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By ACBL alert procedure, you only need announce “could be short” (0-2). My own opinion is it should be alerted. I played a similar opening and I would alert it when partner open 1.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you don't have a website, you might want to use the ACBL website. Just upload the game file. It could show game results as well as allow you to make an announcement to players.

There will be a major upgrade of ACBL website for club very soon so it would be more like ACBL live for tournament.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. FDCC “as is” is not good enough. I propose to have a new standard that could define CC information for multiple apps. Players could use it for their own system notes. It could be uploaded to online play like BBO, Funbridge and other online site. If tournament wants to adapt it (like those trial in World Bridge Series in Orlando now), players could use their flash drive to plug in a tablet. So there will not be a need to ask any questions during bidding.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These are technical problems that could be solved with technology. If I design it I would make these details optional.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Online play's alert should follow rules for screen. All delayed alert become immediate alert-able since it won't be a UI to partner.

@Barry, if FDCC is a failure for BBO, it is only for technical reason. I think conceptually it is a great idea. Technical problem could have a technical solution. We could develop a standard to solve this problem using new technology. ACBL is in the process to adopt USEBIO as its game file format for the future. We could develop a standard for Convention Card as well. Players could use editors (an equivalent of current ACBL CC editor) to define their own system. The difference from current ACBL CC is current one only allows you to define a limited number of bids. The new standard would allow you to define every bids. This could be used as you system note. It would be uploaded for online game. The idea is that during the game player could see opponents' system and there should be no need to ask ANY questions. This minimized the chance of UI for both sides. So OP's problem will never happen.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Art, this depends on where you live and play, as well as how bridge is taught. 4 cd major was common for quite a long time. Even current ACBL cc only requires player to indicate they open 4 card major or 5 card major. It does not require 1NT to be alerted as may have 4 card major, as opposite to 1N-2C-2D-2N where 2N needs to be alerted “may not have 4 cd major” for those playing 4 way transfer.

The most common problem in BBO is a bid that is common to expert level player may not be so obvious to a less experienced player. It is in these cases saying “no agreement” would leave opponents at disadvantage because they have less chance to get it right than the experienced partner.

However I think the real solution should be technical as I said in my comment early. BBO should continue to support the full disclosure CC. With that CC, opponent does not need to ask questions. In fact, asking question could be a potential UI to his partner.
Sept. 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 22 23 24 25
.

Bottom Home Top